Seaside City Council
July 7, 2022

A G E N D A

CITY OF SEASIDE CONCURRENT MEETING
CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR 440 HARCOURT AVE (COUNCIL CHAMBER) AGENCY TO THE Thursday, July 7, 2022
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 5:00 PM
___________________________________________________________________________________ NOTICE: The City Council will hold its public meetings in person, with a virtual option for public participation based on availability. The City of Seaside utilizes Zoom tele-conferencing technology for virtual public participation; however, we make no representation or warranty of any kind, regarding the adequacy, reliability, or availability of the use of this platform in this manner. Participation by members of public through this means is at their own risk. ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________

VIRTUAL PUBLIC PARTICIPATION INSTRUCTIONS

1. To view this meeting: Please click on the following link to the City of Seaside YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/CityofSeasideCalifornia

2. To participate in this meeting: Using the Zoom application on your smart phone, laptop, tablet or desktop and click on this link: https://ci-seaside-ca-us.zoom.us/j/81936832059 WEBINAR ID: 819 3683 2059

3. To participate by phone: Please call (669) 900-9128
Enter the meeting ID 819 3683 2059 when prompted. There is no participate code – press the pound sign # after the recording prompts you.

4. To make public comment, the following options are available:

Before the Meeting via Email: Written comments can be emailed to [email protected] Include the following subject line: “Public Comment Item #___” (insert the agenda item number relevant to your comment). Written comments must be received by 2:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting.

During the Meeting via Oral Comments: When the Chair calls for public comment, attendees can queue to speak with the “Raise Hand” feature. On the Zoom application, click the “Raise Hand” button. On the phone, press *9.

IN PERSON PARTICIPATION INSTRUCTIONS
Members of the public participating in person and wishing to address the City Council may approach the podium when the Chair calls for public comment.

Packet Page 1
City Council CONCURRENT Meeting July 7, 2022 5:00 PM Agenda Page 2

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ROLL CALL – ESTABLISHMENT OF QUORUM
Ian N. Oglesby
David R. Pacheco
Jason Campbell
Jon Wizard
Alexis Garcia-Arrazola
Mayor/Chair
Mayor Pro Tem/Vice Chair
Council/Agency Member
Council/Agency Member
Council/Agency Member

3. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

4. REVIEW OF AGENDA
If there are any items that arose after the 72-hour posting deadline, this is the point in the meeting where a vote may be taken to add the item to the agenda. (A 2/3- majority vote is required).

5. PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the public wishing to address the City Council on matters within the jurisdiction of the City of Seaside, but not on this agenda, may do so during the Public Comment period for up to three (3) minutes. Public Comments for "Presentations" on this agenda are also taken at this time; comments on specific agenda items are heard under that item. For the public record, please state your name.

6. PUBLIC AGENCY COMMUNICATIONS
This is a time specifically set aside for representatives of public agencies to make brief comments of general interest to the City Council and the community.

7. PRESENTATIONS
A. REVIEW OF UPCOMING CITYWIDE EVENTS (ERNESTO ALTAMIRANO,

COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT SPECIALIST)
B. VACCINE UPDATE (MARY GUTIERREZ, FIRE CHIEF)

8. CONSENT AGENDA
A. ADOPT A RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH AB361: HYBRID MEETINGS AND GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54953 (BROWN ACT) AUTHORIZING REMOTE/TELECONFERENCE

PARTICIPATION IN CITY MEETINGS
Packet Page 2
City Council CONCURRENT Meeting July 7, 2022 5:00 PM Agenda Page 3 RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution making findings under AB361 and Government Code section 54953(e) authorizing teleconference (Zoom) hybrid meetings.

B. APPROVE MINUTES FROM JUNE 16, 2022
RECOMMENDATION: Approve minutes as presented in the agenda packet.

C. PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING JULY 2022 AS PARKS AND RECREATION MONTH
RECOMMENDATION: Proclaim July 2022 as Parks and Recreation Month in the City of Seaside.

D. ADOPT A RESOLUTION DECLARING SEASIDE A SUPPORTER OF

REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM (GARCIA-ARRAZOLA)
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution affirming the City of Seaside’s support for reproductive freedom and rights, and calling on the United States House of Representatives to protect reproductive freedom nationwide as prescribed in Roe V. Wade.

E. ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXTENSION OF THE FLIP SEASIDE PROGRAM DEADLINE UNTIL JUNE 30, 2023 AND APPROVING

CARRYOVER OF THE REMAINING ACTUAL BALANCE OF FLIP SEASIDE FUNDS TO FY 22-23
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution authorizing extension of the FLIP Seaside facade improvement program deadline until June 30, 2023 and approving carryover of the remaining actual balance of FLIP Seaside funds to FY22-23.

F. ADOPT A RESOLUTION CALLING FOR AN ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 8, 2022, IN THE CITY OF SEASIDE TO ELECT ONE (1) MAYOR AND (2)

COUNCIL MEMBERS, TO AUTHORIZE CONSOLIDATION WITH MONTEREY

COUNTY'S GENERAL ELECTION AND TO APPROVE AN AGREEMENT WITH

THE MONTEREY COUNTY ELECTIONS DEPARTMENT FOR ELECTION

SERVICES
RECOMMENDATION: Per Elections Code Section 1002 and the Seaside Municipal Code, this item requests the Council authorization to call for an election on November 8, 2022, declaring two council member seats, and one mayoral seat, to consolidate the election with the general municipal election and authorize the Monterey County Registrar of Voters to provide for election services for the election.

G. ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE Packet Page 3
City Council CONCURRENT Meeting July 7, 2022 5:00 PM Agenda Page 4

A TEMPORARY FACILITY USE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF

SEASIDE AND THE CITY OF DEL REY OAKS FOR THE STORAGE OF FIRE

APPARATUS
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution and approve a temporary facility use agreement between the City of Seaside and the City of Del Rey Oaks to store City of Seaside reserve fire apparatus at the City of Del Rey Oaks City Hall parking lot.

H. ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE

A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH HEXAGON
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. TO PREPARE A VEHICLE MILES

TRAVELED (VMT) ANALYSIS AND AN EVACUATION STUDY FOR AN
AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $50,000.00
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a professional services agreement with Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. to prepare a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis and an evacuation study as required as part of the general plan update for an amount not to exceed $50,000.00.

I. ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE

AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACTOR SERVICES WITH DISASTER KLEENUP

SPECIALISTS FOR ON-CALL AND PROACTIVE PROPERTY CLEAN-UP SERVICES FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $50,000.00
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution authorizing an Amendment to the Agreement for Contractor Services with Disaster Kleenup Specialists to perform on-call and proactive clean-up services for an amount not to exceed $50,000.00.

J. ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

AGREEMENT WITH WHITSON ENGINEERS TO PERFORM DESIGN AND

BIDDING PHASE SERVICES FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT PARKING

LOT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED
$56,194.00
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a professional services agreement with Whitson Engineers to perform design and bidding phase services for the Police Department Parking Lot Improvement Project for an amount not to exceed $56,194.00.

K. ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE

A CONTRACT WITH FMG CUSTOM CONCRETE FOR THE BROADWAY

WALK OF FAME IMPLEMENTATION, DESIGN, AND INSTALLATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $36,492.00
RECOMMENDATION: Approve a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract with FMG Custom concrete to install star plaques on Packet Page 4
City Council CONCURRENT Meeting July 7, 2022 5:00 PM Agenda Page 5 Broadway.

L. ADOPT A RESOLUTION EXTENDING 180 ACRE FEET WATER ALLOCATION AND 45.83 RECYCLED WATER ALLOCATION PER YEAR FOR THE KBB

SEASIDE VENTURE II RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT

WITHIN THE CAMPUS TOWN SPECIFIC PLANNING AREA
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution extending 180 AF water allocation and

45.83 recycled water allocation per year for the KBB Venture II project within the Campus Town specific planning area.

M.ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ADOPTION OF THE COUNTY OF

MONTEREY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution approving the Monterey County MultiJurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan and the City of Seaside Annex to the plan to include Volume I (Area Wide Planning) and the City of Seaside Annex Volume 2.

N. ADOPT A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH

ENVIRONMENTAL INNOVATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL EDUCATIONAL
OUTREACH IN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $30,000.00
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract amendment with Environmental Innovations for an additional $30,000.00, for continued educational outreach to aid the transition to compostable goods and service ware for a total contract amount not to exceed $60,000.00.

O. ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A REGIONAL FUNDING AGREEMENT

FOR PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE WAYFINDING PROGRAM WITH

TRANSPORTATION AGENCY FOR MONTEREY COUNTY
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a Resolution approving a Regional Funding Agreement for a Pedestrian and Bicycle Wayfinding Program with the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC).

P. ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT A

REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT FROM CRUACHAN CAPITAL FOR THE

EXTENSION OF A SEASIDE MUNICIPAL WATER LINE TO SERVE THE

ASCENT PROJECT
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to accept a Reimbursement Agreement from Cruachan Capital for an amount not to exceed $1,500,000.00 in order to extend the Seaside Municipal Water pipeline to serve the Ascent project while there is a Cal Am moratorium against serving the project and authorize the City Manager to take all actions necessary to implement such service.

Packet Page 5
City Council CONCURRENT Meeting July 7, 2022 5:00 PM Agenda Page 6

9. BUSINESS ITEMS
A. APPROVE SISTER CITY MEMORANDUM OF INTENT WITH OAXACA DE

JUAREZ, MEXICO AND TRAVEL COSTS FOR THE CITY OF SEASIDE DELEGATION NOT TO EXCEED $25,000.00 FOR JULY 22 - 26, 2022.

RECOMMENDATION: Approve a Sister City Memorandum of Intent and a City of Seaside Delegation to visit Oaxaca De Juarez, Mexico.

B. CONSIDER PLACING A CITY COUNCIL MEASURE BANNING ALL

FIREWORKS EXCEPT FOR CITY-SPONSORED EVENTS ON THE NOVEMBER

BALLOT AND PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF AS TO MEASURE

PROVISIONS (WIZARD)
RECOMMENDATION: Consider placing a Measure on the November 2022, General Election ballot prohibiting all fireworks within the City of Seaside and if Council decides to move forward, provide direction to staff as to pertinent terms for the measure.

10. COUNCIL MEMBER REQUESTS
A. NEW COUNCIL MEMBER REQUESTS
B. FOLLOW UP ON PREVIOUS REQUESTS

11. CITY ATTORNEY, CITY MANAGER, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL

COMMENTS AND REPORTS ON COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS
This is a time specifically set aside for members of the City Council, the City Manager and City Attorney to make brief comments of general interest to the community and report on committee assignments.

12. CLOSED SESSION
A. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE 54957.6
Agency Negotiators: Roberta Greathouse, Acting City Manager; Donna Williamson, Labor Negotiator; Samantha Sakhrani, Human Resources Analyst.

Employee Organizations: All full-time represented and unrepresented employees and employee associations.

B. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8
Packet Page 6
City Council CONCURRENT Meeting July 7, 2022 5:00 PM Agenda Page 7 Property under negotiation: Vacant Lots at 1561 - 1571 Del Monte Blvd, APNs 011-301-10, 11, 23 and 24
Negotiators for the City: City Manager, et al.

Negotiators for the Property: Foothill Partners, LLC.

Under Negotiation Price, Terms of Payment or Both
C. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8
Address: 1579 & 1583 Del Monte Blvd, Seaside, CA 93955
APN: 011-301-014 & 011-279-006
Negotiations with Steve Hall, et. al. (Property Owner)
Negotiator for the City: City Manager, et al.

Under Discussion: Price, terms of payment or both.

D. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9
RECOMMENDATION: Potential Litigation (3 Matters)

13. ADJOURNMENT
Next Regularly Scheduled Meeting:

July 21, 2022
5:00 PM
The City of Seaside is committed to providing accessible facilities and accommodating people with disabilities in all of its services programs and activities. If special considerations are needed by any person to fully participate in this meeting, contact the City Clerk at 899-6707 no fewer than two business days prior to the meeting to allow reasonable arrangements. Agendas are posted at:
http://www.ci.seaside.ca.us/129/City-Council-Committee-Agendas Agenda-related writings or documents provided during public meetings are available for public inspection during the meeting or from the office of the City Clerk. This agenda is posted in compliance with California Governor Newsom's Executive Orders N-29-20 and N-33-20.

Packet Page 7

CITY OF SEASIDE

STAFF REPORT
Item No.: 8.A.

TO: City Council
FROM: Roberta Greathouse, Acting City Manager
BY: Sheri Damon, City Attorney
DATE: July 7, 2022
SUBJECT: ADOPT A RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH AB361: HYBRID MEETINGS AND GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 54953 (BROWN ACT) AUTHORIZING

REMOTE/TELECONFERENCE PARTICIPATION IN CITY

MEETINGS

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution making findings under AB361 and Government Code section 54953(e) authorizing teleconference (Zoom) hybrid meetings.

BACKGROUND
On or about March 4, 2020, Governor Newsom declared a State of Emergency in the State of California pursuant to Government Code section 8625 as a result of the COVID19 pandemic and that declaration is ongoing. In the month of April 2022, Monterey County Health Officer reiterated the need for ongoing social distancing and masking due to a substantial increase in COVID infections. In the months of April, May, and June 2022, the City of Seaside has observed an uptick in COVID cases by Seaside residents and City staff. Government Code section 54953(e), authorizes remote teleconference meetings without complying with the notice requirements of 54953(b) and physical location of Council member participation, so long as the local agency has made appropriate findings and the state continues to be in a state of emergency.

FISCAL IMPACT
Zoom account and on-line services are already included in the budget.

ATTACHMENTS
Packet Page 8

Item No. 8.A. Page 2 of 2

1. Resolution
Reviewed for Submission to the City Council by:
__________________________________
Roberta Greathouse, Acting City Manager
Packet Page 9
RESOLUTION NO. 22-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEASIDE

MAKING FINDINGS FOR AND AUTHORIZING REMOTE

TELECONFERENCE/ZOOM MEETINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54953(e)
WHEREAS, on or about March 4, 2020, Governor Newsom declared a State of Emergency in the State of California pursuant to Government Code section 8625 as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and that declaration is ongoing; and WHEREAS, in the month of April 2022, Monterey County Health Officer reiterated the need for ongoing social distancing and masking due to a substantial increase in COVID infections; and
WHEREAS, in the months of April, May, and June 2022, the City of Seaside has observed an uptick in COVID cases by Seaside residents and City staff; and WHEREAS, on or about June 2, 2022, the Center for Disease Control designated Monterey County to be a county of high community transmissibility for COVID given the increase in the number of COVID cases and the increase in the use of hospital beds (as compared to the previous weeks); and
WHEREAS, Government Code section 54953(e), authorizes the remote teleconference meetings without complying with the noticing requirements of 54953(b) and physical location of Council member participation, so long as the local agency has made appropriate findings and the state continues to be in a state of emergency; and WHEREAS, the City Council now desires to adopt a Resolution finding that the requisite conditions exist for the legislative bodies of the City of Seaside, to conduct remote electronic/teleconference meetings without compliance with Government Code section 54953(b)(3).

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Seaside hereby makes the following findings:

Packet Page 10

1. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.

2. The City Council determines that as a result of the proclaimed state of emergency in California due to COVID-19, and in particular the continued spread of the virus in Monterey County, the notable increase in COVID cases amongst City residents and City staff are grounds to authorize the use of remote teleconference participation pursuant to Government Code section 54953(e) when determined by the City to be necessary, in the conduct of the City’s business.

3. The City Manager and City Attorney shall ensure that all City bodies are authorized to conduct their meetings via the hybrid method, including in person and/or fully remote Zoom/teleconference meetings and are directed to take all steps to implement this Resolution including, but not limited to, conducting open and public remote meetings in accordance with the requirements of Government Code section 54953(e) and/or other applicable provisions of the Brown Act.

This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption and shall be effective for thirty (30) days, unless extended by the City Council.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by meeting of City of Seaside duly held on the 7th day of July, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS
APPROVED:
_______________________________
Ian N. Oglesby, Mayor
Packet Page 11
ATTEST:
______________________________
Dominique L. Davis, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
Sheri L. Damon, City Attorney
Packet Page 12

DRAFT MINUTES

CITY OF SEASIDE CONCURRENT MEETING
CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR 440 Harcourt Ave (Council Chamber) AGENCY TO THE Thursday, June 16, 2022
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 5:00 PM

1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor/Chair Oglesby called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.

2. ROLL CALL – ESTABLISHMENT OF QUORUM
PRESENT: Campbell, Garcia-Arrazola, Oglesby, Pacheco, Wizard ABSENT: None

3. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A moment of silence was held for invocation. The pledge was led by Council Member Garcia-Arrazola.

4. REVIEW OF AGENDA
The Mayor asked to hear a business item prior to the Public Hearing. The following item was moved: item 10D – Adopt a resolution approving the City Manager appointment and employment agreement.

5. PUBLIC COMMENT
Peter Kaiser, Tanja Roos, Kelly Souza, Melanie Shear

6. PUBLIC AGENCY COMMUNICATIONS
None

7. PRESENTATIONS
A. REVIEW OF UPCOMING CITYWIDE EVENTS (ERNESTO ALTAMIRANO,

COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT SPECIALIST)
Assistant City Manager Ashley Collick provided the presentation.

B. BROADWAY AVENUE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT Packet Page 13
Thursday, June 16, 2022 City Council CONCURRENT Meeting Page 2

PROJECT (NISHA PATEL, CITY ENGINEER/PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR) Ms. Patel provided a presentation and responded to questions from the Council.

8. CONSENT AGENDA
The following items were pulled from the consent agenda: 8E (Oglesby), 8L (Peter Kaiser), 8J (Darryl Choates), and 8M (Pacheco).

On motion by Council/Agency Member Campbell and second by Council/Agency Member Garcia-Arrazola and carried by the following vote, the City Council/Successor Agency moved to approve the consent agenda except for item 8E, 8L, 8J, and 8M.

RESULT: 5-0-0-0
AYES: Campbell, Garcia-Arrazola, Oglesby, Pacheco, Wizard NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
A. ADOPT A RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH AB361: HYBRID MEETINGS AND GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54953 (BROWN ACT) AUTHORIZING REMOTE/TELECONFERENCE

PARTICIPATION IN CITY MEETINGS
ACTION: ADOPTED RESO #22-67
B. APPROVE MINUTES FROM JUNE 2, 2022
ACTION: APPROVED
C. APPROVE AND FILE CITY CHECKS
ACTION: APPROVED & FILED
D. APPROVE A MAYOR'S YOUTH FUND CONTRIBUTION REQUEST FROM KINDNESS ROCKS 831
ACTION: APPROVED
E. ADOPT A RESOLUTION DECLARING JULY AS BEBE MOORE CAMPBELL

NATIONAL MINORITY MENTAL AWARENESS MONTH IN THE CITY OF

SEASIDE
ACTION: ADOPTED RESO #22-68
F. ADOPT A RESOLUTION MODIFYING THE CITY MANAGER SALARY EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2022
ACTION: ADOPTED RESO #22-69
Packet Page 14
Thursday, June 16, 2022 City Council CONCURRENT Meeting Page 3 G. ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN ON-CALL CONSULTANT LIST FOR

HYDROGEOLOGICAL SERVICES
ACTION: ADOPTED RESO #22-70
H. ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS

AND AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT WITH GLOBAL
MODULAR, INC. FOR THE CONSTRUCTION, DELIVERY, AND

INSTALLATION OF A NEW MODULAR BUILDING FOR THE NEW CITY HALL STAFF TRAILER FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $279,000.00.

ACTION: ADOPTED RESO #22-71
I. ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT FOR $59,950.00 WITH NICK
CHAMPI ENTERPRISES INC. FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A SOLAR

POWER GATE ON EUCALYPTUS ROAD, AND MAKE A BUDGET
AMENDMENT OF $17,755.00 IN FISCAL YEAR 2021-2022
ACTION: ADOPTED RESO #22-72
J. ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE

A THREE-YEAR AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SEASIDE AND THE

CITY OF DEL REY OAKS FOR THE PROVISION OF FIRE PROTECTION AND

PREVENTION SERVICES
ACTION: ADOPTED RESO #22-73
K. ADOPT THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE

MONTEREY REGIONAL WASTE MANAGMENT DISTRICT AND ITS

MEMBER AGENCIES REGARDING ASSISTANCE WITH COMPLIANCE
WITH CALIFORNIA SENATE BILL 1383
ACTION: ADOPTED RESO #22-74
L. ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR THE

BROADWAY AVENUE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $598,004.83
ACTION: ADOPTED RESO #22-75
M. APPROVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE USE OF ALLOCATED FUNDING FOR

COMMUNITY AND PARK IMPROVEMENTS
ACTION: APPROVED WITH AMENDMENTS
Item 10D (ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CITY MANAGER APPOINTMENT Packet Page 15
Thursday, June 16, 2022 City Council CONCURRENT Meeting Page 4 AND EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT) was heard at the close of the consent agenda. City Attorney Sheri Damon provided a presentation and responded to questions from the Council.

9. PUBLIC HEARING
A. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEASIDE AMENDING CHAPTERS 8.38 AND 8.39 REGARDING SMOKING

REGULATIONS ADDRESSING VAPING AND FLAVORED TOBACCO

PRODUCTS AND MAKING AN ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION OF

EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (FIRST READING – ROLL-CALL VOTE)
Recreation Director Dan Meewis provided a presentation and responded to questions from Council.

PUBLIC COMMENT: Darryl Choates, Tiffany, Gonzolo Cornado, Julie Lynn, Catalina Gutierrez, Bobby Maxwell, Tanja Roos, Ann Wheelis, Alix Winston, Peter Kaiser, Sheila Phan, Kathy Anderson, Brian McCarthy
A motion by Council/Agency Member Campbell and second by Council/Agency Member Wizard and failed by the following roll call vote, the City Council/Successor Agency did not pass to a second reading for an ordinance amending SMC chapters

8.38 and 8.39.

RESULT: 2-3-0-0
AYES: Campbell, Wizard
NOES: Garcia-Arrazola, Oglesby, Pacheco
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
NO ACTION: Motion failed.

10. BUSINESS ITEMS
A. APPROVE BROADWAY WALK OF FAME AD-HOC COMMITTEE

RECOMMENDATIONS
Ms. Collick presented the item and responded to questions from the Council.

PUBLIC COMMENT: Franco Pacheco
On motion by Mayor Pro Tem/Vice Chair Pacheco and second by Council/Agency Member Garcia-Arrazola and carried by the following vote, the City Council/Successor Agency moved to approve the Broadway Walk of Fame Ad-Hoc Committee recommendations.

Packet Page 16
Thursday, June 16, 2022 City Council CONCURRENT Meeting Page 5 RESULT: 5-0-0-0
AYES: Campbell, Garcia-Arrazola, Oglesby, Pacheco, Wizard NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
ACTION: APPROVED
B. CONSIDER A REQUEST TO CLOSE BROADWAY AVENUE AND FOR COSPONSORSHIP OF THE PROPOSED SUMMERTIME VIBES ON BROADWAY ON JULY 23, 2022, AND AUGUST 27, 2022
Mr. Meewis provided a presentation and responded to questions from the Council.

There were no comments from the public. The applicant, Darryl Choates provided comments and clarifications to the Council.

On motion by Council Member Campbell and second by Council Member GarciaArrazola and carried by the following vote, the City Council/Successor Agency moved to approve the request from Deja Blue to close Broadway Avenue and require the applicant to pay all cost associated with two days of the Summertime Vibes on Broadway in the amount of $11, 455.10.

RESULT: 5-0-0-0
AYES: Campbell, Garcia-Arrazola, Oglesby, Pacheco, Wizard NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
ACTION: Approved with amendments to require applicant to pay all associated costs.

C. ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CONTRACTUAL 3.81%

INCREASE IN THE COLLECTION OF SOLID WASTE, RECYCLING, AND ORGANICS RATE EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2022, ACCORDING TO THE COSTBASED RATE ADJUSTMENT CALCULATION OF THE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT WITH GREENWASTE RECOVERY, INC.

Acting City Manager Roberta Greathouse provided a presentation and responded to questions from the Council.

PUBLIC COMMENT: Peter Kaiser
On motion by Council/Agency Member Wizard and second by Council/Agency Member Campbell and carried by the following vote, the City Council/Successor Agency moved to increase the collection of solid waste, recycling, and organics rate effective July 1, 2022.

Packet Page 17
Thursday, June 16, 2022 City Council CONCURRENT Meeting Page 6 RESULT: 5-0-0-0
AYES: Campbell, Garcia-Arrazola, Oglesby, Pacheco, Wizard NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ACTION: ADOPTED RESO# 22-77
D. ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CITY MANAGER APPOINTMENT

AND EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
PUBLIC COMMENT: Darryl Choates, Peter Kaiser, Antonio Lopez, Rolando Lopez, Larry Moody
Mayor Oglesby invited Mr. Jaime Fontes to address the Council and public. Mr. Fontes provided his comments to the public in English and Spanish. Mayor Oglesby presented a token of appreciation to Mrs. Clarice Fontes on behalf of the City Council, residents and City staff.

On motion by Council/Agency Member Garcia-Arrazola and second by Council/Successor Agency Member Pacheco and carried by the following roll call vote, the City Council/Successor Agency moved to adopt a resolution approving the City Manager appointment and employment agreement.

RESULT: 5-0-0-0
AYES: Campbell, Garcia-Arrazola, Oglesby, Pacheco, Wizard NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
ACTION: ADOPTED RESO #22-78

11. COUNCIL MEMBER REQUESTS
A. NEW COUNCIL MEMBER REQUESTS
Wizard – Requested staff to agendize a discussion regarding placing a measure on the November ballot for a ban on fireworks in Seaside.

B. FOLLOW UP ON PREVIOUS REQUESTS
None

12. CITY ATTORNEY, CITY MANAGER, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS

AND REPORTS ON COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS
Reports provided.

Packet Page 18
Thursday, June 16, 2022 City Council CONCURRENT Meeting Page 7

13. CLOSED SESSION
Ms. Damon read the closed session items and did not anticipate anything to report out.

A. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE 54957.6
Agency Negotiators: Roberta Greathouse, Acting City Manager; Donna Williamson, Labor Negotiator; Samantha Sakhrani, Human Resources Analyst.

Employee Organizations: All full-time represented and unrepresented employees and employee associations.

B. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8
Address: The property commonly referred to as Ascent
(Property located on the north side of the 1100 block of Broadway Avenue between Terrace Street and San Lucas Street)
Negotiations with Crauchan Capital
Negotiator for the City: City Manager, et al.

Under Discussion: price, terms of payment or both.

C. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8
Address: 1579 & 1583 Del Monte Blvd, Seaside, CA 93955
APN: 011-301-014 & 011-279-006
Negotiations with Steve Hall, et. al. (Property Owner)
Negotiator for the City: City Manager, et al.

Under Discussion: Price, terms of payment or both.

D. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9
Existing Litigation
People v. Arzadon, Monterey County Superior
Court case: 20CV003118
E. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9
Packet Page 19
Thursday, June 16, 2022 City Council CONCURRENT Meeting Page 8 Potential Litigation (2 Matters)

14. ADJOURNMENT
With no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:47 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
_________________________ _________________________
Dominique L. Davis, City Clerk Ian N. Oglesby, Mayor
Packet Page 20

CITY OF SEASIDE

STAFF REPORT
Item No.: 8.C.

TO: City Council
FROM: Roberta Greathouse, Acting City Manager
BY: Dan Meewis, Recreation Director
DATE: July 7, 2022
SUBJECT: PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING JULY 2022 AS PARKS AND

RECREATION MONTH

RECOMMENDATION
Proclaim July 2022 as Parks and Recreation Month in the City of Seaside.

BACKGROUND
The request is to accept the proclamation designating July 2022 as Parks and Recreation Month.

FISCAL IMPACT
No fiscal impact

ATTACHMENTS

1. Parks and Recreation Month 2022
Reviewed for Submission to the City Council by:
__________________________________
Roberta Greathouse, Acting City Manager
Packet Page 21
City of Seaside

PROCLAMATION
Parks and Recreation Month
July 2022
WHEREAS, Parks and Recreation makes lives and communities better now and in the future; and
WHEREAS, it is established through statewide public opinion research, 98% of California households visit a local park at least once a year; two in three households visit a park once a month; 50% of households participate in an organized recreation program; and most park use is with family and friends; and
WHEREAS, residents value recreation as it provides positive alternatives for children and youth to reduce crime and mischief especially during non-school hours; it promotes the arts, it increases social connections; aids in therapy; and promotes lifelong learning; and
WHEREAS, residents value their parks for access to outdoor spaces for children and adults to play and be active; exercise and group sports; and WHEREAS, parks provide access to the serenity and the inspiration of nature and outdoor spaces as well as preserve and protect the historic, natural and cultural resources in our community; and
WHEREAS, the residents of the City of Seaside including children, youth, families, adults, seniors, businesses, community organizations, and visitors benefit from the wide range of parks, trails, open space, sports fields, tennis courts, facilities and programs including Soper Field, Cutino Park, Patchetti Park, Laguna Grande Park & Robert’s Lake Eco-Recreation Station provided by the City of Seaside; and WHEREAS, the City Council urges all its residents to recognize that parks and recreation enriches the lives of its residents and visitors as well as adding value to the community’s homes and neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, July is celebrated across the nation as Parks and Recreation Month.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED, that I, The Honorable Ian N. Oglesby, Mayor of the City of Seaside, on behalf of the City Council, do hereby proclaim July 2022, as “Parks and Recreation Month” and in doing so, urges all its citizens to use and enjoy its parks, trails, open space, facilities, and recreation opportunities. __________________
Ian N. Oglesby, Mayor
July 7, 2022
Packet Page 22

CITY OF SEASIDE

STAFF REPORT
Item No.: 8.D.

TO: City Council
FROM: Roberta Greathouse, Acting City Manager
BY: Sheri Damon, City Attorney
DATE: July 7, 2022
SUBJECT: ADOPT A RESOLUTION DECLARING SEASIDE A SUPPORTER OF

REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM (GARCIA-ARRAZOLA)

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution affirming the City of Seaside’s support for reproductive freedom and rights, and calling on the United States House of Representatives to protect reproductive freedom nationwide as prescribed in Roe V. Wade.

BACKGROUND
In 1970, Jane Roe filed a lawsuit (Roe V. Wade, 410 U.S. (1973)) against Henry Wade, the district attorney of Dallas County, Texas, challenging a Texas law that made abortion illegal unless previously approved by a doctor. In her lawsuit Roe alleged that the states laws were unconstitutionally vague and abridged her right of personal privacy, protected by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Roe V. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court in which such court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protects a pregnant woman’s choice when it came to abortion.

California has long been a model for providing and protecting access to reproductive health care and reproductive freedoms. In 2002, California passed the Reproductive Privacy Act, which embeds the right to choose or obtain an abortion in California Public policy.

As States throughout the nation mobilize against reproductive freedom, California has continued to build a comprehensive system of support for Californians seeking sexual, reproductive care. From choosing a health care provider to improving affordability, California recognizes that autonomy and agency are an integral parting when it comes Packet Page 23

Item No. 8.D. Page 2 of 2
to exercising the fundamental right of privacy.

The City of Seaside has long stood up for the rights of all individuals residing in Seaside.

Moreover, because reproductive freedom is intertwined with issues of social justice, economic, gender, and racial equity. Seaside must become a support system for reproductive freedom for individuals of all backgrounds and ensure that all have access to the care that they need.

FISCAL IMPACT
None

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution
Reviewed for Submission to the City Council by:
__________________________________
Roberta Greathouse, Acting City Manager
Packet Page 24
RESOLUTION NO. 22-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEASIDE

RESOLUTION DECLARING SEASIDE A SUPPORTER OF REPRODUCTIVE

FREEDOM
WHEREAS, reproductive rights are under question throughout the United States as states throughout the country enact laws that restrict or ban access to abortion.

WHEREAS, all people have a right to comprehensive, evidence-based information regarding reproductive health care options, regardless of income, race/ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, gender, immigration status, and insurance-coverage status.

WHEREAS, restrictions, bans, and limitations to reproductive freedom disproportionally impact communities of color.

WHEREAS, in years prior to the Roe V. Wade decision, low income women bore the brunt of unplanned pregnancy, coupled with high health care cost, women who lived in poverty struggled to take advantage of America’s economic opportunities.

WHEREAS, reproductive freedom is intertwined with many issues of social justice, such as economic, gender, racial equity.

WHEREAS, autonomy and agency in reproductive matters are central to secure gender, economic, and racial equity in all aspects of life.

WHEREAS, in 2019 Governor Gavin Newsom issued the California Proclamation on Reproductive Freedom to educate Californians on their rights under the State Constitution and affirm California’s commitment to reproductive freedom.

WHEREAS, the war on poverty rages on, and it must continue until all women and girls have the economic social, and political power and resources to make healthy decisions about their bodies, sexuality, and reproduction for themselves, their families and their communities all areas of their lives.

WHEREAS, these decisions ensure that everyone that lives in Seaside or comes here to seek care, regardless of their background has access to the care they need.

WHEREAS, as states around the country enact abortion restrictions and bans, Seaside can affirm our support for reproductive freedom and all those seeking to fully exercise their reproductive rights and access, safe, legal care.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Seaside is hereby affirmed Packet Page 25
to be a champion and supporter of health equity and reproductive freedom for all, so that anyone may access to the reproductive healthcare services they need, when and where they need them.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Seaside calls on the United States House of Representatives to protect reproductive freedom at a national level, by enacting legislation to protect access to reproductive care without government interference.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Seaside duly held on the 7th day of July, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
____________________________
Ian N. Oglesby, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Dominque L. Davis, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________________
Sheri L. Damon, City Attorney
Packet Page 26

CITY OF SEASIDE

STAFF REPORT
Item No.: 8.E.

TO: City Council
FROM: Roberta Greathouse, Acting City Manager
BY: Haroon Noori, Administrative Analyst II
DATE: July 7, 2022
SUBJECT: ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXTENSION OF THE FLIP SEASIDE PROGRAM DEADLINE UNTIL JUNE 30, 2023 AND

APPROVING CARRYOVER OF THE REMAINING ACTUAL
BALANCE OF FLIP SEASIDE FUNDS TO FY 22-23

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution authorizing extension of the FLIP Seaside facade improvement program deadline until June 30, 2023 and approving carryover of the remaining actual balance of FLIP Seaside funds to FY22-23.

BACKGROUND
On October 7, 2021, the Seaside City Council adopted resolution no. 21-101 approving Administrative Policies and Procedures for a storefront improvement grant program entitled "FLIP Seaside" and appropriated $150,000 to implement the program.

The FLIP Seaside Program was approved for the term October 1, 2021, to June 30, 2022, and offered a 75% matching grant, up to $7,500 for projects over $10,000, to help fund facade improvements such as awnings, paint, windows, doors, signs, barriers for COVID-19 readiness, and other minor improvements.

On October 8, 2021, following the City Council approval of the program, City staff opened up the online application window and conducted broad outreach to publicize the program including via press releases on the City website, distribution of flyers to businesses, word of mouth, and Seaside Creates e-newsletters.

DISCUSSION:

Between October 8, 2021 and June 8, 2022, the City received a total of 18 applications Packet Page 27

Item No. 8.E. Page 2 of 3
of which nine projects have been completed and reimbursed, and two projects have been completed with pending reimbursement requests which are being reviewed/audited. Of the remaining seven applications, four applicants, although conditionally approved for the FLIP Seaside grants, were unable to start and complete their projects prior to the June 30th deadline due to their inability to secure architectural drawings, City approvals and permits. These four applicants have acted in good faith and are working actively with the City and their design professionals to move their projects forward. The remaining three applications were recently submitted and have been placed on the FLIP Seaside interest list. These three applicants have submitted initial applications; however, City staff are still waiting to receive proposed scope of work, estimated project costs and timelines. A summary of the applications is provided in Attachment B.

Collectively, the nine completed projects stimulated $82,994 in private investment by Seaside property and business owners, which was matched by $59,791 in FLIP Seaside grants for a total of $142,785. On average, the City matched every dollar spent with 72 cents. The FLIP Seaside program, in partnership with program participants, has had a significant positive impact on the Seaside business corridors, including enhanced curb appeal and a welcoming business environment.

With a total of $59,791 disbursed, $13,379 encumbered for two pending reimbursement requests, the FLIP Seaside has a remaining balance $76,830. Per the adopted program policies and procedures, the City Council can authorize the carryover of any remaining funds and the continuation of the program. Staff recommend the City Council extend the program until June 30, 2023 and authorize the carrying over remaining funds to FY22-23. This will allow current applicants to complete their projects and get reimbursement for eligible costs. Staff will conduct additional outreach to encourage any new applicants to apply for unencumbered remaining funds.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no new fiscal impact associated with this action. Carrying over remaining program funds to FY22-23 will help fund additional storefront improvements which will enhance the City's commercial corridors and create a welcoming business environment.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Attachment A - Resolution

2. Attachment B - FLIP Seaside Applications

3. Attachment C - Photos of Completed FLIP Seaside Projects Reviewed for Submission to the City Council by:

Packet Page 28

Item No. 8.E. Page 3 of 3
__________________________________
Roberta Greathouse, Acting City Manager
Packet Page 29
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEASIDE

AUTHORIZING EXTENSION OF THE FLIP SEASIDE PROGRAM
UNTIL JUNE 30, 2023 AND APPROVING CARRYOVER OF THE

REMAINING ACTUAL BALANCE OF FLIP SEASIDE BUDGET TO
FY2022-2023
WHEREAS, on October 7, 2021, the Seaside City Council adopted Resolution No. 21-101 approving Administrative Policies and Procedures for a storefront improvement grant program entitled "FLIP Seaside" and appropriated $150,000 to implement the program; and WHEREAS, the FLIP Seaside Program was approved for the term October 1, 2021, to June 30, 2022, and offered a 75% matching grant, up to $7,500 for projects over $10,000, to help fund facade improvements such as awnings, paint, windows, doors, signs, barriers for COVID-19 readiness, and other minor improvements; and WHEREAS, as of the end of FY21-22, the City has several pending FLIP Seaside applications and deems necessary to extend the program deadline until June 30, 2023, and to carryover actual remaining balance of the FLIP Seaside budget; and WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully examined the same and is satisfied with said amendments; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Seaside hereby authorizes the City Manager to extend the FLIP Seaside program until June 30, 2023, and to carryover the actual remaining balance of the FLIP Seaside budget to FY22-23; and
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Seaside duly held on the 7th day of July, 2022, by the following vote:

Packet Page 30
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

_______________________________
Ian N. Oglesby, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Dominque L. Davis, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________________
Sheri L. Damon, City Attorney
Packet Page 31
FY21-22 FLIP Seaside Applications
No. Project Address Business Name Improvement Type Project Cost FLIP Seaside Match
Status
1 1390 Fremont Ave My Cuisine, INC Exterior stucco, wood siding all around overhang, exterior paint
$15,250 $7,275 Completed/reimbursed
2 1301 Fremont Blvd El Pollo Rey Outdoor dining tiling $11,791 $7,500 Completed/reimbursed 3 775A Trinity Ave Property Management Paint, stucco, awnings $12,000 $7,500 Completed/reimbursed 4 1875 The Mall Monterey Bay Motor Works Exterior Paint $11,150 $7,500 Completed/reimbursed 5 1020 Ord Grove Automotive Service & Repair Paint, signage $54,502 $7,500 Completed/reimbursed 6 2039 Del Monte Blvd Pacific Smog Signs, paint, planters $13,439 $7,500 Completed/reimbursed 7 485-B Palm Ave Acme Coffee Roasting Sign and paint $6,670 $5,002 Completed/reimbursed 1232 Broadway Ave Paris Bakery Outside Paint, Awning, Outdoor tables, chairs and umbrellas
$3,352 $2,514 Completed/reimbursed
9 1020 Auto Center Pkwy Monterey Peninsula Power Sports Power wash, repaint, rust removal
$14,631 $7,500 Completed/reimbursed
10 789 Trinity Ave Chef's Pride Inc. Paint, stucco, awnings $10,000 $7,500 Reimbursement request being reviewed
11 1096 Canyon Del Rey
Blvd
Kitchen Studio | Cabinets & Such Signs, paint, front window $7,839 $5,879 Reimbursement request being reviewed
12 720 Broadway Ave The Oven Pizzeria Signs $20,000* -- Changed scope of work to update/install new signs
instead of installing new door
and window
13 1760 Fremont
Boulevard, Suite D1
The Seaside Cally Corp dba Lynn's
Arcade
See application $14,500* -- Awaiting approval from the
Building Department
14 1450 Fremont Helados la yaquesita Deck, ADA improvements 10,000* -- Waiting on architect to finalize plans
15 877 Broadway Ave Other Brother Beer Co, LLC Beautify Parklet 10,000* -- Waiting on City to finalize and adopt parklet design guidelines
16 1520, 1534, 1536 Del
Monte Blvd
Googie Grill Paint and upgrade outside 10,000* -- Interest list 17 1351 Fremont blvd Monterey psychic center Signs $26,220* -- Interest list 18 1534-1536 Del Monte
Blvd
Del Monte Point $10,000* -- Interest list
* Indicates staff-estimated projects costs based on applicant’s requests for the maximum FLIP Seaside matching amount of $75,00. These applicants are still finalizing their project plans and may not know exact costs until they secure bids and enter into a contract.

Packet Page 32
2039 Del Monte - Pacific Smog
Improvements: Signs, exterior paint

BEFORE AFTER
Completed FLIP Seaside Projects in FY21-22
Packet Page 33
1232 Broadway Ave - Paris Bakery
Improvements: New awning, exterior paint

BEFORE AFTER
Completed FLIP Seaside Projects in FY21-22
Packet Page 34
1390 Fremont Blvd - My Cuisine Inc
Improvements: Exterior stucco, wood siding all around overhang, exterior paint

BEFORE AFTER
Completed FLIP Seaside Projects in FY21-22
Packet Page 35
775A Trinity Ave - Property Management
Improvements: Paint, stucco siding

BEFORE AFTER
Completed FLIP Seaside Projects in FY21-22
Packet Page 36
485-B Palm Ave - Acme Coffee
Improvements: Sign, paint, new redwood fence

BEFORE AFTER
Completed FLIP Seaside Projects in FY21-22
Packet Page 37
1875 The Mall - Monterey Bay Motor Works
Improvements: Exterior paint

BEFORE AFTER
Completed FLIP Seaside Projects in FY21-22
Packet Page 38
1301 Fremont Blvd - El Pollo Rey
Improvements: Granite Rock tiling

BEFORE AFTER
Completed FLIP Seaside Projects in FY21-22
Packet Page 39
1020 Auto Center Pkwy - Monterey Peninsula Power Sports Improvements: Power wash, repaint, rust removal

BEFORE AFTER
Completed FLIP Seaside Projects in FY21-22
Packet Page 40

CITY OF SEASIDE

STAFF REPORT
Item No.: 8.F.

TO: City Council
FROM: Roberta Greathouse, Acting City Manager
BY: Dominique Davis, City Clerk
DATE: July 7, 2022
SUBJECT: ADOPT A RESOLUTION CALLING FOR AN ELECTION ON
NOVEMBER 8, 2022, IN THE CITY OF SEASIDE TO ELECT ONE
(1) MAYOR AND (2) COUNCIL MEMBERS, TO AUTHORIZE

CONSOLIDATION WITH MONTEREY COUNTY'S GENERAL

ELECTION AND TO APPROVE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE

MONTEREY COUNTY ELECTIONS DEPARTMENT FOR ELECTION

SERVICES

RECOMMENDATION
Per Elections Code Section 1002 and the Seaside Municipal Code, this item requests the Council authorization to call for an election on November 8, 2022, declaring two council member seats, and one mayoral seat, to consolidate the election with the general municipal election and authorize the Monterey County Registrar of Voters to provide for election services for the election.

BACKGROUND
Per the Seaside Municipal Code, the City of Seaside conducts its elections every other November in conjunction with the general municipal election. This year the election will be on November 8, 2022.

As required by Elections Codes 10509, 10522, 10524 and the Seaside Municipal Code, the City of Seaside must officially call for an election to be held and prepare a statement of election facts, inform the voters which elective positions are to be filled and the intent to consolidate the election with the general municipal election. Under these provisions, the City of Seaside must call for an election to be held on November 8, 2022, for the purpose of electing successors to the terms of office which will expire in November 2022. Members of the City Council serve four (4) year terms on a two-year rotating basis and the Mayor serves a two-year term. In November 2022, the terms for Packet Page 41

Item No. 8.F. Page 2 of 3
Mayor Oglesby and Council members Campbell and Wizard will expire.

Additionally, pursuant to Elections Code Section 10400, whenever two or more elections, including bond elections, of any legislative or congressional district, public district, city, county, or other political subdivision are called to be held on the same day, in the same territory, or in territory that is in part the same, they may be consolidated upon the order of the governing body or bodies or officer or officers calling the elections.

In years past, for the ease and convenience of the registered voters within this City, and in order to take advantage of any possible reduction in election costs, it is desirable that this City election be consolidated with any other election to be held on the same day. If approved, the Monterey County Registrar of Voters will conduct the election for the City of Seaside. Attachment A is a resolution calling for an election on November 8, 2022, and authorizes the City to consolidate our election and contract with Monterey County Election for election services.

If the call of election is approved for the November 8, 2022 election, the nomination period will begin on July 18, 2022, at 8:00 a.m. and will close at 5:00 p.m. on Friday, August 12, 2022. If any of the above incumbents do not file during the designated period, the nomination-filing period will be extended until 5:00 p.m., Wednesday, August 17, 2022. Information will generally be available and documents can typically be submitted to the City Clerk between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 12 noon and from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday during the nomination period.

FISCAL IMPACT
During these unprecedented times, election costs are anticipated to increase over the normal cost estimate, which is based on historical averages. Given the uncertainty in the market and projections from print and mailing vendors, the estimated cost for the November General Election is $7.50 to $10.00 per registered voter. As of January 20, 2022, the City of Seaside has a total of 14,765 registered voters. The estimated cost of a consolidated general election for 2022 is between $110,737.50 and $147,650.00. The City will be invoiced for the actual cost of services once the election has concluded.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution

2. Documents Required for November 8, 2022 General Election Reviewed for Submission to the City Council by:

Packet Page 42

Item No. 8.F. Page 3 of 3
__________________________________
Roberta Greathouse, Acting City Manager
Packet Page 43
RESOLUTION NO. 22-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEASIDE

ORDERING AN ELECTION, REQUESTING THE COUNTY ELECTIONS

DEPARTMENT TO CONDUCT THE ELECTION, AND REQUESTING

CONSOLIDATION OF THE ELECTION
WHERAS, under provisions of the Election Code, the City Council of the City of Seaside must call the General Municipal Election to held on November 8, 2022, for the purpose of electing successors to the terms of office which will expire in November 2024 and November 2026; and
WHERAS, for the ease and convenience to the registered voters within this City, and in order to take advantage of any possible reduction in election costs, it is desirable that this City election be consolidated with any other election to be held on the same day; and
WHERAS, pursuant to Elections Code Section 10002, the governing body of any city or district may by resolution request the Board of Supervisors of the county to permit the county elections official to render specified services to the city or district relating to the conduct of an election. The city or district shall reimburse the county in full for the services performed upon presentation of a bill to the city or district; and
WHERAS, pursuant to Elections Code Section 10400, whenever two or more elections, including bond elections, of any legislative or congressional district, public district, city, county or other political subdivision are called to be held on the same day, in the same territory, or in territory that is in part the same, they may be consolidated upon the order of the governing body or bodies or officer or officers calling the elections; and
WHERAS, pursuant to Elections Code Section 10403, whenever an election called by a district, city or other political subdivision for the submission of any question, proposition, or office to be filled is to be consolidated with a statewide election, and the question, proposition, or office to be filled is to appear upon the same ballot as that provided for that statewide election, the district, city or other political subdivision shall, at least 88 days prior to the date of the election, file with the board of supervisors, and a copy with the elections official, a resolution of its governing board requesting the consolidation, and setting forth the exact form of any question, proposition, or office to be voted upon at the election, as it is to appear on the ballot. Upon such request, the Board of Supervisors may order the consolidation. The resolution requesting the Packet Page 44
consolidation shall be adopted and filed at the same time as the adoption of the ordinance, resolution, or order calling the election; and WHERAS, pursuant to Elections Code Section 13307, whenever an election called by a district, city, or other political subdivision has offices to be filled, it is required to fix and determine the number of words that a candidate may submit on the candidate’s statement to be either 200 or 400 words and to determine if the candidate and or the political subdivision will pay the cost of the statement; and
WHERAS, Elections Code Section 15651 requires the city or district to determine the means and manner in which a tie vote is to be resolved in the event that two or more persons receive an equal number of votes and the highest number of votes (“tie votes”) for an office to be voted upon; and WHERAS, various district, county, state and other political subdivision elections may be or have been called to be held on a November 8, 2022; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the City Council of the City of Seaside hereby orders an election be called and consolidated with any and all elections also called to be held on November 8, 2022, insofar as said elections are to be held in the same territory or in territory that is in part the same as the territory of the City of Seaside requests the Board of Supervisors of the County of Monterey to order such consolidation under Elections Code Section 10401 and 10403.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED that pursuant to Elections Code Section 10002 said governing body hereby requests the Board of Supervisors of the County of Monterey to permit the Monterey County Elections Department to provide any and all services necessary for conducting an election and agrees to pay for said services in full, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the Monterey County Elections Department conduct the election for the purpose of electing one (1) person to the Office of the Mayor for a term of two (2) years, and two (2) persons to the Office of Council Member for the term of four (4) years each, to the City Council of the City of Seaside on the November 8, 2022 General Election ballot:

SEATS OPEN OFFICE TERM DIST/DIV
1 Mayor Two (2) Years At-Large
2 Council Member Four (4) Years At-Large
Packet Page 45
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED by the City Council of the City of Seaside, as follows:

1. A General Municipal Election is hereby ordered and will be held in the City of Seaside on Tuesday, the 8th day of November, 2022, for the purpose of electing one (1) person to the office of Mayor for a term of two (2) years, and two (2) persons to the Office of Council Member for the term of four (4) years each; and

2. Pursuant to Election Code Section 13307 the City of Seaside has resolved that all costs of the Candidate’s statement be paid by the candidate. That no candidate may submit a statement of over 200 words.

3. The candidate shall submit payment made payable to the City of Seaside upon submission of the Candidate’s Statement to the City Clerk; and

4. The election shall be consolidated with any other election to be held totally or partially within the boundaries of this City; and

5. The City Council hereby authorizes the official canvass to be conducted by the Registrar of Voters commencing no later than December 8, 2022; and

6. The City Manager is hereby authorized to contract with the County of Monterey for the administration of part or all of the aforesaid Municipal Election by the County, and the County Registrar of Voters is authorized to bill the City, on a pro-rated basis, for any and all costs associated with the City Election, as requested on the attached Request for Election Services.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Seaside on this 7th day of July, 2022 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:
____________________
Ian N. Oglesby, Mayor
Packet Page 46
ATTEST:
_________________________
Dominique L. Davis, City Clerk
Packet Page 47
Packet Page 48
City of Seaside
Dominique L. Davis City Clerk
440 Harcourt Avenue, Seaside, CA 93955 (831) 899-6707
(831) 718-8594 [email protected] ci.seaside.ca.us Ian N. Oglesby Seaside Election 2022 2
David R. Pacheco Seaside Election 2024 4
Jason Campbell Seaside Election 2022 4
Jon Wizard Seaside Election 2022 4
Alexis Garcia-Arrazola Seaside Election 2024 4
Dominique L. Davis, City Clerk
N/A
November 3, 2020
Packet Page 49
7th July
Packet Page 50
Packet Page 51
Packet Page 52

CITY OF SEASIDE

STAFF REPORT
Item No.: 8.G.

TO: City Council
FROM: Roberta Greathouse, Acting City Manager
BY: Mary Gutierrez, Fire Chief
DATE: July 7, 2022
SUBJECT: ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO

EXECUTE A TEMPORARY FACILITY USE AGREEMENT BETWEEN

THE CITY OF SEASIDE AND THE CITY OF DEL REY OAKS FOR

THE STORAGE OF FIRE APPARATUS

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution and approve a temporary facility use agreement between the City of Seaside and the City of Del Rey Oaks to store City of Seaside reserve fire apparatus at the City of Del Rey Oaks City Hall parking lot.

BACKGROUND
The City of Seaside would like to enter into an agreement with the City of Del Rey Oaks to use an area of the parking lot located at Del Rey Oaks City Hall, and its proximal secured fenced area located at 650 Canyon Del Rey Blvd for the purpose of temporary storage of reserve firefighting vehicles.

The City of Del Rey Oaks City Council unanimously approved the temporary agreement at their June 28, 2022, Regular City Council Meeting.

The City of Seaside has been leasing a temporary storage area in the City of Marina for the past several years to store fire equipment and public works items. The City was recently given a notice to vacate the storage area with an effective date of July 9, 2022.

The City of Seaside Fire Department has exhausted all other options to store reserve fire apparatus. The City of Del Rey Oaks is very supportive in offering an area of their secure parking area at City Hall.

The temporary use of the parking area will be at no cost to the City of Seaside.

Packet Page 53

Item No. 8.G. Page 2 of 2

FISCAL IMPACT
No fiscal impact.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution

2. 2022 Facility Use Agreement
Reviewed for Submission to the City Council by:
__________________________________
Roberta Greathouse, Acting City Manager
Packet Page 54
RESOLUTION NO. 22-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEASIDE

APPROVING A TEMPORARY AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF DEL

REY OAKS FOR THE CITY OF SEASIDE TO LEASE AN AREA OF THE CITY

HALL PARKING LOT FOR TEMPORARY STORAGE OF FIRE APPARATUS WHEREAS, the City of Seaside is in need of temporary storage for several fire apparatus; and
WHEREAS, the City of Del Rey Oaks has made available the parking lot at Del Rey Oaks City Hall located at; 650 Canyon Del Rey Blvd; and WHEREAS, Seaside may use the designated areas only for the temporary storage of the items above; and
WHEREAS, Seaside agrees to completely vacate the designated areas within ninety (90) days’ notice from the City of Del Rey Oaks; and WHEREAS, Seaside is responsible for maintenance and cleanup of the designated areas including all associated costs; and WHEREAS, Seaside retains responsibility for vehicle and equipment; and
WHEREAS, Del Rey Oaks assumes no responsibility for loss or damage to any vehicles or equipment; and
WHEREAS, Del Rey Oaks shall not charge a facility use fee to Seaside for the use of the designated area.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Seaside accept the terms of the agreement with the City of Del Rey Oaks.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Seaside duly held on the 7th day of July 2022.

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

Packet Page 55
APPROVED:

Ian N. Oglesby, Mayor
ATTEST:

Dominique L. Davis, City Clerk
Packet Page 56
1 FACILITY USE AGREEMENT
This Facility Use Agreement is made by and between the City of Del Rey Oaks, (hereinafter referred to as “DEL REY OAKS”), Del Rey Oaks, CA 93940, and City of Seaside, on behalf of City of Seaside, (hereinafter referred to as “SEASIDE”), Seaside CA 93955.

PURPOSE
SEASIDE desires to lease an area of the parking lot located at Del Rey Oaks City Hall, and its proximal secured fenced area located at 650 Canyon Del Rey Blvd, Del Rey Oaks California 93940, for the purpose of temporary storage of firefighting vehicles. DEL REY OAKS desires that this currently available and otherwise unused parking area be used for this temporary purpose. For the mutual benefit of both SEASIDE and DEL REY OAKS, each agrees to the following terms and conditions.

SCOPE

1. DEL REY OAKS grants to SEASIDE the temporary use of the designated areas as described above.

2. SEASIDE may use the designated areas only for the temporary storage indicated above. The space is not to be used for vehicle washing, cleaning or repair/maintenance.

3. SEASIDE agrees to completely vacate the designated areas within ninety (90) days’ notice from City of DEL REY OAKS to City of Seaside City Manager.

4. SEASIDE is responsible for maintenance and cleanup of the designated areas including all associated costs. Cleanup should be performed as needed. Any waste generated by Seaside Fire Department shall be removed daily. Waste storage is prohibited.

5. SEASIDE retains sole responsibility for fire apparatus and equipment on the fire apparatus. DEL REY OAKS assumes no responsibility for loss or damage to any vehicles/equipment stored or operated by SEASIDE or its employees.

6. DEL REY OAKS shall not charge a facility use fee to SEASIDE for use of the designated area.

INDEMNIFICATION
SEASIDE shall hold harmless, indemnify, and defend the City of DEL REY OAKS, from and against any and all liability, loss, damage, expense, costs of every nature, and causes of actions arising out of or in connection with the use by SEASIDE of said property under the terms of this agreement.

Packet Page 57
2 INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
SEASIDE agrees to maintain liability insurance to meet DEL REY OAKS requirements, and also agrees to name DEL REY OAKS as special endorsement. A letter of self-insured status or an endorsement and certificate of insurance are required, either of which includes a waiver of subrogation for Workers Comp.

SEASIDE shall maintain limits no less than:

1. General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal liability, and property damage, $3,000,000 aggregate;

2. Employer Liability: $1,000,000;

3. Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.

SEASIDE must provide DEL REY OAKS with documentation of this liability insurance prior to commencement of the facility use.

NOTICE PROVISION
Any official notice or other correspondence which any party may or is required to give, shall be given by mail, or by confirmed email, to SEASIDE and DEL REY OAKS at the addresses and emails listed below.

Jaime M. Fontes
City Manager
City of Seaside
440 Harcourt Avenue
Seaside, CA 93955
831-899-6702
[email protected]
John Guertin
City Manager
City of Del Rey Oaks
650 Canyon Del Rey Blvd.

Del Rey Oaks, CA 93940
831-394-8511
[email protected]

TERMINATION
DEL REY OAKS may terminate this Agreement for any reason, upon seven (90) days prior written notice. SEASIDE may terminate this Agreement at any time prior to DEL REY OAKS terminating the Agreement.

Packet Page 58
3 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this AGREEMENT to be executed as of the day and year signed below.

City of Seaside
Jaime Fontes, City Manager Date
City of Del Rey Oaks
John Guertin, City Manager Date
Packet Page 59

CITY OF SEASIDE

STAFF REPORT
Item No.: 8.H.

TO: City Council
FROM: Roberta Greathouse, Acting City Manager
BY: Beth Rocha, Senior Planner
DATE: July 7, 2022
SUBJECT: ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO

EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH
HEXAGON TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. TO

PREPARE A VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT) ANALYSIS AND

AN EVACUATION STUDY FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED
$50,000.00

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a professional services agreement with Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. to prepare a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis and an evacuation study as required as part of the general plan update for an amount not to exceed $50,000.00.

BACKGROUND
The City of Seaside has resumed preparation of the General Plan and there are required updates prior to adoption.

The CEQA-related transportation analysis had previously been completed before the project was paused due to COVID. The only missing CEQA-related transportation analyses remaining are the SB 743 VMT analysis and the evacuation study for the Safety Element. Hexagon's Scope of Services is outlined in the attached proposal, pgs.1-2, items 1-5.

Hexagon will work with the City and the team from Raimi to obtain the information needed to complete the scope. Raimi will oversee the work of Hexagon. Hexagon will summarize their findings and recommendations in a stand-alone memorandum.

Hexagon will respond to editorial comments and submit a final memorandum.

Packet Page 60

Item No. 8.H. Page 2 of 2

FISCAL IMPACT
The Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. PSA is in an amount not to exceed $50,000.00.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution

2. Hexagon Proposal
Reviewed for Submission to the City Council by:
__________________________________
Roberta Greathouse, Acting City Manager
Packet Page 61
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEASIDE

ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH HEXAGON TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. TO PREPARE A VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT)

ANALYSIS AND EVACUATION STUDY AS REQUIRED AS PART OF THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $50,000.00 WHEREAS, the City has resumed preparation of the General Plan and required updates need to be completed by consultants; and
WHEREAS, the City is contracted with Raimi and Associates to complete the General Plan update, who will also oversee the work of Hexagon Transportation consultants; and
WHEREAS, Hexagon will complete the CEQA-related transportation analysis, which will include the SB 743 VMT analysis and the evacuation study for the Safety Element; and
WHEREAS, the not to exceed value of the contract is $50,000.00, which exceeds the City Managers’ purchasing authority.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Seaside hereby authorizes the City Manager to sign a contract with Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. not to exceed $50,000.00
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Seaside duly held on the 7th day of July 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

____________________________
Ian N. Oglesby, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
Dominique L. Davis, City Clerk
Packet Page 62
April 22, 2022
Mr. Eric Yurkovich
Raimi + Associates
1900 Addison Street, #200
Berkeley, CA 94704
Re: Proposal to Prepare a VMT Analysis and Evacuation Study for the Proposed General Plan Update in Seaside, CA.

Dear Mr. Yurkovich:

Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. is pleased to submit this proposal to prepare a VMT analysis and an evacuation study for the proposed General Plan Update in Seaside, CA. It is our understanding that most of the CEQA-related transportation analysis had previously been completed before the project was paused due to COVID. The only missing CEQA-related transportation analyses remaining are the SB 743 VMT analysis and the evacuation study for the Safety Element. The scope of services prepared below includes Hexagon’s approach to both studies.

Scope of Services
The tasks to be included in the traffic analysis are:

1. Travel Demand Model. Hexagon will use the AMBAG travel demand forecast model to conduct the VMT analysis. Hexagon will work with the City and Raimi to determine the appropriate scenarios to evaluate. Preliminary, this scope of services assumes two scenarios will be needed: 1) existing conditions, 2) existing General Plan buildout, and 3) proposed General Plan buildout. Hexagon will also work with the City and Raimi team to determine the appropriate VMT methodology and significance criteria for the General Plan Update.

2. Roadway Network and Land Use Data. Hexagon will rely on Raimi and/or the City to provide a list of major roadway improvements that should be included in all scenarios.

Hexagon will research relevant plans to identify significant regional roadway improvements around Seaside. Hexagon will reflect the roadway improvements in the model.

Hexagon will also rely on Raimi and/or the City to provide the model-needed land use inputs by Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) for all scenarios. This task includes up to 10 hours of Hexagon staff time to provide the model-needed land use input structure and answer questions as needed.

3. VMT Analysis. Hexagon will use the travel demand model to evaluate VMT under each scenario, based on the methodology and significance criteria outlined in Task 1. If VMT impacts are identified, Hexagon will work with the City and Raimi team to determine the appropriate program-level mitigation measures.

Packet Page 63
Mr. Eric Yurkovich
April 22, 2022

4. VMT Memo. Hexagon will document our VMT methodology, findings and recommendations in a memorandum. Hexagon will respond to editorial comments and submit a final memorandum.

5. Evacuation Study. Hexagon will work with the City and Raimi team to understand the City’s existing evacuation planning efforts and refine the evacuation study methodology as needed to comply with SB 99 and AB 747. Hexagon will conduct a review on the City’s existing roadway infrastructure and determine the capacity of appropriate evacuation paths. Hexagon will identify traffic-related constraints that may impede an evacuation order.

Hexagon will work with the City and Raimi team to identify proposed developments in any hazard area that do not have adequate emergency access, review the proposed circulation network to identify any potential constraints that may impede an evacuation order, and provide recommendations to reduce delay along the evacuation routes.

Hexagon will summarize our findings and recommendations in a stand-alone memorandum. Hexagon will respond to editorial comments and submit a final memorandum.

6. Assistance in Providing Transportation Data to Air Quality and Noise Consultants.

Typically, the EIR’s Air Quality and Noise consultants will request transportation data from the transportation model. This task includes up to 10 hours to coordinate with the EIR consultants and provide the necessary data.

7. EIR Response to Comments. It is envisioned that Hexagon’s VMT and evacuation memos will be incorporated into the EIR document by the EIR consultant. This task assumes up to 40 hours in Hexagon staff time to assist in providing responses to comments throughout the EIR process.

8. Meeting Attendance. This proposal includes budget for an additional 20 staff hours of staff time to attend meetings throughout the project. This task does not include Hexagon attendance at public hearings.

Time of Performance
Barring any unforeseen delays, a draft VMT memo will be submitted approximately three weeks after: (1) authorization to proceed, (2) the appropriate VMT evaluation methodologies are finalized with City staff (see Task #1), and (3) the necessary roadway improvements and land use data are received (see Task #2). A draft evacuation memo will be submitted approximately three weeks after receipt of authorization to proceed. The final memorandums will be delivered approximately one week after receipt of all review comments.

Packet Page 64
Mr. Eric Yurkovich
April 22, 2022

Cost of Services
The fee for the scope of services will be based on time and expenses up to a maximum budget of $50,000.

We appreciate your consideration of Hexagon Transportation Consultants for this assignment. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.

Sincerely,
HEXAGON TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC.

Ollie Zhou, T.E.

Vice President & Principal Associate
Packet Page 65

CITY OF SEASIDE

STAFF REPORT
Item No.: 8.I.

TO: City Council
FROM: Roberta Greathouse, Acting City Manager
BY: Nisha Patel, Public Works Director/City Engineer
Melissa Savage, Assistant Engineer
DATE: July 7, 2022
SUBJECT: ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE

AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACTOR SERVICES WITH DISASTER

KLEENUP SPECIALISTS FOR ON-CALL AND PROACTIVE

PROPERTY CLEAN-UP SERVICES FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO
EXCEED $50,000.00

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution authorizing an Amendment to the Agreement for Contractor Services with Disaster Kleenup Specialists to perform on-call and proactive clean-up services for an amount not to exceed $50,000.00.

BACKGROUND
In May 2019, the City issued a Request for Proposals for On-Call Property Clean-up Services for a qualified and responsible company or contractor available to provide oncall clean-up services to remove personal property stored on public property including homeless encampments, alley ways, and other public property as needed. Disaster Kleenup Specialists (DKS) was selected for this contract by the selection committee based on their competitive pricing, staff availability, and experience.

On July 18, 2019, the City Council awarded an Agreement for Contractor Services with Disaster Kleenup Specialists in the amount of $100,000.00. Amendments to the agreement were issued on July 28, 2020 and June 25, 2021, each extending the agreement by a year. Since the execution of the contract, DKS has completed many assignments which resulted in the disposal of many tons of waste and over hundreds of hours of specialized labor. Many of these on-call clean-up assignments consist of potential biohazards, which DKS is capable of disposing of properly. The total amount spent on completed work thus far is $81,876.35 leaving an amount of $18,123.65 Packet Page 66

Item No. 8.I. Page 2 of 2
budget remaining.

With the proposed Amendment (Attachment 2), DKS will not only continue to support the City with on-call clean-up work, but they will also regularly survey the City for large dumping of litter, which consists of weekly checks of the City's known hot-spots, such as alleyways, Canyon Del Rey Boulevard, Del Monte Boulevard, Fremont Boulevard, Laguna Grande Park and Roberts Lake. DKS will remove and dispose of items such as furniture, shopping carts, mattresses and other waste. For DKS to continue to support the City with large litter and hazardous waste clean-up through the end of this fiscal year, staff has determined an additional $50,000.00 is required for the Agreement (Attachment 1) for Contractor Services with DKS.

FISCAL IMPACT
The original Agreement with Disaster Kleenup Specialists was for a time and materials amount not to exceed $100,000.00, and it was included in the Fiscal Year 2019/20 budget. An amendment approved by the City Council on October 7, 2021 added $50,000.00 to the Agreement amount. The funds of the agreement are expected to be depleted this fiscal year.

For Disaster Kleenup Specialist to continue to perform on-call and proactive property clean-up services through the end of the Fiscal Year, $50,000.00 from the General Fund is required. Staff is recommending the City Council adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an Amendment to the Agreement for Contractor Services with Disaster Kleenup Specialists in the amount of $50,000.00 for a total not to exceed Agreement amount of $200,000.00.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution

2. Amendment 5
Reviewed for Submission to the City Council by:
__________________________________
Roberta Greathouse, Acting City Manager
Packet Page 67
RESOLUTION NO. 22-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEASIDE

AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACTOR

SERVICES WITH DISASTER KLEENUP SPECIALISTS FOR ON-CALL AND

PROACTIVE PROPERTY CLEAN-UP SERVICES FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $50,000.00
WHEREAS, the On-Call Property Clean-Up Project (Project) was adopted in the fiscal year 2019/2020 annual budget; and
WHEREAS, Disaster Kleenup Specialists (DKS) was selected to perform on-call cleanup services based on their proposal submitted in response to a request for proposals issued by the City in May 2019; and
WHEREAS, on July 18, 2019, the City awarded an Agreement for Contractor Services with Disaster Kleenup Specialists in the amount of $100,000.00 to perform on-call clean-up services; and
WHEREAS, based upon the amount of agreement services used prior to the 2021/2022 Fiscal Year and the on-going property cleanup services required 2021/2022 Fiscal Year, the City staff have determined an additional $50,000.00 was required for the Agreement with DKS through the end of the 2021/2022 Fiscal Year; and WHEREAS, on October 7, 2021, the City Council approved an amendment to the Agreement for Contractor Services with Disaster Kleenup Specialists in the amount of $50,000.00; and
WHEREAS, based upon the amount of agreement services used to date and the ongoing property cleanup services required this 2022/2023 Fiscal Year, the City staff have determined an additional $50,000.00 is required for the Agreement with DKS through the end of the Fiscal Year; and
WHEREAS, Staff has determined the total required amount for the Agreement for Contractor Services with DKS is $200,000.00 to be funded out of Account No. 100-8430- 2073)
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Seaside authorizes the City Manager to execute an Amendment in the amount of $50,000.00 to the Agreement for Contractor Services with Disaster Kleenup Specialists to perform on-call and Packet Page 68
proactive property clean-up services for a total not to exceed agreement amount of $200,000.00.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular City Council meeting of the City of Seaside duly held on the 7th day of July, 2022 by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
______________________________
Ian N. Oglesby, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
Dominique L. Davis, City Clerk
Packet Page 69
CONTRACT AMENDMENT #5

ON-CALL PROPERTY CLEAN-UP SERVICES

CITY OF SEASIDE

Date: June 15, 2022 Change Requested by: _X_ City _ _ Consultant Contract Date Project Name
July 30, 2019 On-Call Property Clean-up Services
To (Consultant): Disaster Kleenup Specialist, P.O. Box 1340, Seaside, CA 93955 You are directed to make the following changes to the Contract Documents or amend the following described work not included in the contract documents for this project.

The purpose of this addendum is to provide additional professional services related to the project named above. The contract terms and conditions shall not be modified except for as stated herein.

MODIFY the following text in Section 7, “Payment”
City agrees to pay Contractor on a time and material basis, in accordance with the payment rates as set forth in Exhibit D, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. This amount shall not exceed two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000) which sum shall include all costs, if any, for the total term of the Agreement unless additional payment is approved as provided in this Agreement.

Original Contract Amount Previous CCO
Total (Not
including this
CCO)
This CCO Total Revised Contract Amount
$100,000.00 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $200,000.00
Original Contract Time Original
Completion Date
CCO Months To
Add (Including
This CCO)
Revised Completion Date
24 Months July 30, 2020 46 June 30, 2023
SUBMITTED BY:

Nisha Patel
City Engineer/Public Works Director
Signature Name and Title Date
CITY APPROVAL BY:

Jaime M. Fontes
City Manager
Signature Name and Title Date
CONSULTANT ACCEPTANCE:

Owner
Disaster Kleenup Specialist
Signature Name and Title Date
Packet Page 70

CITY OF SEASIDE

STAFF REPORT
Item No.: 8.J.

TO: City Council
FROM: Roberta Greathouse, Acting City Manager
BY: Nisha Patel, Public Works Director/City Engineer
Patrick Grogan, Associate Engineer
DATE: July 7, 2022
SUBJECT: ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL

SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH WHITSON ENGINEERS TO

PERFORM DESIGN AND BIDDING PHASE SERVICES FOR THE

POLICE DEPARTMENT PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $56,194.00

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a professional services agreement with Whitson Engineers to perform design and bidding phase services for the Police Department Parking Lot Improvement Project for an amount not to exceed $56,194.00.

BACKGROUND
The City of Seaside Police Department Parking lot has not been maintained for decades.

Its pavement is past its useful life. The parking lot is not secured from the public. The back parking lot, which is used for police officers' personal vehicles parking, is not paved.

The City Council approved this project in the FY 2022/23 budget and capital program.The project was intended to mainly repave the existing parking lot, provide a security fence and gates, expand the parking to the back of it, and install stormwater control and treatment devices. Incidentally, the project may also remove an existing communication tower, relocate existing kennels and generator, and install lighting.

Staff have determined they need the assistance of an engineering firm to perform design and bid phase services. The City requested a proposal from Whitson Engineers to: perform a topographic survey, fence line staking, geotechnical site investigation, Packet Page 71

Item No. 8.J. Page 2 of 2
and pavement evaluation; prepare construction plans, stormwater documentation, final specifications, and a cost estimate; and perform bidding phase services. Staff have reviewed the proposal and find the scope and fee acceptable.

Staff recommends the City Council adopt a resolution (attachment 1) authorizing the City Manager to execute a professional services agreement (attachment 2) with Whitson Engineers to perform the previously mentioned services for the Police Department Parking Lot Improvements Project for an amount not to exceed $56,194.00 and amendments up to an additional $5,619.40 to the agreement for design and bidding phase services for the Police Department Parking Lot Improvements.

FISCAL IMPACT
The Police Department Parking Lot Improvements Project design and construction is funded from the General Fund, account no. 344-8910-9555 which has $350,000.00 available to date.

The professional services agreement with Whitson Engineers to perform design and bidding phase services for the Police Department Parking Lot Improvements Project is for a not to exceed amount of $56,194.00. A 10% contingency brings the total amount to perform the services to $61,813.40.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution

2. Professional Services Agreement
Reviewed for Submission to the City Council by:
__________________________________
Roberta Greathouse, Acting City Manager
Packet Page 72
RESOLUTION NO. 22-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEASIDE

AUTHORIZING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH WHITSON

ENGINEERS TO PERFORM DESIGN AND BIDDING PHASE SERVICES FOR THE

POLICE DEPARTMENT PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $56,194.00
WHEREAS, the Police Department parking lot pavement is in poor condition, and the back parking lot needs to be paved, expanding the parking lot; and WHEREAS, safety measures, such as security fencing and lighting in parking lot have been requested by the Police Department; and
WHEREAS, other additional improvements are needed to construct the parking lot pavement improvements such as installation of storm water control and treatment improvements, relocation of the K9 kennels and generator, and removal of the communication tower; and
WHEREAS, funds from the General Fund were allocated for this project in account no. 344-810-9555 in the amount of $350,000.00; and
WHEREAS, staff requested a proposal from Whitson Engineers to: perform surveying, geotechnical investigation, and design services; prepare storm water documentation, final specifications, and a cost estimate; and perform bidding phase services for the desired Police Department parking lot Improvements; and WHEREAS, Whitson Engineers submitted a proposal to perform the aforementioned services for the Police Department Parking Lot Improvements Project in the amount of $56,194.00; and
WHEREAS, Staff has determined the proposed scope of work and fee are reasonable and within the approved budget; and
WHEREAS, an amount of $5,619.40 contingency, 10% of the contract value, should be authorized on an as required basis; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Seaside authorizes the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Whitson Engineers to perform design and bidding phase services for the Police Packet Page 73
Department Parking Lot Improvements Project for an amount not to exceed $56,194.00 and written amendments such that the total agreement does not exceed $61,813.40.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular City Council meeting of the City of Seaside duly held on the 7th day of July, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
______________________________
Ian N. Oglesby, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
Dominique L. Davis, City Clerk
Packet Page 74

POLICE DEPARTMENT PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS
Rev. 1/18 Page 1 COS Design PSA

CITY OF SEASIDE

DESIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT

POLICE DEPARTMENT PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS
THIS AGREEMENT, is made and effective ____________________, between the City of Seaside, a municipal corporation ("Agency") and Whitson Engineers, a corporation (”Consultant”). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows:

1. TERM
This Agreement shall commence on the effective date above and shall remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than July 30, 2023, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement.

2. SERVICES
Consultant shall perform the tasks described and set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. Consultant shall complete the tasks according to the schedule of performance which is also set forth in Exhibit A.

3. PERFORMANCE
Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of his/her ability, experience, and talent, perform all tasks described herein. Consultant shall employ, at a minimum, generally accepted standards and practices utilized by persons engaged in providing similar services as are required of Consultant hereunder in meeting its obligations under this Agreement.

4. AGENCY MANAGEMENT
Agency’s City Engineer shall represent Agency in all matters pertaining to the administration of this Agreement, review and approval of all products submitted by Consultant, but not including the authority to enlarge the Tasks to Be Performed or change the compensation due to Consultant. Agency’s City Manager shall be authorized to act on Agency's behalf and to execute all necessary documents which enlarge the Tasks to Be Performed or change Consultant's compensation, subject to Section 5 hereof.

5. PAYMENT
July 7, 2022
Packet Page 75

POLICE DEPARTMENT PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS
Rev. 1/18 Page 2 COS Design PSA
(a) The Agency agrees to pay Consultant monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and terms and the schedule of payment as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. This amount shall not exceed FIFTY SIX THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED NINETY FOUR dollars ($56,194 .00) for the total term of the Agreement unless additional payment is approved as provided in this Agreement.
(b) Consultant shall not be compensated for any services rendered in connection with its performance of this Agreement which are in addition to those set forth herein, unless such additional services are authorized in advance and in writing by the Agency City Manager. Consultant shall be compensated for any additional services in the amounts and in the manner as agreed to by Agency City Manager and Consultant at the time Agency's written authorization is given to Consultant for the performance of said services.
(c) Consultant will submit invoices monthly for actual services performed.

Invoices shall be submitted on or about the first business day of each month, or as soon thereafter as practical, for services provided in the previous month.

Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of each invoice as to all non-disputed fees. If the Agency disputes any of Consultant's fees it shall give written notice to Consultant within thirty (30) days of receipt of an invoice of any disputed fees set forth on the invoice.

6. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT WITHOUT CAUSE (a) The Agency may at any time, for any reason, with or without cause, suspend or terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon the consultant at least ten (10) days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the Consultant shall immediately cease all work under this Agreement, unless the notice provides otherwise. If the Agency suspends or terminates a portion of this Agreement such suspension or termination shall not make void or invalidate the remainder of this Agreement.
(b) In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Section, the Agency shall pay to Consultant the actual value of the work performed up to the time of termination, provided that the work performed is of value to the Agency.

Upon termination of the Agreement pursuant to this Section, the Consultant will submit an invoice to the Agency pursuant to Section 3.

7. DEFAULT OF CONSULTANT
(a) The Consultant's failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement shall constitute a default. In the event that Consultant is in default for cause Packet Page 76

POLICE DEPARTMENT PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS
Rev. 1/18 Page 3 COS Design PSA
under the terms of this Agreement, Agency shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work performed after the date of default and can terminate this Agreement immediately by written notice to the Consultant. If such failure by the Consultant to make progress in the performance of work hereunder arises out of causes beyond the Consultant's control, and without fault or negligence of the Consultant, it shall not be considered a default.
(b) If the Agency Manager or his/her delegate determines that the Consultant is in default in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, he/she shall cause to be served upon the Consultant a written notice of the default. The Consultant shall have ten (10) days after service upon it of said notice in which to cure the default by rendering a satisfactory performance.

In the event that the Consultant fails to cure its default within such period of time, the Agency shall have the right, notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, to terminate this Agreement without further notice and without prejudice to any other remedy to which it may be entitled at law, in equity or under this Agreement.

8. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS
(a) Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to sales, costs, expenses, receipts, and other such information required by Agency that relate to the performance of services under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain adequate records of services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. Consultant shall provide free access to the representatives of Agency or its designees at reasonable times to such books and records; shall give Agency the right to examine and audit said books and records; shall permit Agency to make transcripts therefrom as necessary; and shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings, and activities related to this Agreement.

Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment. (b) Upon completion of, or in the event of termination or suspension of this Agreement, all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings, maps, models, photographs, computer discs, and reports prepared by the Contractor under this Agreement shall become the sole property of City and may be used, reused, or otherwise disposed of by City without the permission of Contractor. With respect to computer files, Contractor shall make available to City, at City's office and upon reasonable written request by City, the necessary computer software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling, transferring, and printing computer files.

Packet Page 77

POLICE DEPARTMENT PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS
Rev. 1/18 Page 4 COS Design PSA

9. INDEMNITY AND DEFENSE
(a) Indemnification and Defense for Professional Services To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless Agency and any and all of its officials, employees and agents (“Indemnified Parties”) from and against any and all claims, losses, liabilities, damages, costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees and costs, to the extent they arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Consultant.

Consultant’s duty to defend shall consist of reimbursement of defense costs incurred by Agency in direct proportion to the Consultant’s proportionate percentage of fault. Consultant’s percentage of fault shall be determined, as applicable, by a court of law, jury or arbitrator. In the event any loss, liability or damage is incurred by way of settlement or resolution without a court, jury or arbitrator having made a determination of the Consultant’s percentage of fault, the parties agree to mediation with a third party neutral to determine the Consultant’s proportionate percentage of fault for purposes of determining the amount of indemnity and defense cost reimbursement owed to the Agency.
(b) For All Other Liabilities
Notwithstanding the foregoing and without diminishing any rights of Agency under Section 9.A, for any liability, claim, demand, allegation against Agency arising out of, related to, or pertaining to any act or omission of Consultant, but which is not a design professional service, Consultant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless Agency, its officials, employees, and agents (“Indemnified Parties”) from and against any and all damages, costs, expenses (including reasonable attorney fees and expert witness fees), judgments, settlements, and/or arbitration awards, whether for personal or bodily injury, property damage, or economic injury, and arising out of, related to, any concurrent or contributory negligence on the part of the Agency, except for the sole or active negligence of, or willful misconduct of the Agency.

10. INSURANCE
Consultant shall maintain prior to the beginning of and for the duration of this Agreement insurance coverage as specified in Exhibit D attached to and part of this Agreement.

11. INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT
Packet Page 78

POLICE DEPARTMENT PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS
Rev. 1/18 Page 5 COS Design PSA
(a) Consultant is and shall at all times remain as to the Agency a wholly independent Consultant. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Neither Agency nor any of its officers, employees, or agents shall have control over the conduct of Consultant or any of Consultant's officers, employees, or agents, except as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its officers, employees, or agents are in any manner officers, employees, or agents of the Agency. Consultant shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation, or liability whatever against Agency, or bind Agency in any manner.
(b) No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Consultant as provided in the Agreement, Agency shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for performing services hereunder for Agency.

Agency shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder.

12. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES
The Consultant shall keep itself informed of State and Federal laws and regulations which in any manner affect those employed by it or in any way affect the performance of its service pursuant to this Agreement. The Consultant shall at all times observe and comply with all such laws and regulations. The Agency, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of the Consultant to comply with this Section.

13. UNDUE INFLUENCE
Consultant declares and warrants that no undue influence or pressure is used against or in concert with any officer or employee of the Agency in connection with the award, terms or implementation of this Agreement, including any method of coercion, confidential financial arrangement, or financial inducement.

No officer or employee of the Agency will receive compensation, directly or indirectly, from Consultant, or from any officer, employee or agent of Consultant, in connection with the award of this Agreement or any work to be conducted as a result of this Agreement. Violation of this Section shall be a material breach of this Agreement entitling the City to any and all remedies at law or in equity.

14. NO BENEFIT TO ARISE TO LOCAL EMPLOYEES
Packet Page 79

POLICE DEPARTMENT PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS
Rev. 1/18 Page 6 COS Design PSA
No member, officer, or employee of Agency, or their designees or agents, and no public official who exercises authority over or responsibilities with respect to the Project during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter, shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in any agreement or sub-agreement, or the proceeds thereof, for work to be performed in connection with the Project performed under this Agreement.

15. RELEASE OF INFORMATION/CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
(a) All information gained by Consultant in performance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential and shall not be released by Consultant without Agency's prior written authorization. Consultant, its officers, employees, agents, or subconsultants, shall not without written authorization from the Agency Manager or unless requested by the Agency Attorney, voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories, or other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement or relating to any project or property located within the Agency.

Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered "voluntary" provided Consultant gives Agency notice of such court order or subpoena. (b) Consultant shall promptly notify Agency should Consultant, its officers, employees, agents, or subconsultants be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions, or other discovery request, court order, or subpoena from any person or party regarding this Agreement and the work performed thereunder or with respect to any project or property located within the Agency. Agency retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent Consultant and/or be present at any deposition, hearing, or similar proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully with Agency and to provide the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Consultant. However, Agency's right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by Agency to control, direct, or rewrite said response.

16. NOTICES
Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (i) personal service, (ii) delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal Express, which provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in the United States Mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the address of the party as set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by notice:

Packet Page 80

POLICE DEPARTMENT PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS
Rev. 1/18 Page 7 COS Design PSA
To Agency: __City of Seaside__________
__440 Harcourt Ave________
__Seaside, CA 93955_______
Attention: City Clerk
To Consultant: _Whitson Engineers________
_6 Harris Court____________
_Monterey, CA 93940_______

17. ASSIGNMENT
The Consultant shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without prior written consent of the Agency. Because of the personal nature of the services to be rendered pursuant to this Agreement, Katie Lee, PE shall be the Project Manager and Engineer of Record for the services described in this Agreement.

The consultant may use assistants, under its direct supervision, to perform some of the services under this Agreement. Consultant shall provide Agency fourteen (14) days' notice prior to the departure of Katie Lee, PE from Consultant's employ. Should he/she leave Consultant's employ, the Agency shall have the option to immediately terminate this Agreement, within three (3) days of the close of said notice period. Upon termination of this Agreement, Consultant's sole compensation shall be payment for actual services performed up to, and including, the date of termination or as may be otherwise agreed to in writing between the Governing Board and the Consultant.

18. LICENSES
At all times during the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall have in full force and effect, all licenses required of it by law for the performance of the services described in this Agreement.

19. GOVERNING LAW
The Agency and Consultant understand and agree that the laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties, and liabilities of the parties to this Agreement and also govern the interpretation of this Agreement. Any litigation concerning this Agreement shall take place in the municipal, superior, or federal district court with jurisdiction over the Agency.

20. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties relating to the obligations of the parties described in this Agreement. All prior or Packet Page 81
contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations, and statements, oral or written, are merged into this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect. Each party is entering into this Agreement based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon each party's own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material.

21. WORK SCHEDULED/TIME OF COMPLETION
Consultant shall perform all services in a timely manner.

22. CONTENTS OF REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL AND PROPOSAL
Consultant is bound by the contents of Agency's Request for Proposal, Exhibit "C" hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and the contents of the proposal submitted by the Consultant, Exhibit "A" hereto. In the event of conflict, the requirements of Agency's Request for Proposals and this Agreement shall take precedence over those contained in the Consultant's proposals.

23. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT
The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Consultant warrants and represents that he/she has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Consultant and has the authority to bind Consultant to the performance of its obligations hereunder.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written.

CONSULTANT: Whitson Engineers
By: '7-��
Richard Weber, PE, PLS, QSD
Principal
City of Seaside
A Municipal Corporation
Jaime M. Fontes, City Manager
Date: 6/30/22
Date: -------

POLICE DEPARTMENT PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS
Rev. 1/18 Page 8 COS Design PSA
Packet Page 82

POLICE DEPARTMENT PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS
Rev. 1/18 Page 9 COS Design PSA
Attachments: Exhibit A Scope of Work/Consultant Proposal Exhibit B Insurance Requirements
Exhibit C Request for Proposal – Engineering Services
Packet Page 83

POLICE DEPARTMENT PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT A

SCOPE OF WORK/CONSULTANT PROPOSAL
Packet Page 84
RPW/mvh kcl | t:\monterey projects\2071.18 - police station\docs\_contract\2022\supporting docs\2071.18 pro.doc Revised June 22, 2022 Job No.: 2071.18

CITY OF SEASIDE
Patrick Grogan
Via email: [email protected]
Re: Proposal for Civil Engineering and Land Surveying Services Seaside Police Station Parking Lot Improvements
Dear Mr. Grogan:

Thank you for the opportunity to make this proposal for the improvements at the City of Seaside’s Police Department. We understand that the project includes evaluation of the condition of the existing paved parking area and design of the appropriate pavement improvements, a new asphalt parking area, construction of new fencing and an automated vehicular gate and new secure man gates. Additive alternates to the project may include relocation of K9 kennels, relocation of the existing generator, relocation of the camera/communication tower, and relocation of the storage connex as well as additional lighting in the new paved parking area. These additive alternates are included in the design scope except for the structural design of foundations for the generator, connex pad, camera/communication tower, and fencing/gates (manufacturer’s standard details will be used). We have included Haro, Kasunich and Associates, Inc. and Aurum Consulting Engineers as a part of our team to provide the geotechnical investigation and the electrical design scope, respectively. Based on our understanding of the project we propose the following scope of work:

SCOPE OF SERVICES:

TASK 1: TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY

1. Research / Review existing parcel boundaries as shown on recorded maps. Review title report if provided. Layout record boundaries in CAD.

2. Establish survey control at the site. Tie to existing control if available. Tie to a known vertical benchmark. Search for and tie to adequate existing boundary monuments to orient the record boundary. Please note: This will not constitute a full boundary survey of the subject parcel.

3. Conduct a topographic survey for the identified area (see Exhibit B). Locate existing site features including location of existing hardscape features, fences, visible utilities, trees larger than 6” in diameter and site topography. Draft topographic mapping in CAD.

4. Prepare a topographic base map of the site in CAD including all topographic features and elevations at a 1’ contour interval.

TASK 2: FENCE LINE STAKING

1. Recover and flag existing boundary monuments along the southerly line of the City Hall parcel (Parcel A, Volume 7 of Surveys, Page 67) – Note: this proposal assumes that adequate boundary monumentation defining the south line of the parcel can be recovered. If adequate monumentation does not exist and the line needs to be re-established, additional surveying will be required which may also require the preparation of a Corner Record or Record of Survey, the costs of which are not included in this proposal.

2. Set additional temporary stakes along the south line of the City Hall parcel, at approximate 50’ intervals. Stakes will be either provided directly on the line, or at fixed distance offsets so that the stakes are not destroyed by fence construction.

Packet Page 85
Revised June 22, 2022 | Job No. 2071.18
Seaside Police Station Parking Lot Improvements
2071.18 Pro.doc Page | 2
TASK 3: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION – SEE EXHIBIT A
TASK 4: CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS AND BIDDING SUPPORT

1. Visit the site to review opportunities and constraints.

2. Prepare in CAD, a base plan showing the topographic survey and the proposed improvements.

3. Prepare and submit 30% concept layout plan for City review and approval.

4. Prepare 60% Draft Construction Documents to include:
a. Site Construction/Layout Plan
b. Site Grading and Drainage Plan

5. Prepare a Conceptual Stormwater Control Plan pursuant to the Post Construction Stormwater Management Requirements for Development Projects in the Central Coast Region, Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board Resolution No. R3-2012-0025. We anticipate the project will fall within Performance Requirement #2, as we assume that this project will create or replace between 5,000 and 15,000 square feet of impervious area.

6. Prepare 60% Draft Technical Specifications in CSI format.

7. Prepare 60% Draft Engineer’s Estimate of Probable Construction Costs.

8. Submit 60% Draft PS&E to City for review and comment.

9. Meet with City to review comments on 60% PS&E and Conceptual Stormwater Control Plan.

10. Refine plans based comments received on the 60% PS&E package and prepare 90% Construction Documents to include:
a. Cover Sheet
b. Site Construction/Layout Plan
c. Site Grading and Drainage Plan
d. Power Plan with load calculations
e. Lighting Plan
f. Title 24 documentation for exterior lighting
g. Construction Details
h. Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control Plan

11. Green Building Standards Code Compliance Assistance for required measures.

12. Prepare the Final Stormwater Control Plan.

13. Prepare Bid-Set Technical Specifications in CSI format. We assume the front-end specs will be prepared by the City.

14. Finalize the Engineer’s Estimate of Probable Construction Costs.

15. Submit 90% PS&E to City.

16. Revise plans, specifications, and estimate per City comments and Submit 100% PS&E to City.

17. Provide assistance during bidding as needed to clarify or interpret the plan set and answer questions regarding the construction documents. We have included budget for 8 hours for preparation of written responses to Bidder Inquiries.

DELIVERABLES

1. Geotechnical Investigation (PDF)

2. 30% Concept Plan (PDF)

3. 60% Draft Plans, Specifications, and Estimate (PDF)

4. 90% Construction Documents (PDF)

5. 100% Construction Documents (PDF / 2 Wet-signed Hard Copy)

6. Bid Set Technical Specifications (PDF / 2 Wet-signed Hard Copy, loose bound)

7. Final Engineer’s Estimate of Probable Construction Costs (PDF)

8. 100% AutoCAD DWG Files
Packet Page 86
Revised June 22, 2022 | Job No. 2071.18
Seaside Police Station Parking Lot Improvements
2071.18 Pro.doc Page | 3

ADDITIONAL SERVICES
Any additional presentations, drawings or documents not identified in the Scope of Services will be considered additional services. Additional services are provided only as authorized and on an hourly basis unless otherwise approved.

ASSUMPTIONS

1. All submittals will be made to the City.

2. Upgrade of existing electrical facilities will not be required. A new PG&E service will not be required.

3. Automated Vehicular Gate, man gates, fencing and other equipment will be specified by the City.

4. Whitson Engineers will provide technical specification; the City will provide the front-end specifications and will advertise and bid the project.

EXCLUSIONS
The following work is specifically excluded from the Scope of Services:

1. Changes in the scope of work

2. Underground utility location

3. Establishment or setting of permanent property corners

4. Preparation of a Corner Record, Record of Survey or other recorded map

5. Utility design (other than on-site storm drain and the electrical design services described above)

6. Structural engineering (which includes retaining wall design (if required), fence and gate footing design, structural design related to the communication tower relocation, generator relocation, and connex relocation)

7. Landscape Architecture Services, which includes development of Landscape Plans, Planting Plans, or Irrigation Plans

8. Obtaining or coordinating permits; permit condition compliance or CEQA.

9. Meetings other than those specifically identified in the above scope of services.

10. Additional submittals other than those shown as deliverables.

11. Offsite improvements plans.

12. CEQA document preparation and approvals.

13. Tree survey / Arborist Report.

14. New PG&E service

15. Upgrade of existing on-site utilities.

16. Electrical Service or Distribution Design.

17. Electrical Demolition Plans.

18. Data Cabling (or active electronics).

19. Fire Alarm system design, Voice Evacuation System Design, or Paging/local sound system design.

20. Title 24 commissioning, certification, testing, and documentation

21. Emergency Generator design, Fire Pump design, Photovoltaic System Design, Security System design, or CCTV system design.

22. Power coordination study etc.

23. Mechanical Controls

24. Preparation or review of energy rebate applications.

25. LEED Certification.

26. Value Engineering Reviews.

27. Design using Revit or other BIM software.

28. Division 1 (General Conditions and Special Provisions) Project Specifications.

29. SWPPP Preparation (site is less than 1 acre) and inspections

30. Preparation of Operation & Maintenance Plan and Maintenance Declaration.

31. Construction Staking, Construction Management, Construction Inspections or Monitoring

32. Construction Phase Services, including review of contractor submittals, and response to Bidder Inquiries and RFIs.

Packet Page 87
Revised June 22, 2022 | Job No. 2071.18
Seaside Police Station Parking Lot Improvements
2071.18 Pro.doc Page | 4

33. Plan revisions to reflect field changes; As-Built plan preparation.

Please note that upon your request, we could provide the above services at additional cost.

PAYMENT AND PROVISIONS
The estimated budget for the above described ‘Scope of Services’ will be $56,194. Progress Billings and Authorized Additional Services will be performed on a Time and Materials basis in accordance with the rates shown on the attached Fee Schedule (T41). If this proposal is acceptable, please forward along the appropriate contract documents for execution.

Task Fee
Task 1: Topographic Survey $4,295
Task 2: Fence Line Staking $2,150
Task 3: Geotechnical Investigation $14,349
Task 4: Construction Documents and Bidding Support $35,400 Task 5: Construction Support NIC
Total $56,194
If you have any questions or need more information, please contact me at (831)649-5225.

Sincerely,

WHITSON ENGINEERS
Katie Lee, PE | Civil Engineer
for
Richard Weber, PE LS
Principal
RCE 55219
LS 8002
Packet Page 88
6/22/2022 City of Seaside
Police Station Parking Lot Improvements - Budget Worksheet Task 1 - Topographic Mapping
Item Description PE LS AS FSC1 Total Hours

1.1 Review Maps / Boundary Layout 2.0 2.0 4.0

1.2 Establish Control & Benchmark 1.0 2.0 3.0

1.3 Topographic Survey 1.0 8.0 6.0 15.0

1.4 Project management 1.0 1.0 2.0
Subtotal Hours 1.0 5.0 10.0 8.0 24.0
Hourly Rate $240/hr $175/hr $150/hr $210/hr
Cost $ 240 $ 875 $ 1,500 $ 1,680 $ 4,295
$ 4,295
Task 2 - Fence Staking
Item Description PE LS AS FSC1 Total Hours

2.1 Recover & Flag Existing Corners 1.0 2.0 3.0

2.2 Stake Line Points 1.0 4.0 5.0

2.3 Project management 1.0 2.0 3.0
Subtotal Hours 1.0 2.0 2.0 6.0 11.0
Hourly Rate $240/hr $175/hr $150/hr $210/hr
Cost $ 240 $ 350 $ 300 $ 1,260 $ 2,150
$ 2,150
PE Principal Engineer $ 240
SCE Senior Civil Engineer $ 195
CE Civil Engineer $ 175
AS Associate Surveyor $ 150
AE2 Assistant Engineer $ 130
ET Engineering (or Survey) Technician $ 125
EA Engineering Aide $ 70
LS Land Surveyor $ 175
FSC1 Field Survey Crew/1M $ 210
FSC2 Field Survey Crew/2M $ 350
AS Administrative Support $ 75
Rate Schedule (Table 41)
Task 1 Total
Task 2 Total
6 Harris Court ▪ Monterey, CA 93940 ▪ 831 649-5225 ▪ Fax 831 373-5065 Packet Page 89
6/22/2022 City of Seaside
Police Station Parking Lot Improvements - Budget Worksheet Task 3 - Geotechnical Investigation (Haro, Kasunich and Associates, Inc.) Item Description Budget

3.1 Initial Project Research/Admin Fee $ 750

3.2 USA Site $ 1,200

3.3 Private Utility Locators $ 1,500

3.4 Driller $ 2,715

3.5 Laboratory Analysis $ 1,507

3.6 Writing Report $ 2,530

3.7 Plan Review $ 2,275
Subtotal Labor: $ 12,477
15% markup (professional services by others): $ 1,872
Task 3 Total $ 14,349
Task 4 - Construction Documents and Bidding Support
Item Description PE CE AE Total Hours

4.1 Site Visit 4.0 4.0

4.2 CAD Base 4.0 8.0 12.0

4.3 30% Concept Layout 4.0 8.0 12.0

4.4 60% Construction Documents 2.0 12.0 14.0

4.5 Conceptual SWCP 4.0 8.0 12.0

4.6 60% Specifications 4.0 4.0

4.7 60% Engineer's Estimate 2.0 4.0 6.0

4.8 Submit 60% PS&E 2.0 4.0 6.0

4.9 Coordination Meeting 4.0 4.0

4.10 90% Construction Documents 4.0 16.0 20.0

4.11 Green Building Standards Code Compliance (Aurum) 0.0

4.12 Final SWCP 4.0 8.0 12.0

4.13 90% Specifications 4.0 4.0

4.14 Final Engineer's Estimate 2.0 4.0 6.0

4.15 Submit 90% PS&E 2.0 4.0 6.0

4.16 Plan Check Comments, 100% PS&E 4.0 8.0 12.0

4.17 Responses to Bidder Inquiries 8.0 8.0

4.18 QA/QC/Project Management 8.0 8.0 16.0
Subtotal Hours 8.0 66.0 84.0 158.0
Hourly Rate $240/hr $175/hr $150/hr
Cost $ 1,920 $11,550 $12,600 $ 26,070
Electrical Design (including 15% markup for professional services by others): $ 9,200 Subtotal Labor: $ 35,270
Reimbursables: $ 130
Task 4 Total $ 35,400
Tasks 1-4 Total 56,194$
Rate Schedule (Table 41)
PE Principal Engineer $ 240
SCE Senior Civil Engineer $ 195
CE Civil Engineer $ 175
AS Associate Surveyor $ 150
AE2 Assistant Engineer $ 130
ET Engineering (or Survey) Technician $ 125
EA Engineering Aide $ 70
LS Land Surveyor $ 175
FSC1 Field Survey Crew/1M $ 210
FSC2 Field Survey Crew/2M $ 350
AS Administrative Support $ 75
6 Harris Court ▪ Monterey, CA 93940 ▪ 831 649-5225 ▪ Fax 831 373-5065 Packet Page 90
/rpw | feesch41-10.docx

HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE
Category Hourly Rate
Principal Engineer $ 240.00
Senior Civil Engineer $ 195.00
Senior Land Surveyor $ 195.00
Civil Engineer $ 175.00
Land Surveyor $ 175.00
Senior Associate Engineer / Surveyor $ 165.00
Associate Engineer / Surveyor $ 150.00
Assistant Engineer / Surveyor $ 130.00
Senior Engineering / Survey Technician $ 125.00
Engineering / Survey Technician $ 120.00
Administrative Support $ 75.00
Engineering Aide $ 70.00
Expert Witness / Court Hearing $ 325.00
Field Surveying*
One Person Survey Crew (Prevailing Wage) $ 210.00
Two Person Survey Crew (Prevailing Wage) $ 350.00
Reimbursables
Professional Services by Others Cost Plus 10%
In-House Large Format Plotting / Copies (Black & White) $0.54 / S.F.

In-House Plots, Prints, Copies (Color/Special Media) Rates vary, available upon request In-House Prints / Copies (Black & White) $0.10/sheet for 8.5x11, $0.54/sheet for 11x17 Materials, Postage, Reproduction, Telephone Cost Plus 15% Mileage Per Current Federal Rate
*Survey Crew rates are Prevailing Wage #41
Rates effective January 1, 2020
Packet Page 91
HARO, KASUNICH AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL & COASTAL ENGINEERS
116 EAST LAKE AVENUE  WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95076  (831) 722-4175  FAX (831) 722-3202 Proposal No. P22-110
03 May 2022
Revised 5 May 2022

KATIE LEE
City of Seaside Public Works Department
440 Harcourt Ave.

Seaside, California 93955
[email protected]
(831) 649-5225
Subject: Offer of Proposal for Geotechnical Investigation Reference: Proposed Parking Lot Improvements
Seaside City Hall
440 Harcourt Ave.

Seaside, California 93955
APN: 011-391-004
Dear Katie:

Haro, Kasunich and Associates, Inc. (HKA) is pleased to submit this offer of a proposal to perform a geotechnical report for the proposed parking lot improvements at the referenced site. In preparation of this proposal, we reviewed:
o Geotechnical Investigation for the Parking Lot Improvements (M9450), prepared by us, dated 01 June 2007;
o The Monterey County GIS Map.

HKA understands the proposed project scope consists of the removal and replacement of existing pavement sections and paving of existing gravel parking areas with improvements.

Light pole and perimeter gate foundation criteria will also be needed. HKA has already drilled holes and set piezometers in the upper parking area and completed lab testing back in 2007.

The piezometers indicated high groundwater and were not used for percolation testing. We will use previously collected data and collect new data in the lower parking facility as part of a new investigation to prepare a geotechnical investigation report in accordance with current geotechnical standards. Improvements will include site grading, underground utilities, drainage improvements, pavements and foundation criteria.

Based on the County GIS website's preliminary research, the project site is mapped in a moderate erosion area, in a variable zone of liquefaction hazards and outside fault traces.

Packet Page 92
P22-110
440 Harcourt Drive
3 May 2022

116 EAST LAKE AVENUE  WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95076  (831) 722-4175  FAX (831) 722-3202

SCOPE OF SERVICES
• Initial Project Research and Administration (IPRA). Preliminary site visit. Review of geotechnical and geologic information in our files and the County GIS Website regarding the site and region. Review other existing reports provided by the client. • Mark our proposed boring locations and call Underground Services Alert (USA) to clear utilities in the public right-of-way prior to drilling. Mark our proposed boring locations and call Underground Services Alert (USA) to clear utilities in the public rightof-way prior to drilling. The client will be responsible for damage and repair costs for any utilities damaged during drilling that are not located on the site by the client. HKA will contract the services of an independent utility locator to check our boring locations prior to drilling to minimize potential of damaging underground utilities.

The fee will be $1,500.00 prevailing wage rate. You must mark the location of your privately-owned buried utility lines in the vicinity of our proposed boring locations prior to our subsurface exploratory drilling. The owner of the property is responsible for damage to drilling rig and equipment and/or harm to personnel if an undisclosed line is encountered. USA marks locations of public utilities outside of private property only. They do not routinely mark laterals or private lines within property lines.
• Field investigation program consisting of logging and interval sampling of soils encountered in one (1) exploratory boring in the lower parking facility using a truck mounted hollow stem auger drill rig. Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) will be performed during soil sampling. The test borings will be drilled to a depth of 10 feet or sampler refusal, defined as 50 blows to drive the sampler 6 inches or less. The soil samples obtained will be sealed and returned to the laboratory for testing. Bore holes will be backfilled with native drilling spoils.
• Perform laboratory testing on selected soil samples obtained from our borings, to determine the engineering properties of the subsurface materials. We anticipate testing will include: Moisture content and dry density testing, Gradation, strength testing, and R-Value testing.
• Engineering analysis and evaluation of the resulting field and laboratory test data.

Evaluate the site for geotechnical considerations including: pole and fence foundations and pavement design.
• Based on our findings we will develop geotechnical design criteria and recommendations for site grading, light pole and perimeter fence foundations, site drainage, and pavement design. We will also provide 2019 California Building Code (2019 CBC) seismic recommendations.
• Preparation and submittal of a report presenting the results of our investigation and geotechnical recommendations.

Packet Page 93
P22-110
440 Harcourt Drive
3 May 2022

116 EAST LAKE AVENUE  WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95076  (831) 722-4175  FAX (831) 722-3202 • Post investigation services including plan review services and follow-up meetings or email consultation.
• Construction monitoring is not included in our post investigation services outlined in this offer. However, for budgetary purposes only we estimate geotechnical construction monitoring services to cost on the order of $10,000.00. This estimate assumes prevailing wage rate for our Field Technician and assumes there will be compaction testing of subgrade, aggregate baserock, utility trench backfill, observation of perimeter fence and light pole foundation excavations, observation of drainage facilities, preparation of compaction report, foundation letter(s), and final geotechnical letter. Actual cost would be billed on a time and materials basis with a not to exceed without written authorization budget estimate. Contact HKA for a separate construction monitoring contract.

PREVAILING WAGE
California Prevailing Wage Law requires that workers on projects “paid for in whole or in part out of public funds” be paid a local prevailing wage. This law increases the wages of employees performing work qualified under prevailing wage during design and construction.

Qualified work in general covers non-professional field services. We understand this project is a prevailing wage project. Please notify us if certified payroll is required. If certified payroll is required, additional administrative fees for processing will be required.

COST ESTIMATE
We estimate the cost to perform the outlined Geotechnical Investigation Scope of Work and Post Investigation Services (not including construction monitoring) not to exceed (NTE) without written authorization from the client or their representative $12,477.00. No retainer is required.

ITEMIZED COST ESTIMATE
- Initial Project Research/admin Fee $ 750.00
- USA Site $ 1,200.00
- Private Utility Locators $ 1,500.00
- Driller $ 2,715.00
- Laboratory Analysis $ 1,507.00
- Writing Report $ 2,530.00
- Plan Review and Follow Up $ 2,275.00
- Total (NTE) $12,477.00
Packet Page 94
P22-110
440 Harcourt Drive
3 May 2022

116 EAST LAKE AVENUE  WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95076  (831) 722-4175  FAX (831) 722-3202

SCHEDULE
Depending on driller availability and weather conditions, estimated completion of the geotechnical report is ten (10) weeks after the contract is approved.

Please let us know if you have any questions. If you would like us to proceed with this work, please contact us and we will send you an agreement with the terms and conditions of our services.

We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you on this project.

Respectfully submitted,
HARO, KASUNICH & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Thayara Almeida Moses Cuprill, P.E
Staff Engineer C.E. 78904
TA/mc
Copies: 1 via email: Katie Lee ([email protected]) Packet Page 95
HARO, KASUNICH AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL & COASTAL ENGINEERS
116 EAST LAKE AVENUE  WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95076  (831) 722-4175  FAX (831) 722-3202

EXHIBIT B, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

ADDITIONAL SERVICES
Additional services will be provided upon request on a time and materials basis in accordance with our attached Fee Schedule. If requested, the following additional services can be provided.

A. Labor and equipment to perform additional geotechnical study should the initially collected field data be insufficient to address specific site conditions and/or requirements set by your designers.

B. Geotechnical plan review. Geotechnical plan review will be necessary to verify that the project plans conform to our recommendations.

C. Geotechnical construction observation and testing on an “as required” basis.

Construction observation services will be necessary during earthwork and during foundation construction to verify that the construction was performed in accordance with our recommendations.

D. As an option, ENGINEER can hire a private utility locating company to clear and mark CLIENT’S privately-owned discoverable (non-plastic) buried lines in the vicinity of our proposed boring locations prior to drilling for an additional fee.

E. Any other items of work not specifically mentioned above.

The Client should be aware that items B and C above are typically required by the City or County.

OWNER-FURNISHED SERVICES
It is understood that the Owner would furnish the following:

A. Right of entry.

B. All available data, maps, drawings, and reports pertinent to the referenced site.

C. CLIENT is responsible for marking the location of their privately-owned buried lines within property lines. If an un-marked privately-owned utility line is encountered during drilling, the CLIENT is liable and responsible for any harm, injury, damage and repair costs to the line, vicinity, drilling equipment and personnel.

Extra Services: Presentations and Consultation Meetings Presentations and consultation meetings may be required during public agency review and approval phases of the project after our report is submitted. Attendance at meetings and presentations to public agencies will be undertaken on an "as required" basis as authorized by the Client and will be considered extra services. Consultation meetings regarding the project not specifically detailed in this agreement are also considered extra services.

Packet Page 96
116 EAST LAKE AVENUE  WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95076  (831) 722-4175  FAX (831) 722-3202 Extra Services will be billed on a "time and material" basis in accordance with our attached Fee Schedule.

TERMS AND CONDITIONS
It is understood that we would be granted free access to the site for all necessary equipment and personnel, and that the Client has notified any and all possessors of the project site, whether they be lawfully or unlawfully in possession.

STANDARD OF CARE
Services performed by the ENGINEER under this AGREEMENT are expected by the CLIENT to be conducted in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the geotechnical engineering profession providing similar services and practicing contemporaneously under similar conditions at the same time and in the same locality of the project.

No other warranty beyond the standard of care, expressed or implied, is made or intended in connection with the work to be performed by us or by the agreement for consulting or other services, or by the furnishing of oral or written reports of findings made by us.

The CLIENT recognizes subsurface conditions may vary from those observed at locations where borings, surveys, tests, or explorations are made, and site conditions may change with time. Data, interpretations, and recommendations by the ENGINEER will be based solely on information available to the ENGINEER. The ENGINEER is responsible for those data, interpretations, and recommendations, but will not be responsible for any other parties' interpretations or use of the information developed.

DISCOVERY OF UNANTICIPATED HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
CLIENT warrants a reasonable effort to inform ENGINEER of known or suspected hazardous materials on or near the project site has been made.

Hazardous materials may exist at a site where there is no reason to believe they could or should be present. ENGINEER and CLIENT agree that the discovery of unanticipated hazardous materials constitutes a changed condition mandating a renegotiation of the scope of work or termination of services. ENGINEER and CLIENT also agree that the discovery of unanticipated hazardous materials may make it necessary for ENGINEER to take immediate measures to protect health and safety. CLIENT agrees to compensate ENGINEER for any equipment decontamination or other costs incident to the discovery of unanticipated hazardous waste.

ENGINEER agrees to notify CLIENT when unanticipated hazardous materials or suspected hazardous materials are encountered. CLIENT agrees to make any disclosures required by law to the appropriate governing agencies. CLIENT also agrees to hold ENGINEER harmless for any and all consequences of disclosures made by ENGINEER which are required by governing law. In the event the project site is not owned by CLIENT, CLIENT recognizes that it is the CLIENT's responsibility to inform the property owner of the discovery of unanticipated hazardous materials or suspected hazardous materials.

Notwithstanding any other provision of the AGREEMENT, CLIENT waives any claim against ENGINEER, and to the maximum extent permitted by law, agrees to defend, indemnify, and Packet Page 97
116 EAST LAKE AVENUE  WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95076  (831) 722-4175  FAX (831) 722-3202 save ENGINEER harmless from any claim, liability, and/or defense costs for injury or loss arising from ENGINEER's discovery of unanticipated hazardous materials or suspected hazardous materials including any costs created by delay of the project and any cost associated with possible reduction of the property's value.

CLIENT will be responsible for ultimate disposal of any samples secured by the ENGINEER which are found to be contaminated.

BILLING AND PAYMENT
CLIENT will pay ENGINEER on a time and materials basis in accordance with the schedule of fees and other equipment charges, as shown in this AGREEMENT and its attachments.

Invoices will be submitted to CLIENT by ENGINEER on a monthly basis and will be due and payable upon presentation. If CLIENT objects to all or any portion of any invoice, CLIENT will so notify ENGINEER in writing within fourteen (14) calendar days of the invoice date, identify the cause of disagreement, and pay when due that portion of the invoice not in dispute. The parties will immediately make every effort to settle the disputed portion of the invoice. In the absence of written notification described above, the balance as stated on the invoice will be paid.

Invoices are delinquent if payment has not been received within thirty (30) days from date of invoice. CLIENT will pay an additional charge of 1½ (1.5) percent per month (or the maximum percentage allowed by law, whichever is lower) on any delinquent amount, excepting any portion of the invoice amount in dispute and resolved in favor of CLIENT. Payment thereafter will first be applied to accrued interest and then to the principle unpaid amount. All time spent and expenses incurred (including any attorney's fees) in connection with collection of any delinquent amount will be paid by CLIENT to ENGINEER per ENGINEER's current fee schedule. In the event CLIENT fails to pay ENGINEER within sixty (60) days after invoices are rendered, CLIENT agrees that ENGINEER will have the right to consider the failure to pay the ENGINEER's invoice as a breach of this AGREEMENT.

TERMINATION
This AGREEMENT may be terminated by either party seven (7) days after written notice in the event of any breach of any provision of this AGREEMENT or in the event of substantial failure of performance by the other party, or if the CLIENT suspends the work for more than three (3) months. This AGREEMENT may also be terminated if CLIENT suspends work for a period of less than three (3) months if the right to so terminate is specified in this AGREEMENT.

In the event of termination, ENGINEER will be paid for services performed prior to the date of termination plus reasonable termination expenses including the cost of completing analysis, records and reports necessary to document job status at the time of termination.

CONFLICT WAIVER
The CLIENT specifically acknowledges that ENGINEER are geotechnical consultants working throughout the entire California coastal environment. Therefore, it is possible that ENGINEER is or has worked on nearby or adjacent coastal properties. This may present a conflict of interest with respect to CLIENT’s work and/or objectives. CLIENT is therefore encouraged to have their legal counsel review this contract prior to the work described herein being undertaken. However, if at any time CLIENT finds ENGINEER’s representation of Packet Page 98
116 EAST LAKE AVENUE  WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95076  (831) 722-4175  FAX (831) 722-3202 CLIENT to be in conflict with other work by ENGINEER, CLIENT has the right to terminate this AGREEMENT and the work pursuant to the TERMS of this AGREEMENT.

RISK ALLOCATION
CLIENT acknowledges and understands the potential risks associated with the work described in this AGREEMENT and agrees to limit the risk to ENGINEER to a commercially reasonable amount of protection from any and all types of liability in connection with any and all risks associated with ENGINEER’s performance of professional services in conjunction with the work.

CLIENT agrees to limit ENGINEER’s liability due to any claim arising out of or relating to the performance of professional services under this AGREEMENT. The total aggregate liability of ENGINEER shall not exceed fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) or three (3) times the amount of ENGINEER’s fee paid to date, whichever is the lesser, in the case of a civil action settlement or administrative action resulting in a settlement against the ENGINEER. The total aggregate liability of ENGINEER shall not exceed twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) or three (3) times the amount of ENGINEER’s fee paid to date, whichever is the lesser, in the case of a civil action judgment or binding arbitration award or administrative action resulting in a judgment or binding arbitration award against the ENGINEER.

All legal actions by either party against the other for breach of this agreement, or for the failure to perform in accordance with the applicable standard of care, however denominated, that are essentially based upon such breach or failure shall be barred two (2) years from the time claimant knew or should have known of its claim, but, in any event, not later than four (4) years from the substantial completion of our services.

INDEMNITY
CLIENT shall indemnify and hold harmless ENGINEER, it’s officers, directors, employees and subconsultants from and against any and all claims, damages, losses and expenses, including reasonable attorney fees, arising out of, or resulting from, the performance of the services, to the extent that any such claim, damage, loss or expense is caused in whole or in part by the gross negligence or willful misconduct of CLIENT, or anyone directly or indirectly employed by CLIENT (except for ENGINEER), or anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable. This paragraph shall not apply in the case of the ENGINEER’s gross negligence or willful misconduct.

DISPUTE RESOLUTION
In an effort to resolve any conflicts that arise during the execution of the work or following completion of the work, CLIENT and ENGINEER agree that any and all disputes between them, arising out of or relating to the AGREEMENT, shall be submitted to formal nonbinding mediation unless the PARTIES mutually agree otherwise in writing.

Terms & Conditions Ver. 1.0. April 25, 2022
Packet Page 99
HARO, KASUNICH AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL & COASTAL ENGINEERS
116 EAST LAKE AVENUE  WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95076  (831) 722-4175  FAX (831) 722-3202

FEE SCHEDULE
15 October 2021
The following schedule presents the rates for professional services and laboratory tests. If desired, services other than construction observation and testing can be contracted on a negotiated fixed fee basis. Hours for professional and technical services are charged portal-to-portal from our office. Services during construction such as testing and observation of grading require both professional and technical services. Depending on the scope and duration of the construction project, budgets can be estimated. Minimum fee for any project is $950.00.

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Principal Consultant $265.00 per hour
Principal Engineer $215.00 per hour
Coastal Engineer $205.00 per hour
Coastal Engineering Geologist $195.00 per hour
Senior Engineer $185.00 per hour
Staff Engineer $150.00 per hour
CAD Technician/Designer $115.00 per hour
Computer Technician/Engineer Assistant $108.00 per hour Initial Project Research and Administration (IPRA) $750.000 Expert Witness Fees including Preparation, Consultation, Arbitration, Deposition, Hearings and Court Appearance, including travel time to and from will be billed at one and half (1.5) times the hourly rates indicated above.

Consultation meetings and telephone consultation will be billed at the hourly rate indicated.

ENGINEER OVERTIME RATES
Principal Engineer, Engineering Geologist, Senior Engineer, Staff Engineer (In excess of 8 hours day and Saturdays, 1.5 times the stated rate) Principal Engineer, Engineering Geologist, Senior Engineer, Staff Engineer (Sundays and Company Holidays, 1.8 times the stated rate)

PERSONNEL CHARGES
Technical Assistant $ 70.00 per hour
Clerical Administration $ 50.00 per hour
Field Technician $108.00 per hour
Prevailing Wage Field Technician (PWT) (Subject to DIR) $150.00 per hour

TECHNICIAN OVERTIME HOURLY WAGES
Weekdays (in excess of 8 hours/day 1.5 times) $165.00 per hour Saturdays (initial 8 hours - 1.5 times) $165.00 per hour Saturdays (in excess of 8 hours - 2.0 times) $215.00 per hour Sundays and Holidays (2.0 times) $215.00 per hour
• Field services are billed portal-to-portal in accordance with the following minimum charges:
2 hours minimum charge for inspections, sampling, testing operations or show-up time; • Per diem for all personnel will be billed cost plus 20% but not less than $150.00/day per person.

OUTSIDE CONSULTANTS/CONTRACTORS
Outside Consultants and Contractors fees and costs are subject to a markup for handling, administration, coordination and management up to 10%.

MILEAGE AND INCIDENTAL EXPENSES
Auto Mileage $ 0.60/mile
Incidental expenses, such as consultant's fee, special services, equipment rental, aerial photographs, out-of-town travel, etc., are reimbursable at cost plus 15%.

Packet Page 100
116 EAST LAKE AVENUE  WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95076  (831) 722-4175  FAX (831) 722-3202

DRILLING AND SAMPLING
Drilling rig, crawler or truck mounted with crew and engineer supervision basic rates:

Mobilization
Straight Time (This includes portal to portal, yard prep, de-prep and tooling) $425.00 - $460.00 per hour Overtime $475.00 - $540.00 per hour
Double Time (Holidays and Sundays) On Request Cost Plus 15% Prevailing Wage Drilling $560.00 - 680.00 per hour
Prevailing Wage Overtime $650.00 - $800.00 per hour
Portable Drill Rigs
Stated Rate plus an additional $65.00/hour for additional crew member.

Overtime Rate in excess of 8 hours = $90.00 per hour for additional crew member.

Above charges are subject to change dependent upon engaged Drilling Company.

For portable rigs, crawler-mounted or rotary-wash type drilling rigs, and support equipment the rate is cost plus 15%.

Drilling is charged at 5 hours minimum. Time is charged portal-to-portal from yard of engaged Drilling Contractor.

Casing, Shelby Tubes and any special sampling or subcontract equipment and related support services will be charged at cost plus 15%.

FIELD TESTS
Plate bearing load, pile load and vane shear tests; piezometer and slope indicator installations; and other special tests will be charged at standard engineering and personnel rates plus cost of and including 15% surcharge for special equipment/personnel.

LABORATORY TESTS
Sample Preparation, per hour $ 100.00
Sieve Analysis, pit run with 200 wash, ASTM D-422, per test $ 150.00 Percent Passing #200 Sieve (wash) $ 100.00
Short Hydrometer Analysis (without Sp. Gr.) ASTM D-422 $ 220.00 Specific Gravity (Sand and Gravel) ASTM D-854 $ 120.00
Moisture Determination, ASTM D-2216 $ 24.00
Unit Weight $ 44.00
Sand Equivalent $ 180.00
Atterberg Limits: a. Plasticity Index, ASTM D-4318 Wet $ 275.00 b. Plasticity Index, ASTM D-4318 Dry $ 231.00
Unconfined Compression, ASTM D-2166 $ 110.00
Swell Test Shrink-Swell & Expansion Pressure $ 385.00
Direct Shear, per point ASTM D3080 $ 180.00
Residual Direct Shear (Modified ASTM) $Quote
CU Modified ASTM per point $ 110.00
Consolidation full curve $ 495.00
R-Value $ 385.00
R-Value, Cement, Lime or other additives $Quote
Compaction Curve a. Modified, 4" mold, ASTM D-1557 $ 300.00 b. Modified, 6" mold, ASTM D-1557 $ 350.00
c. Impact, California State Highway $ 350.00
d. 1 Point Verification $ 150.00
Soil Corrosivity Tests (PH, Resistivity, Soluble Chloride & Sulfate) $ 330.00 Triaxial, permeability and other special tests at hourly rates or as quoted. $1,950.00 Notes: Consultation meetings will be billed at the hourly rates indicated. Field services are billed portal-to-portal with a 2- hour minimum charge. Hourly rates shown are for ordinary engineering services and include all payroll, office overhead, taxes, supplies and insurance. Higher rates are applicable for extra services such as special certifications and projects which require professional liability insurance, etc. Invoices will be prepared at the completion of work or at monthly intervals and are payable upon presentation. Invoices 30 days past due will be assessed a service charge of 1.5% per month.

Note: In the event consultant’s fee schedule changes due to any increase of costs such as the granting of wage increases and/or other employee benefits to office employees due to the terms of any labor agreement, or rise in the cost of living, during the lifetime of the agreement, a percentage increase shall be applied to all remaining compensation.

Packet Page 101
2 00ft
N➤
©2018Google
©2018Google
©2018Google
Packet Page 102

POLICE DEPARTMENT PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS EXHIBIT B

EXHIBIT B

INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
Without limiting Consultant’s indemnification of Agency, and prior to commencement of Work, Consultant shall obtain, provide and maintain at its own expense during the term of this Agreement, policies of insurance of the type and amounts described below and in a form satisfactory to Agency.

General liability insurance. Consultant shall maintain commercial general liability insurance with coverage at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CG 00 01, in an amount not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate, for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage. The policy must include contractual liability that has not been amended. Any endorsement restricting standard ISO “insured contract” language will not be accepted.

Automobile liability insurance. Consultant shall maintain automobile insurance at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CA 00 01 covering bodily injury and property damage for all activities of the Consultant arising out of or in connection with Work to be performed under this Agreement, including coverage for any owned, hired, non-owned or rented vehicles, in an amount not less than $1,000,000 combined single limit for each accident.

Professional liability (errors & omissions) insurance. Consultant shall maintain professional liability insurance that covers the Services to be performed in connection with this Agreement, in the minimum amount of $1,000,000 per claim and in the aggregate. Any policy inception date, continuity date, or retroactive date must be before the effective date of this Agreement and Consultant agrees to maintain continuous coverage through a period no less than three (3) years after completion of the services required by this Agreement.

Workers’ compensation insurance. Consultant shall maintain Workers’ Compensation Insurance (Statutory Limits) and Employer’s Liability Insurance (with limits of at least $1,000,000).

Consultant shall submit to Agency, along with the certificate of insurance, a Waiver of Subrogation endorsement in favor of Agency, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers.

Packet Page 103

POLICE DEPARTMENT PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS EXHIBIT B
Note: If the required limits for general liability, auto and employer’s liability are $1 million or less, the following paragraph may be omitted.

Umbrella or excess liability insurance. [Optional depending on limits required].

Consultant shall obtain and maintain an umbrella or excess liability insurance policy with limits that will provide bodily injury, personal injury and property damage liability coverage at least as broad as the primary coverages set forth above, including commercial general liability, automobile liability, and employer’s liability. Such policy or policies shall include the following terms and conditions:
• A drop down feature requiring the policy to respond if any primary insurance that would otherwise have applied proves to be uncollectible in whole or in part for any reason;
• Pay on behalf of wording as opposed to reimbursement; • Concurrency of effective dates with primary policies; • Policies shall “follow form” to the underlying primary policies; and • Insureds under primary policies shall also be insureds under the umbrella or excess policies.

Other provisions or requirements
Proof of insurance. Consultant shall provide certificates of insurance to Agency as evidence of the insurance coverage required herein, along with a waiver of subrogation endorsement for workers’ compensation. Insurance certificates and endorsements must be approved by Agency’s Risk Manager prior to commencement of performance.

Current certification of insurance shall be kept on file with Agency at all times during the term of this contract. Agency reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time.

Duration of coverage. Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property, which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the Work hereunder by Consultant, his agents, representatives, employees or subconsultants.

Primary/noncontributing. Coverage provided by Consultant shall be primary and any insurance or self-insurance procured or maintained by Agency shall not be required to contribute with it. The limits of insurance required herein may be satisfied by a combination of primary and umbrella or excess insurance. Any umbrella or excess insurance shall contain or be endorsed to contain a provision that such coverage shall also apply on a primary and non-contributory basis for the benefit of Agency before the Agency’s own insurance or self-insurance shall be called upon to protect it as a named insured.

Packet Page 104

POLICE DEPARTMENT PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS EXHIBIT B
Agency’s rights of enforcement. In the event any policy of insurance required under this Agreement does not comply with these specifications or is canceled and not replaced, Agency has the right but not the duty to obtain the insurance it deems necessary and any premium paid by Agency will be promptly reimbursed by Consultant or Agency will withhold amounts sufficient to pay premium from Consultant payments.

In the alternative, Agency may cancel this Agreement.

Acceptable insurers. All insurance policies shall be issued by an insurance company currently authorized by the Insurance Commissioner to transact business of insurance or is on the List of Approved Surplus Line Insurers in the State of California, with an assigned policyholders’ Rating of A- (or higher) and Financial Size Category Class VI (or larger) in accordance with the latest edition of Best’s Key Rating Guide, unless otherwise approved by the Agency’s Risk Manager.

Waiver of subrogation. All insurance coverage maintained or procured pursuant to this agreement shall be endorsed to waive subrogation against Agency, its elected or appointed officers, agents, officials, employees and volunteers or shall specifically allow Consultant or others providing insurance evidence in compliance with these specifications to waive their right of recovery prior to a loss. Consultant hereby waives its own right of recovery against Agency, and shall require similar written express waivers and insurance clauses from each of its subconsultants.

Enforcement of contract provisions (non estoppel). Consultant acknowledges and agrees that any actual or alleged failure on the part of the Agency to inform Consultant of non-compliance with any requirement imposes no additional obligations on the Agency nor does it waive any rights hereunder.

Requirements not limiting. Requirements of specific coverage features or limits contained in this Section are not intended as a limitation on coverage, limits or other requirements, or a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any insurance. Specific reference to a given coverage feature is for purposes of clarification only as it pertains to a given issue and is not intended by any party or insured to be all inclusive, or to the exclusion of other coverage, or a waiver of any type. If the Consultant maintains higher limits than the minimums shown above, the Agency requires and shall be entitled to coverage for the higher limits maintained by the Consultant. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to the Agency.

Notice of cancellation. Consultant agrees to oblige its insurance agent or broker and insurers to provide to Agency with a thirty (30) day notice of cancellation (except for nonpayment for which a ten (10) day notice is required) or nonrenewal of coverage for each required coverage.

Packet Page 105

POLICE DEPARTMENT PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS EXHIBIT B
Additional insured status. General liability policies shall provide or be endorsed to provide that Agency and its officers, officials, employees, and agents, and volunteers shall be additional insureds under such policies. This provision shall also apply to any excess/umbrella liability policies.

Prohibition of undisclosed coverage limitations. None of the coverages required herein will be in compliance with these requirements if they include any limiting endorsement of any kind that has not been first submitted to Agency and approved of in writing.

Separation of insureds. A severability of interests provision must apply for all additional insureds ensuring that Consultant’s insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the insurer’s limits of liability. The policy(ies) shall not contain any cross-liability exclusions.

Pass through clause. Consultant agrees to ensure that its subconsultants, subcontractors, and any other party involved with the project who is brought onto or involved in the project by Consultant, provide the same minimum insurance coverage and endorsements required of Consultant. Consultant agrees to monitor and review all such coverage and assumes all responsibility for ensuring that such coverage is provided in conformity with the requirements of this section. Consultant agrees that upon request, all agreements with consultants, subcontractors, and others engaged in the project will be submitted to Agency for review.

Agency’s right to revise specifications. The Agency reserves the right at any time during the term of the contract to change the amounts and types of insurance required by giving the Consultant ninety (90) days advance written notice of such change. If such change results in substantial additional cost to the Consultant, the Agency and Consultant may renegotiate Consultant’s compensation.

Self-insured retentions. Any self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by Agency. Agency reserves the right to require that self-insured retentions be eliminated, lowered, or replaced by a deductible. Self-insurance will not be considered to comply with these specifications unless approved by Agency.

Timely notice of claims. Consultant shall give Agency prompt and timely notice of claims made or suits instituted that arise out of or result from Consultant’s performance under this AGREEMENT, and that involve or may involve coverage under any of the required liability policies.

Additional insurance. Consultant shall also procure and maintain, at its own cost and expense, any additional kinds of insurance, which in its own judgment may be necessary for its proper protection and prosecution of the work.

Packet Page 106
J:\08_PUBLIC WORKS\Personnel\Engineering Services\EngSrvcs_2022 (with PMP)\RFQ\RFQ_Eng Srv with PMP.docx

REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS

ON-CALL CONSULTANTS - ENGINEERING

FOR CITY OF SEASIDE
Table of Contents
Introduction............................................................................................................................................................ 1 Proposal Requirements........................................................................................................................................... 1 Statement of Qualifications Submittal Requirements........................................................................................... 2 Schedule for Selection Process ............................................................................................................................... 2 Questions Regarding This Project ........................................................................................................................... 3 Form of Agreement ................................................................................................................................................ 3 Evaluation and Rating Criteria................................................................................................................................ 3 PRELIMINARY SCOPE OF SERVICES............................................................................................................... 3 General Provisions ................................................................................................................................................. 4 Non-Discrimination & Non-Preferential Treatment ............................................................................................. 6 Grounds for Disqualification............................................................................................................................... 6 Records and Financial Data ................................................................................................................................ 6 Introduction
The City of Seaside (City) seeks Request for Qualifications (RFQs) from qualified consulting firms or individuals to provide On-Call Engineering Services for miscellaneous undetermined projects.

The selected engineering firms may be requested to help with the design of federal, state and locally funded capital improvement projects. The City intends to select multiple consultants for a three-year period, with the option of two (2) one-year extensions through mutual consent between the City and the chosen Consultant(s). Consultants do not need to be able to provide all services described in the “Preliminary Scope of Services,” below. Selection will be based on demonstrated expertise in providing support to the City of Seaside Public Works and Engineering Department.

Proposal Requirements
Statement of Qualifications (SOQ) must be received by 5:00 PM Friday, April 22, 2022 at the following address:

City of Seaside
440 Harcourt Avenue
Seaside, CA 93955
SOQ received after this deadline will not be accepted. Incomplete responses that do not conform to the requirements specified herein will not be considered. The SOQ and any accompanying documents shall be submitted in a sealed envelope with the words “On-Call ConsultantsEngineering” clearly marked in the lower left-hand corner of the envelope. Three bound copies, plus one electronic copy submitted on CD, USB flash drive, or by email to [email protected], containing an Adobe pdf copy, should be submitted.

Packet Page 107
City of Seaside-Statement of Qualifications
On-Call Consultants - Engineering
J:\08_PUBLIC WORKS\Personnel\Engineering Services\EngSrvcs_2022 (with PMP)\RFQ\RFQ_Eng Srv with PMP.docx - 2 - Statement of Qualifications Submittal Requirements
The SOQ should include the following information:

1. Name of proposer and principal contact person, including office location, address, telephone number, fax numbers and e-mail address.

2. Brief description and history of the proposed project team and experience of the principal contact. Clearly describe project team member’s experience in work described under “Preliminary Scope of Services". Describe the average project size and scope of the team member’s past projects.

3. Provide as exhibits, listings of your firm’s and its principals’ and project teams experience demonstrating their capabilities and qualifications to perform the assigned task as described in the “Preliminary Scope of Services”. For each individual, provide current professional registrations, related experience, educational background and years of experience with the team.

4. Enclosed is a copy of the City’s standard contract, which stipulates, among other things, insurance requirements. Please confirm that the project team can accept the terms of the contract and has the required insurance, or can acquire insurance, that meets the minimum standards.

5. Please provide at least three professional references. Indicate which references are public agencies for which the project team, or its principals, have provided services for within the past five years.

6. Standard Hourly Fees: Provide your standard hourly fees by job classification and billing criteria for providing the services described in this RFQ in a separate sealed envelope. Do not provide in the response to this request as an exhibit or in the body of the response The SOQ will be limited to 10 numbered pages including title sheet and cover letter if provided.

Minimum font size is 12. Page size is limited to letter size with no fold-outs. Submittals must be printed on both sides of the paper. A clear front and back cover shall be provided and the front and back clear cover will not count towards the 10 page limit.

Schedule for Selection Process
The proposed consultant selection schedule is as follows.

Release RFQ
Questions Due
Thursday, March 24, 2022
Friday, April 8, 2022
Proposal due
Proposal Ranking
Friday, April 22, 2022
April 24, 2022 – May 20, 2022
Consultant Award (if applicable) Friday, May 27, 2022
Packet Page 108
City of Seaside-Statement of Qualifications
On-Call Consultants - Engineering
J:\08_PUBLIC WORKS\Personnel\Engineering Services\EngSrvcs_2022 (with PMP)\RFQ\RFQ_Eng Srv with PMP.docx - 3 - Questions Regarding This Project
All questions and/or contacts regarding this Request should be directed to:

Patrick Grogan
City of Seaside-Engineering Division
440 Harcourt Avenue
Seaside, CA 93955
E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected] Phone (831) 899-6885
Form of Agreement
A copy of the City of Seaside Consultant Contract is included herewith.

Evaluation and Rating Criteria
City staff will review each SOQ for completeness and content. Each SOQ will be evaluated based upon the relevant qualifications and experience of the consultant. Consultants do not need to be able to provide all services described in the “Preliminary Scope of Services,” below. Staff may conduct interviews if necessary. References may also be verified. The SOQ review will focus upon the following criteria:

1. Experience and demonstrated ability of the team. – 25 points

2. Appropriate relevant experience and skills of personnel (principals, project managers and other key personnel). – 30 points

3. Prime consultant and sub-consultants experience in providing similar projects. – 15 points

4. Client References. – 10 points

5. Overall quality of the response and conformance with SOQ requirements for content (reference Proposal and Submittal Requirements). – 20 points
SOQs will be ranked on the basis of qualifications. The City of Seaside may conduct interviews with some or all of the firms/individuals who submit proposals, or it may complete its evaluation based on the proposals alone. If interviews are conducted, firms/individuals selected for interview will be contacted at that time to arrange the date and time for their interview.

PRELIMINARY SCOPE OF SERVICES
Consultant is required to provide engineering design and professional services for various projects to be implemented throughout the City. The scope of work under this contract may include but not be limited to the following:

A. Engineering Services
Design, Survey and Geometrics
Pavement Evaluation, Design and Testing
Pavement Management Program Evaluation and Report
Packet Page 109
City of Seaside-Statement of Qualifications
On-Call Consultants - Engineering
J:\08_PUBLIC WORKS\Personnel\Engineering Services\EngSrvcs_2022 (with PMP)\RFQ\RFQ_Eng Srv with PMP.docx - 4 - Hydrology/Hydraulic Analysis
Structural Analysis and Design
Well Design and Rehabilitation
Water System Design and Rehabilitation
Storm Drain System Design and Rehabilitation
Value Engineering
Seismic Evaluations
Construction Phase Services
B. Professional Services
Disabled Accessibility Evaluations and Mitigation
Preliminary Engineering Studies
Technical Studies and Reports
Peer Reviews
Coordination with Other Agencies and Utilities
Constructability and Bidability Reviews
On-Call Services
Staff Augmentation
All materials submitted to the City will become the exclusive property of the City of Seaside.

The consultant will not be allowed to provide services when the City determines a potential conflict of interest may exist.

Consultant services will be on an as-needed, on-call basis. Consultant services will be authorized by separate contract(s). The Consultant is responsible for acknowledging receipt of requests for services within two (2) working days. Contracts may vary significantly in size and scope and will be determined in greater detail as each is assigned. The Consultant will be responsible for preparing a detailed scope and fee estimate for each contract request and shall identify the number of hours to be worked and position of each person performing work on a particular proposal. If during actual work the number of hours is increased by more than 20% of the estimate, the consultant shall notify the Project Manager as soon as possible before exceeding the estimated time. The City may elect to reduce the scope of work or may require a revised scope of work to cover the excess time. Work authorization will be issued for each work request. The City shall authorize all consultant quotes for tasks prior to the consultant commencing work. The City may accept the Consultant’s scope and fee or negotiate with the Consultant, as appropriate. The City reserves the right to not accept the Consultant’s scope and fee.

General Provisions

1. The City will assume no responsibility for any understandings or representations concerning conditions made by any of its officers or employees prior to execution of a final agreement unless they are included in this Request for Qualifications.

2. Any reasonable inquiry to determine the responsibility of a prospective Consultant(s) may be conducted. The submission of Qualifications shall constitute permission by the Packet Page 110
City of Seaside-Statement of Qualifications
On-Call Consultants - Engineering
J:\08_PUBLIC WORKS\Personnel\Engineering Services\EngSrvcs_2022 (with PMP)\RFQ\RFQ_Eng Srv with PMP.docx - 5 - prospective Consultant(s) for the City to verify all information contained therein. If the City deems it necessary, additional information may be requested from the prospective Consultant(s) for further consideration.

3. A prospective Consultant(s) may withdraw their Qualifications at any time prior to the date and time which is set forth herein as the deadline for acceptance of Qualifications.

4. Each prospective Consultant(s) submitting Qualifications in response to this Request agrees the preparation of all materials for submittal to the City and all presentations are at the prospective entities sole cost and expense, and the City will not, under any circumstances, be responsible for any costs or expenses incurred by a prospective Consultant(s). In addition, each prospective Consultant(s) agrees that all documentation and materials submitted with Qualifications will remain the property of the City and will become a public document.

5. The City reserves the right to request additional information from any and all prospective entities as deemed necessary by the City in order to evaluate the Qualifications. This process may not be used as an opportunity to submit missing documentation or to make substantive revisions to the original Qualifications.

6. The City reserves the right to reject any and all Qualifications and, in the event the Consultant selected, it may attempt to negotiate an agreement with the Consultant that, in the sole judgment of the City, is the best qualified to provide the services requested.

7. The City shall not enter into an agreement with any prospective Consultant(s) that has previously had an agreement with the City terminated, or that has previously been found to have violated any provision of the Seaside City Code, or related resolutions or ordinances, or any provision of federal law, state, or other local law.

8. The City reserves the right to enter into an agreement with an Consultant(s) at any time, deviate from this Request, reject any or all SOQs, continue to advertise for new Qualifications, negotiate with multiple entities simultaneously, waive any defects in Qualifications, or to proceed otherwise. The Request and the selection process will in no way be deemed to create a binding contract or agreement of any kind between the City and any prospective Consultant(s). The submission of Qualifications does not in any way commit the City to enter into an agreement with any prospective Consultant(s).

9. Each prospective Consultant(s) shall agree to abide by all federal, state, and local laws, rules, and regulations and to secure all necessary licenses, permits, and other forms of identification as may be required in connection with the resulting agreement, all at no additional cost to the City.

10. All Qualifications, charge rates or representations will remain in effect and be legally binding for at least one hundred twenty (120) days from the date of submission.

Packet Page 111
City of Seaside-Statement of Qualifications
On-Call Consultants - Engineering
J:\08_PUBLIC WORKS\Personnel\Engineering Services\EngSrvcs_2022 (with PMP)\RFQ\RFQ_Eng Srv with PMP.docx - 6 -

11. This Request for Qualifications shall be governed in accordance with the laws of the State of California and the jurisdiction of any disputes hereunder shall be had in Monterey County.

Non-Discrimination & Non-Preferential Treatment
The successful Consultant shall not discriminate, in any way, against any person on the basis of race, sex, color, age, religion, sexual orientation, actual or perceived gender identity, disability, ethnicity, or national origin, in connection with or related to the performance of City of Seaside contracts.

Grounds for Disqualification
All prospective entities are expected to conduct themselves with the utmost integrity and responsibility throughout the Request process. Any prospective Consultant(s) that violates these expectations, as determined in the sole discretion of the City, will be subject to disqualification.

Generally, the grounds for disqualification include:

1. Contact regarding this procurement with any City official or employee, other than the contact person designated in this Request, from the time of issuance of this Request until the consideration and approval of a professional services agreement.

2. Evidence of collusion, directly or indirectly, among prospective entities in regard to the amount, or the terms and conditions of this Request and the prospective agreement.

3. Influencing, or attempting to influence, any City staff member or official throughout the solicitation process, including the development of specifications beyond those included here, if any.

4. Evidence of submitting incorrect or inaccurate information in response to this Request or misrepresentation or failing to disclose facts during the evaluation or negotiation process.

5. Existence of any lawsuit, claim, or dispute between the prospective Consultant(s) and the City.

6. Evidence of the prospective Consultant(s)’s inability to successfully complete the responsibilities and obligations of the Request process.

7. The prospective Consultant(s)’s default under any City agreement or termination of a previous agreement.

Records and Financial Data
All correspondence with the City, including responses to this Request, will become the exclusive property of the City and will become public records under the California Public Records Act. All documents submitted in response to this Request will be subject to disclosure if requested by a member of the public. There are a very limited number of narrow exceptions to this disclosure requirement.

Packet Page 112
City of Seaside-Statement of Qualifications
On-Call Consultants - Engineering
J:\08_PUBLIC WORKS\Personnel\Engineering Services\EngSrvcs_2022 (with PMP)\RFQ\RFQ_Eng Srv with PMP.docx - 7 - Personal financial information that a prospective Consultant(s) considers confidential, the disclosure of which would be an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, should be submitted in a sealed envelope marked “CONFIDENTIAL: PERSONAL FINANCIAL RECORDS; NOT PUBLIC RECORDS.” A prospective Consultant(s) should not mark their entire Qualifications as “Confidential.” During the selection process, the City will keep such information confidential and will not disclose it, except as otherwise required under applicable law. This means that, depending on the nature of timing of the request, or future court decisions, that personal financial information may not remain private and may be publicly disclosed. Once the selection process is completed, the City will return this information to any prospective agency that is not selected.

If an Consultant(s) is selected, the City may retain any submitted information and disclose it to the City Council, and any subcommittees thereof, and the public in connection with consideration of an agreement with the City as evidence of the entities ability to carry out the development. Given the nature of the applicable law under the California Public Records Act, the City cannot guarantee or warrant that it will be able to keep submitted information, including personal financial records, confidential. The successful Consultant(s) agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold the City harmless from and against any suit brought under the California Public Records Act to obtain the records; otherwise, the City shall not be obligated to defend such suit and may release the records.

Packet Page 113
Packet Page 114
Packet Page 115
Packet Page 116

CITY OF SEASIDE

STAFF REPORT
Item No.: 8.K.

TO: City Council
FROM: Roberta Greathouse, Acting City Manager
BY: Ashley Collick, Assistant City Manager
DATE: July 7, 2022
SUBJECT: ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO

EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH FMG CUSTOM CONCRETE FOR

THE BROADWAY WALK OF FAME IMPLEMENTATION, DESIGN,
AND INSTALLATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $36,492.00

RECOMMENDATION
Approve a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract with FMG Custom concrete to install star plaques on Broadway.

BACKGROUND
The Broadway Walk of Fame policy was approved by the City Council on February 3, 2022. The “Broadway Walk of Fame” will provide a unique attraction that enhances and encourages a walkable downtown. Each star (aka plaque) will honor local Seaside residents and serve as a living historical record of our achievements as a community.

The ultimate goal is to honor those individuals who have made a significant and lasting contribution to the quality of life – who have, indeed, cast a long shadow on the Seaside's history.

FMG Custom Concrete has bid on the Broadway Walk of Fame project, and will create and install the star plaques on Broadway Avenue. Staff reached out to Monterey Signs, Graniterock, and FMG Custom Concrete. The other two companies did not bid on the project. The FMG quote is attached to the report. One 14"x14" plaque is $6082.00, and six plaques will be $36,492.00.

FISCAL IMPACT
Packet Page 117

Item No. 8.K. Page 2 of 2
1 14"x14" Plaque = $6082.00
6 plaques = $36,492.00 (contracted amount)
These funds were budgeted in FY21/22 within CIP 344-8910-9558.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution

2. Contractor Services Agreement

3. Mock Installation Images
Reviewed for Submission to the City Council by:
__________________________________
Roberta Greathouse, Acting City Manager
Packet Page 118
RESOLUTION NO. XX-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEASIDE

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH FMG

CUSTON CONCRETE FOR THE BROADWAY WALK OF FAME IMPLEMENTATION, DESIGN, AND INSTALLATION.

WHEREAS, The Broadway Walk of Fame policy was approved by the City Council on February 3, 2022. The “Broadway Walk of Fame” will provide a unique attraction that enhances and encourages a walkable downtown; and WHEREAS, The ultimate goal is to honor those individuals who have made a significant and lasting contribution to the quality of life – who have, indeed, cast a long shadow on Seaside's history; and
WHEREAS, each star (aka plaque) will honor local Seaside residents and serve as a living historical record of our achievements as a community; and WHEREAS, the plaques will be placed at the intersections of Broadway and Hillsdale, Alhambra, and Calaveras; and
WHEREAS, FMG Custom Concrete has bid on the Broadway Walk of Fame project, and will create and install the plaques on Broadway Avenue. One 14"x14" plaque is $6082.00, six plaques will be $36,492.00; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Seaside do hereby direct the City of Seaside City Manager to accept and execute on behalf of the City Council, the contract with FMG concrete for the Broadway walk of fame plaque implementation, design, and installation.

Packet Page 119
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Seaside duly held on the 7th day of July 2022 by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

___________________________
Ian N. Oglesby, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
Dominique L. Davis, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
Sheri L. Damon, City Attorney
Packet Page 120
Broadway Walk of Fame
Rev. 1/18 Page 1 COS Contractor Services

CITY OF SEASIDE

AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACTOR SERVICES

BROADWAY WALK OF FAME PLAQUE INSTALLATION
THIS AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACTOR SERVICES is made and effective as of July 7, 2022, between the City of Seaside, a municipal corporation ("City") and FMG Custom Concrete, a Concrete, ("Contractor") whose current and valid Contractor’s License # 1010708, as duly issued by the California Department of Consumer Affairs. In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows:

1. TERM
This Agreement shall commence on June 1, 2022 and shall remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than October 31, 2022, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement.

2. SERVICES
Contractor shall perform the tasks described and set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. Contractor shall complete the tasks according to the schedule of performance which is also set forth in Exhibit A. Exhibit A may include any Scope of Work, Plans, Specifications and other related documents specific to the services to be provided by Contractor.

3. PERFORMANCE
a) Contractor shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of his/her ability, experience, and talent, perform all tasks described herein. Contractor shall employ, at a minimum, generally accepted standards and practices utilized by persons engaged in providing similar services as are required of Contractor hereunder in meeting its obligations under this Agreement.
b) Contractor shall conform to the rules and regulations pertaining to safety established by the California Division of Industrial Safety. Contractor further agrees to take all necessary precautions for the safety of employees and shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state and local regulations, ordinances and codes. The Contractor shall be responsible for erecting and properly maintaining at all times as required by the conditions and progress of the work, all necessary safeguards for the protection of workers and the public and shall post danger signs warning against known or reasonably foreseeable or unusual hazards. c) At all times during the term of this Agreement, Contractor shall have in full force and effect, all licenses required of it by law for the performance of the services described in this Agreement.

Packet Page 121
Broadway Walk of Fame
Rev. 1/18 Page 2 COS Contractor Services
d) The Contractor will obtain a valid City Business License and shall maintain said Business License for the term of this Agreement and any extensions. e) Contractor shall keep itself informed of State and Federal laws and regulations which in any manner affect those employed by Contractor or in any way affect the performance of its service pursuant to this Agreement. Contractor shall at all times observe and comply with all such laws and regulations. City, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of Contractor to comply with this Section. f) Contractor agrees to comply with all of the applicable provisions of Sections 1777.5 and 1777.6 of the Labor Code, which Sections are hereby specifically referred to, incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof as though set forth at length herein. g) Contractor agrees that in the performance of this Agreement or any sub-agreement hereunder, neither Contractor nor any person acting on Contractors behalf shall refuse to employ or refuse to continue in any employment any person on the basis of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical handicap, medical condition, marital status, sexual preference, sex or age. Harassment in the workplace is not permitted in any form.

Contractor further agrees to comply with all laws with respect to employment when performing this Agreement.
h) Contractor shall maintain prior to the beginning of and for the duration of this Agreement insurance coverage as specified in Exhibit C attached to and part of this To insure performance, Contractor and any sub-contractor must provide Faithful Performance and Labor and Material Bonds in favor of City, each in the amount of one hundred percent (100%) of the value of the contract.
i) Contractor declares and warrants that no undue influence or pressure is used against or in concert with any officer or employee of the City of Seaside in connection with the award, terms or implementation of this Agreement, including any method of coercion, confidential financial agreement or financial inducement. No officer or employee of the City of Seaside will receive compensation, directly or indirectly, from Contractor, or from any officer, employee or agent of Contractor, in connection with the award of this Agreement or any work to be conducted as a result of this Agreement. Violation of this Section shall be a material breach of this Agreement entitling City to any and all remedies at law or in equity.

4. CITY MANAGEMENT
Ashley Collick, Assistant City Manager, shall represent City in all matters pertaining to the administration of this Agreement, review and approval of all products submitted by Contractor, but not including the authority to enlarge the Tasks to Be Performed or change the compensation due to Contractor. Ashley Collick, Assistant City Manager, shall be authorized to act on City's behalf and to execute all necessary documents which enlarge the Tasks to Be Performed or change Contractor's compensation, subject to Section 5 hereof.

Packet Page 122
Broadway Walk of Fame
Rev. 1/18 Page 3 COS Contractor Services

5. PAYMENT
(a) City agrees to pay Contractor on a time and materials basis in accordance with the standard billing rates shown in Exhibit B, attached hereto. This amount shall not exceed THIRTY SIX THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED NIENTY TWO DOLLARS ($36,492) which sum shall include all costs, if any, for the total term of the Agreement unless additional payment is approved as provided in this Agreement.
(b) The City Manager's contract authority is limited to a total threshold of $24,999.00 which includes all costs. Contracts, including any contract amendments that exceed the total threshold, require City Council approval. Any contracts, including contract amendments that exceed the total threshold, which do not have City Council approval, shall be void. (c) Contractor will submit invoices monthly for actual services performed. Invoices shall be submitted on or about the first business day of each month, or as soon thereafter as practical, for services provided in the previous month. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of each invoice as to all non-disputed fees. If the City disputes any of Contractor's fees it shall give written notice to Contractor within thirty (30) days of receipt of an invoice of any disputed fees set forth on the invoice.

6. INSPECTION
City shall at all times have the right to inspect the work and materials. Contractor shall furnish all reasonable aid and assistance required by City for the proper examination of the work and all parts thereof. Such inspection shall not relieve Contractor from any obligation to perform said work strictly in accordance with the specifications or any modifications thereof and in compliance with the law.

7. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT WITHOUT CAUSE (a) This agreement may be terminated; (i) by either party at any time, for any reason, with or without cause, suspend or terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof; (ii) by either party upon ten (10) days prior written notice to the other party; or (iii) upon mutual written agreement of both parties. In the event of termination, the Contractor shall stop work immediately and shall be entitled to compensation for professional fees and expense reimbursement to the date of termination and for any work necessitated by that termination.

8. DEFAULT OF CONTRACTOR
(a) Contractor's failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement shall constitute a default. In the event that Contractor is in default for cause under the terms of this Agreement, City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Contractor for any work performed after the date of default and can terminate this Agreement immediately by written notice to Contractor. If such failure by Contractor to make progress in the performance of work hereunder arises out of causes beyond Contractor's control, and without fault or negligence of Contractor, it shall not be considered a default.

Packet Page 123
Broadway Walk of Fame
Rev. 1/18 Page 4 COS Contractor Services
(b) If the Assistant City Manager or his/her delegate determines that Contractor is in default in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, he/she shall cause to be served upon Contractor a written notice of the default. Contractor shall have ten (10) days after service upon it of said notice in which to cure the default by rendering a satisfactory performance. In the event that Contractor fails to cure its default within such period of time, City shall have the right, notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, to terminate this Agreement without further notice and without prejudice to any other remedy to which it may be entitled at law, in equity or under this Agreement.

9. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS
(a) Contractor shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to sales, costs, expenses, receipts, and other such information required by City that relate to the performance of services under this Agreement. Contractor shall maintain adequate records of services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. Contractor shall provide free access to the representatives of City or its designees at reasonable times to such books and records; shall give City the right to examine and audit said books and records at 1222 Prospect St., Seaside; shall permit City to make copies and transcripts there from as necessary; and shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings, and activities related to this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be maintained at the City of Seaside City Hall for a minimum period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment.
(b) Upon completion of, or in the event of termination or suspension of this Agreement, all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings, maps, models, photographs, computer discs, and reports prepared by the Contractor under this Agreement shall become the sole property of City and may be used, reused, or otherwise disposed of by City without the permission of Contractor. With respect to computer files, Contractor shall make available to City, at City's office and upon reasonable written request by City, the necessary computer software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling, transferring, and printing computer files. (c) The City agrees to hold Contractor harmless from all damages, claims, expenses, and losses arising out of any reuse of the plans, specifications, drawings, maps, models, computer files and other documents for purposes other than those described in this Agreement, unless written authorization of Consultant is first obtained.

10. INDEMNIFICATION
(a) Indemnification for Professional Liability. Contractor shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless City and any and all of its officials, employees and agents (“Indemnified Parties”) from and against any and all losses, liabilities, damages, costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees and costs to the extent some are actually caused in whole or in part by any negligent or wrongful act, error or omission of Contractor, its officers, agents, employees or sub -contractors (or any entity or individual that Contractor shall bear the legal liability thereof) in the performance of Packet Page 124
Broadway Walk of Fame
Rev. 1/18 Page 5 COS Contractor Services
professional services under this Agreement. With respect to the design of public improvements, the Contractor shall not be liable for any injuries or property damage resulting from the reuse of the design at a location other than that specified in Exhibit A without the written consent of the Contractor.
(b) Indemnification for Other Than Professional Liability. Contractor shall indemnify defend and hold harmless City, and any and all of its employees, officials and agents from and against any liability (including liability for claims, suits, actions, arbitration proceedings, administrative proceedings, regulatory proceedings, losses, expenses or costs of any kind, whether actual, alleged or threatened, including attorneys’ fees and costs, court costs, interest, defense costs, and expert witness fees), where the same arise out of, are a consequence of, or are in any way attributable to, in whole or in part, the performance of this Agreement by Contractor or by any individual or entity for which Contractor is legally liable, including but not limited to officers, agents, employees or sub-contractors of Contractor.
(c) General Indemnification Provisions. Contractor agrees to obtain executed indemnity agreements with provisions identical to those set forth here in this section from each and every sub-contractor or any other person or entity involved by, for, with or on behalf of Contractor in the performance of this Agreement. In the event Contractor fails to obtain such indemnity obligations from others as required here, Contractor agrees to be fully responsible according to the terms of this section. Failure of City to monitor compliance with these requirements imposes no additional obligations on City and will in no way act as a waiver of any rights hereunder. This obligation to indemnify and defend City as set forth here is binding on the successors, assigns or heirs of Contractor and shall survive the termination of this Agreement or this section. (d) Indemnity Provisions for Contracts Related to Construction. Without affecting the rights of City under any provision of this Agreement, Contractor shall not be required to indemnify and hold harmless City for liability attributable to the active negligence of City, provided such active negligence is determined by agreement between the parties or by the findings of a court of competent jurisdiction. In instances where City is shown to have been actively negligent and where City’s active negligence accounts for only a percentage of the liability involved, the obligation of Contractor will be for that entire portion or percentage of liability not attributable to the active negligence of City.

11. WARRANTIES
Contractor agrees that it will warrant all work performed and equipment supplied hereunder for a period of one year or, in the case of equipment, for the period of the manufacturer's warranty if such warranty be for a period longer than one year. Contractor shall immediately correct all defective workmanship discovered within one year after acceptance of final payment by it and shall indemnify and defend City against all loss and damage occasioned by any such defect, discovered within said year, even though the damage or loss may not be ascertained until after the expiration thereof. Nothing herein constitutes a waiver of City's rights or any statute of limitations.

12. INSURANCE
Packet Page 125
Broadway Walk of Fame
Rev. 1/18 Page 6 COS Contractor Services
Contractor shall maintain prior to the beginning of and for the duration of this Agreement insurance coverage as specified in Exhibit "C" attached to and part of this Agreement.

13. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
(a) Contractor is and shall at all times remain as to City a wholly independent Contractor.

The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of Contractor shall at all times be under Contractor's exclusive direction and control. Neither City nor any of its officers, employees, or agents shall have control over the conduct of Contractor or any of Contractor's officers, employees, or agents, except as set forth in this Agreement. Contractor shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its officers, employees, or agents are in any manner officers, employees, or agents of the City. Contractor shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation, or liability whatever against City, or bind City in any manner. (b) No employee benefits shall be available to Contractor in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Contractor as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Contractor for performing services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Contractor for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder. (c) Any and all employees or sub-contractors of Contractor under this Agreement, while engaged in the performance of any work or services required by Contractor under this Agreement, shall be considered employees or sub-contractors of Contractor only and not of city. Any and all claims that may arise under the Workers’ Compensation Act on behalf of said employees or sub-contractors, while so engaged and all claims made by a third party as a consequence of any negligent act or omission on the part of the Contractor’s employees or sub-contractors, while so engaged in any of the work or services provided for or rendered herein shall not be City’s obligation.

14. PREVAILING WAGE
The general prevailing wage rates are determined by the Director of Industrial Relations, for the County of Monterey. Current prevailing wage rates can be found in “General Prevailing Wage Determinations made by the Director of Industrial Relations” (wage determinations) at the Division of Labor Statistics and Research, Prevailing Wage Unit, P. O. Box 420603, San Francisco, CA 94142, (415) 703-4774, or at DIRs website at http://www.dir.ca.gov/. Changes, if any, to the general prevailing wage rates will be available at the same location.

The Contractor will be required to maintain and distribute certified payroll records in compliance with Section 1776 of the California Labor Code. The Contractor shall register as specified in Labor Code section 1771.1(a). Records shall be made available to the City upon request for inspection or for copies thereof. The project is subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations in accordance with Labor Code sections 1725.5 (contractor registration requirements and criteria), 1771.1 (requirement to register as a condition to bid or work on public works), and 1771.4 (project compliance monitoring).

Packet Page 126
Broadway Walk of Fame
Rev. 1/18 Page 7 COS Contractor Services
The labor surcharge, equipment rental rates, and the delay factors for each classification of equipment are listed in the Department of Transportation publication entitled "Labor Surcharge and Equipment Rental Rates."

15. NO BENEFIT TO ARISE TO LOCAL EMPLOYEES
No member, officer, or employee of City, or their designees or agents, and no public official who exercises authority over or responsibilities with respect to the Project during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter, shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in any agreement or subagreement, or the proceeds thereof, for work to be performed in connection with the Project performed under this Agreement.

16. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Contractor shall at all times avoid conflicts of interest, or the appearance of conflicts of interest, in the performance of this Contract.

Contractor covenants that neither he/she nor any officer or principal of their firm have any interest in, or shall acquire any interest, directly nor indirectly, which will conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of their services hereunder. Contractor further covenants that in the performance of this Agreement, no person having such interest shall be employed by them as an officer, employee, agent, or sub-contractor. Contractor further covenants that Contractor has not contracted with nor is performing any services, directly or indirectly, with any developer(s) and/or property owner(s) and/or firm(s) and/or partnership(s) owning property in the City or the study area and further covenants and agrees that Contractor and/or its sub-contractors shall provide no service or enter into any agreement or agreements with a/any developer(s) and/or property owner(s) and/or firm(s) and/or partnership(s) owning property in the City or the study area prior to the completion of the work under this Agreement.

If City determines Contractor comes within the definition of Contractor under the Political Reform Act (Government Code §87100 et seq.) Contractor shall complete and file and shall require any other person doing work under this Agreement to complete and file a "Statement of Economic Interest" with City disclosing Contractor’s and/or such other person’s financial interests.

17. NO WAIVER OF BREACH/TIME
The waiver by City of any breach of any term or promise contained in this Agreement shall not be deemed to be a waiver of such term or provision or any subsequent breach of the same or any other term or promise contained in this Agreement. Time is of the essence in carrying out the duties hereunder.

18. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION/RELEASE OF INFORMATION
(a) All information gained by Contractor in performance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential and shall not be released by Contractor without City's prior written Packet Page 127
Broadway Walk of Fame
Rev. 1/18 Page 8 COS Contractor Services
authorization. Contractor, its officers, employees, agents, or sub-contractors, shall not without written authorization from the City Manager or unless requested by the City Attorney, voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories, or other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement or relating to any project or property located within the City. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered "voluntary" provided Contractor gives City notice of such court order or subpoena. (b) Contractor shall promptly notify City should Contractor, its officers, employees, agents, or sub-contractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions, or other discovery request, court order, or subpoena from any person or party regarding this Agreement and the work performed there under or with respect to any project or property located within the City. City retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent Contractor and/or be present at any deposition, hearing, or similar proceeding. Contractor agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Contractor. However, City's right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said response.

19. NOTICES
Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (i) personal service, (ii) delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal Express, which provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in the United States Mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the address of the party as set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by notice:

To City:
__City of Seaside__________
__440 Harcourt Ave________
__Seaside, CA 93955_______
Attention: City Clerk
To Contractor: _Fermin Gonzales__________
_1222 Prospect St.________
_Seaside, CA 93955_______

20. THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES
Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed to create, and the parties do not intend to create, any rights in third parties.

21. ASSIGNMENT
Packet Page 128
Broadway Walk of Fame
Rev. 1/18 Page 9 COS Contractor Services
Contractor shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without prior written consent of the City. Because of the personal nature of the services to be rendered pursuant to this Agreement, FMG Custom Concrete, American Metal works and Monterey Signs shall perform the services described in this Agreement. FMG Custom Concrete may use assistants under his/her supervision to perform services under this Agreement. Contractor shall provide City fourteen (14) days’ notice prior to the departure of American Metal works and Monterey Signs from Contractor’s employ. Should he/she leave Contractor’s employ, the City shall have the option to immediately terminate this Agreement, within three (3) days of the close of said notice period. Upon termination of this Agreement, Contractor’s sole compensation shall be payment for actual services performed up to, and including, the date of termination or as may be otherwise agreed to in writing between the Assistant City Manager and the Contractor. Subject to the foregoing, all terms of the Agreement will be binding upon, enforceable by and inure to the benefit of the parties and their successors and assigns.

22. GOVERNING LAW
City and Contractor understand and agree that the laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties, and liabilities of the parties to this Agreement and also govern the interpretation of this Agreement. Any litigation concerning this Agreement shall take place in Monterey County, or the federal district court with jurisdiction over the City.

Contractor agrees not to commence or prosecute any dispute arising out of or in connection with this Agreement other than in the aforementioned courts and irrevocably consents to the exclusive personal jurisdiction and venue of the aforementioned courts.

23. ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COURT VENUE
Should either party to this Agreement bring legal action against the other (formal judicial proceeding, mediation or arbitration) the party prevailing in such action shall be entitled to a reasonable attorney's fee which shall be fixed by the judge, mediator or arbitrator hearing the case, and such fee shall be included in the judgment together with all costs.

24. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT
The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Contractor warrants and represents that he/she has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Contractor and has the authority to bind Contractor to the performance of its obligations hereunder.

25. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties relating to the obligations of the parties described in this Agreement. All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations, and statements, oral or written, are merged into this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect. Each party is entering into this Agreement based solely Packet Page 129
Broadway Walk of Fame
Rev. 1/18 Page 10 COS Contractor Services
upon the representations set forth herein and upon each party's own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material.

26. AGREEMENT CONTAINS ALL UNDERSTANDINGS: AMENDMENT
(a) This document represents the entire and integrated Agreement between City and Contractor, and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations and agreements, either written or oral.
(b) Any modification or amendment to this Agreement must be in writing. (c) Neither City nor Contractor shall be deemed to have waived any obligation of the other, or to have agreed to any modification to this Agreement unless it is in writing, and signed by the party giving the waiver.

27. SEVERABILITY
If any term of this Agreement is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction or arbitrator the remainder of this Agreement shall remain in effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written.

CITY OF SEASIDE CONTRACTOR
By: By:

Date: Date:

Attachments: Exhibit A Scope of Work
Exhibit B Contractor Estimate of Services
Exhibit C Insurance Requirements
Packet Page 130
Exhibit A

EXHIBIT A

SCOPE OF WORK

1. FMG can invoice for 10% ($3,649.20) of contract as a deposit for services rendered.

The 10% will be applied to the cost of the overall project.

2. FMG Custom concrete will need to apply for an encroachment permit. City will waive permit fees.

3. Creation and installation of concrete “star” plaques on Broadway Avenue between Fremont and Del Monte.

4. Stars will be installed at the intersections of Broadway and Calaveras, Alhambra and Hillsdale.

5. Six stars will be installed in total with two at each of the specified intersections.

6. FMG will work with City Staff on the exact placement locations before installation.

7. When installing the plaques
a. The contractor will match the existing saw cut lines. If the contractor cuts past the square for the walk of fame star, they will need to notify the City and patch the area as needed.
b. If the rebar is cut during the installation, the contractor will tie rebar back into the existing.
c. If the cut rebar is epoxy coated, contractor must apply epoxy to cut ends before the rebar is tied in the existing.

Map of installation
Location of plaques
Tentative Placement for the title plaques
Packet Page 131
Exhibit C

EXHIBIT B
Contractor’s Estimate of Services
Packet Page 132
Exhibit C

EXHIBIT C

INSURANCE
Prior to the beginning of and throughout the duration of the Work, CONTRACTOR and its subcontractors shall maintain insurance in conformance with the requirements set forth below. CONTRACTOR will use existing coverage to comply with these requirements. If that existing coverage does not meet the requirements set forth herein, CONTRACTOR agrees to amend, supplement or endorse the existing coverage to do so.

CONTRACTOR acknowledges that the insurance coverage and policy limits set forth in this section constitute the minimum amount of coverage required. Any insurance proceeds available to CONTRACTOR or its subcontractors in excess of the limits and coverage identified in this Agreement and which is applicable to a given loss, claim or demand, will be equally available to AGENCY.

A. CONTRACTOR shall provide the following types and amounts of insurance:

Without limiting CONTRACTOR’s indemnification of AGENCY, and prior to commencement of Work, CONTRACTOR shall obtain, provide and maintain at its own expense during the term of this Agreement, policies of insurance of the type and amounts described below and in a form satisfactory to AGENCY.

General liability insurance. CONTRACTOR shall maintain commercial general liability insurance with coverage at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CG 00 01, in an amount not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate, for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage. The policy must include contractual liability that has not been amended. Any endorsement restricting standard ISO “insured contract” language will not be accepted.

Automobile liability insurance. CONTRACTOR shall maintain automobile insurance at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CA 00 01 covering bodily injury and property damage for all activities of the CONTRACTOR arising out of or in connection with Work to be performed under this Agreement, including coverage for any owned, hired, non-owned or rented vehicles, in an amount not less than $1,000,000 combined single limit for each accident.

Workers’ compensation insurance. CONTRACTOR shall maintain Workers’ Compensation Insurance (Statutory Limits) and Employer’s Liability Insurance (with limits of at least $1,000,000) for CONTRACTOR’s employees in accordance with the laws of the State of California, Section 3700 of the Labor Code. In addition, CONTRACTOR shall require each subcontractor to similarly maintain Workers’ Compensation Insurance Packet Page 133
Exhibit C
and Employer’s Liability Insurance in accordance with the laws of the State of California, Section 3700 for all of the subcontractor’s employees.

CONTRACTOR shall submit to AGENCY, along with the certificate of insurance, a Waiver of Subrogation endorsement in favor of AGENCY, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers.

Packet Page 134
Packet Page 135
Packet Page 136
Packet Page 137

CITY OF SEASIDE

STAFF REPORT
Item No.: 8.L.

TO: City Council
FROM: Roberta Greathouse, Acting City Manager
BY: Sheri Damon, City Attorney
DATE: July 7, 2022
SUBJECT: ADOPT A RESOLUTION EXTENDING 180 ACRE FEET WATER ALLOCATION AND 45.83 RECYCLED WATER ALLOCATION PER

YEAR FOR THE KBB SEASIDE VENTURE II RESIDENTIAL AND

COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CAMPUS TOWN

SPECIFIC PLANNING AREA

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution extending 180 AF water allocation and 45.83 recycled water allocation per year for the KBB Venture II project within the Campus Town specific planning area.

BACKGROUND
The City Council adopted resolution 22-56 which extended the original water allocation to the KBB Seaside Venture II residential and commercial development within the Campus Town specific planning area. Since that time, the developer and Marina Coast Water District have noted issues related to the potential recall and reallocation of the water and wastewater, and in particular, the payment of connection/capacity fees to Marina Coast Water District. This resolution clarifies that for purposes of the water allocation, the Project begins upon the issuance of a grading permit, and the water would not be subject to recall and reallocation until the earlier of June 18, 2030, the termination of the Development Agreement with KB Bakewell Seaside Venture II, LLC, or the completion of the Project by KBB Seaside Venture II, LLC.

FISCAL IMPACT
N/A
Packet Page 138

Item No. 8.L. Page 2 of 2

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution
Reviewed for Submission to the City Council by:
__________________________________
Roberta Greathouse, Acting City Manager
Packet Page 139
RESOLUTION NO. 22-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEASIDE EXTENDING 180.6 ACRE FEET ALLOCATION OF WATER AND 45.83

RECYCLED WATER PER YEAR FOR THE KB BAKEWELL SEASIDE

VENTURE II RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT

LOCATED WITHIN THE CAMPUS TOWN SPECIFIC PLANNING AREA
WHEREAS, the City of Seaside has entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement with KB Bakewell Seaside Venture II, LLC to purchase the property within the Campus Town Specific Planning Area and a pre-requisite to closing is the allocation of water to move the project forward; and
WHEREAS, on March 5, 2020, the City adopted Resolution 20-05 certifying an Environmental Impact Report, including a water supply assessment that outlines the projected water demand for the entire Campus Town Specific Planning area to be 441.6 acre feet per year (AFY), existing available potable water allocation of 180.6 AFY, imposed mitigation measures to address the water supply issue and identified a long term water supply projects to meet the projected water demand; and
WHEREAS, as discussed in the Final EIR Water Master Response, Monterey County Water Resources Agency Agreement No. A-06404, allows the District (successor to the United States) to withdraw up to 6,600 AFY of potable water from the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin for use in the District's Ord Community service area (also known as the FORA Allocation). Seaside obtained 1,012.5 AFY of the FORA Allocation, of which it has previously sub-allocated 831.9 AFY to other projects, leaving 180.6 AFY of potable water unallocated (Draft EIR page 4.16.-21; Draft EIR Appendix Ml Table 5- 2, Final EIR Section 4, Responses 9.11 and 9.19); and
WHEREAS, MCWD has signed agreements with Monterey One Water such that Ml W will provide MCWD with 600 AFY of advanced treatment water in Phase 1 of that Project, of which 453 AFY of which has been allocated to the City of Seaside (Water Supply Assessment p. 17 and Table 5-1 [Draft EIR Appendix M]); WHEREAS, the water utility district, Marina Coast Water District (MCWD), reviewed and confirmed the projections contained within the Water Supply Assessment (WSA) for the entire Campus Town Specific Planning area; and WHEREAS, the City has begun to implement the water offset projects outlined in the WSA and Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 and has obtained a Court judgment approving the Black Horse Bayonet In Lieu program which could supply Packet Page 140
up to 450 AFY from reclaimed water (See Final EIR, Water Master Response page 2-7); and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City to ensure that projects that are in construction or about to be in construction have sufficient water supply on the one hand, while on the other hand requiring the most efficient use of water. It is the intent of the City that landscaping be watered with reclaimed or recycled water when the project is ready to take the water and that water is available. The entire Campus Town Specific Planning area is estimated to demand 45.83 acre feet of recycle water per year. The allocations made herein are subject to full or partial reallocation and recall if the project does not proceed, evidenced by issuance of a grading permit, within a one year period or if the final water usage, as evidenced by June 18, 2030 or upon early termination of the Development Agreement or completion of the project is less than the allocated amount, as evidenced by the payment of capacity fees to Marina Coast Water District; and WHEREAS, the City identified Fort Ord water allocation in the approval documents of 180.6 AFY for the Campus Town project. In addition, the City has approved a series of long term water supply projects to augment the water in the Fort Ord areas, including an In Lieu Water Storage project and other projects utilizing reclaimed or other water savings measures in order to meet the projected water demand for projects located on the former Fort Ord Lands; and WHEREAS, MCWD currently has sufficient water supply to meet the projected water demands associated with the proposed project and will be entering into a water infrastructure and service agreement with the Developer requiring both the construction of new infrastructure and the payment of water and sewer service fees; and
WHEREAS, on or about June 17, 2021, the City Council of the City of Seaside passed and adopted Resolution 21-51 allocating 180.6 AFY of water and 45.83 recycled water per year for the KB Bakewell Residential and commercial development located within the Campus Town specific planning area for a non-revocable period of one year through June 18, 2021; and
WHEREAS, Marina Coast Water District and KB Bakewell Seaside II have requested that the June 18, 2021 non-revocable period be extended for another year, due to delays in starting the Campus Town project which is now currently estimated to begin grading in Fall 2022; and
WHEREAS, on May 5, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution 22-56 extending such allocation, however, MCWD and KBB Seaside Venture II have requested clarifications in order to harmonize with the construction of infrastructure required for the Campus Town project; and
Packet Page 141
WHEREAS, that the Campus Town project was approved on March 5, 2020, its impacts were analyzed in the Campus Town EIR, and that this resolution is an additional implementing action consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(c).

The City further finds that there has been no change to the project or substantial changes in circumstances or new information that would warrant subsequent or supplemental environmental analysis under CEQA.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Seaside hereby rescinds Resolution 22-56 and grants an extension of the one-year construction start period in order to provide more certainty for the residential and business reuse of the property known as the Campus Town within the Campus Town Specific Plan area. The City Council may recall any or all of the allocation that is not utilized for the proposed residential reuse should the project not begin by June 18, 2023, (as evidenced by the issuance of a grading permit). The City may recall and re-allocate potable water allocated herein, as evidenced by payment or lack of payment to Marina Coast Water District for capacity, upon the earlier of June 18, 2030, the termination of the Development Agreement with KB Bakewell Seaside Venture II, LLC, or the completion of the Project by KBB Seaside Venture II, LLC.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Seaside duly held on the 7th day of July, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS
APPROVED:
_______________________________
Ian N. Oglesby, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Dominique L. Davis, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
Sheri L. Damon, City Attorney
Packet Page 142

CITY OF SEASIDE

STAFF REPORT
Item No.: 8.M.

TO: City Council
FROM: Roberta Greathouse, Acting City Manager
BY: Mary Gutierrez, Fire Chief
DATE: July 7, 2022
SUBJECT: ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ADOPTION OF THE

COUNTY OF MONTEREY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD

MITIGATION PLAN

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution approving the Monterey County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan and the City of Seaside Annex to the plan to include Volume I (Area Wide Planning) and the City of Seaside Annex Volume 2.

BACKGROUND
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the California Governors’ Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) have completed a preliminary review of the 2022 Monterey County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP). FEMA and Cal OES have given tentative approval of the plan, pending local adoption. The approval of the plan ensures the City of Seaside eligibility and pre-qualification for potential federal pre-and post-disaster funding. The plan includes hazard identification, risk and vulnerability assessments, and mitigation strategies to reduce vulnerability and risk from hazards and reduce the severity of the effects of hazards on people, property, and the environment.

Monterey County and the City of Seaside are potentially vulnerable to a wide range of natural and man-made hazards. These hazards can threaten the life and safety of residents and visitors and have the potential to damage or destroy both public and private property and disrupt the local economy and overall quality of life. While the threats from hazardous events may never be fully eliminated, there is much that can be done to lessen their potential impact. The purpose of hazard mitigation is to implement and sustain actions that reduce vulnerability and risk from hazards or reduce the severity of the effects of hazards on people, property, and the environment.

Packet Page 143

Item No. 8.M. Page 2 of 3
The Disaster Mitigation Act (DMA) of 2000 (Public Law 106-390) requires state and local government agencies to prepare comprehensive Hazard Mitigation Plans in order to be eligible to receive pre-and post-disaster mitigation funding from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The DMA also requires the Hazard Mitigation Plan to be monitored, evaluated, and updated within a five-year cycle to remain eligible for disaster related benefits under the DMA.

The 2022 Monterey County Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP) is a comprehensive update to the 2016 Monterey County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan and represents the third iteration of the Monterey County MultiJurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, which was initially adopted in 2007.

The planning area for the MJHMP encompasses the entire geographic area of Monterey County and includes the following participating jurisdictions:

Monterey County, the cities of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Del Rey Oaks, Gonzales, Greenfield, King, Marina, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Salinas, Sand City, Seaside, and Soledad, as well as the Monterey County Water Resources Agency, the Carmel Area Wastewater District, Monterey One Water, the Monterey Regional Waste Management District, and the Moss Landing Harbor District.

The 2022 update to the MJHMP was developed by the MJHMP Steering Committee, made up of participants from the County and participating Jurisdictions. The Steering Committee served as an advisory body on hazard and mitigation action priorities both for the County as a whole and each jurisdiction individually, with the Monterey County Office of Emergency Services as the Planning Lead.

The Monterey County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan:
 Provides an explanation of prevalent hazards within the County and describes how hazards may affect the County and participating jurisdictions differently based upon various relationships to natural hazards.
 It includes a discussion of hazard location, size of a typical event, historical occurrences, and the probability of future occurrences for each identified hazard.
 Identifies risks to vulnerable assets, both people and property.  Provides a mitigation strategy that responds to the identified vulnerabilities within each community and provides prescriptions or actions to achieve the greatest risk reduction based upon available resources.  The plan creates a uniform local hazard mitigation plan that can be consistently implemented.
 Ensures eligibility for Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and Cal OES grants.

Packet Page 144

Item No. 8.M. Page 3 of 3
The City of Seaside Annex (Volume Two) provides specific details on the City's planning process, a city specific risk and vulnerability assessment, and a mitigation strategy that responds to the identified vulnerabilities within to achieve the greatest risk reduction based upon available resources.

The plan underwent review by the County and Participating Jurisdictions, the general public (Review period occurred from December 2021 to March 2022) and received Approval Pending Adoption from FEMA on June 14, 2022.

The Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation revision process brought together representatives of involved stakeholder agencies and organizations who could have a role in mitigation planning and implementation of mitigation strategies as identified in the plan. Monterey County, the cities of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Del Rey Oaks, Gonzales, Greenfield, King, Marina, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Salinas, Sand City, Seaside, and Soledad, as well as the Monterey County Water Resources Agency, the Carmel Area Wastewater District, Monterey One Water, the Monterey Regional Waste Management District, and the Moss Landing Harbor District participated in the planning and completion of the plan.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact on the approval of the MJHMP.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution

2. MJHMP Volume 1

3. MJHMP Volume 2
Reviewed for Submission to the City Council by:
__________________________________
Roberta Greathouse, Acting City Manager
Packet Page 145
RESOLUTION NO. 22-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEASIDE ADOPTING THE 2022 MONTEREY COUNTY MULTIJURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATIO PLAN WHEREAS, the City of Seaside is vulnerable to natural hazards that may result in loss of life and property, economic hardship, and threats to the public health and safety; and
WHEREAS, the City anticipates climate change will exacerbate the severity, frequency, and impacts of natural hazards; and WHEREAS, pro-active mitigation of known hazards before a disaster event can reduce or eliminate long-term risk to life and property; and
WHEREAS, the Federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires all cities, counties, and special districts to have adopted a Hazard Mitigation Plan to receive pre-and-post-disaster mitigation funding from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); and
WHEREAS, a coalition of Monterey County local governments and special districts embarked on a planning process to prepare for and lessen the impacts of specified hazards by updating the Monterey County Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP), which is the blueprint for reducing the Operational Area’s vulnerability to disasters and hazards; and WHEREAS, the update to the MJHMP has been prepared in
accordance with federal laws, including the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as amended; Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, as amended; the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended; and the National Dam Safety Program Act, as amended; and WHEREAS, the MJHMP identifies mitigation goals and actions to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people and property in Seaside from the impacts of future hazards and disasters; and
WHEREAS, each jurisdiction has been responsible for the review and approval of their individual sections of the Plan and the Plan presents the accumulated information in a unified framework to ensure a comprehensive and coordinated hazard mitigation plan that covers the entire Monterey County Operational Area planning area that is aligned with the goals, objectives and priorities of the State’s multi-hazard Packet Page 146
mitigation plan; and
WHEREAS, the result of the countywide organizational effort is a two volume Hazard Mitigation Plan, which will result in a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) approved multi-jurisdictional, multi-hazard mitigation plan; and
WHEREAS, the MJHMP has been reviewed by the California
Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) and FEMA, Region IX, and have approved it contingent upon its official adoption by the participating governing bodies; and
WHEREAS, adoption of the Plan will allow the jurisdictional partners to collectively and individually become eligible to apply for hazard mitigation project funding and demonstrates its commitment to hazard mitigation and achieving the goals outlined in the Monterey County MultiJurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Seaside finds this action exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15262 (feasibility and planning studies) and Section 15061 (b)(3) (common sense exemption).

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Seaside City Council, hereby adopts the 2022 Monterey County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, consisting of Volume 1 in its entirety and the City of Seaside’s Annex in Volume 2.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Seaside City Council, resolves to integrate the Monterey County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan by reference into the Public Safety Element of the General Plan in accordance with the requirement of Government Code sections 65302, 65302.6, and 8685.9.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Seaside City Council directs staff to:

1. Use the Plan to guide pre-and post-disaster hazard mitigation.

2. Pursue implementation of the identified mitigation actions subject to the limitations of available funding and staff.

3. Coordinate the strategies in the plan with other planning programs and mechanisms under its jurisdictional authority.

4. Continue support of ongoing countywide mitigation efforts.

Packet Page 147

5. Continue to participate in the regional planning partnership as described by the MJHMP.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Seaside City Council will submit this adopted resolution to the California Office of Emergency Services and FEMA Region IX officials to enable the Plan’s final approval in accordance with the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 and to establish conformance with the requirements of AB 2140.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Seaside duly held on the 7th day of July 2022.

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

Ian N. Oglesby, Mayor
ATTEST:

Dominique L. Davis, City Clerk
Packet Page 148
March 2022

COUNTY OF MONTEREY
Carmel-by-the-Sea Del Rey Oaks
Gonzales Greenfield
King City Marina
Monterey Pacific Grove
Salinas Sand City
Seaside Soledad
Carmel Area Wastewater District
Monterey County Water Resources Agency
Monterey One Water
Monterey Regional Waste Management District
Moss Landing Harbor District
VOLUME 1

MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Packet Page 149

PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Packet Page 150
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | i

MONTEREY COUNTY OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES

GERRY MALAIS, EMERGENCY MANAGER

TERESA MEISTER, SENIOR SECRETARY

KELSEY SCANLON, EMERGENCY SERVICES PLANNER

JUSTIN LIN, EMERGENCY SERVICES PLANNER

LAURA EMMONS, EMERGENCY SERVICES PLANNER

DANIEL GONZALEZ, EMERGENCY SERVICES PLANNER

LUBNA MOHAMMAD, COMMUNITY RESILIENCE PLANNER

TRACY MOLFINO, EMERGENCY SERVICES PLANNER
1322 NATIVIDAD RD, SALINAS, CA
[email protected]
831-796-1905

IT IS THE POLICY OF THE COUNTY OF MONTEREY THAT NO PERSON SHALL BE DENIED THE

BENEFITS OF OR BE SUBJECTED TO DISCRIMINATION IN ANY CITY PROGRAM, SERVICE, OR

ACTIVITY ON THE GROUNDS OF RACE, RELIGION, COLOR, NATIONAL ORIGIN, ENGLISH

PROFICIENCY, SEX, AGE, DISABILITY, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, OR SOURCE OF INCOME. THE COUNTY OF MONTEREY ALSO REQUIRES ITS CONTRACTORS AND GRANTEES TO COMPLY WITH THIS POLICY.

Packet Page 151
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | ii

PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Packet Page 152
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Monterey County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan update was made possible through the dedicated efforts of each participating jurisdiction, stakeholders, members of the public, and the Monterey County Office of Emergency Services. The development of this plan would not have been possible without the dedication and commitment of the Hazard Mitigation Plan Steering Committee.

Participating jurisdictions include:

Monterey County
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
City of Del Rey Oaks
City of Gonzales
City of Greenfield
City of King
City of Marina
City of Monterey
City of Pacific Grove
City of Salinas
City of Sand City
City of Seaside
City of Soledad
Monterey County Water Resources Agency
Carmel Area Wastewater District
Monterey One Water
Monterey Regional Waste Management District
Moss Landing Harbor District
Special thanks to the following partners who helped make this project possible:

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) Monterey County Information Technology Department
The citizens of Monterey County are commended for their participation in the outreach strategy. This outreach success will set the course for the successful implementation of this plan during the next performance period.

Packet Page 153
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | iv

PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Packet Page 154
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | v

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................xxv Hazard Mitigation Overview.................................................................................................... xxv Updating the Monterey County Plan....................................................................................... xxv Guiding Principle..................................................................................................................... xxvi Scope and Authority ............................................................................................................... xxvi Plan Structure ........................................................................................................................ xxvii Risk Assessment..................................................................................................................... xxvii Mitigation Goals...................................................................................................................... xxix Hazard Problem Statements................................................................................................... xxix Mitigation Action Plan ........................................................................................................... xxxii Implementation .................................................................................................................... xxxiii Part A: Planning and Community Profile ................................................................................ A

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Hazard Mitigation Planning ............................................................................................... 1-2

1.1.1 Regulatory Framework............................................................................................................. 1-2

1.1.2 Benefits of Mitigation Planning................................................................................................ 1-3

1.2 Purpose of Planning and the Plan Update......................................................................... 1-3

1.2.1 Objectives of the Plan Update.................................................................................................. 1-4

1.2.2 Participating Jurisdictions......................................................................................................... 1-4

1.3 Contents of the Plan .......................................................................................................... 1-5

1.3.1 What’s New? ............................................................................................................................ 1-7

2. Planning Profile .............................................................................................................. 2-1

2.1 Planning Timeline............................................................................................................... 2-2

2.1.1 The Steering Committee .......................................................................................................... 2-2

2.1.2 Stakeholder Engagement ......................................................................................................... 2-5

2.1.3 Jurisdiction Specific Planning Efforts........................................................................................ 2-7

2.2 Public Engagement ............................................................................................................ 2-8

2.2.1 Website .................................................................................................................................... 2-8

2.2.2 Survey....................................................................................................................................... 2-9

2.2.3 Community Forums................................................................................................................ 2-12

2.2.4 Public Presentations............................................................................................................... 2-14

2.3 Assess the Risk ................................................................................................................. 2-15

2.4 Develop a Mitigation Strategy ......................................................................................... 2-15

2.5 Adopt and Implement the Plan ....................................................................................... 2-16

3. Community Profile.......................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Location, Geography, and Climate..................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 History................................................................................................................................ 3-3

3.3 Population and Demographics........................................................................................... 3-7 Packet Page 155
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | vi

3.3.1 Demographics........................................................................................................................... 3-9

3.3.2 Income.................................................................................................................................... 3-10

3.3.3 Education................................................................................................................................ 3-10

3.4 Housing ............................................................................................................................ 3-11

3.5 Local Economy ................................................................................................................. 3-12

3.6 Employment..................................................................................................................... 3-14

3.7 Social Vulnerability .......................................................................................................... 3-16

3.7.1 Socioeconomic Status............................................................................................................. 3-18

3.7.2 Household Composition and Disability .................................................................................. 3-19

3.7.3 Minority Status and Language................................................................................................ 3-20

3.7.4 Housing and Transportation................................................................................................... 3-21

3.8 Land Use and Development Trends................................................................................. 3-23 Part B: Hazard Profiles and Risk Assessment.......................................................................... B

4. Risk Assessment Methods............................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Hazard Identification ......................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.1 Disaster Declaration History..................................................................................................... 4-6

4.1.2 EOC Activations...................................................................................................................... 4-10

4.2 Hazard Profiles................................................................................................................. 4-11

4.3 Risk Assessment Methodology ........................................................................................ 4-12

4.3.1 Population and Asset Inventory ............................................................................................. 4-12

4.3.2 Hazard Exposure..................................................................................................................... 4-16

4.3.3 Hazard Vulnerability............................................................................................................... 4-18

4.3.4 Limitations.............................................................................................................................. 4-19

4.4 Hazard Prioritization and Risk Ranking............................................................................ 4-19

4.4.1 Threat Hazard Risk Assessment Survey.................................................................................. 4-20

4.4.2 Ranking Methodology ............................................................................................................ 4-21

4.4.3 Results.................................................................................................................................... 4-22

5. Agricultural Emergencies ................................................................................................ 5-1

5.1 Overview............................................................................................................................ 5-1

5.1.1 Natural Disasters & Severe Weather........................................................................................ 5-1

5.1.2 Pests, Weeds, and Diseases ..................................................................................................... 5-2

5.2 Hazard Profile..................................................................................................................... 5-3

5.2.1 History ...................................................................................................................................... 5-3

5.2.1 Location.................................................................................................................................... 5-6

5.2.2 Frequency................................................................................................................................. 5-6

5.2.3 Severity..................................................................................................................................... 5-7

5.2.4 Warning Time ........................................................................................................................... 5-7

5.3 Secondary Hazards............................................................................................................. 5-7

5.4 Risk Assessment................................................................................................................. 5-8

5.4.1 Population ................................................................................................................................ 5-8

5.4.2 Property.................................................................................................................................... 5-8

5.4.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure ....................................................................................... 5-12

5.4.4 Environment........................................................................................................................... 5-12

5.4.5 Economic Impact.................................................................................................................... 5-13

5.5 Future Trends in Development........................................................................................ 5-14 Packet Page 156
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | vii

5.6 Issues................................................................................................................................ 5-14

6. Coastal Erosion............................................................................................................... 6-1

6.1 Overview............................................................................................................................ 6-1

6.1.1 Sand Mining in Monterey County ............................................................................................ 6-2

6.1.2 Types of Coastal Erosion .......................................................................................................... 6-2

6.2 Hazard Profile..................................................................................................................... 6-3

6.2.1 History ...................................................................................................................................... 6-3

6.2.2 Location.................................................................................................................................... 6-5

6.2.3 Frequency................................................................................................................................. 6-5

6.2.4 Severity..................................................................................................................................... 6-6

6.2.5 Warning Time ........................................................................................................................... 6-6

6.3 Secondary Hazards............................................................................................................. 6-6

6.4 Risk Assessment................................................................................................................. 6-7

6.4.1 Population ................................................................................................................................ 6-7

6.4.2 Property.................................................................................................................................... 6-8

6.4.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure ......................................................................................... 6-9

6.4.4 Environment........................................................................................................................... 6-10

6.4.5 Economic Impact.................................................................................................................... 6-10

6.5 Future Trends in Development........................................................................................ 6-11

6.6 Issues................................................................................................................................ 6-11

7. Dam and Levee Failure.................................................................................................... 7-1

7.1 Overview............................................................................................................................ 7-1

7.1.1 Dam Failure .............................................................................................................................. 7-1

7.1.2 Levee Failure ............................................................................................................................ 7-2

7.1.3 Regulatory Oversight................................................................................................................ 7-2

7.1.4 Dams in Monterey County ....................................................................................................... 7-5

7.1.5 Levees in Monterey County ..................................................................................................... 7-7

7.2 Hazard Profile..................................................................................................................... 7-8

7.2.1 History ...................................................................................................................................... 7-8

7.2.2 Location.................................................................................................................................... 7-9

7.2.3 Frequency............................................................................................................................... 7-13

7.2.4 Severity................................................................................................................................... 7-14

7.2.5 Warning Time ......................................................................................................................... 7-15

7.3 Secondary Hazards........................................................................................................... 7-16

7.4 Risk Assessment............................................................................................................... 7-16

7.4.1 Population .............................................................................................................................. 7-16

7.4.2 Property.................................................................................................................................. 7-18

7.4.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure ....................................................................................... 7-21

7.4.4 Environment........................................................................................................................... 7-22

7.4.5 Economic Impact.................................................................................................................... 7-22

7.5 Future Trends in Development........................................................................................ 7-23

7.6 Issues................................................................................................................................ 7-23

8. Drought.......................................................................................................................... 8-1

8.1 Overview............................................................................................................................ 8-1

8.1.1 Drought in California ................................................................................................................ 8-2 Packet Page 157
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | viii

8.1.2 Drought Conditions.................................................................................................................. 8-2

8.1.3 Local Water Supply and Water Shortage ................................................................................. 8-4

8.2 Hazard Profile..................................................................................................................... 8-5

8.2.1 History ...................................................................................................................................... 8-5

8.2.2 Location.................................................................................................................................... 8-8

8.2.3 Frequency................................................................................................................................. 8-8

8.2.4 Severity..................................................................................................................................... 8-9

8.2.5 Warning Time ......................................................................................................................... 8-10

8.3 Secondary Hazards........................................................................................................... 8-10

8.3.1 Seawater Intrusion ................................................................................................................. 8-11

8.3.2 Wildfire................................................................................................................................... 8-11

8.3.3 Debris Flows........................................................................................................................... 8-11

8.4 Risk Assessment............................................................................................................... 8-11

8.4.1 Population and Social Impacts............................................................................................... 8-12

8.4.2 Economic Impact.................................................................................................................... 8-12

8.4.3 Environmental Impact............................................................................................................ 8-13

8.5 Future Trends in Development........................................................................................ 8-13

8.6 Issues................................................................................................................................ 8-13

9. Earthquake..................................................................................................................... 9-1

9.1 Overview............................................................................................................................ 9-1

9.1.1 Earthquake Geology ................................................................................................................. 9-1

9.1.2 Earthquake Classifications........................................................................................................ 9-3

9.1.3 Ground Motion......................................................................................................................... 9-6

9.1.4 Liquefaction.............................................................................................................................. 9-7

9.2 Hazard Profile..................................................................................................................... 9-8

9.2.1 History ...................................................................................................................................... 9-8

9.2.2 Location.................................................................................................................................... 9-9

9.2.3 Frequency............................................................................................................................... 9-11

9.2.4 Severity................................................................................................................................... 9-12

9.2.5 Warning Time ......................................................................................................................... 9-15

9.3 Secondary Hazards........................................................................................................... 9-16

9.3.1 Dam and Levee Failure ........................................................................................................... 9-16

9.3.2 Landslides............................................................................................................................... 9-16

9.3.3 Tsunamis................................................................................................................................. 9-16

9.4 Risk Assessment............................................................................................................... 9-16

9.4.1 Population .............................................................................................................................. 9-16

9.4.2 Property.................................................................................................................................. 9-17

9.4.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure ....................................................................................... 9-19

9.4.4 Environment........................................................................................................................... 9-20

9.4.5 Economic Impact.................................................................................................................... 9-21

9.5 Future Trends in Development........................................................................................ 9-21

9.6 Issues................................................................................................................................ 9-21

10. Flooding ..................................................................................................................... 10-1

10.1 Overview........................................................................................................................ 10-1

10.1.1 Floodplains...........................................................................................................................10-1

10.1.2 National Flood Insurance Program.......................................................................................10-2 Packet Page 158
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | ix

10.1.3 Types of Flooding .................................................................................................................10-5

10.1.4 Watersheds In Monterey County.........................................................................................10-7

10.2 Hazard Profile................................................................................................................. 10-8

10.2.1 History ..................................................................................................................................10-8

10.2.2 Location..............................................................................................................................10-12

10.2.3 Frequency...........................................................................................................................10-15

10.2.4 Severity...............................................................................................................................10-16

10.2.5 Warning Time .....................................................................................................................10-16

10.3 Secondary Hazards....................................................................................................... 10-17

10.4 Risk Assessment........................................................................................................... 10-17

10.4.1 Population ..........................................................................................................................10-17

10.4.2 Property..............................................................................................................................10-18

10.4.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure ...................................................................................10-18

10.4.4 Environment.......................................................................................................................10-20

10.4.5 Economic Impact................................................................................................................10-20

10.5 Future Trends in Development.................................................................................... 10-21

10.6 Issues............................................................................................................................ 10-21

11. Hazardous Materials Incident...................................................................................... 11-1

11.1 Overview........................................................................................................................ 11-1

11.1.1 Types of Hazardous Materials Incidents..............................................................................11-2

11.1.2 Oversight ..............................................................................................................................11-3

11.2 Hazard Profile................................................................................................................. 11-3

11.2.1 History ..................................................................................................................................11-3

11.2.2 Location................................................................................................................................11-5

11.2.3 Frequency.............................................................................................................................11-7

11.2.4 Severity................................................................................................................................. 11-7

11.2.5 Warning Time .......................................................................................................................11-7

11.3 Secondary Hazards......................................................................................................... 11-7

11.4 Risk Assessment............................................................................................................. 11-8

11.4.1 Population ............................................................................................................................11-8

11.4.2 Property................................................................................................................................11-9

11.4.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure ...................................................................................11-10

11.4.4 Environment.......................................................................................................................11-11

11.4.5 Economic Impact................................................................................................................11-11

11.5 Future Trends in Development.................................................................................... 11-11

11.6 Issues............................................................................................................................ 11-11

12. Human-Caused Hazards.............................................................................................. 12-1

12.1 Overview........................................................................................................................ 12-1

12.1.1 Cyber-Attack.........................................................................................................................12-2

12.1.2 Targeted Violence ................................................................................................................12-3

12.1.3 Terrorism..............................................................................................................................12-4

12.1.4 Mass Migration.....................................................................................................................12-7

12.2 Hazard Profile............................................................................................................... 12-10

12.2.1 History ................................................................................................................................12-10

12.2.2 Location..............................................................................................................................12-11

12.2.3 Frequency...........................................................................................................................12-14 Packet Page 159
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | x

12.2.4 Severity...............................................................................................................................12-15

12.2.5 Warning Time .....................................................................................................................12-16

12.3 Secondary Hazards....................................................................................................... 12-17

12.4 Risk Assessment........................................................................................................... 12-17

12.4.1 Population ..........................................................................................................................12-18

12.4.2 Property..............................................................................................................................12-18

12.4.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure ...................................................................................12-19

12.4.4 Environment.......................................................................................................................12-21

12.4.5 Economic Impacts ..............................................................................................................12-21

12.5 Future Trends in Development.................................................................................... 12-22

12.6 Issues............................................................................................................................ 12-23

13. Public Health Hazards ................................................................................................. 13-1

13.1 Overview........................................................................................................................ 13-1

13.1.1 Influenza...............................................................................................................................13-2

13.1.2 Coronaviruses.......................................................................................................................13-3

13.1.3 Viral Hemorrhagic Fevers.....................................................................................................13-5

13.1.4 Tick & Mosquito Borne Illness..............................................................................................13-6

13.1.5 Valley Fever..........................................................................................................................13-9

13.1.6 Policies, Plans, and Regulatory Environment.....................................................................13-10

13.2 Hazard Profile............................................................................................................... 13-11

13.2.1 History ................................................................................................................................13-11

13.2.2 Location..............................................................................................................................13-17

13.2.3 Frequency...........................................................................................................................13-17

13.2.4 Severity...............................................................................................................................13-18

13.2.5 Warning Time .....................................................................................................................13-18

13.3 Secondary Hazards....................................................................................................... 13-18

13.4 Risk Assessment........................................................................................................... 13-19

13.4.1 Population ..........................................................................................................................13-19

13.4.2 Property..............................................................................................................................13-19

13.4.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure ...................................................................................13-19

13.4.4 Environment.......................................................................................................................13-19

13.4.5 Economy.............................................................................................................................13-20

13.5 Future Trends in Development.................................................................................... 13-20

13.6 Issues............................................................................................................................ 13-20

14. Severe Weather.......................................................................................................... 14-1

14.1 Overview........................................................................................................................ 14-1

14.1.1 Severe Winter Storms ..........................................................................................................14-2

14.1.2 Extreme Cold and Freeze......................................................................................................14-2

14.1.3 Windstorm............................................................................................................................14-3

14.1.4 Extreme Heat........................................................................................................................14-5

14.2 Hazard Profile................................................................................................................. 14-6

14.2.1 History ..................................................................................................................................14-6

14.2.2 Location................................................................................................................................14-8

14.2.3 Frequency...........................................................................................................................14-11

14.2.4 Severity...............................................................................................................................14-12

14.2.5 Warning Time .....................................................................................................................14-14 Packet Page 160
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | xi

14.3 Secondary Hazards....................................................................................................... 14-14

14.4 Risk Assessment........................................................................................................... 14-14

14.4.1 Population ..........................................................................................................................14-14

14.4.2 Property..............................................................................................................................14-15

14.4.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure ...................................................................................14-16

14.4.4 Environment....................................................................................................................... 14-16

14.4.5 Economic Impact................................................................................................................14-16

14.5 Future Trends in Development.................................................................................... 14-16

14.6 Issues............................................................................................................................ 14-17

15. Slope Failure............................................................................................................... 15-1

15.1 Overview........................................................................................................................ 15-1

15.1.1 Types of Slope Failure ..........................................................................................................15-1

15.1.2 Slope Failure Causes.............................................................................................................15-3

15.2 Hazard Profile................................................................................................................. 15-4

15.2.1 History ..................................................................................................................................15-4

15.2.2 Location................................................................................................................................15-7

15.2.3 Frequency...........................................................................................................................15-10

15.2.4 Severity...............................................................................................................................15-10

15.2.5 Warning Time .....................................................................................................................15-10

15.3 Secondary Hazards....................................................................................................... 15-11

15.4 Risk Assessment........................................................................................................... 15-12

15.4.1 Population ..........................................................................................................................15-12

15.4.2 Property..............................................................................................................................15-12

15.4.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure ...................................................................................15-13

15.4.4 Environment.......................................................................................................................15-14

15.4.5 Economic Impact................................................................................................................15-15

15.5 Future Trends in Development.................................................................................... 15-15

15.6 Issues............................................................................................................................ 15-15

16. Tsunami...................................................................................................................... 16-1

16.1 Overview........................................................................................................................ 16-1

16.1.1 Tsunami Types......................................................................................................................16-3

16.2 Hazard Profile................................................................................................................. 16-3

16.2.1 History ..................................................................................................................................16-3

16.2.2 Location................................................................................................................................16-4

16.2.3 Frequency.............................................................................................................................16-7

16.2.4 Severity................................................................................................................................. 16-7

16.2.5 Warning Time .......................................................................................................................16-9

16.3 Secondary Hazards....................................................................................................... 16-10

16.4 Risk Assessment........................................................................................................... 16-10

16.4.1 Population ..........................................................................................................................16-10

16.4.2 Property..............................................................................................................................16-11

16.4.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure ...................................................................................16-11

16.4.4 Environment.......................................................................................................................16-13

16.4.5 Economic Impact................................................................................................................16-13

16.5 Future Trends in Development.................................................................................... 16-13 Packet Page 161
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | xii

16.6 Issues............................................................................................................................ 16-13

17. Utility Interruption...................................................................................................... 17-1

17.1 Overview........................................................................................................................ 17-1

17.1.1 Space Weather.....................................................................................................................17-3

17.2 Hazard Profile................................................................................................................. 17-6

17.2.1 History ..................................................................................................................................17-6

17.2.2 Location................................................................................................................................17-7

17.2.3 Frequency.............................................................................................................................17-7

17.2.4 Severity................................................................................................................................. 17-7

17.2.5 Warning Time .......................................................................................................................17-8

17.3 Secondary Hazards......................................................................................................... 17-8

17.4 Risk Assessment............................................................................................................. 17-8

17.4.1 Population ............................................................................................................................17-8

17.4.2 Property................................................................................................................................17-8

17.4.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure .....................................................................................17-9

17.4.4 Environment.........................................................................................................................17-9

17.4.5 Economic Impact..................................................................................................................17-9

17.5 Future Trends in Development.................................................................................... 17-10

17.6 Issues............................................................................................................................ 17-10

18. Wildfire ...................................................................................................................... 18-1

18.1 Overview........................................................................................................................ 18-1

18.1.1 Wildfire Protection Responsibility Areas..............................................................................18-1

18.1.2 Fire Protection Distircts and Agencies .................................................................................18-3

18.1.3 The Fire Equation .................................................................................................................18-7

18.1.4 Development Patterns and Wildfire Hazard ........................................................................18-9

18.2 Hazard Profile............................................................................................................... 18-10

18.2.1 History ................................................................................................................................18-10

18.2.2 Location..............................................................................................................................18-13

18.2.3 Frequency...........................................................................................................................18-14

18.2.4 Severity...............................................................................................................................18-15

18.2.5 Warning Time .....................................................................................................................18-17

18.3 Secondary Hazards....................................................................................................... 18-17

18.3.1 Wildfire Smoke...................................................................................................................18-17

18.3.2 Post-Fire Induced Debris Flows and Flood Flows...............................................................18-18

18.4 Risk Assessment........................................................................................................... 18-18

18.4.1 Population ..........................................................................................................................18-20

18.4.2 Property..............................................................................................................................18-21

18.4.3 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure ...................................................................................18-21

18.4.4 Environment.......................................................................................................................18-23

18.4.5 Economic Impact................................................................................................................18-23

18.5 Future Trends in Development.................................................................................... 18-24

18.6 Issues............................................................................................................................ 18-24

19. Climate Change........................................................................................................... 19-1

19.1 Overview........................................................................................................................ 19-1

19.1.1 Sea Level Rise .......................................................................................................................19-2 Packet Page 162
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | xiii

19.1.2 Climate Change and Hazard Mitigation................................................................................19-2

19.2 Hazard Profile................................................................................................................. 19-4

19.2.1 History ..................................................................................................................................19-4

19.2.2 Location................................................................................................................................19-5

19.2.3 Frequency.............................................................................................................................19-5

19.2.4 Severity................................................................................................................................. 19-5

19.2.5 Warning Time .......................................................................................................................19-9

19.3 Responses to Climate Change........................................................................................ 19-9

19.3.1 Community Resilience........................................................................................................19-10

19.4 Risk Assessment- Sea Level Rise .................................................................................. 19-12

19.4.1 Population and Property ....................................................................................................19-15

19.4.2 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure ...................................................................................19-16

19.4.3 Environment.......................................................................................................................19-17

19.4.4 Economic Impact................................................................................................................19-18

19.5 Risk Assessment- Hazards of Concern ......................................................................... 19-19

19.5.1 Agricultural Emergencies....................................................................................................19-19

19.5.2 Coastal Erosion...................................................................................................................19-20

19.5.3 Dam and Levee Failure.......................................................................................................19-21

19.5.4 Drought ..............................................................................................................................19-21

19.5.5 Earthquake .........................................................................................................................19-22

19.5.6 Flooding..............................................................................................................................19-22

19.5.7 Human Caused Hazards......................................................................................................19-23

19.5.8 Public Health Hazards.........................................................................................................19-23

19.5.9 Severe Weather..................................................................................................................19-25

19.5.10 Slope Failure.....................................................................................................................19-25

19.5.11 Tsunami ............................................................................................................................19-25

19.5.12 Wildfire.............................................................................................................................19-25

19.6 Issues............................................................................................................................ 19-26 Part C: Mitigation Capability and Strategy.............................................................................. C

20. Capability Assessment ................................................................................................ 20-1

20.1 Incorporation of Existing Plans, Studies, Reports, and Technical Information ............. 20-2

20.1.1 Federal..................................................................................................................................20-2

20.1.2 State .....................................................................................................................................20-9

20.2 Local Capability Assessment........................................................................................ 20-16

20.3 Safe Growth Survey ..................................................................................................... 20-17

20.4 NFIP Survey .................................................................................................................. 20-18

20.5 Capability Assessment Survey ..................................................................................... 20-20

21. Mitigation Strategy..................................................................................................... 21-1

21.1 Guiding Principle............................................................................................................ 21-1

21.2 Mitigation Goals............................................................................................................. 21-2

21.3 Identification of Mitigation Actions............................................................................... 21-3

21.4 Mitigation Action Prioritization ..................................................................................... 21-4

21.4.1 Mitigation Alternatives.........................................................................................................21-6

21.5 Hazard Prioritization ...................................................................................................... 21-6

21.5.1 Countywide Problem Statements ........................................................................................21-6 Packet Page 163
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | xiv

21.6 Mitigation Action Plan ................................................................................................... 21-9

21.6.1 Countywide Mitigation Action Plan....................................................................................21-10

22. Plan Implementation and Maintenance ...................................................................... 22-1

22.1 Plan Adoption ................................................................................................................ 22-1

22.2 Plan Maintenance.......................................................................................................... 22-1

22.2.1 Plan Implementation............................................................................................................22-2

22.2.2 Incorporation into Other Planning Mechanisms..................................................................22-3

22.2.3 Plan Monitoring and Evaluation...........................................................................................22-4

22.2.4 Plan Update..........................................................................................................................22-5

22.2.5 Continued Public Involvement.............................................................................................22-6 Appendix 1: Plan Adoption Resolutions from Planning Partners Appendix 2: Plan Progress Report Template
Appendix 3: Steering Committee Meeting Agendas
Packet Page 164
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | xv

TABLES AND FIGURES
Table 2-1: MJHMP Planning Timeline.......................................................................................... 2-2 Table 2-2: 2022 MJHMP Steering Committee Members............................................................. 2-3 Table 2-3: Steering Committee Meeting Schedule...................................................................... 2-4 Table 2-4: Jurisdiction-Specific Planning Meetings ..................................................................... 2-7 Table 2-5: Public Survey Respondents by Location ................................................................... 2-10 Table 2-6: Hazard Mitigation Community Forums on the 2022 MJHMP .................................. 2-12 Table 2-7: Community Forums Interactive Activity Results: Community Assets ...................... 2-13 Table 2-8: Community Forums Interactive Activity Results: Hazard Concern........................... 2-14 Table 2-9: Public Presentations on the 2022 MJHMP Update .................................................. 2-14 Table 2-10: Jurisdiction Plan Adoption Dates............................................................................ 2-17 Table 3-1: Total Land Area and Population in Monterey County................................................ 3-8 Table 3-2: Home Ownership in Monterey County Compared to Other Jurisdictions............... 3-12 Table 3-3: Projected Change in Occupation in Monterey County............................................. 3-16 Table 3-4: Percent of Noninstitutionalized County Residents with a Disability by Age............ 3-20 Table 3-5: Prevalence of Chronic Health Conditions of Adults Aged 18 and Over.................... 3-20 Table 3-6: Land Cover in Monterey County 2018 Statistics....................................................... 3-23 Table 4-1: Hazards of Concern..................................................................................................... 4-2 Table 4-2: Excluded Hazards........................................................................................................ 4-6 Table 4-3: Disaster Proclamations and Declarations (1990-2021).............................................. 4-8 Table 4-4: Monterey County Parcel and Population Inventory................................................. 4-15 Table 4-5: Critical Infrastructure and Assets Data Sources ....................................................... 4-16 Table 4-6: Hazard Exposure Data............................................................................................... 4-17 Table 4-7: Degree of Risk Scores................................................................................................ 4-22 Table 4-8: Number of Participating Jurisdictions Assigning A Given Ranking to a Hazard........ 4-23 Table 4-9: Countywide Threat Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment.............................. 4-24 Table 4-10: Countywide Hazard Risk Ranking ........................................................................... 4-25 Table 5-1:USDA Agricultural Disaster Designations in Monterey County (2012-2021) .............. 5-4 Table 5-2: Gross Production Value of Crops in Monterey County .............................................. 5-8 Table 5-3: Value of Agricultural Land in Monterey County ......................................................... 5-9 Table 5-4: Prime Farmland Exposed to Wildfire Risk by Fire Hazard Severity Zone ................. 5-10 Table 5-5: Farmland of Statewide Importance Exposed to Wildfire Risk.................................. 5-10 Table 5-6: Unique Farmland Exposed to Wildfire Risk by Fire Hazard Severity Zone ............... 5-10 Table 5-7: Grazing Land Exposed to Wildfire Risk by Fire Hazard Severity Zone ...................... 5-11 Table 5-8: Prime Farmland Exposed to Flood Hazard Risk ........................................................ 5-11 Table 5-9: Farmland of Statewide Importance Exposed to Flood Hazard Risk ......................... 5-11 Table 5-10: Unique Farmland Exposed to Flood Hazard Risk.................................................... 5-12 Table 5-11: Grazing Land Exposed to Flood Hazard Risk........................................................... 5-12 Packet Page 165
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | xvi
Table 6-1: Estimated Historic Average Erosion Rates in Southern Monterey Bay ...................... 6-4 Table 6-2: Population Exposed to Coastal Cliff Erosion in Monterey County ............................. 6-7 Table 6-3: Population Exposed to Shoreline Erosion Risk in Monterey County.......................... 6-7 Table 6-4: Residential Property Exposed to Coastal Cliff Erosion Risk ........................................ 6-8 Table 6-5: Residential Property Exposed to Shoreline Erosion Risk............................................ 6-8 Table 6-6: Non-Residential Property Exposed to Coastal Cliff Erosion Risk ................................ 6-8 Table 6-7: Non-Residential Property Exposed to Shoreline Erosion Risk.................................... 6-9 Table 6-8: Transportation Infrastructure Exposed to Cliff and Shoreline Erosion Risk............... 6-9 Table 7-1: Dams in or Owned by Monterey County .................................................................... 7-5 Table 7-2: Miles of Levee in Monterey County by Waterbody.................................................... 7-7 Table 7-3: US Army Corps of Engineers Dam Hazard Potential Classification........................... 7-14 Table 7-4: Population Exposed to Dam Failure- Nacimiento Dam............................................ 7-16 Table 7-5: Population Exposed to Dam Failure- San Antonio Dam........................................... 7-17 Table 7-6: Population Exposed to Dam Failure- Forest Lake Dam ............................................ 7-17 Table 7-7: Population Exposed to Levee Failure by Waterbody................................................ 7-18 Table 7-8: Residential Property Exposed to Dam Failure- Nacimiento Dam............................. 7-18 Table 7-9: Non-Residential Property Exposed to Dam Failure- Nacimiento Dam..................... 7-19 Table 7-10: Residential Property Exposed to Dam Failure- San Antonio Dam.......................... 7-19 Table 7-11: Non-Residential Property Exposed to Dam Failure- San Antonio .......................... 7-19 Table 7-12: Residential Property Exposed to Dam Failure- Forest Lake Dam........................... 7-20 Table 7-13: Non-Residential Property Exposed to Dam Failure- Forest Lake Dam................... 7-20 Table 7-14: Property Exposed to Levee Failure by Waterbody ................................................. 7-20 Table 7-15: Critical Infrastructure Exposed to Dam Failure Risk ............................................... 7-21 Table 8-1: Drought Impacts by USDM Drought Category in California ....................................... 8-3 Table 8-2: State Drought Management Program........................................................................ 8-4 Table 8-3: USDA Agricultural Disaster Designations in Monterey County (2012-2021) ............. 8-7 Table 9-1: Earthquake Magnitude Classes (Moment Magnitude Scale) ..................................... 9-4 Table 9-2: Modified Mercalli Intensity Level Descriptions.......................................................... 9-5 Table 9-3: Modified Mercalli Scale and Peak Ground Acceleration ............................................ 9-6 Table 9-4: NEHRP Soil Classification System................................................................................ 9-7 Table 9-5: Monterey County Earthquakes, Magnitude 6.0+ (1838-Present).............................. 9-8 Table 9-6: Population Exposed to Areas Susceptible to Liquefaction ....................................... 9-17 Table 9-7: Residential Property Exposed to Areas Susceptible to Liquefaction........................ 9-18 Table 9-8: Non-Residential Property Exposed to Areas Susceptible to Liquefaction................ 9-18 Table 9-9: Critical Infrastructure in High Liquefaction Susceptibility Areas.............................. 9-20 Table 10-1: NFIP Coverage......................................................................................................... 10-3 Table 10-2: FEMA Flood Zones .................................................................................................. 10-4 Table 10-3: Community Ratings System (CRS) Participation..................................................... 10-5 Table 10-4: NFIP Loss Statistics for Monterey County............................................................. 10-15 Table 10-5: Residential Property Exposed to Flood Risk by Flood Zone ................................. 10-18 Table 10-6: Non-Residential Property Exposed to Flood Risk by Flood Zone ......................... 10-18 Packet Page 166
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | xvii
Table 10-7: Critical Infrastructure in the 100-Year Floodplain ................................................ 10-19 Table 11-1: Hazardous Materials Spills by Spill Site and Substance Spilled (2016-2021) ......... 11-4 Table 11-2: Hazardous Materials Spills by Cause of Spill (2016-2021)...................................... 11-4 Table 11-3: Population Exposed to Hazardous Materials Incident Risk .................................... 11-8 Table 11-4: Residential Property Exposed to Hazardous Materials Incident Risk..................... 11-9 Table 11-5: Non-Residential Property Exposed to Hazardous Materials Incident Risk............. 11-9 Table 11-6: Critical Infrastructure Exposed to Hazardous Materials Incident Risk ................. 11-10 Table 12-1: Event Profiles for Terrorism.................................................................................... 12-4 Table 13-1: Selected Communicable Disease Cases in Monterey County (2009-2019).......... 13-12 Table 13-2: Severe Influenza Cases (Age 64 and Younger) By Flu Season............................... 13-12 Table 13-3: COVID-19 Cases Among County Residents by Age Group.................................... 13-15 Table 13-4: Severe COVID-19 Cases Among Residents by Age Group .................................... 13-16 Table 13-5: COVID-19 Fatalities Among Residents by Age Group........................................... 13-17 Table 14-1: Severe Winter Storms and Extreme Freeze Events (2010-2020) ........................... 14-6 Table 14-2: Annualized Frequency of Severe Weather Events in Monterey County.............. 14-12 Table 14-3: NWS Experimental HeatRisk Forecast Risk Levels................................................ 14-13 Table 14-4: Population Exposed to Severe Weather Hazards in Monterey County ............... 14-15 Table 14-5: Exposed and Expected Annual Loss of Building Value to Severe Weather.......... 14-15 Table 15-1: Historic Large Landslides Along Highway 1 on the Big Sur Coast........................... 15-5 Table 15-2: Population Exposed to Earthquake Induced Landslide Risk................................. 15-12 Table 15-3: Residential Property Exposed to Earthquake Induced Landslide Risk.................. 15-13 Table 15-4: Non-Residential Property Exposed to Earthquake Induced Landslide Risk ......... 15-13 Table 15-5: Critical Infrastructure Exposed to Earthquake Induced Landslide Risk................ 15-14 Table 16-1: Historic Monterey County Tsunami Events............................................................ 16-4 Table 16-2: Tsunami Source Scenario Model Results- North County........................................ 16-5 Table 16-3: Tsunami Source Scenario Model Results- Monterey.............................................. 16-6 Table 16-4: Tsunami Source Scenario Model Results- South County........................................ 16-6 Table 16-5: Population in Tsunami Inundation Zone .............................................................. 16-10 Table 16-6: Residential Property in Tsunami Inundation Zone ............................................... 16-11 Table 16-7: Non-Residential Property in Tsunami Inundation Zone ....................................... 16-11 Table 16-8: Critical Infrastructure in Tsunami Inundation Zone in Monterey County ............ 16-12 Table 17-1: FEMA Standard Values for Loss of Services for Utilities and Roads/Bridges ......... 17-9 Table 18-1: Fire Protection Districts in Monterey County......................................................... 18-4 Table 18-2: Large Historical Wildfires in Monterey County (1977-2020)................................ 18-11 Table 18-3: Residential Property Exposed to Wildfire Risk by Fire Hazard Threat Zone......... 18-21 Table 18-4: Non-Residential Property Exposed to Wildfire Risk by Fire Hazard Threat Zone. 18-21 Table 18-5: Critical Infrastructure Exposed to Wildfire Risk by Fire Hazard Threat Zone....... 18-22 Table 19-1: Predicted Change in Annual Average Temperatures in Monterey County ............ 19-7 Table 19-2: Monterey Tide Gauge Projected Sea Level Rise (in Feet)..................................... 19-13 Table 19-3: Population and Property Exposed to Sea Level Rise Risk in District 2.................. 19-15 Table 19-4: Population and Property Exposed to Sea Level Rise Risk in District 4.................. 19-15 Packet Page 167
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | xviii
Table 19-5: Population and Property Exposed to Sea Level Rise Risk in District 5.................. 19-15 Table 19-6: Critical Infrastructure Exposed to Sea Level Rise Risk .......................................... 19-16 Table 19-7: Population and Property Exposed to Coastal Erosion Risk................................... 19-20 Table 20-1: Countywide Safe Growth Survey Results ............................................................. 20-18 Table 20-2: NFIP Participation ................................................................................................. 20-20 Table 20-3: Capability Assessment Survey- Documents and Resources Assessed.................. 20-22 Table 20-4: Jurisdictions Participating in Various Community Mitigation Programs.............. 20-23 Table 20-5: Participating Jurisdictions Self-Assessment of Capability Ratings........................ 20-24 Table 21-1: High and Substantial Hazards from Countywide Risk Prioritization....................... 21-6 Table 21-2: Countywide Mitigation Action Plan...................................................................... 21-10 Figure 2-1: Survey Responses to Date ....................................................................................... 2-10 Figure 2-2: Heat Map of Public Survey Respondents................................................................ 2-11 Figure 3-1: Map of Monterey County.......................................................................................... 3-2 Figure 3-2: Monterey County Demographics .............................................................................. 3-9 Figure 3-3: Monterey County Labor Force Breakdown, By Industry......................................... 3-14 Figure 3-4: Inflow/ Outflow Job Counts in 2018 for Monterey County..................................... 3-15 Figure 3-5: Overall Social Vulnerability Index in Monterey County .......................................... 3-17 Figure 3-6: CDC Social Vulnerability Index: Socioeconomic Status........................................... 3-18 Figure 3-7: CDC Social Vulnerability Index: Household Composition and Disability................. 3-19 Figure 3-8: CDC Social Vulnerability Index: Minority Status and Language .............................. 3-21 Figure 3-9: CDC Social Vulnerability Index: Housing and Transportation ................................. 3-22 Figure 4-1: Historical Declared Hazard Events by Hazard Type (1990-2021)............................ 4-10 Figure 4-2: 2010 Monterey County Supervisorial Districts........................................................ 4-13 Figure 4-3: Risk Ranking Score Matrix by Variable .................................................................... 4-22 Figure 5-1: Important Farmland in Monterey County................................................................. 5-6 Figure 7-1: Nacimiento Dam Failure Inundation Zone .............................................................. 7-10 Figure 7-2: San Antonio Dam Failure Inundation Zone ............................................................. 7-11 Figure 7-3: Los Padres and Forest Lake Dam Failure Inundation Zones.................................... 7-12 Figure 7-4: Levees in Monterey County..................................................................................... 7-13 Figure 8-1: US Drought Monitor, Drought Conditions as of August 17, 2021............................. 8-6 Figure 8-2: Monterey County Percentage Area Drought Conditions.......................................... 8-9 Figure 9-1: Known Faults in Monterey County by Age................................................................ 9-3 Figure 9-2: Known Faults in Monterey County by Slip Rate ...................................................... 9-10 Figure 9-3: NEHRP Soil Classes in Monterey County ................................................................. 9-11 Figure 9-4: Earthquake Shaking Potential ................................................................................. 9-13 Figure 9-5: Liquefaction Susceptibility in Monterey County ..................................................... 9-14 Figure 9-6: ShakeAlert Earthquake Early Warning Basics.......................................................... 9-15 Figure 10-1: Watersheds in Monterey County .......................................................................... 10-7 Figure 10-2: FEMA Flood Zones............................................................................................... 10-13 Figure 10-3: DWR Flood Awareness Zones.............................................................................. 10-14 Packet Page 168
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | xix
Figure 10-4:Population Exposed to Flood Risk ........................................................................ 10-17 Figure 12-1: Monterey County Attractions Visited.................................................................. 12-13 Figure 12-2: Monterey County Areas Visited .......................................................................... 12-13 Figure 13-1: COVID-19 Cases Among Monterey County Residents by Date ........................... 13-15 Figure 13-2: COVID-19 Cases Among Monterey County Residents by Region of Residence.. 13-16 Figure 14-1: National Weather Service Heat Index ................................................................... 14-5 Figure 14-2: 30-Year Average Annual Precipitation in Monterey County................................. 14-8 Figure 14-3: 30-Year Average Minimum Temperatures in Monterey County .......................... 14-9 Figure 14-4: Land-Based Wind Speed (Meters/Second).......................................................... 14-10 Figure 14-5: 30-Year Average Maximum Temperatures in Monterey County........................ 14-11 Figure 15-1: Deep-Seated Landsilde Susceptibility in Monterey County .................................. 15-8 Figure 15-2: Earthquake Induced Landslide Susceptibility........................................................ 15-9 Figure 16-1: Tsunami Hazard Areas in Monterey County.......................................................... 16-8 Figure 17-1: NOAA Space Weather Scales................................................................................. 17-5 Figure 18-1: Fire Protection Responsibility Areas in Monterey County .................................... 18-3 Figure 18-2: Fire Protection Districts in Monterey County........................................................ 18-7 Figure 18-3: Historical Wildfires in Monterey County (1911-2020) ........................................ 18-10 Figure 18-4: Causes of Wildfires in Monterey County (2000-2020)........................................ 18-12 Figure 18-5: Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Monterey County................................................. 18-13 Figure 18-6: Fire Frequency in Monterey County.................................................................... 18-15 Figure 18-7: Wildland Fire Threat............................................................................................ 18-19 Figure 18-8: Population Exposed to Wildfire Risk ................................................................... 18-20 Figure 19-1: Projected Increase in Average Temperature in Monterey County ....................... 19-7 Figure 19-2: Projected Increase in Extreme Heat Days in Monterey County............................ 19-8 Figure 19-3: Sea Level Rise Risk ............................................................................................... 19-14 Figure 19-4: 1.6 Feet Sea Level Rise in Moss Landing with Various Storm Scenarios............. 19-16 Packet Page 169
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | xx

JURISDICTIONAL ANNEXES
While this Volume, Volume 1, address the entire geographic area of Monterey County and all participating jurisdictions holistically, Volume 2 of the Monterey County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan contains the Jurisdictional Annexes for each participating jurisdiction.

A Unincorporated County of Monterey (and Monterey County Water Resources Agency) B City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
C City of Del Rey Oaks
D City of Gonzales
E City of Greenfield
F City of King
G City of Marina
H City of Monterey
I City of Pacific Grove
J City of Salinas
K City of Sand City
L City of Seaside
M City of Soledad
N Carmel Area Wastewater District
O Monterey One Water
P Monterey Regional Waste Management District
Q Moss Landing Harbor District
Packet Page 170
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | xxi

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AB Assembly Bill
AMBAG Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments
APG Adaptation Planning Guide
APN Assessor Parcel Numbers
BFE Base Flood Elevation
BRIC Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Cal OES California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services Cal-Am Water California-American Water Company
CalARP California Accidental Release Prevention Program Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CAWD Carmel Area Wastewater District
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDAA California Disaster Assistance Act
CDBG Community Development Block Grant
CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CDPH California Department of Public Health
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CERV Community Emergency Response Volunteers
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CGS California Geological Survey
CHP California Highway Patrol
CIP Capital Improvement Plan
CoSMoS USGS Coastal Storm Modeling System
County Monterey County
COVID-19 Coronavirus Disease 2019
CRS Community Rating System
CSUMB California State University, Monterey Bay
DFIRM Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map
DHS Department of Homeland Security
DMA Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000
DSOD California Division of Safety of Dams
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
DWR California Department of Water Resources
EEW Earthquake Early Warning
EOP Emergency Operations Plan
EPA US Environmental Protection Agency
Packet Page 171
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | xxii

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ESA Endangered Species Act
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
FHSZ Fire Hazard Severity Zones
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map
FIS Flood Insurance Study
FMA Flood Mitigation Assistance Program
FMAG Fire Management Assistance Grant
FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
FPD Fire Protection District
FRA Federal Responsibility Area
FRAP Fire and Resource Assessment Program
GIS Geographic Information System
HHPD High Hazard Potential Dams
HMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance
HMGP Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
IBC International Building Code
JPA Joint Powers Authority
LHMP Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
LRA Local Responsibility Area
M1W Monterey One Water
MBARI Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute
MBNMS Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary
MCI Multiple Casualty Incident
MCOE Monterey County Office of Education
MCWRA Monterey County Water Resources Agency
MHHW Mean Higher High Water
MJHMP Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
MM Modified Mercalli Scale
MPRPD Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District
MPWMD Monterey Peninsula Water Management District
MRWMD Monterey Regional Waste Management District
MST Monterey-Salinas Transit
NCRIC Northern California Regional Intelligence Center
NEHRP National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NFIP National Flood Insurance Program
NIMS National Incident Management System
Packet Page 172
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | xxiii

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPS National Park Service
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
NTWC National Tsunami Warning Center
NWS National Weather Service
OES Monterey County Office of Emergency Services
OPC Ocean Protection Council
OPR Governor's Office of Planning and Research
PBCSD Pebble Beach Community Services District
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric
PGA Peak Ground Acceleration
PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration PSPS Public Safety Power Shut-off
RCDMC Resources Conservation District of Monterey County RCP Representative Concentration Pathways
RL Repetitive Loss
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Boards
SARS Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome
SB Senate Bill
SBA Small Business Administration
SFHA Special Flood Hazard Area
SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
SHMP State Hazard Mitigation Plan
SRA State Responsibility Area
Stafford Act Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act Steering Committee Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Steering Committee UBC Uniform Building Code
URM Unreinforced Masonry
USACE US Army Corps of Engineers
USDA US Department of Agriculture
USFS US Forest Service
USGS US Geological Survey
WHO World Health Organization
WMD Weapons of Mass Destruction
WUI Wildland Urban Interface

Packet Page 173
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | xxiv

PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Packet Page 174
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | xxv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

HAZARD MITIGATION OVERVIEW
Monterey County is vulnerable to a wide range of natural and manmade hazards. These hazards can threaten the life and safety of residents and visitors and have the potential to damage or destroy both public and private property and disrupt the local economy and overall quality of life. While the threats from hazard events may never be fully eliminated, there is much we can do to lessen their potential impact on our communities. By minimizing the damaging impacts of hazards upon our built environment, we can prevent such events from resulting in disasters.

The concept and practice of reducing risks to people and property from known hazards is called hazard mitigation.

Hazard mitigation is the use of long-term and short-term policies, programs, projects, and other activities to alleviate the death, injury, and property damage that can result from a disaster.

Monterey County and a partnership of local governments within the County have developed a hazard mitigation plan to reduce risks from natural disasters in the Monterey County Operational Area—defined as the unincorporated county and incorporated jurisdictions within the geographical boundaries of the County. The plan complies with federal and state hazard mitigation planning requirements to establish eligibility for funding under Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) grant programs.

UPDATING THE MONTEREY COUNTY PLAN
This plan is a comprehensive update of the 2016 Monterey County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, which covered the unincorporated county, 12 municipalities and 2 special purpose districts. FEMA approved the 2016 plan on March 7, 2016, and it expired on March 7, 2021, the current update meets federal requirements for updating hazard mitigation plans on a five-year cycle. It represents the third iteration of the Monterey County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, which was initially adopted in 2007.

This Plan was prepared in coordination with
FEMA and the California Office of Emergency
Services (Cal OES) to ensure that it meets all
applicable federal and state requirements.

This includes conformance with FEMA’s
latest Local Mitigation Planning Handbook
(released March 2013) and Local Mitigation
Plan Review Guide (released October 2011).

Packet Page 175
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | xxvi

GUIDING PRINCIPLE
The following guiding principle was created and agreed upon by the participants to represent the overall intended outcome of the Plan:

Reduce the risk to life and property in Monterey County in an efficient and effective manner by decreasing the long-term vulnerability from hazards through coordinated planning, partnerships, capacity building, and implementation of effective risk reduction measures.

SCOPE AND AUTHORITY
The Monterey County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan geographically covers the entire area of Monterey County and has multiple participating jurisdictions. This includes Monterey County, 12 incorporated municipalities, and 5 special districts, hereinafter referred to as “participating jurisdictions.”
• Unincorporated Monterey County
• Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA) (Included with unincorporated Monterey County)
• City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
• City of Del Rey Oaks
• City of Gonzales
• City of Greenfield
• City of King
• City of Marina
• City of Monterey
• City of Pacific Grove
• City of Salinas
• City of Sand City
• City of Seaside
• City of Soledad
• Carmel Area Wastewater District (CAWD)
• Monterey Regional Waste Management District (MRWMD)
• Monterey One Water (M1W)
• Moss Landing Harbor District
Representatives from each participating jurisdiction formed a core planning team, referred to as the Steering Committee, in order to drive the development of the plan update. The Steering Committee was at the core of the MJHMP planning process and was integral to ensuring its success, its implementation, and its future maintenance. The Plan addresses those hazards determined to be of primary or secondary concern to each jurisdiction, as documented in the risk assessment portion of this Plan. Other hazards that pose a low risk or are otherwise Packet Page 176
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | xxvii
omitted from this Plan will continue to be evaluated during future plan updates, but they may not be fully addressed until they are determined to be of primary or secondary concern to Monterey County. Individual entities are still able to, and are encouraged to, continue to address, and plan for those other hazards as may be appropriate within their jurisdictions.

This Plan must be adopted by all participating jurisdictions in accordance with the authority and police powers granted to local governments under Article 11 of the California Constitution. This Plan was developed in accordance with current federal rules and regulations governing local hazard mitigation plans. The Plan shall be monitored and updated on a routine basis to maintain compliance with the following legislation: Section 322, Mitigation Planning, of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as enacted by Section 104 of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-390) and by FEMA's Interim Final Rule published in the Federal Register on February 26, 2002, at 44 CFR Part 201.

PLAN STRUCTURE
This plan has been set up in two volumes so that elements that are jurisdiction-specific can easily be distinguished from those that apply to the whole County.

Volume 1 includes the federally required elements of a hazard mitigation plan for all participating jurisdictions. This includes the description of the planning process, public involvement strategy, hazard risk assessments, countywide mitigation actions, and a plan maintenance strategy. Since this is a multi-jurisdictional plan, Volume 1 addresses the entirety of Monterey County, which includes all participating jurisdictions and the entire geographic boundary of the County.

Volume 2 contains the Jurisdictional Annexes, which detail the hazard mitigation planning elements specific to each participating jurisdiction in the Monterey County MJHMP Update and includes all federally required jurisdiction-specific elements for each participating jurisdiction.

Each annex is not intended to be a standalone document, but annexes to, supplements, and incorporates by reference the information contained in Volume 1 of the Plan. As such, all information in Volume 1, including the planning process and other procedural requirements and planning elements apply to and were met by each participating jurisdiction. The Annexes provide additional information specific to each participating jurisdiction, with a focus on providing additional details on the risk assessment and mitigation strategy.

All participating jurisdictions will adopt Volume 1 in its entirety and their own jurisdictionspecific annex in Volume 2.

RISK ASSESSMENT
Risk assessment is the process of measuring the potential loss of life resulting from natural hazards, as well as personal injury, economic injury, and property damage, in order to Packet Page 177
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | xxviii
determine the vulnerability of people, buildings, infrastructure, and the environment to natural hazards. For this update, risk assessment models were enhanced with new data and technologies that have become available since 2016. The Steering Committee used the risk assessment to rank risk and to gauge the potential impacts of each hazard of concern in the Operational Area. The risk assessment included the following:
• Hazard identification and profiling
• Assessment of the impacts on physical, social, environmental, and economic assets • Identification of particular areas of vulnerability
• Estimates of the cost of potential damage.

Based on the risk assessment, hazards were ranked for the risk they pose to the overall Operational Area.

Ranking Hazard Degree of Risk
1 Drought & Water Shortage High
2 Earthquake Substantial
3 Pandemic Substantial
4 Wildfire Substantial
5 Epidemic Substantial
6 Cyber-Attack Substantial
7 Utility Interruption/ PSPS Substantial
8 Localized Stormwater Flooding Substantial
9 Severe Winter Storms Substantial
10 Water Contamination Moderate
11 Windstorms Moderate
12 Hazardous Materials Incident Moderate
13 Agricultural Emergencies Moderate
14 Riverine Flooding Moderate
15 Sea Level Rise Moderate
16 Slope Failure Moderate
17 Flash Flood Moderate
18 Extreme Heat Moderate
19 Coastal Flooding Moderate
20 Coastal Erosion Moderate
21 Targeted Violence Possible
22 Invasive Species Possible
23 Terrorism Possible
24 Dam Failure Possible
25 Extreme Cold & Freeze Possible
26 Mass Migration Possible
27 Tsunami Possible
28 Levee Failure Possible
Packet Page 178
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | xxix

MITIGATION GOALS
The Steering Committee reviewed and updated the goals from the 2016 Monterey County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan and confirmed a set of goals. The Steering Committee and planning partners established the following goals for the plan update:

Goal #1 Minimize risk and vulnerability of Monterey County to hazards and protect lives and prevent losses to property, public health, economy, and the environment.

Goal #2
Increase the resilience of infrastructure and critical facilities and reduce long-term vulnerabilities of existing and future critical facilities, property, infrastructure, and high hazard potential dams due to natural hazards.

Goal #3 Build and support capacity to enable local government and the public to prepare for, respond to, and recover from the impact of natural hazards.

Goal #4 Encourage the development and implementation of long-term, cost-effective, and environmentally sound mitigation projects.

Goal #5 Promote and implement hazard mitigation policies and projects that are consistent with state, regional, and local climate action, and adaptation goals.

Goal #6 Inform the public on the risk from hazards of concern and increase awareness, preparation, mitigation, response, and recovery activities to promote public safety.

Goal #7
Enhance codes and their enforcement where feasible, so that new construction can withstand the impacts of known hazards and to lessen the impact of development on the environment’s ability to absorb the impact of natural hazards.

Goal #8 Consider the impacts of known hazards in all planning mechanisms that address current and future land uses within the County.

Goal #9 Establish a partnership among all levels of government and the business community to improve and implement methods to protect property.

Goal #10 Encourage hazard mitigation measures that promote and enhance natural processes and minimize adverse impacts on the ecosystem.

HAZARD PROBLEM STATEMENTS
As part of the planning process, the Steering Committee and planning partners identified key vulnerabilities and hazards of concerns applicable to the entire County. Hazard Problem Statements helped the Steering Committee identify common issues and weaknesses, determine appropriate mitigation strategies, and understand the realm of resources needed for mitigation. The update process resulted in the identification of unique hazard problem statements by individual planning partners, as presented in Volume 2 of this plan.

In addition, the Steering Committee and planning partners identified countywide problem statements. The Countywide Hazard Problem Statements were based on the risk assessments, Packet Page 179
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | xxx
the risk prioritization process, the vulnerability analysis, and local knowledge, as well as the jurisdiction specific problem statements and community and stakeholder input.

Countywide Hazard Problem Statements are identified below:

Drought & Water Shortage
In Monterey County, water supply is extremely limited during non-drought years. As such, droughts are a serious threat in the County and could have devastating impacts on the agricultural industry, a major economic driver and job provider. Additionally, prolonged periods of drought can reduce water available for residential users and increase water prices.

Governing authorities have been established to limit water use and protect water supply.

Procurement of water credits/rights may limit new development necessary to meet increasing housing demands. Periods of drought also lead to increased pumping of groundwater wells, which can exacerbate sea water intrusion into the aquifer, increase land subsidence risks, and effect water quality. Contamination of drinking water, though unlikely, could be catastrophic.

Drought conditions are likely to increase in future climate change scenarios.

Earthquake
Monterey County has several fault systems, including three major active faults: The San Andreas Fault, the Palo Colorado-San Gregorio Fault, and the Monterey Bay-Tularcitos Fault.

Due to the location of population centers and building history in the County, any large earthquake will likely have significant impacts on people, property, and critical infrastructure including water systems, telecommunications infrastructure, roads, bridges, healthcare systems, and utilities. Damages and debris could isolate large populations from these critical lifelines. Older unreinforced-masonry structures in the County are particularly vulnerable to earthquake risk. An earthquake can also produce cascading impacts due to urban conflagration, wildfires, seiches, landslides, tsunamis, dam failure, and levee failure.

Pandemic/ Epidemic
The whole population of Monterey County is vulnerable to disease. The impacts of the COVID19 Pandemic on the County have demonstrated the catastrophic risks that can be associated with large-scale disease outbreaks. Critical healthcare systems can become overwhelmed, limiting access to life-saving medical services. Continuity of government due to impacted workforces can result in limitations to essential government services. Disease outbreaks can place a disproportionate burden on the County’s most vulnerable populations. Additionally, due to the large number of transient populations, such as tourists and migrant farmworkers, eradication of any new disease outbreak can be difficult without significant impacts to industry and the local economy.

Wildfire
California, and subsequently Monterey County, is in cycle of extreme heat, drought, and fire, all amplified by climate change. Wildfires are a natural part of the California environment; however, fire behavior has increased in frequency, size, and impact from longer wildfire Packet Page 180
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | xxxi
“seasons.” Deferred vegetation management and population sprawl in the wildland urban interface and intermix, have increased probability and impact of wildfires. Sudden oak death and invasive species have created unhealthy forests. Large wildfires, such as the 2020 Wildfires in Monterey County, can cause housing inventories to become significantly limited thus increasing the demand on the housing market; additionally, many property owners have been unable to obtain or retain fire insurance at an affordable price or at all. Pre-existing water supply challenges in the County can lead to limited water available for fire suppression.

Cyber-Attack
Nearly every aspect of life in Monterey County is dependent on systems and resources connected and managed through computer systems. Cyber-attacks can have catastrophic impacts on the ability of government, public and private entities to access banking, electricity, water, telecommunications, transportation, and other information systems necessary for survival. Due to the tightly coupled nature of technological system and critical lifelines, any failure of service continuity could cost lives.

Utility Interruption/ PSPS
Heat-related equipment failures and electrical infrastructure igniting wildfires has resulted in unintentional and intentional rolling blackouts and power shutoffs throughout the County.

Public Safety/ Utility Initiated Power Shut Offs to prevent wildfire ignition can have notably significant impacts due to the length of disruption time, limited efficacy of the strategy, and the effect on first responder capabilities. Extreme and prolonged heatwaves across the state increase the demand for use of the aging electrical grid, significantly depleting electricity reserves resulting in blackouts. Heatwaves are expected to increase in intensity and magnitude due to climate change, which will likely exacerbate this problem. Traditional energy sources increase climate change risk and are failing more consistently, but energy alternative technology cannot meet current nighttime demand.

Additionally, Monterey County has limited microgrids and reliance on the macro-grid makes the County vulnerable to rolling and prolonged power outages. Over the last decade Monterey County residents have begun adjusting to the increasing unreliability of macro utilities. Loss of power for more than a few hours can result in large economic losses, specifically related to food and agriculture. More vulnerable populations in isolated areas or who rely on medical devices are at increased risk during prolonged power outages.

Localized Stormwater Flooding
Localized flooding has the potential to significantly impact people, property, and critical infrastructure in the County. Undersized and aging drainage infrastructure, deferred maintenance, increased run-off due to drought conditions, the built environment, and trends in precipitation and weather can all increase the risk of localized stormwater flooding. Climate change is likely to exacerbate the intensity and magnitude of precipitation events, increasing the risk associated with localized stormwater flooding causing drainage infrastructure to be undersized in increasingly more common events.

Packet Page 181
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | xxxii
Additionally, unhoused residents living in stormwater drainage areas can lead to increasing flood risk due to accumulated debris and trash, which can complicate both flood response and mitigation activities.

Severe Winter Storms
Severe winter storms have been increasing in intensity, magnitude, and severity in Monterey County and are associated with a variety of hazards in this Plan. Severe winter storms and heavy rain can have significant impacts including flash flooding, localized stormwater flooding, mudslides, and landslides. Secondary hazards can cause immobility and loss of utilities. Roads may become impassable due to flooding, downed trees, or landslides. Power lines may be downed due to high winds, and services such as water or telecommunications infrastructure may not be able to operate without power.

Stormwater runoff from heavy rains can also impair water quality by washing pollutants into water bodies. Severe winter storms can also cause large storm surge and wave action along the coastline, flooding low lying areas and causing dramatic erosion. Coastal bluff and cliff failure due to erosion can create hazardous conditions due to roadway collapse, undermined home foundations and damage to utilities. Additionally, future sea level rise scenarios are likely to exacerbate coastal and inland flood risks during winter storms.

Road Infrastructure
The occurrence of any hazard profiled in this Plan in combination with aging and limited road infrastructure can result in limited egress of evacuees and minimal ingress of first responders.

Roadways can be compromised in severe weather incidents, further limiting road capacity.

Road infrastructure is not developing at a rate commensurate with the rate that population and housing is expanding. Further, the topography of the County limits where new roads can be built.

MITIGATION ACTION PLAN
The Steering Committee and planning partners selected a range of appropriate mitigation actions to work towards achieving the goals set forth in this plan update, in addition to reducing risks identified in the problem statements. Mitigation actions presented in this update are activities designed to reduce or eliminate losses resulting from hazards. The update process resulted in the identification of mitigation actions for implementation by individual planning partners, as presented in Volume 2 of this plan.

The Steering Committee reviewed the catalogs of hazard mitigation alternatives and selected area-wide actions to be included in a hazard mitigation action plan. The selection of area-wide actions was based on the risk assessment of identified hazards of concern and the defined hazard mitigation goals and objectives. The countywide hazard mitigation action plan was designed to benefit the whole partnership. The countywide Hazard Mitigation Action Plan includes the following mitigation actions:

Packet Page 182
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | xxxiii
Hazard Mitigation Action
Drought Provide public information on water conservation and assess the potential for community-wide water conservation programs.

Earthquake
Provide information on earthquake risk and preparedness to the public. Continue to adopt and implement current earthquake building standards and upgrade, remove, or replace unreinforced masonry buildings, as feasible.

Pandemic/ Epidemic
Provide unified information to the public regarding personal protective measures and mitigating strategies in accordance with CDC guidelines. Implement public health measures in government facilities.

Wildfire
Continue to collaborate across the operational area with all jurisdictions with fire protection and suppression responsibility on wildfire mitigation efforts.

Cyber-Attack
Seek to increase redundancy in IT infrastructure, implement protective cyber-security measures, and train staff on common cyber-attack methods.

Utility Interruption
Encourage the development of and use of microgrids and the hardening of utility of infrastructure, where possible. Provide backup generators for critical infrastructure and facilities.

Localized Stormwater
Flooding
Maintain good standing in the National Flood Insurance Program and encourage coordination on drainage system maintenance.

Severe Winter Storms Maintain StormReady and TsunamiReady certification, as applicable.

Climate Change Support, encourage, and implement, when feasible, countywide climate action, adaptation, and resiliency initiatives.

All Hazards
Incorporate and make consistent other planning documents with appropriate goals, policies, and objectives to address hazards identified within the Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan.

IMPLEMENTATION
The Steering Committee developed a plan implementation and maintenance strategy that includes annual progress reporting, a strategy for continued public involvement, a commitment to plan integration with other relevant plans and programs, and a commitment to actively maintain the plan over the performance period. Full implementation of the recommendations of this plan will require time and resources. The measure of the plan’s success will be its ability to adapt to changing conditions. The planning partners will assume responsibility for adopting the recommendations of this plan and committing resources toward implementation. The framework established by this plan commits all planning partners to pursue actions when the benefits of a project exceed its costs. The planning partnership developed this plan with extensive public input and support to help ensure the plan’s success.

Packet Page 183
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | xxxiv

PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Packet Page 184
PART | A
A
PART A: PLANNING AND

COMMUNITY PROFILE

THIS PART PROVIDES AN OVERVIEW OF THE MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD

MITIGATION PLAN, THE PLANNING PROCESS, AND COMMUNITY OF MONTEREY COUNTY. IT CONSISTS OF THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS:

1. INTRODUCTION

2. PLANNING PROFILE

3. COMMUNITY PROFILE
Packet Page 185
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PART | A

PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Packet Page 186
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 1-1 INTRODUCTION

1. INTRODUCTION
Disasters can cause loss of life, damage buildings and infrastructure, and have devastating consequences for a community’s economic, social, and environmental well-being. Nationwide, federal, state, and local governments spend billions of dollars annually to help communities, organizations, businesses, and individuals recover from disasters. This only partially reflects the true cost of disasters because additional expenses are incurred by insurance companies, nongovernmental organizations, non-profits, and individuals, which are not reimbursed by tax dollars. Many natural disasters are predictable, and much of the damage caused by these events can be reduced or even eliminated.

Hazard mitigation reduces disaster losses and damages. The term “hazard mitigation” is defined as sustained action or strategy taken to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk to human life and property from hazards. After disasters, repairs and reconstruction often are completed in such a way as to simply restore damaged property to pre-disaster conditions. These efforts may return property and infrastructure to “the norm,” but the replication of pre-disaster conditions may result in a repetitive cycle of damage and reconstruction. Hazard mitigation planning can break this repetitive cycle by reducing vulnerability to hazards through smart construction and proper planning of future development and critical infrastructure.

Mitigation activities can be developed, planned, and implemented before or after a disaster occurs. Hazard mitigation activities involve long- and short-term actions and include planning efforts, policy changes, programs, studies, improvement projects, and other steps to reduce the impacts of hazards. Implementing fuel reduction around buildings within high wildfire risk areas, outreach programs that increase risk awareness, projects to protect critical facilities, and Packet Page 187
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 1-2 INTRODUCTION
the removal of structures from flood hazard areas are all examples of mitigation actions. Local mitigation actions and concepts can also be incorporated into land use plans and building codes. Proactive mitigation policies and actions help reduce risk and create safer, more disaster resilient communities. Mitigation is an investment in the future safety and sustainability of Monterey County.

Monterey County and participating jurisdictions have prepared this update to the Monterey County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP), which was originally approved by the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in 2007 and updated in 2016. The plan in its current form reflects a comprehensive update in 2021. The purpose of this plan is to guide hazard mitigation planning in Monterey County in order to better protect the people and property from the effects of hazard events.

This plan demonstrates the commitment of each participating jurisdiction to reducing risks from hazards through mitigation and serves as a tool to direct resources to achieve optimum results with available administrative, technical, and financial resources. The plan will help guide and coordinate mitigation activities throughout Monterey County. This plan was also developed to ensure Monterey County and participating jurisdictions’ continued eligibility for certain federal disaster assistance, specifically the FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) grants, including the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC), and Flood Mitigation Assistance Program (FMA).

1.1 HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING
Mitigation is most effective when it is based on a comprehensive, long-term plan that is developed before a disaster occurs. The purpose of mitigation planning is to identify policies and actions that can be implemented over the long term to reduce risk and future losses from hazards. The hazard mitigation plan provides an assessment of hazards, vulnerabilities, and risks prevalent in Monterey County and how those hazards may affect participating jurisdictions differently based upon proximities to hazards.

Mitigation actions are identified based on that risk assessment and the participation of a wide range of stakeholders and the public in the planning process. The mitigation strategy presented in this plan responds to the identified vulnerabilities within each community and provides actions to achieve the greatest risk reduction based upon available resources.

1.1.1 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
For many years, federal disaster funding focused on relief and recovery after disasters occurred, with limited funding for hazard mitigation planning. The purpose of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Public Law 100-707), as amended by the Disaster Packet Page 188
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 1-3 INTRODUCTION
Mitigation Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-390), is to reduce the loss of life and property, human suffering, economic disruption, and disaster assistance costs resulting from natural disasters.

The Disaster Mitigation Act (DMA 2000) shifted the federal emphasis toward planning for disasters before they occur and requires proactive pre-disaster planning as a condition of receiving certain federal financial assistance under the Stafford Act. Regulations developed to fulfill the Disaster Mitigation Act’s requirements are included in Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR). The Disaster Mitigation Act encourages state and local authorities to work together on pre-disaster planning and to assist local governments in accurately assessing mitigation needs, resulting in faster allocation of funding and more cost-effective risk reduction projects under FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Assistance program.

The Disaster Mitigation Act requires the plan be updated every five years to remain in compliance with federal mitigation grant conditions. Grant compliance is contingent on meeting the plan update requirements that are contained in 44 CFR. Jurisdictions that allow a plan to expire are not able to pursue funding under the Stafford Act for which a current hazard mitigation plan is a prerequisite.

Federal regulations require a plan for monitoring, evaluating, and updating hazard mitigation plans. The plan update process provides an opportunity to reevaluate recommendations, monitor the impacts of actions that have been accomplished, and determine if there is a need to change the focus of mitigation strategies over time.

1.1.2 BENEFITS OF MITIGATION PLANNING
All citizens and businesses of Monterey County are the ultimate beneficiaries of hazard mitigation planning. This Plan seeks to reduce risk for those who live in, work in, and visit the County and provides a viable planning framework for all foreseeable hazards that may impact the County. Benefits of mitigation planning include:
• Identifying actions for risk reduction that are agreed upon by stakeholders and the public.
• Focusing resources on the greatest risks and vulnerabilities. • Building partnerships by involving citizens, organizations, and businesses. • Increasing education and awareness of threats and hazards, as well as their risks. • Communicating priorities to State and Federal officials. • Aligning risk reduction with other community objectives.

1.2 PURPOSE OF PLANNING AND THE PLAN UPDATE
The Monterey County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies resources, information, and strategies for reducing risk from hazards. Monterey County and the local jurisdictions that participated as planning partners initiated this planning effort for several key reasons. Monterey County has significant exposure to numerous hazards that have led to Packet Page 189
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 1-4 INTRODUCTION
injuries and loss of life, in addition to millions of dollars in past damages. The planning partners want to be proactive in preparing for the probable impacts of hazards. Finally, limited local resources make it difficult to implement proactive risk-reduction measures. Federal and state financial assistance is paramount to successful hazard mitigation in the County. Elements and strategies in the MJHMP were selected because they best meet the needs of the planning partners and their citizens. The resources and background information in the plan are applicable countywide, and the Plan’s goals and recommendations can lay the groundwork for the development and implementation of local mitigation activities and partnerships.

As a DMA 2000 requirement, the plan must be updated every five years to remain in compliance with federal mitigation grant conditions. Monterey County first prepared a hazard mitigation plan in compliance with the Disaster Mitigation Act in 2007. The 2016 update to the Monterey County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan was prepared by Monterey County Office of Emergency Services (OES) and AECOM. This plan is the update to the previous iterations of the plan and was updated with funding support from a FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Planning Grant (DR-4382-PL0025).

1.2.1 OBJECTIVES OF THE PLAN UPDATE
The 2021 update to the Monterey County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan will help guide and coordinate mitigation activities and was developed to meet the following objectives:
• Meet or exceed the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act the and the 2015 California legislation requiring the incorporation of climate adaptation strategies into hazard mitigation planning (SB 379).
• Meet the needs of each planning partner as well as state and federal requirements. • Enable all planning partners to continue using federal grant funding to reduce risk through mitigation.
• Create a risk and vulnerability assessment that focuses on local hazards of concern. • Identify a comprehensive and integrated mitigation strategy for long term risk reduction. • Meet the planning requirements of FEMA’s Community Rating System (CRS) program, allowing planning partners that participate in the CRS program to maintain or enhance their classifications.
• Coordinate existing plans and programs so that high-priority projects to mitigate possible disaster impacts are funded and implemented.
• Create a single planning document that integrates all planning partners into a framework that supports partnerships within the County.

1.2.2 PARTICIPATING JURISDICTIONS
The County prepared this update in partnership with local municipalities and special districts.

One of the benefits multi-jurisdictional planning is the ability to pool resources and eliminate redundant activities within a planning area that has uniform risk exposure and vulnerabilities.

Packet Page 190
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 1-5 INTRODUCTION
Any local government or non-profit agency with the ability to regulate building or infrastructure development or maintenance may participate in the planning process. However, to obtain FEMA approval, each of the local jurisdictions must meet all FEMA planning requirements outlined in 44 CFR Section 201.6.

The Monterey County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan geographically covers the entire area of Monterey County and has multiple participating jurisdictions. A planning partnership was formed to develop and steer the content in this plan. This partnership consists of participating jurisdictions and Monterey County stakeholders. Partners worked together to create the goals, objectives, mitigation strategies, and implementation methods to reduce risk.

The following municipal jurisdictions have elected to become annexes of this plan update:
• Unincorporated Monterey County (and Monterey County Water Resources Agency) • City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
• City of Del Rey Oaks
• City of Gonzales
• City of Greenfield
• City of King
• City of Marina
• City of Monterey
• City of Pacific Grove
• City of Salinas
• City of Sand City
• City of Seaside
• City of Soledad
Additionally, the following special districts have elected to become annexes of this plan update:
• Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA) (in unincorporated annex) • Carmel Area Wastewater District (CAWD)
• Monterey Regional Waste Management District (MRWMD)
• Monterey One Water (M1W)
• Moss Landing Harbor District
All jurisdictions listed above participated in and were annexes to the 2016 Monterey County MJHMP, with the exception of the Monterey Regional Waste Management District (MRWMD) and the Moss Landing Harbor District, which are new to the 2022 Plan.

1.3 CONTENTS OF THE PLAN
This plan has been set up in two volumes so that elements that are jurisdiction-specific can easily be distinguished from those that apply to the whole County.

Packet Page 191
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 1-6 INTRODUCTION
Volume 1: Countywide Hazard Mitigation Plan
Volume 1 includes the federally required elements of a hazard mitigation plan for all participating jurisdictions. This includes the description of the planning process, public involvement strategy, hazard risk assessments, countywide mitigation actions, and a plan maintenance strategy. Since this is a multi-jurisdictional plan, Volume 1 addresses the entirety of Monterey County, which includes all participating jurisdictions and the entire geographic boundary of the County. Volume 1 includes the following appendices:
• Appendix 1: Plan Adoption Resolutions from Planning Partners • Appendix 2: Plan Progress Report Template
Volume 2: Jurisdictional Annexes
Volume 2 contains the Jurisdictional Annexes, which detail the hazard mitigation planning elements specific to each participating jurisdiction in the Monterey County MJHMP Update and includes all federally required jurisdiction-specific elements for each participating jurisdiction.

Each annex is not intended to be a standalone document, but annexes to, supplements, and incorporates by reference the information contained in Volume 1 of the Plan. As such, all information in Volume 1, including the planning process and other procedural requirements and planning elements apply to and were met by each participating jurisdiction. The Annexes provide additional information specific to each participating jurisdiction, with a focus on providing additional details on the risk assessment and mitigation strategy. Jurisdictional Annexes in Volume 2 are organized in the following order:

A Unincorporated County of Monterey (and Monterey County Water Resources Agency) B City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
C City of Del Rey Oaks
D City of Gonzales
E City of Greenfield
F City of King
G City of Marina
H City of Monterey
I City of Pacific Grove
J City of Salinas
K City of Sand City
L City of Seaside
M City of Soledad
N Carmel Area Wastewater District
O Monterey One Water
P Monterey Regional Waste Management District
Q Moss Landing Harbor District
Packet Page 192
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 1-7 INTRODUCTION
All participating jurisdictions will adopt Volume 1 in its entirety and their own jurisdictionspecific annex in Volume 2. It should also be noted that the Monterey County Water Resources Agency as a dependent special district is covered under the Unincorporated Monterey County Annex. The Agency participated extensively in both the Steering Committee and the unincorporated County Hazard Mitigation Planning Team. The Plan will also be adopted by the Monterey County Water Resources Agency Board, in addition to its adoption by the Monterey County Board of Supervisors.

1.3.1 WHAT’S NEW?
In 2016, the County met all approval requirements from the DMA and officially adopted an update to the 2007 MJHMP. The 2016 Monterey County MJHMP contained descriptions of their planning processes, risk assessments of identified hazards, and mitigation strategies for reducing the risk and vulnerability from these hazards. Since the approval of the 2016 MJHMP by Cal OES and FEMA, progress has been made by the County and the participating jurisdictions on implementation of the mitigation strategies. As part of the update process, a thorough review and update of the 2016 MJHMP was conducted to ensure that this update reflects current community conditions and priorities in order to realign the updated mitigation strategy for the next five-year planning period.

Also, to be noted, Section 8, Plan Maintenance of the 2016 MJHMP and Section 22, Plan Implementation and Maintenance, of this MJHMP update identify key questions to be considered as criteria for assessing the effectiveness and appropriateness of the Plan during future plan updates. Questions include:
• Do the goals address current and expected conditions? • Has the nature or magnitude of risks changed?
• Are the current resources appropriate for implementing the Plan? • Are there implementation problems, such as technical, political, legal, or coordination issues with other agencies?
• Have the outcomes occurred as expected?
• Did the jurisdictions, agencies, and other partners participate in the plan implementation process as proposed?
Plan Reorganization
For this Plan update, a new plan organization was used. The hazard section was reorganized, combining Hazard Analysis and Vulnerability Analysis sections from the previous plan by hazard.

This allowed for a simpler document flow, which allows the reader to gain a full picture of the risk of any given hazard profiled in this plan in one individual section.

Changes in Development
Hazard mitigation plan updates must be revised to reflect changes in development within the planning area during the previous performance period (44 CFR Section 201.6(d)(3)). The plan must describe changes in development in hazard-prone areas that increased or decreased Packet Page 193
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 1-8 INTRODUCTION
vulnerability for each jurisdiction since the last plan was approved. The intent of this requirement is to ensure that the mitigation strategy continues to address the risk and vulnerability of existing and potential development and takes into consideration possible future conditions that could impact vulnerability.

Monterey County experienced a 5.8% increase in population between 2010 and 2020.

Participating jurisdictions have adopted general plans that govern land use decisions and policymaking, as well as building codes and specialty ordinances based on state and federal mandates. This plan update assumes that some new development triggered by the increase in population occurred in hazard areas. Because all such new development would have been regulated pursuant to local programs and codes, it is assumed that vulnerability did not increase even if exposure did. Specific land use and development trends for each participating jurisdiction are included in their respective Annex in Volume 2. Risk assessments included update information on development in order to assess current exposure accurately.

New Hazards and Risk Assessment Methodology
The risk assessments for each identified hazard were updated. This included reworking the hazard profile, adding new hazard event occurrences, redoing the entire vulnerability analysis to add additional items, and updating the vulnerability assessment based on more recent hazard data as well as using the most current parcel and assessor data for the existing built environment to develop loss estimates.

The County strengthened this plan by using new research methods and information systems.

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) mapping and updated critical infrastructure inventories provided the County the tools to develop more comprehensive data sets than those in the 2016 MJHMP. The FEMA National Risk Index was also used to enhance the risk assessment. The National Risk Index incorporates physical and social vulnerability data to identify communities more at-risk to the adverse impacts of natural hazards. The National Risk Index is a high quality, comprehensive data set that identifies a community’s risk to natural hazards.

The 2016 MJHMP addressed the following hazards: agricultural emergencies coastal erosion, dam failure, earthquake, flood (including coastal storm), a hazardous materials event, landslide, tsunami, wildfire, and windstorm. As part of the plan update process new hazards of concern were identified and included in this update. Some hazards were reorganized or expanded to include additional sub-hazards. New hazards and changes include:
• Levee Failure added to Dam Failure
• Land Subsidence added to Earthquake Section
• Flooding was expanded to also include Localized Stormwater Flooding and Flash Floods • Landslide was renamed to Slope Failure to encompass a broader range of slope-based hazards
• Severe Weather added as a new section which included Windstorm in addition to Severe Winter Storms, Extreme Cold & Freeze, and Extreme Heat Packet Page 194
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 1-9 INTRODUCTION
• Public Health Hazards added and includes Pandemic and Epidemic • Human Caused Hazards added and includes Cyber-Attack, Targeted Violence, Terrorism, and Mass Migration
• Utility Interruption added, including PSPS and Space Weather • The 2016 MJHMP described the anticipated effects of climate change on all hazards, as applicable, and for this update Climate Change risk analysis was expanded and combined into its own Section
• Sea Level Rise was moved under the new Climate Change Section Mitigation Actions
The 2016 mitigation actions were reviewed and have been changed, updated, and revised to reflect new priorities in this MJHMP. During this MJHMP update process, each of the 2016 mitigation actions were examined for relevancy and the potential for future implementation and then evaluated for potential follow-up. Some mitigation actions developed during the 2016 MJHMP effort are an inherent part of the MJHMP update process or were not detailed enough for implementation at a local jurisdiction level, and thus were not included in this update. The County has made significant changes to other 2016 Mitigation Actions because of the updated risk assessment and implementation strategy, to include more detail, or to update based on current mitigation practices.

During this MJHMP update process, the Steering Committee also decided to add countywide mitigation actions. These countywide actions were based on the highest rated hazards of concern the identified problem statements across the operational area. They were included in order to provide a high-level countywide mitigation strategy.

Mitigation Success Stories
The 2016 Monterey County MJHMP guiding principle, goals, objectives, and mitigation actions have been implemented through various ongoing projects, plans, and programs. The planning partners have made improvements toward reducing natural hazard risks to life and property, with significant risk reduction efforts for floodplain management, flood damage prevention, and fire hazard reduction. Throughout the hazard sections of the Plan, mitigation success stories were added in order to reflect on risk reduction successes that have occurred over the previous planning period. Mitigation success stories discussed in the Plan include:
• Section 5: Mitigating the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic to Farmworkers • Section 7: San Clemente Dam Removal
• Section 10: Severe Repetitive Loss Property Elevation • Section 10: Salinas River Stream Maintenance Program
• Section 14: City of Salinas Free Tree Program
• Section 15: Rain Rocks Shed/ Pitkin's Curve Bridge
• Section 18: Monterey Fire Defensible Space Inspection Program • Section 19: City of Gonzales Growing Green
Packet Page 195
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan

PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Packet Page 196
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 2-1 PLANNING PROFILE

2. PLANNING PROFILE
This section describes each stage of the
planning process used to develop the
Monterey County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard
Mitigation Plan. The planning process provides
a framework for document development and
follows the FEMA recommended steps as
enumerated in federal regulation and outlined
below.

FEMA recommends 4 major planning steps:
• Step 1: Organize Resources
• Step 2: Assess Risk
• Step 3: Develop a Mitigation Strategy
• Step 4: Adopt and Implement the Plan
This MJHMP is a community-driven, living
document. The planning process itself is as
important as the resulting plan because it
encourages communities to integrate
mitigation with day-to-day decision making.

This section describes each stage of the
planning process.

Organize
Resources
Assess Risk
Devleop a
Mitigation
Strategy
Adopt
and
Implement
the Plan
Packet Page 197
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 2-2 PLANNING PROFILE
Multi-Jurisdictional Planning Process
Multi-jurisdiction hazard mitigation planning offers many benefits, such as increased coordination and efficiency in planning and implementation efforts. At the same time, each jurisdiction has specific hazards and specific mitigation actions that must be addressed individually. The MJHMP balances the benefits of a comprehensive, coordinated approach to hazard mitigation with the specific realities of individual participating jurisdictions.

Volume 2 of this MJHMP documents each jurisdiction’s hazard mitigation planning process and resources. Each participating jurisdiction individually followed the same planning process as the countywide plan for their respective annex. Volume 2 provides each participating jurisdiction’s stand-alone annex.

2.1 PLANNING TIMELINE
The planning process began in April of 2019. The original intention was to start public outreach and the content update in January of 2020. Milestones and tasks affiliated with the FEMA planning steps set the original anticipated closeout date for March 2022. Planning efforts were suspended for approximately 12 months due to several moderate to catastrophic disasters in Monterey County in 2020 and 2021. These large events included the COVID-19 Pandemic, the 2020 River Fire, the 2020 Carmel Fire, the 2020 Dolan Fire, subsequent recovery efforts, and the 2021 Atmospheric River/Post-Fire Flood Flows.

After being suspended, the planning and update process resumed in March 2021, with an anticipated closeout date of July 2023. Table 2-1 outlines the key milestones in the process.

Table 2-1: MJHMP Planning Timeline
Table 2-1
MJHMP Planning Timeline
Planning Stage Start Date End Date
Public Outreach May 2019 February 2021
Planning Process May 2019 March 2020
Planning and Update Process Suspended March 2020 March 2021 Planning Process (Continued) March 2021 January 2022
Update Process March 2021 January 2022
Plan Review February 2022 June 2022
Plan Adoption and Approval July 2022 July 2023

2.1.1 THE STEERING COMMITTEE
In line with the first step of the recommended planning process, organizing resources, a Steering Committee was developed. Monterey County OES opened this planning effort to all eligible local governments and special districts within the County. Each jurisdiction wishing to join the planning partnership was asked to provide a designated a point of contact for the jurisdiction who would serve as the jurisdiction’s Steering Committee representative, as well as confirm the jurisdiction’s commitment to the process and understanding of expectations.

Packet Page 198
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 2-3 PLANNING PROFILE
The Steering Committee was comprised of representatives from all participating jurisdictions who worked together to develop the MJHMP. Each jurisdiction’s Steering Committee representative was also the lead for their respective Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Stakeholder Team.

The Steering Committee was at the core of the MJHMP planning process and was integral to ensuring its success, its implementation, and its future maintenance. Members of the Steering Committee, listed in Table 2-2, represented jurisdictional leads from each planning partner.

Table 2-2: 2022 MJHMP Steering Committee Members
Table 2-2
2022 MJHMP Steering Committee Members
Name Agency/Jurisdiction Title
Barbara Buikema Carmel Area Wastewater District General Manager Paul Tomasi City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Police Chief
Chris Bourquin City of Del Rey Oaks Police Commander
Jeff Hoyne City of Del Rey Oaks Police Chief
Jason Muscio City of Gonzales Fire Chief
Jim Langborg City of Greenfield Fire Chief
Doreen Liberto City of King Community Development Director Steve Adams City of King City Manager
Doug McCoun City of Marina Fire Chief
Gaudenz Panholzer City of Monterey Fire Chief
Alyson Hunter City of Pacific Grove Senior Planner
Skylar Thompson City of Salinas Fire Chief
Brian Ferrante City of Sand City Police Chief
Dave Nava City of Seaside Division Chief
Mary Gutierrez City of Seaside Fire Chief
George Nunez City of Soledad Fire Chief
John Dugan Monterey County Housing and
Community Development
Deputy Director of Land Use and
Community Development
Kelsey Scanlon Monterey County Office of
Emergency Services Emergency Services Planner
Jennifer Bodensteiner Monterey County Water
Resources Agency Associate Hydrologist
Sarah Stevens Monterey One Water Compliance Analyst
David Ramirez Monterey Regional Waste
Management District Senior Engineer
Tommy Razzeca Moss Landing Harbor District General Manager/ Harbormaster The Steering Committee met throughout the development of the MJHMP update to discuss the MJHMP, its progress, and key planning elements. Table 2-3 provides an overview of those meetings, including dates and topics discussed.

Packet Page 199
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 2-4 PLANNING PROFILE
Agendas for all Steering Committee Meetings are included in Appendix 3.

Table 2-3: Steering Committee Meeting Schedule
Table 2-3
Steering Committee Meeting Schedule
Meeting Date Topics Discussed
Kick-Off Meeting May 22, 2019
• Overview of Hazard Mitigation
• Solicit Planning Partners
• Plan Expectations and Timeline
Planning Meeting #1 January 22, 2020
• Hazard Mitigation Overview
• Overview of Planning Process
• Roles, Responsibilities, and Tasks
• Public Outreach Strategy
• Information Requirements
Planning Meeting #2 February 19, 2020
• Planning Process Schedule
• Public Outreach Strategy
• Community Profile Review
• Information Requirements
Planning Meeting #3 March 2020 • Cancelled Due to COVID-19 Planning Meeting #4 April 2020 • Cancelled Due to COVID-19 Planning Meeting #5 May 2020 • Cancelled Due to COVID-19 Planning Meeting #6 July 15, 2020
• Progress Update
• COVID-19 Restrictions
• Timeline Changes
Planning Meeting #7 August 2021 • Cancelled Due to COVID-19 Planning Meeting #8 April 15, 2021
• Planning Process Timeline Update
• Plan Reorganization and Hazard List
• Upcoming Public Meetings and Survey
• Jurisdiction Information Requirements
Planning Meeting #9 May 21, 2021
• Jurisdiction-Specific Planning Meetings
• Information on Jurisdiction Annexes
• Threat Hazard Risk Assessment
Planning Meeting #10 September 21, 2021
• Countywide Mitigation Strategy
• Threat Hazard Risk Assessment Results
• Countywide Mitigation Actions
• Plan Maintenance Strategy
• Jurisdiction Annexes Overview
Packet Page 200
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 2-5 PLANNING PROFILE
Review and Incorporation of Existing Documents
The Steering Committee and the Monterey County OES Team reviewed and incorporated existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information in the formation of this MJHMP.

Those documents are referenced throughout the hazard sections and are examined more closely in Section 20, Capability Assessment.

2.1.2 STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
Per 44 CFR Section 201.6(b)(2), the planning process included an opportunity for neighboring communities, local and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation activities, and agencies that have the authority to regulate development, as well as businesses, academia, and other private and non-profit interests to be involved.

In order to gather input from stakeholders on the risks and hazards facing Monterey County, the Threat Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA) Survey, described in more detail in Section 4, Risk Assessment Methods, was sent out to neighboring communities, local and regional agencies, agencies that regulate development, businesses, academia, and other private and non-profit interests. Results from the survey were included with the rest of the Steering Committee and Jurisdiction results in the Countywide THIRA.

The agencies from whom stakeholders were invited to participate includes:
• American Red Cross
• American Water Works
• Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG)
• Big Sur Fire Brigade
• Cachagua Fire
• California American Water Company
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife
• California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) • California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
• California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) • California Highway Patrol (CHP)
• California State Parks
• California State University, Monterey Bay (CSUMB)
• Carmel Valley Recreation and Park District
• Castroville Community Services District
• Center for Ocean Solutions
• Central Coast Community Energy
• Central Coast Wetlands Group
• Community Emergency Response Volunteers (CERV) of the Monterey Peninsula • Cypress Fire Protection District
Packet Page 201
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 2-6 PLANNING PROFILE
• Elkhorn Slough National Reserve
• Gonzales Rural Fire Protection District
• Hartnell Community College
• Marina Coast Water District
• Mid Coast Fire Brigade
• Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI)
• Monterey Bay Sanctuary Foundation
• Monterey County Office of Education
• Monterey County Regional Fire Protection District
• Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District (MPRPD)
• Monterey Peninsula Unified School District
• Monterey Regional Fire
• Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST)
• National Weather Service (NWS)
• Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
• Naval Postgraduate School
• North County Fire Protection District
• North County Recreation and Park District
• Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E)
• Pajaro/Sunny Mesa Community Services District
• Pebble Beach Community Services District
• Resources Conservation District of Monterey County (RCDMC) • Salinas Valley State Prison.
• San Ardo California Water District
• San Benito County
• San Lucas County Water District
• San Luis Obispo County
• Santa Cruz Country
• Santa Lucia Community Services District
• Soledad-Mission Recreation District
• SPCA for Monterey County
• Spreckels Community Services District
• The Nature Conservancy
• United Way Monterey County
• US Army Garrison- Presidio of Monterey
• US Army Garrison-Fort Hunter Liggett
• US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
• US Forest Service - Los Padres National Forest
Packet Page 202
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 2-7 PLANNING PROFILE

2.1.3 JURISDICTION SPECIFIC PLANNING EFFORTS
Each jurisdiction conducted internal planning efforts with their individual jurisdiction planning teams to update their specific Annexes. These efforts were led by the Local Jurisdiction Lead who served as that jurisdiction’s Steering Committee representatives. Each Jurisdictions respective Steering Committee representative established their own Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan Stakeholder Team. Jurisdiction-specific Stakeholder Teams included, as applicable, those deemed relevant for local hazard mitigation and disaster risk reduction efforts and often included representatives from the following departments: City Management, Economic Development, Fire Department, Floodplain Administration, IT, Parks & Recreation, Community Development, Police Department, and Public Works. Details on the members of each Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan Stakeholder Team is included in Volume 2.

Each participating jurisdiction held at least one Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Planning Meeting.

At these meetings, the respective Hazard Mitigation Plan Stakeholder Team discussed hazard vulnerabilities, reviewed previous problem statements and mitigation strategies, and discussed their action plan. Each jurisdiction went through a risk ranking process using the Threat Hazard Risk Assessment (THIRA) Survey. This process is described in more detail in Section 4.4, Hazard Prioritization and Risk Ranking. Jurisdiction specific planning meetings are listed in Table 2-4.

Table 2-4: Jurisdiction-Specific Planning Meetings
Table 2-4
Jurisdiction-Specific Planning Meetings
Jurisdiction Meeting Date Location
City of Pacific Grove May 5, 2021 Virtual
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea June 15, 2021 Virtual
City of King June 22, 2021 Virtual
City of Seaside June 28, 2021 Virtual
City of Salinas July 13, 2021 City of Salinas City Hall City of Monterey July 19, 2021 Virtual
Monterey One Water (MW1) July 28, 2021 Regional Treatment Plant Carmel Area Wastewater District
(CAWD) August 2, 2021 CAWD Offices
City of Soledad August 18, 2021 City of Soledad City Hall City of Sand City August 24, 2021 City of Sand City City Hall Unincorporated Monterey County August 30, 2021 Virtual
City of Marina August 31, 2021 Virtual
City of Gonzales September 15, 2021 City of Gonzales Police Station City of Del Rey Oaks September 21, 2021 City of Del Rey Oaks City Hall City of Greenfield September 23, 2021 Virtual
Monterey Regional Waste
Management District (MRWMD) September 23, 2021 MRWMD Offices Moss Landing Harbor District September 27, 2021 Moss Landing Harbor City of Salinas October 5, 2021 City of Salinas City Hall Packet Page 203
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 2-8 PLANNING PROFILE

2.2 PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
Broad public participation in the planning process helps ensure that diverse points of view are considered and addressed. The public must have opportunities to comment on disaster mitigation plans during the drafting stages and prior to plan approval (44 CFR, Section 201.6(b)(1)). The public involvement strategy used for this plan update introduced the concept of mitigation to the public and provided the Steering Committee with feedback to use in developing the plan.

Public outreach was a critical element of the plan update process, as Monterey County includes a broad range of communities with diverse citizenry, concerns, and needs. A plan that reflects the community’s values and priorities is likely to have greater legitimacy and “buy-in” and greater success in implementing mitigation actions and projects to reduce risk. The public outreach strategy maximized involvement throughout the planning process.

Public stakeholders were given many opportunities to provide comment during all phases of the update process. The strategy for involving the public in this plan was a multi-pronged approach utilizing a dedicated website, a Community Survey, 7 Public Forums, and Public Presentations. Presentations were provided in Spanish upon request. The website and Survey were translated in Spanish to accommodate Spanish speaking community members.

2.2.1 WEBSITE
At the beginning of the plan development process, a website was created to keep the public posted on plan development milestones and to solicit relevant input. The site’s address was publicized at all public meetings. Each planning partner established a link to this site on its own agency website. Information on the plan development process, the Steering Committee, the Survey, and drafts of the plan was made available to the public on the site throughout the Packet Page 204
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 2-9 PLANNING PROFILE
process. Monterey County OES intends to keep the website active after the plan’s completion to keep the public informed about successful mitigation projects and future plan updates.

2.2.2 SURVEY
A hazard mitigation survey was developed, in both English and Spanish, by the planning team with guidance from the Steering Committee. The survey provided an opportunity for residents to share opinions regarding hazard mitigation and participate in the plan update process. The survey consisted of 30 questions and was made available on the hazard mitigation plan website and advertised throughout the course of the planning process. The survey was used to:
• Gauge the public’s perception of risk and identify what citizens are concerned about. • Identify the best ways to communicate with the public. • Determine the level of public support for different mitigation strategies. • Understand the public’s willingness to invest in hazard mitigation.

The survey was open for public participation from July 22, 2019, to August 28, 2021, and 100 completed surveys were submitted.

Packet Page 205
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 2-10 PLANNING PROFILE
Data suggests a direct correlation between public outreach efforts and survey participation as seen in Figure 2-1.

Figure 2-1
Survey Responses to Date
Figure 2-1: Survey Responses to Date
Survey respondents represented a broad range of geographical areas. Table 2-5 summarizes the geographic diversity of respondents and Figure 2-2 shows a heat map of respondents.

Table 2-5: Public Survey Respondents by Location
Table 2-5
Public Survey Respondents by Location
Jurisdiction # of Respondents
City of Carmel by The Sea 1
City of Del Rey Oaks 2
City of Gonzales 0
City of Greenfield 0
City of King City 1
City of Marina 5
City of Monterey 27
City of Pacific Grove 5
City of Salinas 12
City of Sand City 0
City of Seaside 0
City of Soledad 1
Incorporated Jurisdiction Respondents Subtotal 54
Unincorporated Area- Big Sur 8
Unincorporated Area-Carmel 5
Unincorporated Area- Carmel Valley 9
Unincorporated Area - Salinas/River Rd 2
Unincorporated Area - North County 4
Unincorporated Area - Other 1
Unincorporated Area Respondents Subtotal 29
Other* 17
Total Respondents 100
*Respondents identified locations outside of County or did not identify their locations.

Packet Page 206
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 2-11 PLANNING PROFILE
Figure 2-2
Heat Map of Public Survey Respondents Locations
Figure 2-2: Heat Map of Public Survey Respondents
Results of the survey were used to support the creation of the Countywide Hazard Mitigation Problem Statements and the Countywide Hazard Mitigation Action Matrix.

Approximately 74% of survey participants indicated they had experienced or been impacted by a natural hazard or disaster. The most common hazards respondents had experienced or been impacted by were flooding (25 respondents), earthquakes (24 respondents), wildfires (23 respondents), and windstorms (19 respondents). Survey participants were most concerned about agricultural emergencies, earthquakes, and climate change.

Participants also ranked which community assets were most vulnerable to natural hazards.

Community assets were ranked by vulnerability in the following order:

1. Infrastructure: Damage or loss of roads, bridges, utilities, schools, etc.

2. People: Loss of life and/or injuries

3. Environmental: Damage, contamination or loss of forests, wetlands, waterways, etc.

4. Governmental: Ability to maintain order and continue providing public services, etc.

5. Economic: Business interruptions or closures, job losses, agricultural losses, etc.

6. Cultural/Historic: Damage or loss of libraries, museums, historic properties, etc.

In terms of mitigation activities, 81% of respondents felt natural systems protection was very important to pursue, 77% felt educations and awareness programs were very important to Packet Page 207
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 2-12 PLANNING PROFILE
pursue, 73% felt local plans and regulations were very important to pursue, and 71% felt structure and infrastructure projects were very important to pursue.

The highest priority mitigation actions included: Strengthen infrastructure such as roads, bridges, water/wastewater and electric power supply facilities (83 respondents); Develop climate adaptation plans, policies or projects to minimize potential negative impacts from climate change (68 respondents); Enhance or restore the capacity of natural features (dunes, floodplains, wetlands) to absorb impacts of natural hazards (61 respondents); Strengthen critical public facilities such as police, fire, schools and hospitals (60 respondents); and Provide better public information about hazard risks and available mitigation measures (59 respondents).

The lowest priority mitigation actions included: Protect cultural and/or historic resources such as monuments, museums, historic landmarks, etc. (18 respondents); Assist vulnerable property owners with securing funding for mitigation projects (35 respondents); and acquire vulnerable properties from willing sellers, remove or relocate existing structures and maintain as open space (23 respondents).

Full survey results are available upon request.

2.2.3 COMMUNITY FORUMS
Monterey County OES held 7 Community Forums, geographically dispersed by Supervisorial District, in order to capture a wide range of community input on the update to the MJHMP.

Table 2-6 lists the community forums that occurred.

Table 2-6: Hazard Mitigation Community Forums on the 2022 MJHMP Table 2-6
Hazard Mitigation Community Forums on the 2022 MJHMP
District Date Location
District 1 January 8, 2020 Ag Commissioner’s Office
District 2 January 6, 2020 Castroville Library
District 3 January 15, 2020 San Antonio Valley Community Center District 3 January 17, 2020 Arroyo Seco Fire District Station #32 District 4 January 9, 2020 Marina Library
District 5 January 16, 2020 Big Sur Lodge Conference Room District 5 January 22, 2020 Discovery Center at Palo Corona Regional Park In order to assess the community’s perception of hazard risk, during the community forums, an interactive activity was conducted. The activity was offered in both English and Spanish.

Community members voted with stickers to answers questions on the importance of various community assets and their level of concern on different hazards. First, in order to understand the importance of various community assets, community forum participants indicated how Packet Page 208
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 2-13 PLANNING PROFILE
important various community assets were to them. Community assets was defined as features, characteristics, or resources that either make a community unique or allow it to function.

Table 2-7 summarizes the results from all community forums on the answer to the question:

How important are each of the following community assets to you? The results indicate that over 90% of community members that responded considered Electric Power and Gas Facilities, Emergency Operations Centers, Hospital and Medical Facilities, Major Roads and Bridges, and Water and Wastewater Utilities to be very important.

Table 2-7: Community Forums Interactive Activity Results: Community Assets Table 2-7
Community Forums Interactive Activity Results: Community Assets Community Asset
Percent of Respondents
Very
Important
Somewhat
Important Neutral Not Very Important
Not
Important
Airports 13.3% 66.7% 13.3% 0.0% 6.7%
Colleges/Universities 50.0% 28.6% 7.1% 14.3% 0.0%
Day Care Facilities 30.0% 40.0% 30.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Elder Care Facilities 64.3% 14.3% 21.4% 0.0% 0.0%
Electric Power and Gas Facilities 95.7% 0.0% 4.3% 0.0% 0.0% Emergency Operations Centers 93.3% 6.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Emergency Shelters 87.5% 12.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Farms and Agricultural Facilities 38.5% 46.2% 7.7% 7.7% 0.0% Fire Stations and EMS Facilities 80.0% 20.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Government Buildings 25.0% 37.5% 37.5% 0.0% 0.0%
Historic Buildings 41.7% 25.0% 25.0% 8.3% 0.0%
Hospital and Medical Facilities 92.3% 7.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Major Roads and Bridges 92.6% 7.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Major Employers 28.6% 42.9% 28.6% 0.0% 0.0%
Military Facilities 14.3% 57.1% 14.3% 14.3% 0.0%
Natural Resources 85.7% 14.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Parks and Recreational Areas 78.6% 21.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Police Stations 84.6% 15.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Port and Marine Facilities 62.5% 25.0% 0.0% 12.5% 0.0%
Schools (K-12) 68.8% 25.0% 6.3% 0.0% 0.0%
Small Businesses 54.5% 45.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Water and Wastewater Utilities 92.3% 7.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Next, in order to understand the community’s perception of hazard risk, community forum participants indicated how concerned they were about various hazards.

Table 2-8 summarizes the results from all community meetings on the answer to the question:

How concerned are you about the possibility of your community being impacted by each of these hazards?
Packet Page 209
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 2-14 PLANNING PROFILE
Table 2-8: Community Forums Interactive Activity Results: Hazard Concern Table 2-8
Community Forums Interactive Activity Results: Hazard Concern Hazard Percent of Respondents
Very Concerned Somewhat Concerned Not Concerned
Agricultural Emergency 73.9% 26.1% 0.0%
Coastal Erosion 70.0% 30.0% 0.0%
Dam Failure 55.6% 27.8% 16.7%
Earthquake 78.6% 21.4% 0.0%
Flood 80.0% 20.0% 0.0%
Hazardous Materials Incident 62.5% 25.0% 12.5%
Landslide / Debris Flow 69.4% 22.2% 8.3%
Sea Level Rise 64.7% 29.4% 5.9%
Tsunami 61.1% 22.2% 16.7%
Wildland Fire 73.1% 23.1% 3.8%
Windstorm 37.5% 58.3% 4.2%

2.2.4 PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS
In order to inform the public about the plan, public presentations were held. Presentations helped educate the public about existing hazards and mitigation strategies and allowed the public to provide feedback on the MJHMP. Public presentations are listed in Table 2-9. Table 2-9: Public Presentations on the 2022 MJHMP Update Table 2-9
Public Presentations of the 2022 MJHMP Update
Public Presentation Date
Monterey County Board of Supervisors Tuesday, April 2, 2019 Monterey County Disaster Council Wednesday, April 24, 2019 Monterey County Disaster Council Meeting Wednesday, October 30, 2019 City of Gonzales City Council Meeting Presentation Monday, November 18, 2019 City of Pacific Grove City Council Meeting Presentation Wednesday, February 19, 2020 City of Sand City City Council Meeting Presentation Tuesday, March 3, 2020 City of King City Council Meeting Presentation Tuesday, August 25, 2020 City of Greenfield City Council Meeting Presentation Tuesday, September 22, 2020 City of Monterey City Council Meeting Presentation Tuesday, October 6, 2020 Monterey County Disaster Council Meeting Wednesday, October 28, 2020 Carmel-by-the-Sea Climate Change Committee Meeting Thursday, November 19, 2020 City of Marina City Council Meeting Presentation Tuesday, May 18 2021 City of Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council Presentation Tuesday, June 1, 2021 City of Seaside City Council Meeting Presentation Thursday, June 3, 2021 Monterey Regional Waste Management District Board Friday, June 18, 2021 City of Soledad City Council Meeting Presentation Wednesday, July 21, 2021 City of Salinas City Council Meeting Presentation Tuesday, August 10, 2021 City of Del Rey Oaks City Council Meeting Presentation Tuesday, September 28, 2021 Moss Landing Harbor District Board Presentation Wednesday, September 29, 2021 Packet Page 210
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 2-15 PLANNING PROFILE

2.3 ASSESS THE RISK
In accordance with FEMA requirements, the Steering Committee identified and prioritized the hazards affecting both the County as a whole and each participating jurisdiction individually. It also assessed the vulnerability to those hazards. Results from this risk assessment aided in the subsequent identification of appropriate mitigation actions. While the process is described below, the substance of this risk assessment is detailed in Section 4, Risk Assessment Methods.

Identify and Profile Hazards
Based on a review of past hazard events, existing plans, reports, and other technical studies, data, and information, the Steering Committee determined what regional hazards could affect the County. The Steering Committee completed a screening and prioritization processes to determine priority hazards to be assessed. A risk assessment finalized the prioritization process by ranking hazards according to the impact and threat to the whole County in Volume 1 and each participating jurisdiction in Volume 2.

Assess Vulnerabilities
Assessing vulnerabilities exposes the unique characteristics of individual hazards and begins the process of narrowing down which areas within the County are vulnerable to specific hazard events. The vulnerability assessment involved a subjective assessment, in addition to a GIS overlaying method for examining vulnerabilities in-depth. The identified hazards varied depending on the geographic make-up of, priorities of, and services provided by the participating jurisdictions. Using these methods, planning partners estimated vulnerable populations, infrastructure, and potential losses from hazards.

2.4 DEVELOP A MITIGATION STRATEGY
This plan provides an explicit strategy and blueprint for reducing potential losses identified in the risk assessment based on existing authorities, policies, programs and resources, and participating jurisdictions’ abilities to expand on and improve these existing tools. MJHMP development included identifying goals, assessing existing capabilities, reviewing the 2016 MJHMP goals, and identifying new mitigation actions. The MJHMP was prepared in accordance with requirements from DMA 2000 and the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and FEMA’s HMP guidance. The process is described below; the substance of the mitigation strategy is detailed in Section 21, Mitigation Strategy, for the whole County and within Volume 2 for each participating jurisdiction.

Identify Goals
The Steering Committee reviewed the 2016 MJHMP goals and determined their current validity, consistent with FEMA requirements. The goals were updated to meet the current hazard environments and to be consistent with the changing policies and goals of participating jurisdictions. The goals are presented in Section 21, Mitigation Strategy.

Packet Page 211
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 2-16 PLANNING PROFILE
Develop Capabilities Assessment
A capabilities assessment is a comprehensive review of participating jurisdictions’ capabilities and tools to implement the mitigation actions in the MJHMP. The Steering Committee and individual jurisdiction Planning Teams identified technical, financial, and administrative capabilities to implement mitigation actions, as detailed in Section 20, Capability Assessment, and in Volume 2 for each participating jurisdiction.

Identify Hazard Problem Statements
The Steering Committee and individual jurisdiction Planning Teams developed mitigation actions, as both planning activities and projects, to address problems that could originate from hazards identified in the risk assessment, in line with identified capability of each jurisdiction.

Mitigation actions were created first by developing problem statements for prioritized hazards.

Hazard Problem Statements are located at the conclusion of each hazard section, in Section 21, Mitigation Strategy, and in Volume 2 for each individual jurisdiction.

Identify Mitigation Actions
As part of the MJHMP planning process, the Steering Committee and individual jurisdiction Planning Teams reviewed and analyzed the status of the mitigation actions identified in the 2016 MJHMP. The status of mitigation actions included in the 2016 MJHMP that were either completed or deleted during the plan update process is included in Volume 2 in the respective annexes of each jurisdiction who were included in the prior plan. Once the 2016 actions were reviewed, the Steering Committee and individual jurisdiction Planning Teams then worked to identify and develop new mitigation actions with implementation elements. Additional detail on these mitigation actions is provided in Section 21, Mitigation Strategy, and in Volume 2 for each individual jurisdiction.

2.5 ADOPT AND IMPLEMENT THE PLAN
Once the risk assessment and mitigation strategy were completed, information, data, and associated narratives were compiled into the MJHMP. Section 1.3.1, What’s New?, provides detailed information on new and updated elements of the MJHMP.

Plan Review and Revision
Once the Draft MJHMP Update was completed, a public and government review period was established for official review and revision. Public comments were accepted, reviewed, and incorporated into this update. Applicable comments from the public have been received and addressed prior to submitting to FEMA and Cal OES. Steering Committee Members, Operational Area stakeholders, and partners were provided a 60-day review period prior to the public review and comment period. This was announced at the Monterey County Operational Area Disaster Council meeting on October 27, 2021.

A 30-day public comment period, from February 10 to March 10, 2022, gave the public an opportunity to comment on the draft plan update prior to its submittal to Cal OES. The principal Packet Page 212
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 2-17 PLANNING PROFILE
avenue for public comment on the draft plan was the website established for this plan update.

Comments received on the draft plan are available upon request. All comments were reviewed by the Steering Committee and incorporated into the draft plan as appropriate.

Plan Approval and Submittal
On behalf of all participating jurisdictions, Monterey County Office of Emergency Services submitted the Plan for Cal OES and FEMA Review on March 11, 2022. The 2022 Monterey County MJHMP received Approval Pending Adoption from FEMA on June 14, 2022.

Plan Adoption
Upon receiving the notice of Approval Pending Adoption, all participating jurisdictions seeking plan approval are required to adopt the plan. The plan approval date remains the same regardless of the independent participating jurisdictions adoption dates.

Table 2-10: Jurisdiction Plan Adoption Dates
Table 2-10
Jurisdiction Plan Adoption Dates
Annex Letter Agency/Jurisdiction Adoption Date
A Unincorporated County of Monterey
A Monterey County Water Resources Agency
B City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
C City of Del Rey Oaks
D City of Gonzales
E City of Greenfield
F City of King
G City of Marina
H City of Monterey
I City of Pacific Grove
J City of Salinas
K City of Sand City
L City of Seaside
M City of Soledad
N Carmel Area Wastewater District
O Monterey One Water
P Monterey Regional Waste Management District
Q Moss Landing Harbor District
Upon receiving the record of adoption from the State, FEMA will issue an official approval letter stating which jurisdictions have adopted and are approved and eligible for FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance programs. The approval letter and date are generated with the first jurisdiction adopting the plan. The Monterey County MJHMP was approved on DATE and expires on DATE.

Packet Page 213
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 2-18 PLANNING PROFILE
Implement, Evaluate, and Revise the Plan
The true worth of any mitigation plan is its implementation and success under FEMA’s grant programs. This MJHMP has been assembled to reduce the risk of natural hazards, and also to meet the requirements of the DMA 2000 and maintain eligibility under FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) grant programs. FEMA administers three programs that provide funding for local agencies with approved mitigation plans:
• Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), which assists in implementing long-term hazard mitigation planning and projects following a Presidential major disaster declaration. • Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC), which provides funds for hazard mitigation planning and projects on an annual basis.
• Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA), which provides funds for planning and projects to reduce or eliminate risk of flood damage to buildings that are insured under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) on an annual basis.

Plan Maintenance
The County will update and monitor this plan in accordance with all FEMA requirements in order maintain eligibility for FEMA HMA. Evaluation and revision procedures for this plan are detailed in Section 22, Plan Implementation and Maintenance. Section 22 includes the measures Monterey County and planning partners will take to ensure the MJHMP’s continuous long‐term implementation, including MJHMP monitoring, reporting, evaluation, maintenance, and updating.

Packet Page 214
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 3-1 COMMUNITY PROFILE

3. COMMUNITY PROFILE
Monterey County is situated on California's central coast, south of San Francisco and north of Los Angeles. Monterey County is known to the world for its majestic coastlines including Big Sur, the Monterey Peninsula, and the Monterey Bay, as well as the agriculturally rich Salinas Valley, known as the “Salad Bowl of the World.” It is also home to Pinnacles National Park near the City of Soledad, the Monterey Bay Aquarium, and the site of a Monarch butterfly preserve in the City of Pacific Grove.

3.1 LOCATION, GEOGRAPHY, AND CLIMATE
Monterey County is located on the Pacific Ocean on the north-central coast of California. The County is bordered by Santa Cruz County to the North, San Benito, Fresno, and King Counties to the East, San Luis Obispo County to the South, and the Pacific Ocean to the West. The County is 110 miles south of San Francisco and 320 miles north of Los Angeles.

Monterey County, one of the largest in California, covers 3,771 square miles, of which 13% is water, and contains nearly 100 miles of coastline. Elevation within the County ranges from sea level to 5,862 feet at Junipero Serra Peak, which is located 12 miles inland in the Santa Lucia Range. Prominent land features in the County include two major northwest-southeast trending mountain ranges—the Santa Lucia Range along the coast, and the Gabilan Range along the eastern border of the County, both of which are part of the Pacific Coast Range. Between the Santa Lucia and Gabilan mountain ranges lies the Salinas Valley; and at the center of the Valley flows the Salinas River, the largest river on California’s Central Coast.

Packet Page 215
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 3-2 COMMUNITY PROFILE
Figure 3-1
Map of Monterey County
Figure 3-1: Map of Monterey County
The Santa Lucia Range stretches approximately 100 miles from just south of Carmel to a point north of the San Luis Obispo County line. The steepest slope in the contiguous United States occurs within the Coast Range at Cone Peak, ranging from sea level to 5,155 feet in a distance of just three miles. The Big Sur coastline is known for its steep slopes, jagged peaks, and narrow coastal canyons. Offshore the steep ridges of the Santa Lucia Mountains fall sharply beneath the Pacific Ocean. 50 miles offshore, the Pacific Ocean reaches a depth of 12,000 feet. Two deep submarine canyons, the Sur Submarine Canyon, and the Partington Submarine Canyon, cut into the continental shelf near the Big Sur coast, and eventually merge to become one of the deepest submarine canyons on earth.

On the eastern side of the Santa Lucia Range, the mountain slopes descend abruptly down to the Salinas Valley, which rises in altitude from sea level at the Monterey Bay to approximately 400 feet near Bradley. The Valley is 130 miles long and is famous for its productive soils.

The Gabilan Mountains, like the Santa Lucia Mountains, are composed of granite and metamorphic rocks and are similarly characterized by steep slopes and complex drainage patterns. The Gabilan Mountains, located further inland however, are drier than the Santa Lucia Packet Page 216
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 3-3 COMMUNITY PROFILE
Mountains. At the northern end of the Monterey County lies the Pajaro River. Much of north County land is cultivated with agricultural crops. The coastal area of North County contains wide sandy beaches and the primary commercial fishing harbor for the entire County.

Monterey County includes 12 incorporated cities and 16 unincorporated areas; of which Salinas, the County seat, is the largest municipality. The cities can be generally grouped into two classifications (valley and coastal):

Valley Cities: Gonzales, Greenfield, King City, Salinas (Monterey County seat), and Soledad.

Coastal Cities: Carmel, Del Rey Oaks, Marina, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Sand City, and Seaside.

California Highway 101 bisects the County providing easy access to all Salinas Valley cities and the Monterey Peninsula, while Highway 1 offers scenic views of the California coast.

The climate in Monterey County is considered Mediterranean, with dry summers, rainy winters, and moderate temperatures year-round, with an average rainfall of about 19 inches per year.

Precipitation in the region falls mainly between November and April. Large variations exist in rainfall amounts between coastal and inland areas, as well as from year to year and from sea level to altitude along the coast.

3.2 HISTORY
Before the European colonization, the Monterey area had been inhabited for over 8,000 years.

Indigenous peoples lived in the valleys and near the seaside and the area was inhabited by three major native groups: the Costanoan (Ohlone), Esselen, and Salinan groups. The Salinan Indigenous Americans lived in southern region of the County and had about 3,500-4,000 members. The Esselen Indigenous Americans had several hundred members and resided on the northwest coast of the County. The Costanoan (Ohlone) group was the largest in the area with around 7,000 people, occupying Monterey Peninsula and northern region of the County.

Spanish explorers first sailed past the Monterey coast in the mid-1500s but did not land in the Monterey Bay until the early 1600s. In 1542, Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo discovered the bay he named “la Bahia de los Pinos,” the Bay of Pines, but not venture ashore. By the late 1500s, New Spain's concerns were focused on the Pacific, in particular, the threat of English piracy against Spain's Manila galleons. With a view toward finding a port to protect and supply the galleons, Sebastian Vizcaino laid claim to the bay in 1602, when he named it, the Bahia de Monte Rey, or Monterey Bay, in honor of Gaspar de Zuniga y Acevedo, Conde de Monterrey, the Viceroy of New Spain. The word itself is composed of the “monte” and “rey,” which literally means “king of the mountain” in Spanish. Spanish settlement in the region though did not occur for another 167 years. It would not be until 1769, when New Spain, fearing the advancement of the Russians, planned an expedition into California to establish a military foothold and a mission.

On June 3, 1770, Captain Gaspar de Portola, and Franciscan Father Junipero Serra founded the Presidio of Monterey and the Mission de San Carolos Borromeo de Monterey at Monterey Bay.

Packet Page 217
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 3-4 COMMUNITY PROFILE
In 1774, the small, rudimentary presidio was named the capital of the Californias, both Alta and Baja, upper and lower. And, in 1778 it was named the capital of Spanish Alta California.

Spanish settlers began developing catholic missions, or religious outposts, within the County and used the Salinas Valley for range lands. Franciscan missionaries also began constructing missions in the late 1700s, establishing missions in Monterey (1770, then moved to Carmel in 1771), in the San Antonio River Valley (1771) along the eastern side of the Santa Lucia Mountains, and in Soledad (1791). This began a period of forced conversions of Indigenous Americans to Catholicism and the disintegration of traditional Indigenous life. Natives were decimated by introduced European diseases, particularly whooping cough, and measles, and by violence in the missions and declining birth rates. In 1826, after Mexico’s secession from Spain, the governor of Alta California emancipated the remaining natives from the missions. A small number of their descendants still live in the region.

Monterey was an important port and military position, for Spain, becoming the political and cultural Capital of Alta California in 1775. Spain established a formal pueblo government in the region that went into effect in 1794. By 1800, most settlers in the area lived in the Presidio or at the mission in Carmel, while a few had moved out to ranches south of Salinas. Slowly, settlers began moving into the Salinas Valley and developing ranches centered around cattle. The region remained a military outpost for most of Spanish rule. Spanish occupation of the Monterey County region significantly expanded grasslands, especially in the Salinas Valley, to support an economy based primarily on cattle grazing. The Spanish also introduced a number of important crops to the region, including wine grapes, olives, apples, and pear trees.

In 1822, following the Mexican War of Independence, California became a province of Mexico.

Monterey remained the capital of Alta California during the 20-year period of Mexican rule.

Under Mexican rule, with the secularization of the missions, the Californios, the descendants of the original Spanish colonists, secured vast land grants and expanded the cattle and hide trade.

The boundaries of the original ranchos serve to a large extent as today’s property boundaries within the region, particularly on larger tracts of agricultural and ranching lands. Mexico lifted the strict trading regulations the Spanish had enforced, and Monterey became California’s main port of entry. British, American, and South American trading vessels flocked to the coastal port.

The official Custom House at Monterey opened to foreign ships, transforming the old Spanish provincial capital into an international port.

Tensions between the US and Mexico rapidly deteriorated in the 1840s as American expansionists eagerly eyed land to the west, including the lush northern Mexican province of California. Indeed, in 1842, a US naval fleet, incorrectly believing war had broken out, seized Monterey. Monterey was returned the next day, but the episode only added to the uneasiness between Mexico and the US. In the mid-1800s, during the Mexican American war, the Presidio of Monterey was taken over by the US military. In July 1846, Commodore John Drake Sloat’s troops officially raised the American flag over the Custom House, setting the stage for California to become part of the US. Sloat established the first American fort in California to protect the Packet Page 218
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 3-5 COMMUNITY PROFILE
harbor. Following the Mexican American War, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, signed in February 1848, formally ceded Alta California, which included Monterey County, to the United States. US Navy Captain Walter Colton was appointed Monterey’s first American Alcalde or Chief Magistrate of the Monterey district in 1846. He impaneled the first jury in California, cofounded the first newspaper in California, was one of the founders of the first public library in California, and raised funds to build Colton Hall, the first and largest public building in California, as a town hall and school. In 1849, the new building became the site of the convention to establish a constitution for American California.

Settlement of Monterey County following its entry into the US, was at first concentrated around the establishments of earlier settlers. As ranchos were subdivided and settlers applied for preemption to public lands, clustered farms appeared in the canyon mouths that opened on to the Salinas Valley. The discovery of gold in the Sierra Nevada foothills in 1849 brought droves of homesteaders to the County, and as the best parcels in Monterey and the Salinas Valley became occupied, homesteading spread to the rugged Big Sur coast. Many of the first American settlers were cattlemen like the Spanish before them, and sheep were raised in large numbers, both in the Salinas Valley and in the hills of the Big Sur coast. Grazing eventually gave way to irrigated agriculture. The gold rush sparked the development of the Southern Pacific railroad and, as the railroad system grew in late 1800s, so did the Salinas Valley population.

David Jacks, a controversial figure in Monterey history, involved himself in the settlement of Mexican land claims in Monterey. In 1853 the Pueblo of Monterey contracted Delos Ashley to help legalize its title to some 30,000 acres of land. Ashley billed the city $1,000 for his services and when they could not pay, he suggested the city auction some of its land. Ashley and Jacks were the only two bidders and purchased the entire tract for $1002.50, which included what is now the cities of Monterey, Pacific Grove, Seaside, and Del Rey Oaks along with the Del Monte Forest, and Fort Ord. The sale was controversial, and the city filed suit against Jack claiming the sale was illegitimate. The case eventually reached the US Supreme Court in 1903, which ruled in favor of Jack. Jack embarked on what appears to have been an almost obsessive taste for land acquisition. Piece by piece he added to his holdings through mortgage and tax sales and other shrewd practices. As a result, of Jack’s shrewd business practices, animosity toward him ran high. At his height Jack was said to own around 100,000 acres of Monterey County land.

The gold rush created a cattle boom, which ended with major flooding in 1862, shifting the use of land from ranching to dry farming of grains. By 1870, commercial agriculture was well underway in the Salinas Valley. A major drought in 1863 and 1864 essentially wiped out the cattle industry, and grain production became the County’s principal agricultural activity. Sugar beet cultivation and dairying began to replace grain farming by 1897. In 1874, the first railroad was established, the Monterey and Salinas Valley Railroad, shipping grain, fish, and other goods. Soon, the narrow gauge was overtaken by the Southern Pacific Railroad. The extension of the Southern Pacific Railroad from Pajaro to Salinas, along with improved irrigation systems, refrigerated freight cars, and other innovations in technology, encouraged increasingly Packet Page 219
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 3-6 COMMUNITY PROFILE
intensive row crop cultivation and set the stage for the Salinas Valley to become one of the most productive agricultural regions in the world.

The wealth of sea life around the Monterey Peninsula, from migrating whales to abalone and squid, also attracted settlers to the region. By 1853, Chinese settlers had established a vibrant fishing village, making the Monterey villages unique in early Chinese immigration to California.

The Chinese would continue their livelihood, despite fire and hardships. They were joined on the Bay by Portuguese whalers from the Azores who found a lucrative and dangerous livelihood in shore whaling.

The sugar beet industry in Monterey County was the first type of intensive farming to bring changes that would profoundly affect land use, labor, and settlement. In 1897, Claus Spreckels began a sugar beet industry in Monterey County. The success of the industry was dependent on contracted growers and a large body of low-wage laborers. These needs had a tremendous effect on tenancy and colonization of agricultural lands in the County, and greatly influenced the ethnic makeup of the Salinas Valley. The operations in Monterey County did not experience gradual growth but were put in place in the form of a fully planned town and plant, with company owned farms scattered from Salinas to King City. Spreckels did most of the pioneer work in irrigation technology in the County, paving the way for more efficient use of the seasonally scarce water supply that had hindered intensive farming efforts up to this time.

Beets, however, were eventually replaced by row crops which had a higher value per acre.

David Jacks sold a large tract of land between Carmel and Pacific Grove to the Pacific Improvement Company, a company controlled by the so-called "Big Four" California railroad barons. Railroad pioneer Charles Crocker sought to create a destination for the railroad, the Hotel Del Monte with gardens, polo fields, a racetrack, and a seventeen-mile leisure road to the Del Monte’s Pebble Beach. The hotel opened in 1880 and was immediately dubbed the “The World's Most Elegant Seaside Resort.” Hotel Del Monte was the catalyst for Monterey's modern-day tourism industry and at its peak encompassed 20,000-acres spread across the Monterey Peninsula. The Hotel Del Monte was requisitioned by the Navy at the beginning of World War II and in 1947, the resort was sold to the federal government.

Following the Spanish-American War, the need for more bases on the West Coast prompted the Army to establish the Monterey Military Reservation on the same site as the, the old fort on Presidio Hill (the American Presidio in contrast to the Royal Presidio located east of Old Town).

In 1904, it was renamed the Presidio of Monterey in honor of the original Spanish and Mexican presidio. From 1902 onward the mission of the Presidio changed from 19th century coastal defense to instruction and training, which it continues today as the home of the Defense Language Institute. The 1900s were a time of military growth for Monterey County with Fort Ord’s creation in Seaside during World War I and Camp Roberts development in South County during World War II. However, in recent history, base closures have resulted in reductions of military presence in the County, and the reuse of major portions of the former Fort Ord.

Packet Page 220
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 3-7 COMMUNITY PROFILE
A phenomenal expansion in lettuce production took place starting in 1920, and by 1930 lettuce accounted for almost half the gross returns to the County from farm products. The resulting increase in total farm income was reflected in a substantial growth in population. The need for seasonal field labor was firmly established with the shift to intensive single crop production. By 1930, a permanent shift in agricultural production to corporate owners and large operators who packed and shipped as well as grew the crop had taken place in the County. During the late 1930s and 40s the Salinas Valley witnessed a significant boom in agricultural production due to the development of farming infrastructure in the region. This led to a higher demand for labor that was satisfied due to the influx of farmworkers from Mexico during World War II, through the “Bracero” program. During and after the Dust Bowl, the Salinas Valley received thousands of displaced workers from the South and Midwest. Displaced workers led to a vast increase in agricultural productivity. The commercial farming sector of the Dust Bowl era forms the backdrop for several John Steinbeck novels.

In the early 1900s, the Monterey Bay began to attract the interest of commercial fish processors. In 1900, the first sardine cannery opened, adjacent to the Monterey Wharf and in 1902, the first fish packing and canning operation on Cannery Row. In 1903, Frank Booth took over the sardine cannery and would hire a Norwegian fisheries expert, Knut Hovden, to mechanize the canning process. Hovden would go on to revolutionize the canning industry and successfully operated the largest and longest operating cannery. By the 1940s, nineteen fully operating canneries harvested over 250,000 tons per season on "Cannery Row,” making Monterey the “Sardine Capital of the World.” In the late 1940s the sardine harvests diminished year by year signaling the end of the industry. The Monterey Bay Aquarium opened in 1984 at the old Hovden cannery site. Designated in 1992 as the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, an enormous federally protected marine area of California's central coast was created, centered on Monterey Bay.

3.3 POPULATION AND DEMOGRAPHICS
According to the 2020 Census, Monterey County has a population of 439,035 people. About 80% of the countywide population resides in the 12 incorporated municipalities, which consist of only 2% of the County’s total land area.

Salinas represents the largest city in Monterey County with over 163,542 residents. The cities of Marina, Soledad, Monterey, and Seaside form the second largest group in population ranging from 22,359 to 33,366 residents each. The smallest cities include Sand City, Del Rey Oaks Carmel-by-the-Sea and Gonzales with populations ranging from 325 to 8,647. The population for the unincorporated areas of the County is 104,482. The largest communities in the unincorporated County are Prunedale (18,885 residents), Castroville (7,515 residents), Carmel Valley Village (4,524 residents), and the Del Monte Forest (4204 residents). Since the 2010 Census the population of Monterey County has increased 6%. The largest population growth occurred in Greenfield (16%), Marina (13%), Salinas (9%), and Monterey (9%).

Packet Page 221
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 3-8 COMMUNITY PROFILE
Table 3-1 lists the total land area, population, percentage change in population since 2010, and population density (in persons/per square mile) for each jurisdiction. Table 3-1: Total Land Area and Population in Monterey County Table 3-1
Total Land Area and Population in Monterey County
Jurisdiction Land Area
(Square Miles)
Population
(2020)
Population
Density
Population
(2010)
Percent
Change
Incorporated Cities 67.06 334,553 4,988.9 314,844 6%
Carmel-by-the-Sea 1.08 3,220 2,981.5 3,722 -13%
Del Rey Oaks 0.48 1,592 3,316.7 1,624 -2%
Gonzales 1.92 8,647 4,503.6 8,187 6%
Greenfield 2.14 18,937 8,849.1 16,330 16%
King City 3.84 13,332 3,471.9 12,874 4%
Marina 8.88 22,359 2,517.9 19,718 13%
Monterey 8.47 30,218 3,567.7 27,810 9%
Pacific Grove 2.86 15,090 5,276.2 15,041 0%
Salinas 23.18 163,542 7,055.3 150,441 9%
Sand City 0.56 325 580.4 334 -3%
Seaside 9.24 32,366 3,502.8 33,025 -2%
Soledad 4.41 24,925 5,651.9 25,738 -3%
Unincorporated Areas 3,213 104,482 32.5 100,213 4%
Aromas 4.75 2,708 570.1 1,358 99%
Boronda 0.55 1,760 3,200 1,710 3%
Bradley 0.09 69 766.7 93 -26%
Carmel Valley Village 19.20 4,524 235.6 4,407 3%
Castroville 1.06 7,515 7,089.6 6,481 16%
Chualar 0.63 1,185 1,881.0 1,190 0%
Del Monte Forest 10.65 4,204 394.7 4,514 -7%
Elkhorn 4.83 1,588 328.8 1,565 1%
Las Lomas 1.04 3,046 2,928.8 3,024 1%
Lockwood 10.91 368 33.7 379 -3%
Moss Landing 0.60 237 395.0 204 16%
Pajaro 0.93 2,882 3,098.9 3,070 -6%
Pine Canyon 3.34 1,871 560.2 1,822 3%
Prunedale 46.20 18,885 408.8 17,560 8%
San Ardo 0.45 392 871.1 517 -24%
San Lucas 0.39 324 830.8 269 20%
Spreckels 0.12 692 5,766.7 673 3%
Other Unincorporated 3,107 52,232 16.8 51,377 2%
Total 3,280 439,035 133.9 415,057 6%
Source: US Census Bureau, 2020 Census & 2010 Census
Packet Page 222
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 3-9 COMMUNITY PROFILE
Monterey County’s population growth has been fairly constant for the past 30 years, increasing steadily since the 1980s. Population projections for Monterey County ranging from 2030 to 2060, according to the California Department of Finance, are: 464,124 (2030); 477,265 (2040); 481,305 (2050); and 476,734 (2060). 1

3.3.1 DEMOGRAPHICS
Note: Since full 2020 Census Data was not available at the time of this plan, the remainder of the section summarizes the most up-to-date information for Monterey County according to the 2015-2019 American Community Survey (ACS) performed by the US Census Bureau, except where noted.

The median age of Monterey County residents is 34.4 years. Monterey County’s population is relatively young with 50.8% of residents under the age of 34. The next largest age group consists of adults between the ages of 35-59 comprising 30.7% of the population. Older adults ages 60+ make up about 13% of the population.

The gender makeup of the county is 51% male and 49% female. The racial makeup is approximately 53.3% White, 5.6% Asian, 2.6% Black or African American, 0.7% American Indian or Alaskan Native, and 0.5% Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander, and 4.3% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race makes up 58.7% of the county population.

Figure 3-2 summarizes the demographics of the population of Monterey County.

Figure 3-2
Monterey County Demographics
Figure 3-2: Monterey County Demographics
1 California Department of Finance, Population Projections Packet Page 223
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 3-10 COMMUNITY PROFILE
There are approximately 127,155 households in Monterey County with an average household size of 3.3 persons. Married couples make up 52.5% of households and cohabiting couple comprise 7.8% of households. 15.3% of households have a male householder and 24.4% have a female householder, with no spouse/partner present.
78% of Monterey County residents are US citizens, which is lower than the national average of 93% and the state average of 87%. In 2017, the percentage of US citizens in Monterey County was 77.4%, meaning that the rate of citizenship has been increasing. Immigrants comprise about 30% of the total population, and at 21%, Monterey County has the highest percentage of non-citizens of any county in California. The County’s immigrant population, including undocumented immigrants, is a critical component of the local labor force, especially for the agriculture, and hospitality industries.

3.3.2 INCOME
Per capita income in Monterey County continues to be at the low end of the spectrum in comparison to the statewide average and nearby counties. In 2019, the County had a per capita personal income of $30,073 and a median household income of $71,015 annually. 81.9% of households received earnings exclusive of social security and retirement income, with an average income amount of $91,308. 30% of households received Social Security with the average income amount of $19,147 and 17.6% of households received retirement income with the average income of $37,254. These income sources are not mutually exclusive; that is, some households received income from more than one source.

3.3.3 EDUCATION
The education system in Monterey County primarily consists of a public school system headed by the Monterey County Office of Education (MCOE). MCOE was established more than 150 years ago by California’s Constitution and supports 24 school districts, two community colleges, and a state university. Data from the California Department of Education2 indicates that in Monterey County, 2019-20 enrollment in K-12 Public Schools was 77,387. After experiencing continuous declines in enrollment growth, the County’s K-12 enrollment began growing steadily in 2009 and has grown by 6.7% since then. However, in 2020 enrollment declined by 0.7% from the previous year. Between 2019 and 2020, Monterey County's high school graduation rate increased from 83.5% to 84.5%. In 2017-18, the college going rate was 67.7% compared to the State’s rate of 65.2%.

Higher Education and Research Institutions
Approximately 71.5% of people 25 years and over in Monterey County have graduated from high school and 24.7% had a bachelor's degree or higher. 2 California Department of Education, DataQuest
Packet Page 224
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 3-11 COMMUNITY PROFILE
Monterey County is home to a range of institutions of higher learning, both public and private, large, and small, general, and highly focused institutions, particularly related to marine research. The higher education and research institutions located in the County contribute to the local economy, directly employing more than 15,000 faculty, staff, and researchers.

Institutions in the County include:
• Brandman University
• Cabrillo College
• California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) Marine Region • California State University, Monterey Bay
• Central Coast College
• Defense Language Institute, Foreign Language Center
• Defense Manpower Data Center
• Elkhorn Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve
• Fleet Numerical Meteorology and Oceanography Center, US Navy • Golden Gate University
• Hartnell College
• Hopkins Marine Station of Stanford University
• Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey • Monterey Bay Aquarium
• Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI)
• Monterey College of Law
• Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary
• Monterey Peninsula College
• Moss Landing Marine Lab, California State University (7 campuses) • Pacific Fisheries Environmental Laboratory (NOAA)
• Panetta Institute for Public Policy
• National Weather Service (NOAA)
• Naval Postgraduate School
• Naval Research Laboratory
• US Geological Survey (USGS), Pacific Science Center
• University of California, Santa Cruz (UCSC)

3.4 HOUSING
Of the approximately 141,820 housing units in Monterey County, an estimated 90% are occupied, and 10% are vacant. Of the total housing units, 69% are in single-unit structures, 27% are in multi-unit structures, and 5% are mobile homes. 23.5% of housing units were built since 1990, and 28% were built prior to 1960. Of all occupied housing units, about 50% were moved into since 2010. Of the 127,155 occupied housing units, 51%, 64,900 units are owner-occupied Packet Page 225
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 3-12 COMMUNITY PROFILE
and 49%, 62,255 units are renter occupied. This percentage of owner-occupation is lower than the national average of 64%, but similar to the state average of 54.8%. Table 3-2 shows the ownership percentage in Monterey County compared its parent and neighboring geographies.

Table 3-2: Home Ownership in Monterey County Compared to Other Jurisdictions Table 3-2
Home Ownership in Monterey County Compared to Other Jurisdictions Jurisdiction Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied
Monterey County, California 51% 49%
United States 64% 36%
California 54.8% 45.2%
Fresno County, California 53.3% 46.7%
Kings County, California 52.3% 47.7%
San Benito County, California 63.7% 36.3%
San Luis Obispo County, California 61.6% 38.4%
Santa Cruz County, California 60.1% 39.9%
Source: 2015-2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Date Profile The median housing value of owner-occupied units is $516,600 and 67% of owner-occupied units had a mortgage. The median monthly housing costs for mortgaged owners was $2,265 and $593 for non-mortgaged owners, 31% of owners with mortgages and 12% of owners without mortgages spent 35% or more of household income on housing costs. The median gross rent in the County was $1,495 and 44.5% of renters spent 35% or more of household income on rent. About 88.2% of County residents were living in the same residence one year earlier. 5.8% of people had moved during the past year from another residence in the County,

3.3% from another county in California, 1.9% from another state, and 0.8% from abroad.

Geographic Mobility
Monterey County is connected to the north and south by US Highway 101 and State Route 1 and is connected to the Central Valley by State Routes 156 and 198. State Route 68 connects Salinas with the Monterey Peninsula and State Route 145 provides access to the Pinnacles National Recreation Area. The Monterey Peninsula Airport provides regular flights to San Francisco, Los Angeles, Phoenix, Denver, and Las Vegas. Four carriers currently provide service from Monterey and provide 40 flights in and out daily. AMTRAK serves Monterey County daily north and south with a station in Salinas. The County is also served by Greyhound Bus Lines.

3.5 LOCAL ECONOMY
Monterey County’s economy is primarily based upon tourism in the coastal regions and agriculture in the Salinas Valley. In 2019, The total GDP in Monterey County was approximately $24.5 billion. Of the sectors in Monterey County, Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting contributed the largest portion of GDP, almost $5 billion. The next-largest contributions came Packet Page 226
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 3-13 COMMUNITY PROFILE
from Real Estate and Rental and Leasing, about $3 billion, Public Administration, about $2.1 billion, and Health Care and Social Assistance, about $2 billion.

Agriculture
Monterey County is one of the nation’s top agricultural producers. Agriculture is the County’s largest sector in terms of economic output and employment. As such, it represents a vital link to both the County’s cultural past and competitive future. Agriculture touches nearly every facet of life in Monterey County. From lettuce in the Salinas Valley, artichokes in Castroville, berries in north Monterey County, or vineyards in the Carmel Valley, agriculture shapes County life. Monterey County is known as “The Salad Bowl of the World” and crops grown in the County supply large percentages of total national pounds produced each year: 61% of leaf lettuce, 57% of celery, 56% of head lettuce, 48% of broccoli, 38% of spinach, 30% of cauliflower, 28% of strawberries, and 3.6% of wine grapes. Monterey County farmers are among the most productive and efficient in the world, growing more than 150 crops. 3 In 2019, Monterey County agriculture accounted for a production value of over $4.4 billion, which was 3.6% over the previous year. Agriculture contributes a total of $11.7 billion in economic output. The $11.7 billion in economic output consists of $7.4 billion in direct economic output and $4.3 billion in additional economic output in the form of multiplier effects, over $31 million per day. Local agriculture accounts for more than 63,921 jobs in Monterey County with 57,503 being direct employees and 6,417 additional jobs made possible through expenditures by agricultural companies and their employees. One in five jobs in Monterey County directly attributable to the agricultural industry. 4 Tourism & Hospitality
Monterey County has long been a tourist destination attracting nearly 4.6 million visitors annually. The County has a worldwide reputation with widely recognized destinations such as Big Sur, Pebble Beach, Carmel-by-the-Sea, and Monterey – and attractions such as Monterey Bay Aquarium, National Steinbeck Center, 17-Mile Drive, Cannery Row, Fisherman’s Wharf, Pinnacles National Park, and the Monterey Wine Country. Tourism spending accounts for approximately $3 billion annually, supporting 27,000 jobs and generating $153 million in local tax revenue. 5 Visitors enjoy a wide variety of recreational activities including golf, beaches, scuba diving, sailing, kayaking, whale watching, fishing, camping, horseback riding, skydiving, hiking, biking, art galleries, exhibits, music, and theatre. Nearly 300 special events take place in Monterey County annually, including AT&T Pebble Beach Pro-Am Golf Tournament, Monterey Jazz Festival, races at WeatherTech Raceway Laguna Seca, Concours d'Elegance, Big Sur Marathon and other food, wine, cultural and family festivals. 3 Facts, Figures & FAQs, Monterey County Farm Bureau 4 Economic Contributions of Monterey County Agriculture, Agricultural Commissioner’s Office (June 2020) 5 2020-2021 Annual Report, Monterey County Convention & Visitors Bureau Packet Page 227
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 3-14 COMMUNITY PROFILE

3.6 EMPLOYMENT
Monterey County’s civilian labor force includes approximately 197,404 persons, or about 45% of the County’s total population. 76.4% of the civilian workforce is private wage and salary workers; 15.2% are government workers; and 8.1% are self-employed in their own businesses.

Monterey County’s annual unemployment rate in 2020 was 10.8%. The most common industries in Monterey County, by number of employees, are Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, Mining & Hunting (55,033 workers), Health Care & Social Assistance (22,297 workers), and Accommodation & Food Services (21,287 workers). Compared to other counties, Monterey County, has an unusually high number of Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting industry (20x higher than expected). Sectors with the highest average wages per worker are Utilities ($123,326), Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction ($103,601), and Finance and Insurance ($87,368). 6 Figure 3-3 shows the breakdown of the labor force by industry.

Figure 3-3
Monterey County Labor Force Breakdown, By Industry
Figure 3-3: Monterey County Labor Force Breakdown, By Industry Source: Monterey County Workforce Development Board
Compared to the national average, Monterey County has an unusually high number of residents working in Farming, Fishing, & Forestry Occupations (32 times higher than expected), Building & Grounds Cleaning & Maintenance Occupations, and Food Preparation & Serving Related Occupations.

According to the State of California Employment Development Department’s Labor Market Division, Monterey County’s local economic strength lies in occupations that generally pay lower wages, explaining why the per capita income levels are relatively low compared to nearby counties. In Monterey County, 18% of the labor force consists of occupations in Farming, 6 Economic Overview: Monterey County, Monterey County Workforce Development Board (November 30, 2020) Packet Page 228
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 3-15 COMMUNITY PROFILE
Fishing, and Forestry. In the first quarter of 2020, the mean hourly wage was $15.46 per hour.

The second highest occupational category is Office and Administrative Support, accounting for 10% of the workforce with a mean wage of $22.36 per hour. Food Preparation and ServingRelated occupations represent the third largest share of Monterey County’s employment, with 10% and a mean wage of $15.37 per hour. The top three occupations in Monterey County represent 38% of all employment.

Monterey County continues its efforts to attract more highly skilled jobs to the local economy by encouraging its residents to seek higher educational opportunities that will in turn create a more highly skilled labor force. Occupations in with the highest average wages per worker are Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations ($121,200), Management Occupations ($119,400), and Legal Occupations ($116,500). Inflow/Outflow job data from 2018 indicates the majority of employees (113,458) live and work in Monterey County. Figure 3-4 summarizes inflow/outflow job data for Monterey County.

Figure 3-4
Inflow/Outflow Job Counts in 2018 for Monterey County Figure 3-4: Inflow/ Outflow Job Counts in 2018 for Monterey County Source: United States Census Bureau, Job-to-Job Flows (J2J) Recent forecasts suggest that agriculture will continue to provide the greatest number of new jobs, but post-secondary education and specialized business services, both key components of the expanding technology sector of the County, will show the highest percentage growth over the next several years. Table 3-3 summarizes projected change in number of jobs in 2026 based on occupation from a 2016 baseline.

Packet Page 229
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 3-16 COMMUNITY PROFILE
Table 3-3: Projected Change in Occupation in Monterey County Table 3-3
Projected Change in Occupation in Monterey County
Occupation 2016
Employment
2026
Employment
Percent
Change
Management Occupations 14,280 15,920 +11.5%
Business & Financial Operations Occupations 5,520 6,020 +9.1% Computer & Mathematical Occupations 2,080 2,310 +11.1%
Architecture & Engineering Occupations 1,150 1,270 +10.4% Life, Physical & Social Science Occupations 1,620 1,760 +8.6% Community & Social Service Occupations 2,230 2,590 +16.1% Legal Occupations 890 970 +9%
Education, Training & Library Occupations 13,240 15,130 +14.3% Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, & Media Occupations 2,350 2,570 +9.4% Healthcare Practitioners & Technical Occupations 6,990 8,310 +18.9% Healthcare Support Occupations 3,050 3,630 +19%
Protective Service Occupations 4,450 270 -4%
Food Preparation & Serving Related Occupations 17,200 19,340 +12.4% Building/Grounds Cleaning & Maintenance Occupations 7,970 8,970 +12.5% Personal Care & Service Occupations 8,260 10,520 +27.4% Sales & Related Occupations 16,080 16,840 +4.7%
Office & Administrative Support Occupations 20,990 21,710 +3.4% Farming, Fishing & Forestry Occupations 45,580 55,590 +22% Construction & Extraction Occupations 6,340 7,420 +17%
Installation, Maintenance & Repair Occupations 6,870 7,490 +9% Production Occupations 5,200 5,590 +7.5%
Transportation & Material Moving Occupations 11,120 12,560 +12.9% Total 203,460 226,780
Source: California Employment Development Department

3.7 SOCIAL VULNERABILITY
Social vulnerability refers to the resilience of communities when confronted by external stresses, including natural or human-caused disasters. Characteristics of a population can serve as an important gauge of everything from evacuation compliance to successful long-term recovery, therefore reducing social vulnerability can decrease both human suffering and economic loss. Geographic patterns of potential population vulnerability to disaster can be used to inform mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. Considering social vulnerability is an important step in establishing a Whole Community approach to emergency management and hazard mitigation.

Hazard exposure alone does not fully explain disaster resilience; characteristics including age, ethnicity, race, income, household structure, language, employment, home & car ownership, Packet Page 230
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 3-17 COMMUNITY PROFILE
health, population density, insurance, and citizenship, can also impact how well a person manages hazard risks. For the purposes of this plan, the CDC’s Social Vulnerability Index (2016), was used to assess the vulnerability of the community. The Index uses US Census data to determine the social vulnerability of census tracts. The Index ranks each tract on 15 social factors, including poverty, lack of vehicle access, and crowded housing. Each tract receives an overall ranking. Figure 3-5 shows overall Social Vulnerability by census tract in the County.

Figure 3-5
Overall Social Vulnerability in Monterey County
Figure 3-5: Overall Social Vulnerability Index in Monterey County The index also groups tracts into four related themes and ranks them by theme. The four themes used by the CDC Social Vulnerability Index include:
• Socioeconomic Status • Minority Status and Language
• Household Composition and Disability • Housing Type and Transportation Packet Page 231
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 3-18 COMMUNITY PROFILE

3.7.1 SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS
The Socioeconomic Status Theme consists of income, poverty, employment, and education variables. Economically disadvantaged populations are disproportionately affected by disasters and are less likely to have the income or assets needed to prepare for a possible disaster, respond to, or to recover after a disaster. Although the monetary value of their property may be less than that of other households, it likely represents a larger proportion of total household assets. For these households, lost property is proportionately more expensive to replace, especially without homeowner’s or renter’s insurance. Figure 3-6 shows overall ranking by census tract on the Social Vulnerability Index Socioeconomic Status Theme in Monterey County.

Figure 3-6
CDC Social Vulnerability Index: Socioeconomic Status in Monterey County Figure 3-6: CDC Social Vulnerability Index: Socioeconomic Status Approximately 13.1% of people in the County are in poverty; about the same rate as California (13.4%) and the in US (13.1%). 9.6% of families are below the poverty line. 19.4% of children under 18 are below the poverty level, compared with 8% of people 65 years old and over. The largest demographic living in poverty is Females, with no spouse and a child under 18 (35%).

The most common racial or ethnic group living below the poverty line in the County is Hispanic, followed by White and Other.

Packet Page 232
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 3-19 COMMUNITY PROFILE
Approximately, 2% of residents received cash public assistance benefits, averaging $4,533 annually. Monterey County has the highest yearly enrollment when compared to its neighboring counties (1,915 participants in 2018-2019) in CalWORKS, which provides financial assistance to families. About 7% of residents received Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. Monterey County has 18,961 housesholds participating, in CalFresh, which supplements the food budget of low-income households to meet their nutritional needs.

3.7.2 HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION AND DISABILITY
The Household Composition and Disability Theme is composed of age, single parenting, and disability variables. Household composition is defined here to include dependent children less than 18 years of age, persons aged 65 years and older, and single-parent households. Also included are people with disabilities. People in any of these categories are likelier to require financial support, transportation, medical care, or assistance during disasters. Children and elders are the most vulnerable groups in disasters. Children, especially younger children, cannot protect themselves during a disaster because they lack the needed resources and knowledge to effectively cope with the situation. Figure 3-7 shows overall ranking by census tract on the CDC Social Vulnerability Index Household Composition and Disability Theme in Monterey County.

Figure 3-7
CDC Social Vulnerability Index: Household Composition and Disability in Monterey County Figure 3-7: CDC Social Vulnerability Index: Household Composition and Disability Packet Page 233
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 3-20 COMMUNITY PROFILE
An estimated 8.8% of residents in Monterey County has a disability. 30.6% of residents 65 years of age and older had a disability. Table 3-4 summarizes the percentage of the population in Monterey County who have a disability by age group and type of disability.

Table 3-4: Percent of Noninstitutionalized County Residents with a Disability by Age Table 3-4
Percent of Noninstitutionalized Monterey County Residents with a Disability by Age Group Type of Disability Under 18 18 to 64 Years 65+ Years Total With a hearing difficulty 0.5% 1.4% 13.1% 2.7%
With a vision difficulty 0.6% 1.4% 4.8% 1.6%
With a cognitive difficulty 3.0% 2.8% 8.2% 3.6%
With an ambulatory difficulty 0.6% 2.9% 18.7% 4.7%
With a self-care difficulty 1.0% 1.3% 8.2% 2.2%
With an independent living difficulty n/a 2.5% 13.2% 4.5% Total Persons with Disabilities 3.1% 6.6% 30.6% 8.8%
Additionally, many residents suffer from a chronic health condition. Table 3-5 summarize ageadjusted prevalence rates from chronic conditions in Monterey County.

Table 3-5: Prevalence of Chronic Health Conditions of Adults Aged 18 and Over Table 3-5
Prevalence of Chronic Health Conditions of Adults Aged 18 and Over 7 Health Condition Age-Adjusted Prevalence Rate
Arthritis 21.6%
High Blood Pressure 28.8%
Cancer1 5.7%
Asthma 9.2%
Coronary Heart Disease 6%
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 6%
Diabetes 10.8%
High Cholesterol2 29.6%
Chronic Kidney Disease 3.1% 1
Excludes skin cancer
2 Among adults who have been screened in the past 5 years Source: Centers for Disease Control, PLACES: Local Data for Better Health, County Data, 2020

3.7.3 MINORITY STATUS AND LANGUAGE
The Minority Status and Language Theme is composed of race, ethnicity, and English language proficiency variables. The social and economic marginalization of certain racial and ethnic groups has rendered these populations more vulnerable at all stages of disaster. African Americans; Native Americans; and populations of Asian, Pacific Islander, or Hispanic origin are correlated with higher vulnerability rates. In recent decades, the numbers of persons immigrating to the United States from Latin America and Asia have substantially increased.

Many immigrants are not fluent in English, and literacy rates for some groups are lower. To the 7 Centers for Disease Control, PLACES: Local Data for Better Health, County Data, 2020 Packet Page 234
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 3-21 COMMUNITY PROFILE
degree that immigrants have limited English proficiency, disaster communication is made increasingly difficult. Figure 3-8 shows overall ranking by census tract on the CDC Social Vulnerability Index Minority Status and Language Theme in Monterey County.

Figure 3-8
CDC Social Vulnerability Index: Minority Status and Language Theme in Monterey County Figure 3-8: CDC Social Vulnerability Index: Minority Status and Language As of 2015, data from the Department of Justice indicates that 109,286 people, 28.2% of residents in Monterey County have limited English proficiency. 91% of the population with limited English proficiency speak Spanish. The next most common language spoken was Tagalog, account for 2.1% of the limited English proficiency population.

3.7.4 HOUSING AND TRANSPORTATION
The Housing and Transportation Theme is composed of housing structure, crowding, and vehicle access variables. Housing quality is an important factor in evaluating disaster vulnerability. It is closely tied to personal wealth; that is, poor people often live in more poorly constructed houses or mobile homes that are especially vulnerable to strong storms or Packet Page 235
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 3-22 COMMUNITY PROFILE
earthquakes. Populations residing in group quarters such as college dormitories, farm workers’ dormitories, psychiatric institutions, and prisons also present special concerns during evacuation. Residents of nursing homes and long-term care facilities are especially vulnerable because of their need for specific and limited resources.

On average, farmworker incomes are less than half of the area median household income.

Some housing requirements can pose a particular challenge to farmworkers. For example, farmworkers may have difficulty establishing good credit or demonstrating long-term residency, both of which are often standard requirements in the private rental-housing market.

Substandard and structurally deficient conditions are common in farmworker housing; conditions that are often worsened by crowding or lack of affordability. The lack of an adequate, affordable housing supply forces farmworkers to live in overcrowded and unsafe housing or to seek housing in garages or other substandard structures that sometimes do not provide basic shelter or sanitation. Figure 3-9 shows overall ranking by census tract on the CDC Social Vulnerability Index Housing and Transportation Theme in Monterey County.

Figure 3-9
CDC Social Vulnerability Index: Housing and Transportation Theme in Monterey County Figure 3-9: CDC Social Vulnerability Index: Housing and Transportation Packet Page 236
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 3-23 COMMUNITY PROFILE
Homeless populations are also vulnerable during disasters. As of the last comprehensive count in 20198, there were 2,422 homeless people in Monterey County. As homeless populations can be difficult to count accurately this number is most likely underestimated. Most of the homeless population, 76% is unsheltered, spending their nights outdoors, primarily in the streets or parks (22%), in their vehicle (19%), or in a tent (18%). Men (65%) are disproportionately represented in the County’s homeless population, as are Black/African American residents (25% of the homeless population, 3% of the County population). Over half of homeless survey respondents, 58%, have at least one disabling condition. 44% suffer from depression, 45% abuse drugs or alcohol, 27% have physical disabilities, 25% suffer from chronic health problems, and 23% have post-traumatic stress disorder.

3.8 LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT TRENDS
Monterey County has a total area of 3,771 square miles, of which 13% is water. As seen in Table 3-6, Land cover data indicates that the largest land use in Monterey County is shrubland, followed by grasslands and forest land. The majority of developed land consists of low-intensity development.

Table 3-6: Land Cover in Monterey County 2018 Statistics The County and its municipal planning partners all adopt General Plans, which serve as blueprints for establishing long-range development policies, as directed with California’s General Planning Law. Decisions on land use will be governed by these plans. This hazard mitigation plan will work together with the General Plans to support wise land use in the future by providing vital information on the risk associated with natural hazards in the planning area. A 8 Monterey County Homeless Census & Survey Comprehensive Report (2019) Table 3-6
Land Cover Monterey County: 2018 Statistics
Land Cover Type1 Percent
Crops2 5.3%
Forest3 22.3%
Wetlands 1.5%
High Intensity Developed 0.6%
Low Intensity Developed 5.6%
Grassland 24.9%
Shrubland 35.4%
Fallow 2.7%
Barren 1.7%
Source: CalLands, UC Agriculture and Natural Resources (2018) 1 Percentages recalculated based on acreage to exclude water 2 All crop categories combined (Alfalfa & hay, corn, cotton, fruit trees, grain crops, grapes, other tree crops, rice, tomatoes, vegetables & fruits, walnuts, winter wheat) 3 Includes deciduous, evergreen, and mixed forest Packet Page 237
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 3-24 COMMUNITY PROFILE
General Plan provides a basis for private development proposals and public projects to remain consistent with existing city, regional and state policies. The General Plan is designed to help the County and participating jurisdictions address issues related to land use, circulation(traffic), housing, open space, conservation, noise, and safety. The Land Use portion of the plan helps guide the County and participating jurisdictions in determining the location of future development(s), to include possible future annexations for municipal jurisdictions. The Safety Element of the General Plan serves to decrease risk of impact from natural hazards.

Past development that most led to the highest increases in hazard vulnerability in the County happened many decades and even more than a century ago. The County and other participating jurisdictions are well aware of areas of increased hazard risk related to older development. More recently, development in the last few decades has occurred with less hazard risk because of existing overlay of Federal, State, and local regulations.

The Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) estimates that to house the region’s expected population growth by 2040, an increase of approximately 24,000 housing units is needed in Monterey County. A large amount of the growth is expected to occur in South County and in the Cities of Marina and Seaside. 9 Future development may become constrained due to limited water sources, poor water quality, and geologic (landslide), fire, flood, and seismic hazards. In addition to local challenges, infrastructure problems affect entire regions.

All planning partners reviewed their General Plans under the capability assessments undertaken for this hazard mitigation plan. Deficiencies revealed by these reviews are identified as mitigation actions to decrease risks to move beyond past trends. Moreover, while past development has occurred in hazard areas to some degree, increasing hazard risks, development standards and performance measures, often times incorporated into specific plans, policy plans, and master plans, are employed to reduce risk. These development standards are continually improving and will continue to strengthen into the future.

The Safe Growth Survey, 10 a technique recommended by organizations such as the American Planning Association (APA) and FEMA, 11 was used to evaluate the extent to which each local jurisdiction in Monterey County is positioned to grow safely relative to its natural hazards. The survey was used to gain an understanding of individual jurisdiction’s land use and devolvement trends and how various comprehensive plans, capital improvement plans, and zoning and subdivision ordinances may allow growth in hazardous areas. The Safe Growth Survey was used as part of the 2013-2014 MJHMP Plan update, which allowed the survey results to be compared over time, in order to measure progress. The results indicate that municipal jurisdictions in the County are continuing to maintain the level of safe growth established in 2016. More information on the Safe Growth Survey is included in Section 20.2, Safe Growth Survey. Specific 9 2018 Regional Growth Forecast, Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (June 2018) 10 Safe Growth Audits, David R. Godschalk, FAICP (October 2009) 11 Local Mitigation Planning Handbook, Worksheet 4.2: Safe Growth Audit, FEMA (March 2013) Packet Page 238
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 3-25 COMMUNITY PROFILE
land use and development trends, along with the Safe Growth Survey results for each participating municipal jurisdiction are included in their respective Annex in Volume 2.

Water Availability
In the coastal regions of California, access to water is a barrier to new development. Access to water is a primary constraint to development on the Monterey Peninsula. Water is supplied to most of the Monterey Peninsula through wells in Carmel Valley, dams, and a well drawing from the Seaside Aquifer. However, since 2020 a portion of the Monterey Peninsula's potable water supply has come from indirect potable reuse via the Pure Water Monterey Groundwater Replenishment Project, an effort lead by Monterey One Water. The Monterey Peninsula Water Management District has established water allocations for jurisdictions within its district and communities have distributed most of the available allocations. As a result, new development must either provide another water source such as a well or enter a waitlist for future allocations.

Fort Ord Reuse
Fort Ord was a major US Army base which closed in 1994. The former Fort Ord Military Base is located on the California coastline near the Monterey Peninsula consisting of 45 square miles and covering over 28,000 acres of land. The Fort Ord Reuse Authority (FORA), a large multigovernmental body composed of elected officials at the local, state, and federal levels, was created by the California State Legislature in 1994 with the legislatively mandated mission of overseeing replacement land use, removing physical barriers to reuse, financing and constructing major components of the required infrastructure and protecting identified environmental reserves.

The property was divided among the City of Seaside, City of Marina, and unincorporated Monterey County. This reuse has resulted in the expanding of the cities of Marina, Del Rey Oaks, and Seaside, and adding area to be developed by Monterey County. 69% of the total acreage has been dedicated to recreational/open space. About 1,000 acres were used to create the Fort Ord Dunes State Park and approximately 15,000 acres were dedicated by President Obama for the Fort Ord National Monument. The Fort Ord National Monument consists of nearly 23 square miles of undeveloped natural wildlands and is open to the public and managed by the US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

Many other areas have been converted from military to civilian land uses under the direction of FORA. While many old military buildings and infrastructure remain abandoned, many others have been demolished. Notable developments include the cleanup of Army munitions from thousands of acres of land, the California State University Monterey Bay (CSUMB) campus, the UC-Santa Cruz Monterey Bay Education, Science and Technology Center (MBEST), the Veterans Transition Center, residential subdivisions, shopping centers, health clinics, new military facilities, and a nature preserve. FORA legislatively terminated on June 30, 2020. The responsibility for the area and undeveloped land now falls to the individual jurisdictions of Seaside, Marina, Del Rey Oaks, Marina Coast Water District, and the Monterey County.

Packet Page 239
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan

PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Packet Page 240
PART | B
B
PART B: HAZARD PROFILES AND

RISK ASSESSMENT

THIS PART IDENTIFIES, PROFILES, AND ASSESSES THE HAZARDS THAT COULD AFFECT MONTEREY COUNTY. IT CONSISTS OF THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS:

4. RISK ASSESSMENT METHODS 12. HUMAN CAUSED HAZARDS

5. AGRICULTURAL EMERGENCIES 13. PUBLIC HEALTH HAZARDS

6. COASTAL EROSION 14. SEVERE WEATHER

7. DAM & LEVEE FAILURE 15. SLOPE FAILURE

8. DROUGHT 16. TSUNAMI

9. EARTHQUAKE 17. UTILITY INTERRUPTION

10. FLOODING 18. WILDFIRE

11. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INCIDENT 19. CLIMATE CHANGE
Packet Page 241
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PART | B

PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Packet Page 242
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 4-1 RISK ASSESSMENT

4. RISK ASSESSMENT METHODS
As defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), risk is the potential for damage, loss, or other impacts created by the interaction of hazards with community assets.

The risk assessment process measures the potential loss to a community, including loss of life, personal injury, property damage, and economic injury resulting from a hazard event. This information provides a framework for a community to develop and prioritize mitigation strategies and plans to help reduce both the risk and vulnerability from future hazard events.

The FEMA Local Mitigation Planning Handbook identifies four steps for conducting a risk assessment:

1. Identify & Describe Hazards

2. Identify Community Assets

3. Analyze Risks

4. Summarize Vulnerability
The risk assessment for this hazard mitigation plan update evaluates the risk of hazards prevalent in Monterey County and meets requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act and 44 CFR, Section 201.6(c)(2).

4.1 HAZARD IDENTIFICATION
The first step in the planning process was to identify the threats and hazards of concern in Monterey County, based on a combination of experience, forecasting, subject matter expertise, Packet Page 243
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 4-2 RISK ASSESSMENT
and other available resources. This supported the development of a list of threats and hazards that could affect the community. Hazards were categorized as follows:
• Natural hazards are naturally occurring physical phenomena caused either by rapid or slow onset events which can be geophysical (earthquakes, landslides, tsunamis, and volcanic activity), hydrological (avalanches and floods), climatological (extreme temperatures, drought, and wildfires), meteorological (cyclones and storms/wave surges), or biological (disease epidemics and insect/animal plagues). • Technological hazards are generally accidental or result from events with unintended consequences (for example, an accidental hazardous materials release). • Human Caused Hazards result from the intentional actions of an adversary, such as a threatened or actual terrorism, chemical attack, biological attack, or cyber incident.

The Steering Committee considered the full range of hazards that could affect the County and then listed hazards that present the greatest concern. The process incorporated a review of state and local hazard planning documents, as well as information on the frequency of, magnitude of, and costs associated with hazards that have struck or could strike the County.

Anecdotal information regarding natural hazards and the perceived vulnerability of the County’s assets to them was also used. Table 4-1 summarizes the hazards of concern this plan will address.

Table 4-1: Hazards of Concern
Table 4-1
Hazards of Concern
Hazard Reason for Inclusion
Agricultural
Emergencies
Agriculture is an economic driver in the County and is at risk to many hazards such as insects, weeds, wildfire, and severe weather.

Coastal Erosion
Parts of the County are located on the Ocean and are subject to erosion risk. Coastal erosion can create hazardous conditions, threatens dune habitat, and poses a threat to the agriculture and tourism industries. Sea level rise is likely to exacerbate erosion risk.

Dam & Levee Failure
Several large and aging dams are in the County, in addition to many miles of levees. Dam failure can be catastrophic to all life and property downstream.

Drought
Droughts are a serious threat and could have devastating impacts on agriculture. Previous droughts have caused major economic damage to the agricultural industry and prolonged periods of drought can reduce water availability and increase water prices.

Earthquake
Several active faults, including the San Andreas Fault, run through the County. Due to the location of population centers and building history, any earthquake will likely have significant impacts on people, property, and critical infrastructure. An earthquake could also trigger other natural hazard events such as dam failures and landslides, which could severely impact the County.

Packet Page 244
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 4-3 RISK ASSESSMENT
Table 4-1
Hazards of Concern
Hazard Reason for Inclusion
Flooding
Flooding is a major hazard and is associated with many of the largest and most damaging historical hazard events. The history of flooding is associated with coastal storms, heavy rainfall, flash flooding, and run-off. Increased impervious surfaces, the channelization of streams, and increased development in floodplains has resulted in intensified flood flows and more property and lives at risk.

Coastal Flooding Coastal flooding is generally associated with winter storms, high tides, and strong winds and is a significant hazard on the coastline.

Riverine Flooding Riverine flooding, notably along the Salinas, Carmel, and Pajaro Rivers, has caused damage in the County.

Flash Flooding Flash flooding occurs quickly with little to no warning and can cause serious damage in the County.

Localized Stormwater
Flooding
Drainage systems in the County have a finite capacity and prolonged heavy rainfall has contributed to flooding in more urbanized areas.

Hazardous Materials
Incidents
The County contains large industrial facilities, major transportation routes, agricultural operations, harbors, pipelines, and oil fields, all of which have the potential to cause a hazardous materials release.

Human Caused-Hazards
Although not required, human-caused hazards were included since preparation for them involves many of the same resources as a natural hazard. The likelihood of these hazard is greater than that of several of the natural hazards identified in this Plan.

Cyber-Attack
The spectrum of cyber-risks is limitless, with threats having a wide range of effects. Cyber-attacks can originate from any computer in the world and effect any system that is connected to the Internet.

Targeted Violence Mass-casualty incidents (MCIs) and active shooters can cause loss of life serious injuries, and associated property damage.

Terrorism
Terrorism can cause loss of life, widespread illness and injury, the destruction of property, the displacement of large numbers of people, and devastating economic losses.

Mass Migration Population migration of large scales can lead to resource pressures and can exacerbate existing instability.

Public Health Hazards
All of the County is susceptible to public health hazards. A large disease outbreak could have devastating effects on the population.

Health hazards can also have large economic effects and complicate response efforts to other natural hazard events.

Epidemic Due to increased air travel and growing population, the probability and threat of a communicable disease outbreak is growing.

Pandemic
While the probability of a major infectious disease pandemic is relatively low, it can have catastrophic social and economic consequences, as seen during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Packet Page 245
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 4-4 RISK ASSESSMENT
Table 4-1
Hazards of Concern
Hazard Reason for Inclusion
Severe Weather
Severe weather has previously caused damage in Monterey County.

Due to the size of the County and changes in elevation and climate, weather conditions and their impacts can vary greatly. Severe weather events are also associated with a variety of secondary hazards, which have the potential to greatly impact the County.

Severe Winter Storms
Severe winter storms have caused damage in the County and can lead to immobility and loss of utilities. Heavy rain can have significant impacts, including flash flooding and mudslides.

Extreme Cold & Freeze
Extreme cold and freeze events have impacted the County. Freeze can have a devastating effect on agriculture. Prolonged exposure to cold can cause frostbite or hypothermia and can be life-threatening.

Windstorms
Windstorms are a frequent problem in the County and have been associated with injuries and fatalities. Windstorms can topple trees and cause damage to utilities and critical facilities.

Extreme Heat Extreme heat has caused fatalities in the County and is associated with a variety of health-related issues.

Sea Level Rise
Rising sea levels will increase the likelihood and intensity of floods., as well as lead to increased coastal and fluvial flooding, increased tidal inundation, coastal erosion, tsunami inundation, seawater intrusion, and worsened storm surge. (Profiled in Climate Change) Slope Failure
The County is vulnerable to slope instability, especially after prolonged rainfalls and in areas recently burned by wildfires. Slope failure is a common occurrence and has caused damage to homes, public facilities, and roads. In Big Sur, landslides have caused millions of dollars in damage and have led to lengthy closures of Highway 1.

Tsunami Several areas of the County are located in mapped tsunami inundation zones. Tsunamis are a threat to life and property.

Utility Interruption
Equipment failures and electrical infrastructure igniting wildfires has resulted in blackouts and power shutoffs throughout the County.

Loss of power for more than a few hours can result in large economic losses and have large effects on vulnerable populations.

Space Weather
Space weather can cause damage to critical infrastructure, especially the electric grid. The effects can be far-reaching, as virtually all infrastructure and services depend on the electric power grid.

Wildfire
The geography, terrain, weather patterns and vegetation in the County provide ideal conditions for recurring wildfires and rapid spread. Past wildfires have caused damage to critical infrastructure, property, and the environment, and have led to injuries and loss of life. The County is likely to face a wildfire threat each and every year and can expect a large fire to occur every few years.

Packet Page 246
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 4-5 RISK ASSESSMENT
In addition to the hazards listed above, climate change was assessed as both a hazard and as exacerbating other hazards profiled in this Plan. Sea level rise risk is profiled within the climate change section, in addition to the increased risk of the following hazards:
• Agricultural Emergencies- The Salinas Valley is one of the most vulnerable agricultural regions to climate change. The amounts, forms, and distribution of precipitation, as well as the increased frequency and intensity of climate extremes, will affect water availability as well as pests, crop yields, and the length of the growing season. • Dam & Levee Failure- Dams and levees are designed partly based on assumptions about a river’s flow behavior. Changes in weather patterns can have significant effects on the behavior of rivers and these changes could conceivably cause a dam or levee to lose some or all of its designed margin of safety.
• Drought- With a warmer climate, droughts could become more frequent, more severe, and longer lasting, thereby increasing their impact on the County. • Earthquake- The impacts of global climate change on earthquake probability are unknown, but secondary impacts of earthquakes could be magnified by climate change. • Flooding- Climate change is likely to exacerbate the intensity and magnitude of precipitation events, increasing the risk associated with flooding. High frequency flood events in particular will likely increase with a changing climate. • Human-Caused Hazards- Climate change could lead to increases in violence and cause increases in climate induced migration.
• Public Health Hazards- Rising temperatures and more extreme drought events could lead to increases in heat-related illness, as well as vector-borne and infectious diseases. • Severe Weather- Extreme heat waves are likely to increase in probability due to climate change. Atmospheric river events, the dominant driver of locally extreme rainfall events and associated flooding, are expected to increase under projected climate change. • Slope Failure- Climate change will likely affect storm patterns, the occurrence and duration of droughts, and the probability of wildfire, which are all factors that would increase the probability of landslide occurrence.
• Tsunami- It is unclear if climate change would increase the frequency of tsunamis, but when a tsunami occurs the effects of climate change could lead to more destructive waves and inundation areas would likely reach further than current mapping indicates. • Wildfire- Climate change has the potential to affect multiple elements of the wildfire system: fire behavior, ignitions, fire management, and vegetation fuels.

Excluded Hazards
Other hazards were noted by the Steering Committee and the public to potentially consider in the MJHMP update. Some of these hazards have the potential to do damage or harm but were determined to not have a significant enough effect, so they are not profiled further; in some cases, they are currently addressed in other planning mechanisms or have had limited historic impacts. Table 4-2 lists the hazards excluded from this Plan.

Packet Page 247
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 4-6 RISK ASSESSMENT
Table 4-2: Excluded Hazards
Table 4-2
Excluded Hazards
Hazard Type Explanation
Avalanche Monterey County is not located in area prone to frequent or significant snowfall.

Blizzard Monterey County is not located in area prone to frequent or significant snowfall.

Cyclone No historic events have occurred in Monterey County.

Ice Storm The County does not reach temperatures low enough with enough frequency for an ice storm to pose a major threat.

Limnic Eruption No historic events have occurred in Monterey County.

Civil Unrest This is a risk in Monterey County but is more appropriately dealt with in other planning mechanisms.

Expansive Soils No historic events have occurred in Monterey County.

Glacier Movement/ Collapse There are no glaciers in Monterey County.

Human-Wildlife Conflicts This is a risk in Monterey County but is more appropriately dealt with in other planning mechanisms.

Hurricane No significant historic events have occurred in the County.

Maritime Incidents This is a risk in Monterey County but is more appropriately dealt with in other planning mechanisms.

Plane Crash This is a risk in Monterey County but is more appropriately dealt with in other planning mechanisms.

Sinkholes No significant historic events have occurred in the County.

Supply Chain Interruptions This is a risk in Monterey County but is more appropriately dealt with in other planning mechanisms.

Volcano Due to distance from volcanoes and the limited chance of an eruption, this hazard was not identified as a priority.

4.1.1 DISASTER DECLARATION HISTORY
One important consideration in identifying and prioritizing hazards is past major hazard events, especially those that triggered federal, state, or local disaster declarations. Most available information on major past hazard events comes from past disaster declarations. If a local government determines effects of an emergency are beyond the capability of local resources to mitigate effectively, the local government may proclaim a local emergency. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 8680.9, a local emergency is a condition of extreme peril to persons or property proclaimed as such by the governing body of the local agency affected by a natural or manmade disaster. The purpose of a local emergency proclamation is to provide extraordinary police powers, immunity for emergency actions, authorize issuance of orders and regulations, activate pre-established emergency provisions, and is a prerequisite for requesting state or federal assistance.

Packet Page 248
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 4-7 RISK ASSESSMENT
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 8625, the Governor may proclaim a State of Emergency in an area affected by a disaster, when he is requested to do so by the governing body of the local agency affected, or he finds the local authority is inadequate to cope with the emergency. The California Disaster Assistance Act (CDAA) provides state financial assistance for recovery efforts to local governments after a state disaster has been declared.

If the severity and magnitude of an event surpasses the ability of the local and state government to respond and recover, the Governor can request federal assistance. Based on the Governor’s request, the President may declare that a major disaster or emergency exists, thus activating an array of Federal programs to assist in the response and recovery effort. There are two types of disaster declarations provided for in the Stafford Act: Emergency Declarations and Major Disaster Declarations. Both declaration types authorize the President to provide supplemental federal disaster assistance. However, the event related to the disaster declaration and type and amount of assistance differ.
• Emergency Declarations: An Emergency Declaration can be declared for any occasion or instance when the President determines federal assistance is needed. Emergency Declarations supplement State and local efforts in providing emergency services, or to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in any part of the US. The total amount of assistance provided for a single emergency may not exceed $5 million. • Major Declaration: The President can declare a Major Disaster Declaration for any natural event, including any hurricane, tornado, storm, high water, wind-driven water, tidal wave, tsunami, earthquake, volcanic eruption, landslide, mudslide, snowstorm, or drought, or, regardless of cause, fire, flood, or explosion, that the President believes has caused damage of such severity that it is beyond the combined capabilities of state and local governments to respond. A major disaster declaration provides a wide range of federal assistance programs for individuals and public infrastructure, including funds for both emergency and permanent work.

Not all programs, however, are activated for every disaster. The determination of which programs are authorized is based the types of assistance specified and, on the needs, identified during Preliminary Damage Assessments. FEMA disaster assistance programs are as follows:
• Individual Assistance: Assistance to individuals and households • Public Assistance: Assistance to state and local governments for emergency work and the repair or replacement of disaster damaged facilities • Hazard Mitigation Assistance: Assistance to state and local governments for actions taken to prevent or reduce long term risk to life and property from natural hazards.

Additionally, the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 authorized the Fire Management Assistance Grant (FMAG) program, which provides for the mitigation, management, and control of fires that threaten such destruction as would constitute a major disaster. The purpose of FMAG is to provide supplemental federal assistance to states and local government to fight fires burning Packet Page 249
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 4-8 RISK ASSESSMENT
on public (non-federal) or privately owned forest or grassland. A Local or State fire agency must request an FMAG through the Cal OES Fire and Rescue Branch or the California State Warning Center while the fire is burning uncontrolled. The federal government may also issue a disaster declaration through the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Small Business Administration (SBA). The SBA can make federally subsidized loans to repair or replace homes, personal property or businesses that sustained damages not covered by insurance. The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized can declare a disaster to make emergency loans available to producers suffering losses in declared counties and in counties that are contiguous to a designated county.

As summarized in Table 4-3, since 1990, Monterey County has experienced a total of 55 emergencies, resulting in a local, state, or federal disaster declaration, 14 of which were major federally declared disasters. This information, coupled with local historical and anecdotal information, helped inform the hazard identification process.

Table 4-3: Disaster Proclamations and Declarations (1990-2021) Table 4-3
Disaster Proclamations and Declarations (1990-2021)
Year Declaration Type Incident Type Description FEMA # CDAA # Local # 2021 State and Local
Emergency Drought Drought 2021 21-189
2021 State and Local
Emergency Severe Storms Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, Mudslides, and Erosion 2021 21-033 2020 Major Disaster Wildfire August 2020 Wildfires DR-4558 2020-06 2020 Local Emergency Wildfire Dolan Fire 20-283
2020 Fire Management Wildfire Carmel Fire FM-5333 2020-06 2020 Fire Management Wildfire River Fire FM-5329 2020-06 20-277 2020 Local Emergency Flood Salinas River Lagoon Flooding 20-309 2020 Major Disaster Public Health COVID-19 Pandemic DR-4482 2020-01 20-060 2019 Local Emergency Flood Carmel River & Lagoon Flooding 19-016 2019 State and Local
Emergency Flood Atmospheric River, Chualar Flash Flood, and Carmel River Flooding 2020-05 19-943 2019 Local Emergency Utility
Interruption Public Safety Power Shutoff 19-383
2019 Major Disaster Severe Storms Late February 2019 Storms DR-4434 2019-03 2019 State and Local
Emergency Severe Storms Mid-February 2019 Atmospheric River 2019-02 19-077 2019 Local Emergency Flood Salinas River Lagoon Flooding 19-022 2017 Major Disaster Severe Storms February 2017 Winter Storms DR-4308 2017-03 17-045 2017 Major Disaster Severe Storms January 2017 Winter Storms DR-4301 2017-01 17-008 2017 Local Emergency Flood Salinas River Lagoon Flooding 16-005 2016 Local Emergency Erosion Emergency Infrastructure Repair 16-089 2016 Local Emergency Flood Emergency Infrastructure Repair 16-324 2016 Fire Management Wildfire Soberanes Fire FM-5137 16-206 Packet Page 250
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 4-9 RISK ASSESSMENT
Table 4-3
Disaster Proclamations and Declarations (1990-2021)
Year Declaration Type Incident Type Description FEMA # CDAA # Local # 2016 Local Emergency Severe Storms Severe Winter Storms 16-084 2015 Local Emergency Saltwater
Intrusion
Saltwater Intrusion and Inundation
at Moro Cojo Slough 15-122
2015 Local Emergency Wildfire Tassajara Fire 15-253
2014 Local Emergency Saltwater
Intrusion
Saltwater Intrusion and Inundation
at Moro Cojo Slough 14-299
2014 Local Emergency Wildfire Pfeiffer Fire 14-003
2012 Local Emergency Flood Salinas River Lagoon Flooding 12-386 2012 Local Emergency Flood Carmel River & Lagoon Flooding 12-027 2011 Major Disaster Tsunami March 2011 California Tsunami DR-1968 2011-02 2011 Local Emergency Debris Flow Highway 1 Failure and Closure 11-075 2010 Local Emergency Flood Carmel River & Lagoon Flooding 10-083 2010 Local Emergency Flood Carmel River & Lagoon Flooding 10-006 2009 Local Emergency Public Health Influenza A (H1N1) Virus Infection 09-319 2009 State and Local
Emergency Wildfire Gloria Fire 2009-06 09-376
2009 Local Emergency Hazmat Dayton Fire Explosion and
Hazardous Material Incident 09-741
2009 Local Emergency Flood Salinas River Lagoon Flooding 09-172 2009 Local Emergency Debris Flow Basin Complex Burn Scar Debris Flow 09-147
2009 Local Emergency Flood Carmel River & Lagoon Flooding 09-148 2009 Local Emergency Public Health Human Immunodeficiency Virus 09-129 2008 Fire Management Wildfire Indians and Basin Complex Fires FM-2781 2008-02 08-244 2008 Local Emergency Hazmat Emergency Asbestos Remediation 08-234 2007 Major Disaster Freeze Severe Freeze DR-1689 2007-02 2007 Local Emergency Flood Carmel River & Lagoon Flooding 07-309 2006 Local Emergency Hazmat Emergency Asbestos Remediation 06-267 2006 Local Emergency Flood Severe Winter Storms 06-006
2005 Local Emergency Erosion Road Erosion on Scenic Road 05-118 2005 Local Emergency Flood Carmel River & Lagoon Flooding 05-085 2004 Local Emergency Severe Storms Severe Winter Storms 04-058 2003 Local Emergency Public Health Human Immunodeficiency Virus 03-034 1999 Major Disaster Freeze Severe Freeze DR-1267 98-02
1998 Major Disaster Severe Storms El Nino '98 Winter Storms DR-1203 98-01 1997 Major Disaster Severe Storms Severe Winter Storms, DR-1155 97-01 1995 Major Disaster Severe Storms 1995 Late Winter Storms DR-1046 95-03 1995 Major Disaster Severe Storms 1995 Winter Storms DR-1044 95-01 1993 Major Disaster Flood 1993 Winter Storms DR-979 93-01 1991 Major Disaster Freeze Severe Freeze DR-894
Packet Page 251
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 4-10 RISK ASSESSMENT
As seen in Figure 4-1, the top three hazards resulting in a declaration of any kind are Flooding (29%), Severe Storms (20%), and Wildfires (16%).

Figure 4-1
Historical Declared Hazard Events in Monterey County by Hazard Type (1990-2021) Figure 4-1: Historical Declared Hazard Events by Hazard Type (1990-2021)

4.1.2 EOC ACTIVATIONS
The County maintains a list of Emergency Operations Center (EOC) activations. As seen from the list of EOC Activations, winter storms, wildfires, flooding, and utility outages were the most common hazards requiring activation of the EOC. EOC activations from 2006 to present include:
• 2022 Tsunami • 2021 Car Week • 2021 Winter Storms
• 2021 Willow Fire • 2020 Wildfires • 2020 COVID-19
• 2019 PSPS Event • 2019 Chualar Flood • 2017 Winter Storms • 2017 Pajaro Sewage Spill • 2016 Winter Storms • 2016 Chimney Fire • 2016 Soberanes Fire • 2016 Phone Outage • 2015 Power Outage • 2015 Tassajara Fire • 2014 Winter Storms • 2014 Natividad Water Issue • 2014 Drought • 2014 Debris Flows • 2013 Pfeffer Fire
• 2009 Mudslide • 2009 H1N1 Influenza • 2009 Dayton Hazmat Incident • 2008 Basin Complex Fire • 2006 Soledad MCI • 2008 Winter Storms Debris Flow
4%
Drought
2%
Erosion
4%
Flood
29%
Freeze
5%
Hazardous
Materials
5%
Public
Health
7%
Saltwater
Intrusion
4%
Severe Storms
20% Tsunami
2%
Utility
Interruption
2%
Wildfire
16%
Packet Page 252
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 4-11 RISK ASSESSMENT

4.2 HAZARD PROFILES
The hazards identified in Table 4-1 Hazards of Concern, were profiled individually in identified sections. These profiles set the stage for the risk assessment, where exposure and vulnerability are quantified for each of the identified hazards. Each hazard is profiled in the following format:

Hazard Overview: This section gives a description of the hazard and includes definitions and background, scientific, and regulatory information, as applicable.

Hazard History: This section contains information on previous occurrences of the hazard in the County. Historical hazard information is helpful in estimating the likelihood of future events and predicting potential impacts. When data was available, the extent of the impacts, such as fatalities, injuries, building and infrastructure damages, and loss of services, were included.

Location: This section includes information on the geographic location of areas affected by the hazard in Monterey County. Generally, maps were used to illustrate location for many of the hazards. National, state, and County databases were reviewed to locate available spatially based data relevant to this planning effort.

Maps were produced using Geographic Information System (GIS) to show the spatial extent and location of hazards when such datasets were available. These maps are included in the hazard chapters of this plan. When mapping was not available or deemed not the most appropriate way to identify the location, narrative description was used. Some hazards affect the entire County uniformly, in which case specific location or extent was not identified.

Frequency: This section describes the frequency and likelihood of future occurrences of the hazard. The frequency and likelihood of the hazard occurring in the future and can be described in a variety of ways. Where possible, frequency was calculated based on existing data. Hazard likelihood was compared using the following general descriptions:
• Unlikely: Less than 1% chance of occurrence in next 100 years or has a recurrence interval of greater than every 100 years.
• Occasional: Between 1 and 10% chance of occurrence in the next year or has a recurrence interval of 11 to 100 years.
• Likely: Between 10 and 100% chance of occurrence in next year or has a recurrence interval of 10 years or less.
• Highly Likely: Near 100% chance of occurrence in next year or happens every year.

Severity: Severity, or extent, is defined as the strength or magnitude of a hazard. Depending on the hazard, the severity was described in a combination of ways including:
• The value on an established scientific scale or measurement system • Other measures of magnitude, such as water depth or wind speed • The duration of hazard events
Packet Page 253
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 4-12 RISK ASSESSMENT
Warning Time: This section describes the warning time and speed of onset for the hazard.

Secondary Hazards: This section seeks to examine the vulnerabilities of hazard events beyond the individual hazard. Often another hazard occurs as a secondary hazard, such as an earthquake causing a landslide or tsunami or a wildfire. Other events are compounded by outside factors, such as wildfire evacuations occurring during Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS) events. This section was included to highlight compounding hazard risks by highlighting secondary hazards and local conditions that accelerate impacts.

4.3 RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
The Risk Assessment measures the potential impact on life, property, critical infrastructure, the environment, and the economy resulting from the hazards profiled. The intent of the Risk Assessment is to identify the qualitative and quantitative vulnerabilities of the community to the greatest extent possible given available data. The Risk Assessment increases understanding of hazard impacts to the community and provides a foundation to develop and prioritize mitigation actions. In turn, mitigation actions reduce damage from natural disasters through increased preparedness and focus resources to areas of greatest vulnerability.

This section provides an overview of the methods used for the risk assessments for each hazard identified. Vulnerabilities to each hazard were assessed in a two-step process. First, population, critical facilities, county parcels, and structures were inventoried to develop a “lay of the land.” Then, those inventories were utilized in calculating estimated exposure and damage from hazards at various levels of severity.

The Risk Assessment utilized geospatial data along with local knowledge of past events.

Geospatial data was essential in determining population and assets exposed to hazards and was conducted if a natural hazard has a spatial footprint that could be analyzed against the locations of people and assets.

4.3.1 POPULATION AND ASSET INVENTORY
In order to describe the risk posed by each hazard, it was important to first understand the total population and assets at risk. The population and asset inventories provided a baseline to measure the significance of hazard events and vulnerability to those events.

Supervisorial Districts and Political Subdivisions
For the purposes of Countywide analysis, the 2010 Supervisorial Districts were used to conceptualize the geographic distribution of population and property. Figure 4-2 shows the geographic location of each Supervisorial Districts in Monterey County.

Packet Page 254
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 4-13 RISK ASSESSMENT
Figure 4-2
2010 Monterey County Supervisorial Districts
Figure 4-2: 2010 Monterey County Supervisorial Districts Supervisorial Districts in Monterey County include the following geographic areas:

District 1 is geographically the smallest supervisorial district in Monterey County and is entirely within the city limits of the city of Salinas.

District 2 is the northernmost supervisorial district in Monterey County, the 2nd District includes the communities of Boronda, Castroville, Las Lomas, Moss Landing, Pajaro, Prunedale, Royal Oaks, the northern neighborhoods of the city of Salinas, and those portions of the community of Aromas that are located within Monterey County.

Packet Page 255
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 4-14 RISK ASSESSMENT
District 3 covers the majority of the Salinas Valley and southern Monterey County, extending to its border with San Luis Obispo County. The district includes the unincorporated communities of Spreckels, Chualar, Jolon, the eastern portion of the city of Salinas, and the cities of Gonzales, Greenfield, Soledad, and King City. Additionally, it includes the military installations at Fort Hunter Liggett and Camp Roberts, as well as portions of the Los Padres National Forest.

District 4 includes the southwest portion of the city of Salinas, the cities of Del Rey Oaks, Marina, Seaside, Sand City, and the former military installation at Fort Ord.

District 5 is geographically the largest of the five districts and covers most of the Monterey Peninsula and southern coastline of the County down to the southern border with San Luis Obispo County. The 5th District includes the cities of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Monterey, and Pacific Grove, the unincorporated communities of Carmel Valley Village, Big Sur, Pebble Beach, San Benancio, Corral de Tierra, and Jamesburg. Additionally, it includes the military installations at the Presidio of Monterey, the Defense Language Institute, and the Naval Postgraduate School, as well as the Ventana Wilderness area of the Los Padres National Forest.

Population
Each natural hazard affects County residents differently depending on the location of the hazard and the population density where the hazard event could occur. Risk assessments presented in this section summarize the population exposure for each natural hazard if available.

To produce the hazard-specific risk assessments, first the population near each hazard was determined. Population estimates were derived from 2010 Census information. Census blocks were used to determine the population exposed to the hazards.

Parcel Value Inventory
Monterey County Assessor’s data was used to develop both residential and non-residential values exposed to hazards. Residential and nonresidential parcels were identified using Assessor's Land Use Codes.

The Parcel Value Inventory includes total assessed value of the land and of any structures on the land. These elements are combined because, in the event of a disaster, the value of the infrastructure or improvements to the land is usually the focus and the land itself is not a total loss. Each hazard profile outlines predicted impacts to this Inventory based on each hazard’s geographic extent.

The Monterey County Parcel and Population Inventory is summarized in Table 4-4.

Packet Page 256
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 4-15 RISK ASSESSMENT
Table 4-4: Monterey County Parcel and Population Inventory Table 4-4
Monterey County Parcel and Population Inventory
Jurisdiction Population Residential Non-Residential
Count Value ($) Count Value ($)
Carmel-by-the-Sea 3,460 2,489 $4,071,156,577 888 $691,544,498 Del Rey Oaks 1,000 584 $276,553,256 144 $55,959,358
Gonzales 6,758 1,303 $437,053,854 479 $193,034,179
Greenfield 13,299 2,574 $749,316,532 585 $176,076,227
King City 10,970 1,874 $552,522,904 898 $284,138,790
Marina 18,939 3,603 $2,163,216,447 1,388 $582,115,264
Monterey 26,998 6,533 $4,016,887,152 5,671 $2,661,097,840 Pacific Grove 15,030 4,798 $3,545,159,214 1,763 $441,654,454 Salinas 133,018 23,032 $9,261,979,929 9,025 $3,159,440,145 Sand City 324 157 $32,386,952 644 $320,490,499
Seaside 28,456 5,461 $2,345,735,210 2,159 $481,073,182
Soledad 22,713 2769 $1,049,529,544 703 $147,123,893
Supervisorial District
District 1 74,822 9,872 $3,434,995,377 4,619 $1,674,390,014 District 2 73,812 16,226 $7,225,922,676 8,558 $2,369,919,832 District 3 76,581 12,949 $4,353,858,958 10,695 $5,609,556,661 District 4 71,735 15,072 $7,553,619,336 7,009 $2,506,288,306 District 5 81,657 29,599 $32,363,271,436 14,367 $6,397,430,508 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure
Critical facilities and Infrastructure were of particular concern when conducting the Risk Assessment. A critical facility is a structure or other improvement that, because of its function, size, service area, or uniqueness, has the potential to cause disruption of vital socioeconomic activities if it is destroyed, damaged, or functionally impaired. Critical facility points include police stations, fire stations, hospitals, elder care facilities, day care facilities, buildings containing hazardous materials, schools, transportation infrastructure, utilities, and government buildings. Critical lifelines include communication, electric power, liquid fuel, natural gas, and transportation routes.

A critical infrastructure spatial database was developed to translate critical facilities information into georeferenced points and lines. The critical facilities inventory was developed from a variety of sources, including County, City, State, Federal, and industry datasets.

Table 4-5 lists critical infrastructure data sources. All data sources have a level of accuracy acceptable for planning purposes. Due to the sensitivity of this information, a detailed list of facilities is not provided. The risk assessment for each hazard qualitatively discusses critical facilities with regard to that hazard.

Packet Page 257
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 4-16 RISK ASSESSMENT
Table 4-5: Critical Infrastructure and Assets Data Sources Table 4-5
Critical Infrastructure and Assets Data Sources
Critical Facilities and Assets Source
Emergency Operation Centers, Fire Stations, Police
Stations, Schools, Airports, Electric Power Facilities, Landfills, Military Facilities, Large Public Facilities 2015 Monterey County Local Hazard
Mitigation Plan, data reviewed and
updated by County OES, PG&E
Hospitals and Medical Care Facilities Monterey County GIS, PG&E Dams US Army Corps of Engineers National
Inventory of Dams
Harbors Monterey County GIS
Hazardous Material Facilities Monterey County GIS: Underground Tanks, Cal ARP Facility
Transportation Infrastructure- Roads, Highways,
Bridges, and Railroads Monterey County GIS
Communications Facilities Monterey County GIS, PG&E
Water and Wastewater Infrastructure
Monterey County GIS, M1W provided
GIS layer of collection system including
conveyance pipelines and pump
stations
Rain Gauges Monterey Water Resources Agency
Stormwater Infrastructure Monterey County GIS
Oil Wells
California Department of
Conservation, Geologic Energy
Management Division's (CalGEM) Well
Finder (WellSTAR)

4.3.2 HAZARD EXPOSURE
The asset and population inventory information were then used to generate specific exposure and damage estimations based on the severity of specific hazard events. “Exposure” of assets and population refers to the total counts of parcels, people, facilities, and assets within the County in which a hazard event may occur.

A natural hazards overlay was developed to reflect the combination of many known natural hazard spatial footprints. The spatial overlay method enables summarization of building values, parcel counts, population exposure, and critical facility exposure within a hazard’s geographic extents.

In Monterey County, coastal erosion, dam failure, levee failure, hazardous materials incidents, earthquake liquefaction, flooding, slope failure, sea level rise, tsunami, and wildfire have identifiable geographic extents and corresponding spatial information about each hazard.

Table 4-6 summarizes the data sources used for each of these hazards.

Packet Page 258
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 4-17 RISK ASSESSMENT
Table 4-6: Hazard Exposure Data
Table 4-6
Hazard Exposure Data
Hazard Data Source Severity and Exposure
Coastal
Erosion
USGS Coastal Storm Modeling System
(CoSMoS), Central California Projections
of Coastal Cliff Retreat and Shoreline
Change due to 21st Century Sea Level
Rise
To determine exposure, the Hold the Line
Management Scenario was used for both
coastal cliff retreat and shoreline change.

For shoreline change, Continued
Nourishment Management Scenario, in
addition to modeling which forced Sea Level
Rise in 2100 at 200 cm. Based on OPC High
Risk Aversion Guidance, the following sea
level rise levels were chosen: 25 cm Sea
Level Rise (2030, near future risk; 75 cm Sea
Level Rise (2060); and 200 cm Sea Level Rise
(2100).

Dam Failure
• Nacimiento- Monterey County GIS
• San Antonio- Monterey County GIS
• Forest Lake Dam- Pebble Beach
Community Services District
• Los Padres Dam- CA DOSD
Exposure risk was based on the following:
• Nacimiento- Spillway Failure, Dam
Failure
• San Antonio- Spillway Failure, Dam
Failure
• Forest Lake Dam- 4 Failure Scenarios
• Los Padres Dam- Inundation area
Levee Failure Army Corp of Engineers National Levee
Database
Leveed Areas was used to determine
exposure risk.

Hazardous
Materials
Incident
Mobile- US Dept of Transportation,
National Transportation Atlas Database
Fixed-Monterey County Hazardous
Materials Plan (2019)
Based on guidelines in the US Department of
Transportation’s Emergency Response, the
recommended buffer distance or
“protective action distance” of one mile was
used, around mobile and fixed facilities to
determine exposure risk.

Earthquake
Liquefaction Monterey County GIS High and moderate liquefaction potential areas used to determine exposure risk.

Flooding FEMA FIRM (2018) 100-year and 500-year floodplain used to determine exposure risk.

Slope Failure Earthquake Induced Landslide Risk,
Monterey County 2010 General Plan
High and moderate earthquake induced
landslide potential areas used to determine
exposure risk, in addition to data from the
FEMA National Risk Index.

Sea Level
Rise
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), Sea Level Rise
Data
Based on OPC High Risk Aversion Guidance,
the following sea level rise levels were
chosen: 1 ft Sea Level Rise (2030); 3 ft Sea
Level Rise (2060); and 7 ft Sea Level Rise
(2100) to determine exposure.

Packet Page 259
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 4-18 RISK ASSESSMENT
Table 4-6
Hazard Exposure Data
Hazard Data Source Severity and Exposure
Tsunami
California Geological Survey, Tsunami
Inundation Maps, Monterey County
Tsunami Hazard Areas (2021)
Tsunami Inundation Zone used to determine
exposure risk.

Wildfire CALFIRE Fire Threat
Statewide GIS layer in raster format of fire
threat, which combines expected fire
frequency with potential fire behavior to
create 4 threat classes. Very High, High, and
Moderate Threat Zones were considered
areas exposed to wildfire risk.

FEMA National Risk Index
The FEMA National Risk Index was also used to enhance the risk assessment. The National Risk Index incorporates physical and social vulnerability data to identify communities more at-risk to the adverse impacts of natural hazards. The National Risk Index is a high quality, comprehensive data set that identifies a community’s risk to natural hazards.

Community risk in the National Risk Index is a combination of several factors, including the expected annual dollar loss related to building value, crop, or population, due to a natural hazard; social vulnerability, which measures how social groups respond to the adverse impacts of natural hazards; and community resilience, which is the community’s ability to recover from a natural disaster.

4.3.3 HAZARD VULNERABILITY
Included in the risk assessment was a consideration of hazard vulnerability. Vulnerability is the characteristics of community assets that make them susceptible to damage from a given hazard. The vulnerability of people, property, critical infrastructure, the environment, and the economy is discussed within each respective risk assessment section for each hazard.

Vulnerability was evaluated by interpreting the probability of occurrence of each event and assessing structures, facilities, and systems that are exposed to each hazard. Additionally, vulnerability was assessed qualitatively using local knowledge.

Environmental Impacts
Monterey County has many important environmental assets and natural resources. These resources are critical to community identity and quality of life and support the economy through agriculture, tourism and recreation, and a variety of other ecosystem services, such as clean air and water. Hazards profiled in this Plan can have impacts on the natural environment and are discussed qualitatively in this section.

Packet Page 260
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 4-19 RISK ASSESSMENT
The natural environment also provides protective functions that reduce hazard impacts and increase resiliency. For instance, wetlands and riparian areas help absorb flood waters, soils and landscaping contribute to stormwater management, and vegetation provides erosion control and reduces runoff. Conservation of environmental assets may present opportunities to meet mitigation and other community objectives, such as protecting sensitive habitat, developing parks and trails, or contributing to the economy.

Economic Impacts
After a disaster, economic resiliency drives recovery. Monterey County has a variety of specific economic drivers that are important to understand when planning to reduce the impacts of hazards and disasters to the local economy. Depending on the hazard, economic impacts in this section were described in terms of indirect losses, such as functional downtime and loss of employment wages, and in terms of the impact to primary economic sectors

4.3.4 LIMITATIONS
Loss estimates, exposure assessments, and hazard-specific vulnerability evaluations rely on the best available data and methodologies. Uncertainties are inherent in any loss estimation methodology and arise in part from incomplete scientific knowledge concerning natural hazards and their effects on the built environment. Uncertainties also result from the following:
• Approximations and simplifications necessary to conduct a study • Incomplete or outdated inventory, demographic, or economic parameter data • Missing data on value of structure or land
• Population assessed based on census blocks, which differs from physical residents in a hazard area
• The unique nature, geographic extent, and severity of each hazard • Mitigation measures already employed
• The amount of advance notice residents has to prepare for a specific hazard event • The uncertain spatial accuracy of a variety of the data used to assess hazard exposure • Lack of a standardized model for assessing sea level rise impacts. Multiple models provide multiple results. Not all models were run in the development of the sea level rise analysis.

These factors can affect loss estimates by a factor of two or more. Therefore, potential exposure and loss estimates are approximate and should be used only to understand relative risk. Over the long term, Monterey County will collect additional data to assist in estimating potential losses associated with other hazards.

4.4 HAZARD PRIORITIZATION AND RISK RANKING
FEMA requires all hazard mitigation planning partners to have jurisdiction-specific mitigation actions based on local risk, vulnerability, and community priorities. This plan included a risk Packet Page 261
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 4-20 RISK ASSESSMENT
ranking protocol for each planning partner, in which “risk” was calculated by adding the extent of hazard, the likelihood of future occurrence, the severity, and the impact on people, property and the economy.

The risk ranking was used to identify mitigation actions for hazards. The risk ranking at the planning partner scale was used to inform the action plan development process for each partner. Planning partners were directed to identify mitigation actions addressing hazards that, at a minimum, had a “high” risk ranking. Actions that address hazards with a substantial, moderate, possible, slight, negligible hazard ranking are considered optional by this planning process. The following Countywide risk ranking was prepared by the planning team. The results are used in establishing mitigation priorities.

Each participating jurisdiction also completed the hazard prioritization process specifically for the hazards applicable to their jurisdiction, and this important initial stage informed the rest of the planning process for each jurisdiction. Individual hazard prioritization matrices are available in Volume 2 of this MJHMP.

4.4.1 THREAT HAZARD RISK ASSESSMENT SURVEY
The risk ranking process was conducted using the Threat Hazard Risk Assessment Survey. All stakeholders took the Threat Hazard Risk Assessment Survey. The purpose was both the gauge perceived risk and to rank and prioritize the hazards. The survey assisted in the creation of a risk matrix, in order to compare hazards and rank which pose the greatest risk. Based on the survey each identified hazard was given a rank based on geographic extent, likelihood of future occurrences, magnitude, and impacts
The score for each variable by hazard was calculated using a weighted average of all survey responses. Variables were then summed to create results for each Individual jurisdiction (summarized in Volume 2). For the Countywide THIRA overall jurisdiction risk ranking scores by hazard for likelihood, magnitude, and impact were used and weighted by population in the jurisdiction (as a percentage of the total County population).

Municipal jurisdictions scores comprised 75% of the total score per variable, participating special district scores compromised 15% of the total score (weighted by population served), and stakeholder scores (collected as described in Stakeholder Engagement) comprised 10% of the total score. Geographic extent which was weighted by land area (as a percentage of the total County land area). The risk index was helpful tool to compare multiple hazards, but it is not a complete risk assessment and is supplementary to the more detailed risk analysis provided in each hazard chapter.

Variables
Variables were based on the hazard profiles as described above and, on the FEMA, Local Mitigation Planning Handbook. The following variables, questions, and guidance shaped the ranking on the matrices:

Packet Page 262
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 4-21 RISK ASSESSMENT
Geographic Extent: What geographic area is affected by this hazard?

1. Negligible: No known or negligible geographic extent

2. Limited: Less than 10% of Planning Area

3. Significant: 10-50% of Planning Area

4. Extensive: 50-100% of Planning Area
Likelihood of Future Occurrences: What is the likelihood of a hazard event occurring in a given year?

1. Unlikely: Less than 1% chance of occurrence in next 100 years or has a recurrence interval of greater than every 100 years.

2. Occasional: Between 1 and 10% chance of occurrence in the next year or has a recurrence interval of 11 to 100 years.

3. Likely: Between 10 and 100% chance of occurrence in next year or has a recurrence interval of 10 years or less.

4. Highly Likely: Near 100% chance of occurrence in next year or happens every year.

Magnitude/ Severity: What is the expected magnitude and severity of the hazard event based on historic events or future probability?

1. Negligible: Less than 10% of property severely damaged, shutdown of facilities and services for less than 24 hours; and/or injuries treatable with first aid

2. Limited:10-25% of property severely damaged; shutdown of facilities for more than a week; and/or injuries treatable do not result in permanent disability

3. Critical: 25-50% of property severely damaged; shutdown of facilities for at least two weeks; and/or injuries and/or illnesses result in permanent disability

4. Catastrophic: More than 50% of property severely damaged; shutdown of facilities for more than 30 days; and/or multiple deaths
Impact: In terms of injuries, damage, or death, would you anticipate impacts to be negligible, limited, critical, or catastrophic when a significant hazard event occurs?

1. Negligible: no meaningful impact

2. Limited: minimal potential impact

3. Critical: moderate potential impact

4. Catastrophic: widespread potential impact

4.4.2 RANKING METHODOLOGY
To determine the rank, each variable was weighted on a scale from 1-4, or negligible/ unlikely to extensive/ highly likely/ catastrophic. The score for each variable by hazard was calculated using a weighted average of all survey responses. Scores on each variable were added together to determine a score between 1 and 16.

Packet Page 263
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 4-22 RISK ASSESSMENT
Figure 4-3 demonstrates how individual variable scores were added together to create a total score, associated with a relative degree of risk.

Figure 4-3
Risk Ranking Score Matrix by Variable
Geographic Extent
1 2 3 4
Likelihood
1 4 6 8 10 1
Magnitude/ Severity 2 6 8 10 12 2
3 8 10 12 14 3
4 10 12 14 16 4
1 2 3 4
Impact Figure 4-3: Risk Ranking Score Matrix by Variable Each score was associated with a qualitative degree of risk ranking from Negligible (a score between 1 and 4) to Very High (a score between 14.1 and 16). As described below in Table 4-7 Table 4-7: Degree of Risk Scores
Table 4-7
Degree of Risk Scores
Degree of Risk Values
Very High 14.1-16
High 12.1-14
Substantial 10.1-12
Moderate 8.1-10
Possible 6.1-8
Slight 4.1-6
Negligible 1-4

4.4.3 RESULTS
As discussed above, each participating also ranked hazards for its own area. Table 4-8 summarizes the number of times a ranking of very high, high, substantial, moderate, possible, and slight was assigned by a participating jurisdiction based on the numerical ratings that each jurisdiction assigned each hazard. The results indicate the following general patterns:
• The only hazards to receive any very high-risk rankings were drought and water shortage, earthquake, epidemic, pandemic, sea level rise, and severe winter storms. • Drought and water shortage followed by wildfire were the most commonly ranked as high risk. 50% of participating jurisdictions ranked drought as high risk. • Earthquake, followed by utility interruption, and localized stormwater flooding were the most commonly ranked as substantial risk hazards. 67% of participating jurisdictions ranked earthquake as a substantial risk.

Packet Page 264
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 4-23 RISK ASSESSMENT
• Flash flood was the most commonly ranked moderate risk hazard, followed by terrorism and then, cyber-attack, hazardous materials incident, and riverine flooding. • Extreme cold and freeze, extreme heat, and mass migration were the most commonly ranked as a possible risk.
• Extreme cold and freeze, mass migration, and slope failure were the most commonly ranked as slight risks. Levee failure was the most commonly unranked hazard.

Table 4-8: Number of Participating Jurisdictions Assigning A Given Ranking to a Hazard Table 4-8
Number of Participating Jurisdiction Assigning a Given Ranking to a Hazard Hazard
Number of Jurisdictions Assigning Ranking to Hazard
Very
High High Substantial Moderate Possible Slight Unranked/ Negligible Agricultural Emergencies 0 2 5 2 0 3 6
Coastal Erosion 0 3 4 4 0 1 6
Coastal Flooding 0 2 4 2 4 0 6
Cyber-Attack 0 5 4 7 2 0 0
Dam Failure 0 0 1 4 5 2 6
Drought & Water Shortage 1 9 5 0 1 1 1
Earthquake 1 3 12 2 0 0 0
Epidemic 1 4 6 5 1 1 0
Extreme Cold & Freeze 0 0 1 3 7 4 3
Extreme Heat 0 0 2 6 7 0 3
Flash Flood 0 0 3 9 3 1 2
Hazardous Materials Incident 0 1 4 7 5 1 0
Invasive Species 0 0 2 6 3 3 4
Levee Failure 0 0 2 1 3 4 8
Localized Stormwater Flooding 0 0 7 6 4 1 0
Mass Migration 0 0 1 0 7 4 6
Pandemic 1 5 7 1 3 1 0
Riverine Flooding 0 0 3 7 5 2 1
Sea Level Rise 1 4 4 1 1 1 6
Severe Winter Storms 1 2 4 6 3 1 1
Slope Failure 0 0 4 5 4 4 0
Targeted Violence 0 0 3 6 5 2 0
Terrorism 0 1 2 8 3 3 0
Tsunami 0 3 2 4 2 0 0
Utility Interruption/ PSPS 0 3 8 6 1 0 0
Water Contamination 0 2 5 6 3 1 0
Wildfire 0 7 2 3 2 2 0
Windstorms 0 2 6 4 4 1 0
Packet Page 265
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 4-24 RISK ASSESSMENT
Specific jurisdictional results are included in Volume 2 of this Plan. Based on the jurisdictional results and the methodology described above, a countywide Threat Hazard Identification Risk Assessment matrix was created. Table 4-9 summarizes the results of the countywide THIRA.

Table 4-9: Countywide Threat Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment Table 4-9
Countywide Threat Hazard Identification Risk Assessment (THIRA) Hazard Geographic
Extent
Likelihood of
Occurrence
Magnitude/
Severity Impact TotalOut of 16
Degree of Risk
Agricultural Emergencies 2.6 2.1 2.2 2.3 9.1 Moderate
Coastal Erosion 2.5 1.9 1.8 1.8 8.0 Moderate
Coastal Flooding 2.6 1.8 1.9 1.9 8.2 Moderate
Cyber-Attack 2.3 2.6 2.7 2.9 10.5 Substantial
Dam Failure 2.7 1.2 1.2 1.8 6.9 Possible
Drought & Water Shortage 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.1 12.3 High
Earthquake 2.9 2.9 3.1 3.1 11.9 Substantial
Epidemic 2.6 2.5 2.8 2.7 10.7 Substantial
Extreme Cold & Freeze 2.0 1.6 1.6 1.6 6.7 Possible
Extreme Heat 2.8 2.0 1.7 1.8 8.2 Moderate
Flash Flood 2.4 1.9 2.0 2.1 8.4 Moderate
Hazardous Materials Incident 1.8 2.4 2.5 2.5 9.2 Moderate Invasive Species 2.5 1.7 1.7 1.7 7.7 Possible
Levee Failure 2.4 1.2 1.0 1.4 6.1 Possible
Localized Stormwater Flooding 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.4 10.2 Substantial Mass Migration 2.0 1.4 1.4 1.4 6.3 Possible
Pandemic 2.9 2.5 2.9 2.9 11.2 Substantial
Riverine Flooding 2.3 2.1 2.1 2.1 8.6 Moderate
Sea Level Rise 2.6 1.9 2.1 2.0 8.6 Moderate
Severe Winter Storms 2.7 2.5 2.5 2.5 10.1 Substantial
Slope Failure 2.5 1.9 2.0 2.0 8.5 Moderate
Targeted Violence 1.8 1.9 2.1 2.2 7.9 Possible
Terrorism 1.8 1.6 2.1 2.1 7.5 Possible
Tsunami 2.1 1.2 1.4 1.4 6.1 Possible
Utility Interruption/ PSPS 2.4 2.7 2.5 2.6 10.2 Substantial Water Contamination 2.6 2.0 2.5 2.5 9.6 Moderate
Wildfire 3.2 2.4 2.6 2.6 10.8 Substantial
Windstorms 2.3 2.4 2.3 2.3 9.3 Moderate
Based on the THIRA results, Table 4-10 shows the hazard ranking for all hazard considered in the plan update.

Packet Page 266
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 4-25 RISK ASSESSMENT
Table 4-10: Countywide Hazard Risk Ranking
Table 4-10
Countywide Hazard Risk Ranking
Ranking Hazard Total Degree of Risk
1 Drought & Water Shortage 12.3 High
2 Earthquake 11.9 Substantial
3 Pandemic 11.2 Substantial
4 Wildfire 10.8 Substantial
5 Epidemic 10.7 Substantial
6 Cyber-Attack 10.5 Substantial
7 Utility Interruption/ PSPS 10.2 Substantial
8 Localized Stormwater Flooding 10.2 Substantial
9 Severe Winter Storms 10.1 Substantial
10 Water Contamination 9.6 Moderate
11 Windstorms 9.3 Moderate
12 Hazardous Materials Incident 9.2 Moderate
13 Agricultural Emergencies 9.1 Moderate
14 Riverine Flooding 8.6 Moderate
15 Sea Level Rise 8.6 Moderate
16 Slope Failure 8.5 Moderate
17 Flash Flood 8.4 Moderate
18 Extreme Heat 8.2 Moderate
19 Coastal Flooding 8.2 Moderate
20 Coastal Erosion 8.0 Moderate
21 Targeted Violence 7.9 Possible
22 Invasive Species 7.7 Possible
23 Terrorism 7.5 Possible
24 Dam Failure 6.9 Possible
25 Extreme Cold & Freeze 6.7 Possible
26 Mass Migration 6.3 Possible
27 Tsunami 6.1 Possible
28 Levee Failure 6.1 Possible
Packet Page 267
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan

PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Packet Page 268
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 5-1 AGRICULTURAL EMERGENCIES

5. AGRICULTURAL EMERGENCIES

5.1 OVERVIEW
Agriculture is the backbone of Monterey County’s economy. Agriculture has always been an integral part of the County and has continually grown and changed along with the County. The soils and climate in the region make the County an ideal area to sustain a wide variety of agricultural endeavors. Agriculture in Monterey County is a mosaic of farmland intermingled with other uses in a rural setting. This land provides marketable products, open space, wildlife habitat, watershed benefits, and an aesthetic environment.

For purposes of this plan, an agricultural emergency is any type of unintentional event that threatens human health and the economic stability of the agricultural industry in Monterey County. This primarily includes any event or threat that has the ability to cause widespread losses of crops, livestock, and farm property. Agricultural losses occur on an annual basis and are usually associated with severe weather events, heavy rains, floods, heat, freeze, drought, fires, crop and livestock disease, insects, and noxious weeds.

5.1.1 NATURAL DISASTERS & SEVERE WEATHER
According to the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), every year natural disasters, such as droughts, earthquakes, extreme heat and cold, floods, fires, earthquakes, hail, landslides, and tornadoes, challenge agricultural production. Because agriculture relies on the weather, climate, and water availability to thrive, it is easily impacted by natural events and disasters.

Agricultural impacts from natural events and disasters most commonly include contamination of water bodies, loss of harvest or livestock, increased susceptibility to disease, and destruction Packet Page 269
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 5-2 AGRICULTURAL EMERGENCIES
of irrigation systems and other agricultural infrastructure. These impacts can have long lasting effects on agricultural production including crops, forest growth, and arable lands, which require time to mature. These types of events may also include accidental threats related to the release of hazardous materials and/or explosive hazards, which can not only cause agricultural losses but also directly affect human health.

More in-depth risk assessments for Drought (Section 8), Flooding (Section 10), Hazardous (Section 11), Severe Weather(Section 14), and Wildfire(Section 18) are included in this plan. As they all pose a potential agricultural hazard they are discussed briefly in this section.

5.1.2 PESTS, WEEDS, AND DISEASES
Pest and diseases are a critical threat due to their potential to cause economic and human health disasters. The Monterey County Office of the Agricultural Commissioner has active programs in place to monitor, detect, quarantine, eradicate, and manage pest and disease threats to Monterey County’s agricultural sector.

Insect pest hazards can have a major economic impact on farmers, farm workers, packers, and shippers of agricultural products. They can also cause significant increases in food prices for consumers due to shortages. The primary pests of concern include:
• Mediterranean Fruit Fly • Melon Fruit Fly
• Glassy-Winged Sharpshooter • Japanese Beetle
• Gypsy Moth • Mexican Fruit Fly
• Asian Citrus Psyllid • Light Brown Apple Moth
• Oriental Fruit Fly • European Grapevine Moth
These pests have a wide host range and are difficult and costly to manage once established.

Noxious weeds, defined as any plant that is liable to be troublesome, aggressive, intrusive, detrimental, or destructive to agriculture, silviculture, or important native species, and difficult to control or eradicate, are also of concern. Weeds of concern in Monterey County include:
• Fertile Capeweed • Yellowstar-thistle
• French Broom • Veldt Grass
• Cape Ivy • Taurian Thistle
• Arundo • Puna Grass
• Pampas Grass • Skeletonweed
• Purple Pampas Grass • Scotch Thistle
• Sticky Eupatorium
The rich soils and moderate climate of Monterey County make it an ideal place for invasive weed species to colonize. Invasive weeds are generally able to out-compete local native plant species for water and space because they are more prolific, have more vigorous growth, and Packet Page 270
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 5-3 AGRICULTURAL EMERGENCIES
lack predators that would otherwise help to keep them in check. They degrade habitat for other wildlife, domestic animals, recreation, and other land use activities. The agricultural industry is particularly affected by weeds.

Noxious weeds have been introduced in Monterey County by a variety of means. An absence of natural controls, combined with the aggressive growth characteristics and unpalatability of many of these weeds, allows these weeds to dominate and replace more desirable native vegetation. Negative effects of weeds include the following:
• Loss of wildlife habitat and reduced wildlife numbers • Loss of native plant species
• Reduced livestock grazing capacity
• Increased soil erosion and topsoil loss
• Diminished water quality and fish habitat
• Reduced cropland and farmland production
• Reduced land value and sale potential
The consequences of agricultural disasters to the County include ruined plant crops, dead livestock, ruined feed and agricultural equipment, monetary loss, job loss, and possible multiyear effects (i.e., trees might not produce if damaged, loss of markets, food shortages, increased prices, possible spread of disease to people, and loss or contamination of animal products). When these hazards cause a mass die-off of livestock, other issues occur that include the disposal of animals, depopulation of affected herds, decontamination, and resource problems. In addition, insect pests and diseases such as bark beetles, Sudden Oak Death, and Pitch Canker in trees can destroy large expanses of forest and woodland, increasing the fuel load and contributing to greater fire risk. Overall, any type of severe agricultural disaster can have significant economic impacts on both the agricultural community and the entire County.

5.2 HAZARD PROFILE

5.2.1 HISTORY
Monterey County has experienced numerous agricultural-related disasters of varying magnitudes. The County received Presidential Major Disaster Declarations for severe freezing and crop damages in 2007, 1999, and 1991, and for a severe drought emergency in 1977. Major agricultural losses have also occurred following many of the other presidentially declared major disasters for Monterey County. For instance, it is estimated that the 1995 flood disaster resulted in $240 million in losses to crop production in the Salinas Valley.

Over the past 10 years, the US Department of Agriculture has declared 27 agricultural disasters in Monterey County, which are listed in Table 5-1. USDA Disaster Declarations make emergency loan assistance available to eligible family farmers to cover physical and production losses.

Packet Page 271
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 5-4 AGRICULTURAL EMERGENCIES
Table 5-1:USDA Agricultural Disaster Designations in Monterey County (2012-2021) The most common cause of these disasters over the past several years have been, in order of frequency: drought, high winds, excessive heat, wildland fire, insects, excessive rain, and freezing temperatures. There has been an estimated $15.3 million in crop damages for Monterey County since 1996. Approximately $7 million is associated with severe freezing temperatures in 2007, about $7 million was attributed to wildfire events, and nearly $2 million to flood events.

Table 5-1
USDA Agricultural Disaster Designations in Monterey County (2012-2021) Designation
Number Disaster Type Crop Disaster Year
S4916 Drought 2021
S4467 Drought 2019
S4656 Excessive Rain 2019
S4657 Excessive Rain and Hail 2019
S4350 Freeze 2018
S4460 Drought 2018
S4144 Drought 2017
S4163 Drought 2017
S3952 Drought, High Winds, Wildfire, Excessive Heat, and Insects 2016 S4003 Rain and Wind 2016
S4164 Severe Weather, Excessive Rainfall and High Winds 2016 S3784 Drought, High Winds, Wildfire, Excessive Heat, and Insects 2015 S3943 Drought 2015
S3626 Drought, High Winds, Wildfire, Excessive Heat, and Insects 2014 S3637 Drought, High Winds, Wildfire, Excessive Heat, and Insects 2014 S3626 Drought, High Winds, Wildfire, Excessive Heat, and Insects 2014 S3637 Drought, High Winds, Wildfire, Excessive Heat, and Insects 2014 S3743 Drought 2014
S3491 Drought, High Winds, Wildfire, Excessive Heat, and Insects 2013 S3497 Drought, High Winds, Wildfire, Excessive Heat, and Insects 2013 S3504 Drought, High Winds, Wildfire, Excessive Heat, and Insects 2013 S3547 Drought, High Winds, Wildfire, Excessive Heat, and Insects 2013 S3569 Drought, High Winds, Wildfire, Excessive Heat, and Insects 2013 S3268 Drought, High Winds, Wildfire, Excessive Heat, and Insects 2012 S3320 Hailstorm, Rain, and Cold Temperatures 2012
S3379 Drought 2012
S3452 Drought 2012
Source: United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Disaster Designation Information Packet Page 272
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 5-5 AGRICULTURAL EMERGENCIES
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on
California agricultural businesses was severe,
unprecedented, and will continue to affect the
industry for the coming years. Impacts occurred
across four main sectors: consumer demand
(retail, export, and food service), agricultural
supply chain (transportation, packing, storage),
producers (crops, dairy, nursery, and meat), and
input suppliers (workers, crop protection,
materials).

The Monterey County Agricultural Commissioner’s
Office conducted a survey of agricultural
producers, which indicated significant losses
particularly among growers providing fresh
produce to the foodservice sector. The closing of
schools and the cancellation of most conferences
and travel resulted in the cancellation of contracts
for fresh produce. Approximately 20% of County
growers responded to the survey and of those
responding to the survey, 38% reported losses. A
total of 2,093 acres were reported as a loss or not
planted. 12 Additionally, Agriculture work sites,
shared worker housing, congested housing, and
shared worker transportation vehicles presented
unique challenges for preventing the spread of
COVID-19.

The wildfires of 2020 presented yet another set of
emergencies for Monterey County agriculture. The
wildfire smoke created a hazard for farmworkers.

Prior to the wildfires, the Agricultural
Commissioner’s Office had started distributing N95
respirators to pesticide applicators. When the first
wildfire struck, the N95 respirators were
redirected to protect farmworkers from the
wildfire smoke. The losses from the 2020 wildfires
occurred primarily to wine grapes and strawberries
and were estimated at $74,586,292.1
12 Monterey County Ag Community Shows Resilience, Henry S. Gonzales, Monterey County Agricultural Commissioner, April 24, 2021
Mitigation Success Story
Mitigating the Impact of the COVID-19
Pandemic to Farmworkers
Staff from the Agricultural Commissioner’s
Office worked to distribute surgical masks
face coverings, and other protective
equipment directly to farmworkers and
through community-based organizations,
growers, and farm labor contractors. The
Ag Commissioner’s Office distributed
thousands of COVID-19 informational cards
to farmworkers. The Spanish language
wallet-sized cards listed symptoms of
COVID-19, along with information about
where farmworkers could receive free
medical attention, food, and childcare. They
also partnered with several community
groups to create a public service
announcement in Spanish and Mixtec,
speaking directly to farmworkers about the
actions they could take to protect
themselves, their families, and the
community from COVID-19. Isolation
housing was provided to those farmworkers
either diagnosed or exposed to COVID-19
through a unique grower-led program
which ultimately became the model for the
state’s program implemented much later in
the pandemic, called Housing for Harvest.

Packet Page 273
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 5-6 AGRICULTURAL EMERGENCIES

5.2.1 LOCATION
Agricultural hazards occur throughout the County where lands are used for farming and grazing.

The County has large swaths of agricultural lands. According to the California Department of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMPP), the County has about 165,000 acres of prime farmland, 44,500 acres of farmland of statewide importance, 26,500 acres of unique farmland, and over 1 million acres of grazing land. The map below shows the locations of valuable farmland in the County.

Figure 5-1
Important Farmland in Monterey County
Figure 5-1: Important Farmland in Monterey County
While most agricultural land is located in the unincorporated County and cities may not be directly affected, they are indirectly affected economically when agricultural losses occur.

5.2.2 FREQUENCY
Agriculture in the County is at risk to many hazards: insects, weeds, wildfire, severe weather, as well as downturns in commodity prices. Each of these has a different likelihood, duration, and speed of onset. Some, such as freeze, can have a short onset and a short duration. Drought can have a long onset and long duration. Insects and weeds can have short or long onset, and short or long durations.

Packet Page 274
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 5-7 AGRICULTURAL EMERGENCIES
All agricultural losses can have a significant impact on affected communities. As long as severe weather events, insects, and weeds continue to be an ongoing concern, the potential for annual agricultural losses remains.

5.2.3 SEVERITY
The potential severity of agricultural emergencies in Monterey County can perhaps best be quantified by the exposure of production value. Crop values vary from year to year based on production, market, and weather conditions, but according to the Economic Contributions of Monterey County Agriculture Report the economic contribution of Monterey County agriculture is about $11.7 billion annually. This consists of $7.4 billion in combined, direct output from production and processing, plus $4.3 billion in multiplier effects. Nearly one out of every five jobs in the County are related to agriculture which supports 57,503 jobs directly and an additional 6,417 jobs indirectly. 13
Crops grown in Monterey County supply large percentages of total national pounds produced each year: 61% of leaf lettuce, 57% of celery, 56% of head lettuce, 48% of broccoli, 38% of spinach, 30% of cauliflower, 28% of strawberries, and 3.6% of wine grapes. 14 Therefore, a significant agricultural hazard has the potential to severely affect the economy of the entire County and could have widespread effects on food availability in the rest of the Country.

5.2.4 WARNING TIME
Identifying the presence of insects and pests in agricultural lands is the most important step in warning for an agriculture disaster. Once identified, preventing the insects and pests from establishing a population is critical. Communication between farmers to warn each other of the presence of invasive pests and insects so that appropriate measures can be taken to prevent them from establishing a population and negatively impacting crops.

5.3 SECONDARY HAZARDS
The most significant secondary hazard associated with an agriculture disaster is wildfire. Severe infestation of pests and disease in agricultural lands can cause crops to die, creating increased fuel for wildfire. Agricultural lands are open areas with a mix of grasses, shrubs, trees, and crops that, if dried out or dead, could easily ignite and either start or contribute to a wildfire.

Additionally, Ample scientific evidence shows that crops, orchards, grasslands, and other agricultural areas can help protect people and property from wildfires. Agricultural belts around urban areas are especially helpful, where they reduce the fuel load, disrupt advancing fires, and facilitate firefighting efforts. For more information on wildfire risk in Monterey County, refer to Section 18, Wildfire.
13 Monterey County Agricultural Commissioner, 2020, Economic Contributions of Monterey County Agriculture 14 Monterey County Farm Bureau Packet Page 275
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 5-8 AGRICULTURAL EMERGENCIES

5.4 RISK ASSESSMENT

5.4.1 POPULATION
Agricultural disasters pose a serious threat to the local economy and populations directly employed by the agriculture industry. An agricultural disaster has the potential to greatly impact the Monterey County economy, people employed in the agriculture industry, and their families. As noted previously, nearly one out of every five jobs in the County are related to agriculture which supports 57,503 jobs directly and an additional 6,417 jobs indirectly, 15 therefore agricultural emergencies can have a deep impact on the population of Monterey County if it leads to a reduction in jobs.

An agriculture disaster can also pose a threat to human health. Mosquitos carry harmful disease and can transmit diseases to the population. The Africanized honeybee also presents a threat to the population, not because of their sting but because of their aggressive response to a disturbance. The Africanized honeybee will swarm and attach for long periods in the event of a disturbance to their nests.

5.4.2 PROPERTY
All agricultural crops are threatened by and exposed to severe weather events, heavy rains, floods, heat, freeze, drought, fires, crop and livestock disease, insects, and noxious weeds.

Table 5-2 summarizes gross production value of key crop types in Monterey County in 2020 and 2019 as a proxy for crop value threatened by hazards in the County.

Table 5-2: Gross Production Value of Crops in Monterey County Table 5-2
Gross Production Value of Crops in Monterey County
Category 2020 2019
Vegetable Crops $2,524,608,000 $3,099,088,000
Fruits & Nuts $1,124,737,000 $1,028,146,000
Livestock & Poultry $110,891,000 $110,580,000
Nursery Crops $119,836,000 $143,979,000
Field Crops $25,481,000 $24,554,000
Seed Crops & Apiary $4,582,000 $3,645,000
Total $3,910,135,000 $4,409,992,000
Source: Monterey County Agricultural Commissioner
Table 5-2 also demonstrates the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and 2020 wildfires on crop production. Major increases and decreases in crop production for 2020 include:
15 Monterey County Agricultural Commissioner, 2020, Economic Contributions of Monterey County Agriculture Packet Page 276
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 5-9 AGRICULTURAL EMERGENCIES
• Vegetable Crops saw a decrease in value of $574,480,000 to $2,524,608,000. • Fruit and Nut Crops saw an increase of $96,591,000 to $1,124,737,000. (The Fruits and Nuts category without including Wine Grapes values, saw an increase of $176,696,000 or nearly 21%, to $1,018,746,000 due in part to the increase in value of strawberries.) • Wine Grapes saw a significant decrease of 43% or $80,105,000 to reach a total for red and white varietals of $105,991,000 partly due to effects of wildfires, the COVID-19 pandemic, a decrease in production and average price per ton. • Nursery Crops suffered a decrease of 16.8% or $24,143,000 due to reduced acreage, production, and prices once again favoring an increase in imports and demand for cannabis greenhouse production
All agricultural land is threatened by and exposed to severe weather events, heavy rains, floods, heat, freeze, drought, fires, crop and livestock disease, insects, and noxious weeds.

Table 5-3 summarizes the number of acres and value of important agricultural land by type.

Table 5-3: Value of Agricultural Land in Monterey County Table 5-3
Value of Agricultural Land in Monterey County
Supervisorial
District
Prime Farmland Farmland of Statewide Importance
Acres Value Acres Value
District 1 491 $70,953,097 5 $1,768,087
District 2 19,181 $804,422,513 8,741 $635,499,149
District 3 127,881 $3,516,483,171 33,727 $1,876,893,765 District 4 13,635 $381,699,801 1,382 $189,266,984
District 5 4,297 $230,007,594 649 $86,547,025
Total 165,485 $5,003,566,176 44,505 $2,789,975,010
Supervisorial
District
Unique Farmland Grazing Land
Acres Value Acres Value
District 1 24 $51,485,685 0 $0
District 2 8,163 $714,501,131 21,829 $463,542,869
District 3 16,995 $2,212,880,829 937,186 $3,319,092,070 District 4 244 $170,856,593 8,417 $169,830,424
District 5 927 $162,943,833 96,117 $2,630,183,802
Total 26,353 $3,312,668,071 1,063,549 $6,582,649,165
Agricultural land value exposed to wildfire and flood risk was assessed for this plan. Agricultural land exposed wildfire risk was assessed using CAL FIRE Fire Hazard Severity Zones.

Table 5-4 summarizes acres and values of Prime Farmland in Fire Hazard Severity Zones.

Packet Page 277
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 5-10 AGRICULTURAL EMERGENCIES
Table 5-4: Prime Farmland Exposed to Wildfire Risk by Fire Hazard Severity Zone Table 5-4
Prime Farmland Exposed to Wildfire Risk by Fire Hazard Severity Zone Supervisorial
District
Very High High Moderate
Acres Value Acres Value Acres Value
District 1 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
District 2 14 $12,577,575 191 $43,685,766 481 $66,884,478 District 3 315 $91,087,807 3455 $337,096,616 15,763 $903,926,268 District 4 2 $1,120,394 0 $0 0 $0
District 5 43 $47,386,924 250 $35,805,582 741 $33,058,223 Total 375 $152,172,700 3,896 $416,587,964 16,985 $1,003,868,969 Table 5-5 summarizes acres and values of Farmland of Statewide Importance in Fire Hazard Severity Zones.

Table 5-5: Farmland of Statewide Importance Exposed to Wildfire Risk Table 5-5
Farmland of Statewide Importance Exposed to Wildfire Risk by Fire Hazard Severity Zone Supervisorial
District
Very High High Moderate
Acres Value Acres Value Acres Value
District 1 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
District 2 16 $2,781,112 459 $70,633,137 304 $79,151,933 District 3 3 $9,242,779 1,285 $234,072,137 9,340 $384,329,143 District 4 0 $1,210,897 0 $0 0 $0
District 5 17 $25,691,776 218 $6,278,334 8 $6,278,334
Total 37 $38,926,564 1,963 $310,983,608 9,652 $469,759,410 Table 5-6 summarizes acres and values of Unique Farmland in Fire Hazard Severity Zones.

Table 5-6: Unique Farmland Exposed to Wildfire Risk by Fire Hazard Severity Zone Table 5-6
Unique Farmland Exposed to Wildfire Risk by Fire Hazard Severity Zone Supervisorial
District
Very High High Moderate
Acres Value Acres Value Acres Value
District 1 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
District 2 53 $13,722,249 1,267 $152,429,770 787 $83,181,508 District 3 203 $89,991,097 3,571 $432,711,859 6,003 $617,457,668 District 4 2 $2,511,838 0 $0 0 $0
District 5 100 $26,134,030 174 $58,265,936 444 $27,945,919 Total 358 $132,359,214 5,012 $643,407,565 7,234 $728,585,095 Table 5-7 summarizes acres and values of Grazing Land in Fire Hazard Severity Zones.

Packet Page 278
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 5-11 AGRICULTURAL EMERGENCIES
Table 5-7: Grazing Land Exposed to Wildfire Risk by Fire Hazard Severity Zone Table 5-7
Grazing Land Exposed to Wildfire Risk by Fire Hazard Severity Zone Supervisorial
District
Very High High Moderate
Acres Value Acres Value Acres Value
District 1 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
District 2 9,760 $51,763,441 7,053 $146,479,709 2,488 $69,632,969 District 3 103,883 $354,760,669 547,587 $1,444,195,814 131,137 $1,258,200,102 District 4 182 $5,416,285 0 $0 0 $0
District 5 35,477 $1,777,052,329 57,070 $1,172,818,716 2,652 $50,503,125 Total 149,301 $2,188,992,724 611,710 $2,763,494,239 136,277 $1,378,336,196 Agricultural land exposed flood risk was assessed using the FEMA 100-year floodplain. Table 5-8 summarizes acres and values of Prime Farmland in the 100-year floodplain.

Table 5-8: Prime Farmland Exposed to Flood Hazard Risk
Table 5-8
Prime Farmland Exposed to Flood Hazard Risk
Supervisorial
District
100-Year Floodplain
Acres Value
District 1 421 $9,816,487
District 2 7,102 $408,922,260
District 3 20,507 $1,317,258,937
District 4 7,121 $269,820,865
District 5 2,290 $104,670,375
Total 37,441 $2,110,488,924
Table 5-9 summarizes acres and values of Farmland of Statewide Importance in the 100-year floodplain.

Table 5-9: Farmland of Statewide Importance Exposed to Flood Hazard Risk Table 5-9
Farmland of Statewide Importance Exposed to Flood Hazard Risk Supervisorial
District
100-Year Floodplain
Acres Value
District 1 0 $0
District 2 320 $158,964,554
District 3 28,707 $811,603,587
District 4 2,457 $141,858,306
District 5 669 $49,773,190
Total 32,152 $1,162,199,637
Table 5-10 summarizes acres and values of Unique Farmland in the 100-year floodplain.

Packet Page 279
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 5-12 AGRICULTURAL EMERGENCIES
Table 5-10: Unique Farmland Exposed to Flood Hazard Risk Table-10
Unique Farmland Exposed to Flood Hazard Risk
Supervisorial
District
100-Year Floodplain
Acres Value
District 1 4 $6,466,951
District 2 1,514 $294,890,372
District 3 2,467 $729,573,350
District 4 181 $106,480,197
District 5 195 $62,998,558
Total 4,362 $1,200,409,428
Table 5-11 summarizes acres and values of Grazing Land in the 100-year floodplain.

Table 5-11: Grazing Land Exposed to Flood Hazard Risk
Table 5-11
Grazing Land Exposed to Flood Hazard Risk
Supervisorial
District
100-Year Floodplain
Acres Value
District 1 0 $0
District 2 1,126 $161,714,843
District 3 39,624 $1,145,728,172
District 4 229 $40,332,494
District 5 1,215 $190,067,361
Total 42,193 $1,537,842,870

5.4.3 CRITICAL FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Critical facilities, as defined in this plan, will not be affected by an agriculture disaster.

5.4.4 ENVIRONMENT
Agricultural lands in Monterey County provide a wide variety of ecosystem services that could be threatened by an agricultural hazard including:
• Wildlife Habitat: Providing food, water, shelter, and space to support resident and transient wildlife, especially through riparian areas and perennial vegetation. • Soil Structure, Formation and Fertility: Sustaining healthy soils, the foundation of all life, by managing them in ways that not only support plant growth, but also reduce erosion, prevent landslides, suppress pathogens, sequester carbon, and purify water. • Water Cycling: Maintaining or improving soil moisture and water storage, while minimizing runoff, through cover crops, tillage, residue management, and dozens of related practices.

Packet Page 280
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 5-13 AGRICULTURAL EMERGENCIES
• Pest Control: Controlling pests and weeds through many management practices that support their natural enemies, such as raptors, beneficial insects, and other wildlife. • Pollination Services: Supporting agricultural production and healthy ecosystems by providing nesting habitat and floral resources for wild pollinators. • Nutrient Cycling: Managing plant nutrients and soil in ways that help store, transform, and cycle important nutrients in the soil, such as carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus. • Biodiversity Conservation: Promoting ecosystem productivity, beauty, pest control, and other benefits by managing on-farm streams, trees, shrubs, wetlands, and cropped areas in ways that support diverse plants and animals.
• Atmospheric Gas & Climate Regulation: Reducing greenhouse gas levels through practices that make farm operations more energy efficient, and by building capacity to store carbon.
• Water Quality: Improving and protecting water quality through vegetative buffers, stream bank protection, prescribed grazing, grassed waterways, and other management practices.
• Wildfire Protection: Crops, orchards, grasslands, and other agricultural areas can help protect people and property from wildfires.

While calculating the true value of ecosystem services is quite difficult, there are some methods to try to capture this value. The 2020 Economic Contributions of Monterey County Agriculture Report estimated the value of ecosystem services provided by agricultural lands ranges from $4.7 billion to $10.9 billion, with rangelands delivering the highest value.

5.4.5 ECONOMIC IMPACT
As noted above, agriculture is an important pillar of the Monterey County economy with an economic contribution of about $11.7 billion annually. The agricultural industry also contributions significantly to local tax revenue. Including production and local processing, and after subtracting significant subsidies, estimate indicate agriculture’s net tax contribution in the County in 2018 at $61.9 million to $122.7 million. This included excise, sales, and property taxes, as well as fees, licenses, and permits (but not income taxes). 16 Therefore, the potential economic impact associated with agricultural hazards is quite high.

Any of the hazards discussed in this chapter can deal a damaging blow to the agricultural industry. When combined, they can undermine not just an individual operation, but the entire industry. One way to reduce the economic risk to the agricultural industry is emphasize product diversification. To assess crop diversification in the County, the Monterey County Agricultural Commissioner used the Shannon-Weaver Index. Created in 1949 for military code breaking, the Shannon Weaver index is widely used by economists, ecologists, and others interested in quantifying diversity.
16 Monterey County Agricultural Commissioner, 2020, Economic Contributions of Monterey County Agriculture Packet Page 281
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 5-14 AGRICULTURAL EMERGENCIES
Over the past decade, Monterey County has consistently produced thirty-five major commodities. The relative contribution of individual commodities varied during the period analyzed from 0.25% of the county’s total farm gate value (the minimum threshold in the analysis) to 35.4% of the county total. At first glance, Monterey County’s resulting index of 0.61 seems near the middle of the 0.00 to 1.00 range. But the Shannon-Weaver formula includes a logarithmic function, which complicates interpretation. The 0.61 index is quite high compared to the twenty other California counties analyzed in the study. The index likely suggests exceptional protection from economic shocks. Validating the extent of this protection would require more detailed analysis, but these preliminary results indicate that Monterey County agricultural production is both diverse and well distributed across types.5

5.5 FUTURE TRENDS IN DEVELOPMENT
Possible future strategies to address influences on insect pests and diseases might include:
• Inventory and monitor invasive species that threaten crops • Downscale climate change data to allow informed decisions on biodiversity planning by farmers and rural communities
• Strengthen the dissemination of knowledge, appropriate technologies, and tools to improve management practices related to agricultural biodiversity and ecosystem services

5.6 ISSUES
Key issues related to agricultural emergencies in Monterey County include:
• Large amounts of agricultural land in the Salinas Valley are below sea level and could become at risk due to future sea level rise.
• In Monterey County, water supply is extremely limited during non-drought years. As such, droughts are a serious threat in the County and could have devastating impacts on the agricultural industry, a major economic driver and job provider. • The agricultural industry is a major driver of the local economy and any major impacts to it, could have a major effect on the community.
• Much of the agricultural water supply in Monterey County is susceptible to seawater intrusion.

Packet Page 282
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 6-1 COASTAL EROSION

6. COASTAL EROSION

6.1 OVERVIEW
Coastal erosion refers to the natural geological process resulting in loss of sand, sediment, vegetation, or soil on beaches, dunes, bluffs, or cliffs along the coast. It is a natural process, caused by waves, winds, tides, storms, and the movement of tectonic plates, but its effects can be exacerbated by human activity. Coastal erosion takes place both gradually over decades, caused by multiyear impacts and long-term climatic change such as sea level rise, lack of sediment supply, subsidence, or long-term human factors such as the construction of shore protection structures and dams, and rapidly, as with landslides or severe storms. Coastal erosion processes are complex and depend on a number of factors such as geologic formation, groundwater seepage, and exposure to wave energy. The Monterey County coastline is variable in terms of geologic composition and exposure to high tides, wave energy and related erosion.

Sections of the coast exhibit a variety of backshore landforms including wide sand and cobble beaches backed by cliffs, sandy beaches backed by sand dunes, secluded and undeveloped pocket beaches, rocky intertidal areas, rocky bluffs, loosely consolidated bluffs, and large sea cliffs. Due to these various backshore types along the shoreline, erosion characteristics also vary significantly.

Chronic Versus Episodic Erosion
Coastal erosion is measured as the rate of change in the position or horizontal displacement of a shoreline over a period of time. Coastal erosion is classified as either episodic or chronic.

Episodic erosion consists of the shore and backshore adjustment that results from short duration, high intensity meteorological and oceanic storm events. This type of event response Packet Page 283
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 6-2 COASTAL EROSION
results in shore adjustment and happens during a single storm or during a series of closely spaced storm events within a storm season. Chronic erosion is associated with slow, gradual shoreline adjustment associated with sea-level rise, land subsidence, changes in sediment supply which result from watershed modifications or dam building, and decadal adjustments in rainfall and runoff associated with climate change.

Human alteration of the shoreline can influence long and short-term erosion rates. One of the major causes of beach erosion is the construction of dams and other structures along creeks and rivers that trap sediment and prevent it from reaching the ocean. This deprives the shoreline of the material that would replenish beach sand supplies. Coastal structures such as groins, jetties, seawalls, and breakwaters can also cause increased erosion. Shoreline structures eliminate the natural wave run-up and sand deposition processes and can increase reflected wave action and currents at the waterline. The increased wave action can cause localized scour both in front of and behind structures and prevent the settlement of suspended sediment. This can result in a rapid loss of beach sand in down-current beaches. Seawalls are often used to protect sea cliffs from eroding wave action. These structures, however, can reflect wave energy to strip protective beach sand at an accelerated rate. This may ultimately result in increased sea cliff erosion rates, particularly at sections of coastline adjacent to the seawall.

6.1.1 SAND MINING IN MONTEREY COUNTY
On average, the coastline of southern Monterey Bay is the most erosive shore in California due to a long history of sand mining. 17 Southern Monterey Bay has a long history of sand mining operations and from 1906 to 1990, was the most intensively mined shoreline in the US. 18 As many as six sand mines, which includes the current CEMEX Lapis Plant, were active at various times over the past century in the City of Marina and City of Sand City. The CEMEX Lapis sand mine located in Marina, was the last coastal sand mine in the US, until its closure at the end of 2020. The plant produced an estimated 200,000 to 300,000 cubic yards of sand a year, enough to fill up to 30,000 dump trucks. The sand mine operated for years without permits from the state, claiming that its operations pre-date state laws such as the 1976 Coastal Act. The mine officially stopped operations on Dec. 31, 2020.

6.1.2 TYPES OF COASTAL EROSION
Beach and Dune Erosion
Beach and dune erosion occur through high wave run-up during high tides and increased wave energy that carry sand away from the shoreline. Beach and dune erosion may occur gradually over time as beaches naturally accrete and erode, resulting in mild changes in the shoreline and volume of sand present on the beach. Energetic coastal storms and particularly strong El Niño 17 USGS, 2006, National Assessment of Shoreline Change, Part 3. 18 Sand mining impacts on long-term dune erosion in southern Monterey Bay Packet Page 284
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 6-3 COASTAL EROSION
events potentially result in the abrupt loss of large quantities of sediment and increased landward retreat of the shoreline.

Cliffs and Bluff Erosion
Bluff and cliff recession is the most visible aspect of coastal erosion because of the dramatic change it causes to the landscape. As a result, this aspect of coastal erosion usually receives the most attention. Coastal bluff erosion occurs in the form of irreversible landward retreat of coastal bluffs and cliffs. Historical bluff erosion has been episodic in nature with rates that vary throughout Monterey County due to the composition of coastline bluff rock formations and vulnerability to wave interaction with the cliffs.

Rising tides, currents, and waves directed at the base of the bluff cause the erosion of relatively non-resistant rock. As a bluff erodes, the top edge moves landward. This is a natural process that becomes a hazard as it threatens structures or other developed property, infrastructure, as well as recreational trails and public coastal access. The retreat of the bluffs threatens waterfront residences, businesses, and public facilities, eventually rendering them uninhabitable or unusable.

6.2 HAZARD PROFILE

6.2.1 HISTORY
Coastal erosion within Monterey County has primarily occurred during periods of intense wave action coinciding with high tides and coastal storms. El Niño events have produced large waves that have stripped volumes of sand from Monterey Bay, leaving the beaches, dunes, and cliffs exposed to high tides and wave attack.

As a result of the 1982–1983 El Niño events, approximately 20 to 40 feet of the marine terraces by Scenic Drive in Carmel fell into the sea. The 1997–1998 El Niño winter storm event, led to large amounts of dune erosion in the vicinity of Fort Ord (43-foot retreat) and the city of Marina (50-foot retreat). During both El Niño events, several extremely steep cliffs (100% slope) near Big Sur failed because of increased wave attack.

The 2017 Winter Storms resulted in a significant erosion in the Big Sur area, ultimately resulting in major infrastructure failures in Palo Colorado, Mud Creek, Paul’s Slide, and Pfeiffer Canyon Bridge. Coastal erosion coupled with extreme wave action during the 2016-17 El Nino led to the exposure of M1W's land/ocean outfall junction structure. Earthquakes have also caused the Monterey cliffs to erode. The October 17, 1989, Loma Prieta Earthquake produced several isolated cliff failures throughout the County.

Some areas have seen particularly dramatic shoreline retreat. For example, At Fort Ord, a football field existed on the dune between Stillwell Hall and the ocean in 1944. After the field eroded into the ocean, rock rubble was placed in front of Stillwell Hall in 1978 and again in 1985 to stop erosion, but even after sand mining ceased, extreme recession continued to occur at Packet Page 285
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 6-4 COASTAL EROSION
the flanks of the rubble. Up to 46 feet of recession occurred during the 1997–98 El Niño winter just to the north of Stillwell Hall. Close to 380 feet of retreat occurred over a 70-year period.

The area still experiences erosion close to 6 feet per year. 19 Historic Erosion Rates
Historic average beach and dune erosion in Southern Monterey Bay (from Moss Landing to Pacific Grove) is approximately 2.6 feet a year and higher than any other region in the state.

Historically, the highest dune erosion rates have occurred in the Fort Ord area (7 feet annually) and Marina (4.5 feet annually) because of wave refraction patterns that produce larger waves.

Long-term historic erosion rates in this area have been variable.

Historic average erosion rates for Southern Monterey Bay are summarized in Table 6-1.

Table 6-1: Estimated Historic Average Erosion Rates in Southern Monterey Bay Table 6-1
Estimated Historic Long-term Average Erosion Rates (ft/year) in Southern Monterey Bay Location Thornton et al. (2006) Hapke et al. (2006)
1940-1984 1985-2005 1910-2002 1970-2002
Moss Landing +1.2 -1.7
Salinas River +3.7 0
Marina State Beach -1.0 -4.7 -1.4 to -2.0 -3.1 to -5.2
Stilwell Hall (Fort Ord) -5.2 to -6.2 -2.5 to -3.7 -3.7 to -6.6 Sand City -3.9 to -6.4 -2.7 -1.4 -3.7 to -6.2
Monterey Beach Resort -2.4 -0.9 -1.4 -3.0
Del Monte Beach -2.0 -0.4
Rocky cliffs and marine terraces located along Monterey Peninsula from Pacific Grove to Carmel have shown very little erosion over the past several years, with some locations which consist of granite showing virtually no change over a 50-year time span. 20 The granite cliffs around the entire Monterey Peninsula erode at rates of about 3.3 inches per year. 21 While long-term average erosion in this area is quite low, some years have seen a severe winter storm or series of storms result in 3 to 8 ft of erosion. 22
Steep cliffs within Monterey County are located along the Big Sur coast, where the rugged Santa Lucia Mountains descend abruptly into the Pacific Ocean. Cliff retreat within this area average about 7 inches per year; however, failure rates can be much greater in weakened, fractured, or faulted areas. 23
19 USGS, 2006, National Assessment of Shoreline Change, Part 3. 20 Living with the California Coast, 1985 21 USGS, 2007, National Assessment of Shoreline Change, Part 4. 22 Haro, Kasunich & Associates, 2016, Coastal Bluff Protection Analysis and Geotechnical Investigation for City of Pacific Grove Public Works Department.
23 USGS, 2004, Map Showing Coastal Cliff Retreat Rates Along the Big Sur Coast.

Packet Page 286
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 6-5 COASTAL EROSION

6.2.2 LOCATION
Coastal erosion is an ongoing process that is difficult to measure but can be seen in various areas along the coastline. Dune and cliff erosion rates vary significantly throughout the County due to geological composition and the physical forces acting on the coastline; therefore, actual erosion and shoreline retreat distance will not be uniform throughout the county.

Coastal erosion is likely across the entire coastline of Monterey County at varying rates. Based on historic erosion rates, Southern Monterey Bay, from Moss Landing to Pacific Grove, is likely to experience the highest rates and largest impacts due to future erosion. While the granite cliffs of the Monterey Peninsula and Big Sur Coast are eroding at a slower rate, they are still vulnerable to erosion during large storm events.

6.2.3 FREQUENCY
Average rates of historic beach and cliff erosion and shoreline retreat and are expected to continue and accelerate, but future erosion rates are difficult to project due to variable coastal processes and uncertainty in sea level rise projections. Increased frequency of coastal storms and wave run-up due to sea level rise increases the irreversible bluff erosion and cliff collapse that may occur.

The entirety of the Monterey County coastline has shown a shift towards increased erosion in the more recent time period. In the Southern Monterey Bay region, the net average retreat rate more than doubles from the long-term (7.8 inches per year) to short-term net retreat of 24 inches per year. In addition, the percent of the coast experiencing erosion increased by 36%. 24 Similar trends have been noticed in the Carmel and Big Sur regions, with net long-term average shoreline change rate being close to undetectable, with a maximum rate of 31 inches per year measured at the southern end of Carmel River State Beach. Short-term erosion occurred along 65% of the coast, with the maximum of 67 inches per year measured at Carmel River State Beach and Carmel City Beach. This indicates that this region is becoming became more erosional from the long-term to the short-term. 25
Actual future rates of erosion are relative to future coastal processes and difficult to project with certainty. Projected rates of erosion are naturally varied and will likely accelerate by 2100; thus, most erosion will occur towards the end of the century. Over the next 50 years, sea level rise in Monterey Bay is predicted to increase coastal erosion 20-25% over historic erosion rates.

In the 50-100-year timeframe, erosion rates are projected to increase 40-50% over historic rates. 26 In the Big Sur region, 5 feet of sea-level rise will expose 2.5 square miles of cliffs and 1.9 24 USGS, 2007, National Assessment of Shoreline Change, Part 4. 25 USGS, 2006, National Assessment of Shoreline Change, Part 3. 26 Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG), 2008, Coastal Regional Sediment Management Plan for Southern Monterey Bay.

Packet Page 287
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 6-6 COASTAL EROSION
square miles of dunes to erosion, leading to average cliff retreats rates of 121 feet and average dune erosion rates of 590 feet. 27

6.2.4 SEVERITY
Coastal erosion can range from gradual wearing a way of coastal land at inches per year to more significant, catastrophic events that can result in bluff failures involving several hundred cubic yards of material.

The most dramatic erosion often occurs during storms, particularly because the highest energy waves are generated under storm conditions. Although coastal erosion can occur with any annual winter storm, damage is more likely to occur during El Niño events. Ocean storms that have some amount of coastal impact can be expected every year. El Niño events occur about every 2 to 7 years and typically last 16 to 18 months.

Cliff erosion can result in permanent and significant alterations of coastal geology that can expose landward development and resources to additional coastal threats. Large sections of the county coastline, especially those with rocky headlands or sea cliffs, are not vulnerable to flooding, but are highly susceptible to erosion.

6.2.5 WARNING TIME
As discussed previously, coastal erosion can be classified as either episodic or chronic. Episodic erosion consists of the shore and backshore adjustment that results from short duration, high intensity meteorological and oceanic storm events. Meteorologists can often predict the likelihood of a severe weather event. This can give several days of warning time. However, meteorologists cannot predict the exact time of onset or severity of the storm. Some storms may come on more quickly and have only a few hours of warning time. Chronic erosion is associated with slow, gradual shoreline adjustment. Chronic erosion hazards occur slowly but can have significant property or health consequences. The identification of this hazard generally takes site-specific analysis to determine the erosion rates, site soil, geologic properties, and what mitigation is most relevant and prudent for the site. For this type of hazard, warning time is long.

6.3 SECONDARY HAZARDS
Coastal erosion can cause several types of secondary effects. Erosion can destabilize roads, the foundations of structures, and utility lines. It can also cause damage rivers or streams, potentially harming water quality, fisheries, and spawning habitat. Erosion can exacerbate landslide risk, as relentless erosion by ocean waves, creates extreme topography, making areas highly susceptible to landslides. Erosion also exacerbates flood risk, destroying important coastal dunes and cliffs, which provide key flood control benefits. 27 Pacific Institute, California Climate Change Center, 2009, The impacts of sea-level rise on the California coast.

Packet Page 288
COUNTY OF MONTEREY Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan PAGE | 6-7 COASTAL EROSION

6.4 RISK ASSESSMENT
USGS Coastal Storm Modeling System (CoSMoS), Central California Projections of Coastal Cliff Retreat and Shoreline Change due to 21st Century Sea Level Rise data was used for this risk assessment. For cliff retreat modeling an end of century (2100) forced sea level rise amount of 200 cm was used based on Ocean Protection Council (OPC) High Risk Aversion Guidance. For shoreline change, winter erosion uncertainty modeling was used to capture the degree of uncertainty associated with future shoreline erosion. Hold the Line scenario modeling was chosen for both types of erosion. Three sea level rise levels (25 cm, 75 cm, and 200 cm) were used to represent planning horizons based on OPC Sea Level Rise Projections for the Monterey Tide Gauge. 25 cm of sea level rise represents near term (2030) risk, 75 cm represent mid-term (2060) risk, and 200 cm represent long-term (2100) risk.

6.4.1 POPULATION
Table 6-2 and Table 6-3 indicates the population in the County exposed to coastal cliff and shoreline erosion risk, respectively.

Table 6-2: Population Exposed to Coastal Cliff Erosion in Monterey County Table 6-2
Population Exposed to Coastal Cliff Erosion Risk in Monterey County Supervisorial
District
Sea Level Rise Scenario
25 CM 75 CM 200 CM
District 1 0 0 0
District 2 0 0 0
District 3 0 0 0
District 4 0 0 0
District 5 1,027 1,642 1,932
Total 1,027 1,642 1,932
Table 6-3: Population Exposed to Shoreline Erosion Risk in Monterey County Table 6-3
Population Exposed to Shoreline Erosion Risk in Monterey County Supervisorial
District
Sea Level Rise Scenario
25 CM 75 CM 200 CM
District 1 0 0 0
District 2 32 32 32
District 3 0 0 0
District 4 34 34 34
District 5 423 147 147
Total 489 213 213
Bluff and cliff failure due to erosion can create hazardous conditions due to roadway collapse, undermined foundations, and damage to utilities. Isolated communities are vulnerable to the impacts, where roadway failure can limit access to basic services for months at a time.