Seaside City Council
June 15, 2023

A G E N D A

CITY OF SEASIDE REGULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR 440 HARCOURT AVE (COUNCIL CHAMBER) AGENCY TO THE Thursday, June 15, 2023
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 REGULAR Meeting June 15, 2023 5:00 PM Agenda Page 2

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ROLL CALL – ESTABLISHMENT OF QUORUM
Ian N. Oglesby
David R. Pacheco
Alexis Garcia-Arrazola
Rita Burks
Alex Miller
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. MAYOR'S KEY TO THE CITY PRESENTED TO MR. BENNIE W. COOPER (MAYOR IAN N. OGLESBY)
B. CITYWIDE EVENTS AND COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS (RECREATION

DIRECTOR DAN MEEWIS)
C. MONTEREY COUNTY RACE RELATIONS SUMMIT MEETING (DIRRICK

WILLIAMS, FOUNDER & EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF BLACK LEADERS AND

ALLIES COLLABORATIVE)

8. CONSENT AGENDA
Packet Page 2
City Council REGULAR Meeting June 15, 2023 5:00 PM Agenda Page 3 A. APPROVE MINUTES FROM MAY 30, MAY 31, AND JUNE 1, 2023 RECOMMENDATION: Approve minutes as presented in the agenda packet.

B. APPROVE A PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING JUNE 2023 AS PRIDE

MONTH IN THE CITY OF SEASIDE
RECOMMENDATION: Proclaim the month of June as Pride Month in the City of Seaside.

C. APPROVE A PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING JULY 2023 AS PARKS AND

RECREATION MONTH
RECOMMENDATION: Proclaim July 2023 as Parks and Recreation Month in the City of Seaside.

D. APPROVE A FEE WAIVER REQUEST FROM SEASIDE HIGH SCHOOL FOR

COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE ANNUAL HOMECOMING PARADE ON
SEPTEMBER 01, 2023
RECOMMENDATION: Approve a request from Seaside High School to waive fees for Public Works and Police services in the amount of $975.00 for costs associated with the 2023 Homecoming Parade scheduled for September 1st, 2023.

E. APPROVE MAYOR'S YOUTH FUND CONTRIBUTION REQUEST FROM

SEASIDE POLICE ACTIVITIES LEAGUE TO COVER THE COSTS

ASSOCIATED WITH THE SPORTS PROGRAM, INCLUDING THE PURCHASE

OF NEW EQUIPMENT, UNIFORMS, TOURNAMENT FEES, INSURANCE, AND

REGISTRATION COST FOR TRANSPORTATION
RECOMMENDATION: Approve a request from Seaside Police Activities League (P.A.L.) for a donation of $3,000.00 from the Mayor’s Youth Fund to help cover the costs of new equipment and basketball uniforms.

F. APPROVE A MAYOR'S YOUTH FUND CONTRIBUTION REQUEST FROM

SEASIDE HIGH SCHOOL BASEBALL TEAM FOR COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH

NEW EQUIPMENT AND UNIFORMS
RECOMMENDATION: Approve a request from Seaside High School Baseball Team for a donation of $3,000.00 from the Mayor’s Youth Fund to help cover the costs of new equipment and baseball uniforms.

G. APPROVE THE REMOVAL OF THE 2-HOUR PARKING SIGNS IN FRONT OF THE JAGUAR - LAND ROVER - VOLVO DEALERSHIP AT 1711 DEL MONTE

BOULEVARD AS RECOMMENDED BY THE TRAFFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Approve to remove the 2 hour parking on Del Monte Boulevard in front of Jaguar - Land Rover - Volvo Dealership at 1711 Del Monte Boulevard.

H. ADOPT A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM TO INCLUDE THE LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PROJECT; Packet Page 3
City Council REGULAR Meeting June 15, 2023 5:00 PM Agenda Page 4

AWARDING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH
PARAMETRIX FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $87,890.00, AND
APPROPRIATING $96,679.00 FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO THE

PROJECT ACCOUNT
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution amending the Capital Improvement Program to include the Local Roadway Safety Plan Development Project; awarding a professional services agreement with Parametrix for an amount not to exceed $87,890.00; and appropriating $96,679.00 from the General Fund to the project budget; establishing a 10% contingency for a total project amount not to exceed of $96,679.00; authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement.

I. ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LAGUNA GRANDE REGIONAL

PARK TRAIL AND VEGETATION MAINTENANCE STRATEGY PROJECT

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING

AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND ADOPT THE LAGUNA GRANDE

REGIONAL PARK TRAIL MAINTENANCE STRATEGY
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution approving the Laguna Grande Regional Park Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy Project Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigated Monitoring and Reporting Program and Strategy Document.

J. ADOPT THE RESOLUTION MODIFYING THE CLASSIFICATION PLAN AND

POSITION ALLOCATION LIST TO ADD ONE RECREATION

SUPERINTENDENT, ONE PUBLIC WORKS SENIOR SERVICES

MANAGER/CITY ENGINEER AND DELETE ONE RECREATION SUPERVISOR RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution modifying the classification plan and position allocation list for the Fiscal Year 2023/2024 to add a Recreation Superintendent and Public Works Senior Services Manager/City Engineer and delete one Recreation Programs Supervisor. This action does not delete the Recreation Supervisor from the classification plan.

K. ADOPT A RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE RIGHT OF ENTRY TO MONTEREY 1 WATER (M1W) FOR THE EXPANDED

PURE WATER MONTEREY GROUNDWATER REPLENISHMENT PROJECT
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a Right of Entry Agreement for the Expanded Pure Water Monterey Groundwater Replenishment Project.

L. ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A BUDGET TRANSFER OF
$65,000.00 OF NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (NIC)

FUNDS TO THE FERNANDO PARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution allocating $65,000.00 of Neighborhood Improvement Commission budget to the Fernando Park Improvement Project.

M. APPROVE AND DECLARE A VACANCY ON THE ART & HISTORY

COMMISSION
Packet Page 4
City Council REGULAR Meeting June 15, 2023 5:00 PM Agenda Page 5 RECOMMENDATION: Approve the declaration of a vacancy on the Art & History Commission, as recommended by the Chair.

9. PUBLIC HEARING
A. ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SEASIDE MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER

12.04 STREET EXCAVATIONS AND ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM

AGAINST CUTS ON RECENTLY RESURFACED STREETS WITHIN THREE TO

FIVE YEARS (SECOND READING - ROLL CALL VOTE)
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt an Ordinance amending Chapter 12.04 Street Excavations of the Seaside Municipal Code updating inconsistencies with current organizational best practices for permitting, associated fees, resurfacing specifications, and liability insurance and establishing Sections 12.04.100,

12.04.110, 12.04.120 relating to a moratorium against cuts on newly improved streets, moratorium permit requirements, and moratorium restoration requirements.

10. BUSINESS ITEMS
A. RECIEVE PRESENTATION AND DISCUSS THE MONTEREY ONE WATER

WASTEWATER SERVICE CHARGES (MIKE MCCULLOUGH, DIRECTOR OF

EXTERNAL AFFAIRS)
RECOMMENDATION: Receive the presentation, open public comment and discuss the Monterey One Water wastewater services charges.

B. ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FISCAL YEAR 2023-2024

GENERAL AND OTHER FUNDS OPERATING BUDGET, CAPITAL OUTLAY

BUDGET, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET, FEE SCHEDULE, INVESTMENT

POLICY, POSITION CONTROL LIST, SALARY SCHEDULE, THE

APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT, THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN, AND SET

RESERVE AMOUNTS
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution approving the Fiscal Year 2023-2024 budget; or provide direction to staff for further revisions to the budget prior to adoption.

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

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

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 Packet Page 5
City Council REGULAR Meeting June 15, 2023 5:00 PM Agenda Page 6 report on committee assignments.

13. CLOSED SESSION
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956 et seq., the City Council and Successor Agency to Redevelopment Agency may adjourn to a Closed Session to consider specific matters dealing with litigation, certain personnel matters, property negotiations or to confer with the City Attorney. Public comments on these items are taken after being read by the City Attorney. For the public record, please state your name.

A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOGIATORS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE 54956.8
RECOMMENDATION: Property: The Property Commonly Referred to As Campus Town (Property bounded by Highway 1/1st Avenue, 7th Avenue, Lightfighter/Colonel Durham Street, and Gigling)
Agency Negotiators: City Manager, et. al
Negotiating Parties: Danny Bakewell Jr., et. al. and City of Seaside Under Negotiation: Purchase and Sale Agreement Terms
B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE 54956.9- POTENTIAL LITIGATION (2 MATTERS)

14. ADJOURNMENT
This meeting will be adjourned in the memory and honor of Ewalker James and Elwood C. Williams
Next Regularly Scheduled Meeting:

JULY 6, 2023
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 6

DRAFT MINUTES

CITY OF SEASIDE SPECIAL MEETING
CITY COUNCIL/ SUCCESSOR 440 HARCOURT AVE
AGENCY TO THE Tuesday, May 30, 2023
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 6:00 PM

1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor/Chair Oglesby called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.

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

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Led by Mayor Pro Tem/Vice Chair Pacheco.

4. REVIEW OF AGENDA
No changes.

5. PUBLIC COMMENT
None.

6. BUDGET STUDY SESSION
A. RECEIVE A PRESENTATION ON THE DRAFT FISCAL YEAR 2023-2024

OPERATING BUDGET, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, FEE

SCHEDULE, POSITION CONTROL LIST, SALARY SCHEDULE,

INVESTMENT POLICY AND RESERVE AMOUNTS AND PROVIDE

DIRECTION TO STAFF AS TO ANY CHANGES TO BE MADE PRIOR TO

ADOPTION
City Manager, Jaime Fontes provided the City Council with an overview of the accomplishments and budgetary impacts over the last fiscal year, which included a staffing update, listing of critical positions and the cost associated with the implementation of the strategic plan that the City adopted in November 2022. The economic conditions that affected the budget over the last fiscal year was also reviewed, noting high inflation, flattening of revenues and increasing costs, the continued growth of the PERS unfunded liabilities and the regional bank failures. The proposed budget provided a balanced operating budget of $46.2 million in revenue and 46.1 million in expenditures. The surplus of the proposed budget is $66,000.00 and $4.2 million of the fund balance is committed to infrastructure; also $1.1 million for recycled water at the golf course.

Finance Director, Victor Damiani reviewed the budget document and noted the improvements that included, the strategic plan being incorporated into the budget; Packet Page 7
Tuesday, May 30, 2023 City Council SPECIAL Meeting Page 2 and that the final budget will be updated to assign CIP costs to “Enhanced Physical Infrastructure” priority area. The proposed changes to the fiscal policies included:
• Clarify policy on automatic rollovers – “All other appropriations are subject to review and approval by the City Council with each successive budget and are not considered automatically recurring”; and
• Investment Policy – Kept requirement that broker dealers have an office in CA but removed requirement that transactions be executed in CA (too restrictive).

Co-term Investment Policy with Budget approval; and
• Added Street Repair Funding Policy.

There were no comments from the public.

The following departments made presentations concerning their budget and responded to questions from the Council:

City Council, City Manager’s Office, and City Clerk/Public Affair’s Office was presented by City Clerk Dominique Davis.

The City Attorney’s Office was presented by City Attorney Sheri Damon.

The Human Resources/Risk Management Department was presented by Human Resources Analyst Samantha Sakhrani.

The Finance Department was presented by Assistant Finance Director, Jessie Riley.

The Community, Housing & Economic Development Department was presented by Community & Economic Development Planning Manager Andrew Myrick, and Housing Program Manager Alexia Rapoport.

The Building & Code Enforcement Department was presented by Chief Building Official David Little.

The Police Department was presented by Police Chief Nick Borges.

7. ADJOURNMENT
With no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
_________________________ _________________________
Dominique L. Davis, City Clerk Ian N. Oglesby, Mayor
Packet Page 8

DRAFT MINUTES

CITY OF SEASIDE SPECIAL MEETING
CITY COUNCIL/ SUCCESSOR 440 HARCOURT AVE
AGENCY TO THE Wednesday, May 31, 2023
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 6:00 PM

1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor/Chair Oglesby called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.

2. ROLL CALL – ESTABLISHMENT OF QUORUM
PRESENT: Burks (arrived at 7:04 p.m.), Garcia-Arrazola, Oglesby, Pacheco, Miller ABSENT: None

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The pledge was led by Council/Agency Member Garcia-Arrazola.

4. REVIEW OF AGENDA
None. City Manager Fontes asked that the Council hold a discussion about the changes they would like to see in the revised budget at the end of the presentations.

5. PUBLIC COMMENT
Karla Lobo

6. BUDGET STUDY SESSION
A. RECEIVE A PRESENTATION ON THE DRAFT FISCAL YEAR 2023-2024

OPERATING BUDGET, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, FEE

SCHEDULE, POSITION CONTROL LIST, SALARY SCHEDULE,

INVESTMENT POLICY AND RESERVE AMOUNTS AND PROVIDE

DIRECTION TO STAFF AS TO ANY CHANGES TO BE MADE PRIOR TO

ADOPTION
Public Comment: Karla Lobo
The Public Works/Engineering Department was presented by Public Works Director/City Engineer Nisha Patel.

The Recreation Department was presented by Recreation Director Dan Meewis.

The Fire Department was presented by Fire Chief Mary Gutierrez and Deputy Fire Chief Paul Blaha.

The Capital Improvements Program was presented by Director Patel.

The Fee Schedule was reviewed by Assistant Director Riley.

Packet Page 9
Wednesday, May 31, 2023 City Council SPECIAL Meeting Page 2 The Council held discussion and made the following changes to the proposed budget, staff was directed to bring back a revised budget at its June 15, 2023 City Council meeting:
$7,000 Increase Council budgets (travel, training, community support) $30,000 Increase Council chamber improvements budget
$10,000 Add City Hall bathroom upgrades
$50,000 Add City Standards Detail (Engineering Dept. budgeting oversight) $3,000 Sunday Blues
$10,000 Spay Neuter Imperative Project (SNIP)
$5,000 Senior Excursions
$1,500 After school and intersessions programs
$1,000 Teen events
Total: $117,500.00 (funded)
Deducted from social services grant:
$100,000 The Village Project, Inc. (TVPI)
$100,000 Building Healthy Communities (BHC)
$100,000 Community Partnership for Youth (CPY)
$50,000 NOAB
$50,000 CSUMB Intergovernmental interns
$20,000 Domestic violence training
Total: $420,000.00 (Remaining CSS Grants balance = $80,000) $258,000 Medians
$1.2M 1 walkway at Lincoln Cunningham park with plan and construction

7. ADJOURNMENT
With no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
_________________________ _________________________
Dominique L. Davis, City Clerk Ian N. Oglesby, Mayor
Packet Page 10

DRAFT MINUTES

CITY OF SEASIDE REGULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL/ SUCCESSOR 440 HARCOURT AVE
AGENCY TO THE Thursday, June 1, 2023
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: Burks, Garcia-Arrazola, Miller, Oglesby, Pacheco ABSENT: None

3. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A moment of silence was held and the pledge of allegiance was led by Council/Agency Member Burks.

4. REVIEW OF AGENDA
No changes.

5. PUBLIC COMMENT
Dennis Alexander, Peter Kaiser

6. PUBLIC AGENCY COMMUNICATIONS
Fire Chief Mary Gutierrez provided a presentation to give a COVID vaccine update.

7. PRESENTATIONS
A. UPCOMING CITYWIDE EVENTS AND COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS (RECREATION DIRECTOR, DAN MEEWIS)
Director Meewis provided a presentation and reviewed the following upcoming events and responded to questions from the Council:
• 7
th Annual Palenke Arts Festival – June 4th – Laguna Grande Park • Seaside Parks & Recreation Master Plan Open House – June 8 – Oldemeyer Center
• Community Survey for Seaside Parks & Recreation Master Plan – surveymonkey.com/r/Seasideparks
• Community Open House – June 10 – City Hall Lawn 12-4pm • Lincoln Cunningham & Havana Soliz Parks Virtual Town Hall – https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88247607293
Meeting ID: 882 4760 7293
Packet Page 11
Thursday, June 1, 2023 City Council REGULAR Meeting Page 2 • Farmer’s Market – Projected for June 15 (Vendors wanted!) – everyonesharvest.org
• Juneteenth Monterey County – June 17 – Laguna Grande Park • Community Workshop for the Revised Public Draft Plan & 6th Cycle Housing Element Release – June 22 – Oldemeyer Center, 6-8pm
• City’s Teen Center and Seaside’s Classic Car Club presents Youth Summer Jam – July 8 – Seaside Teen Center 1-4pm
• Exotics on Broadway – August 19 – Broadway Ave 1-6pm
• Tree Giveaway – Seaside Residents – bit.ly/seasidefreetree23 • CalFresh information
• Family & Community Support Program – (831) 899-6852
• Friends of Seaside Parks Association Park Clean Ups – June 3, June 10, June 17, June 24
• Monterey Bay F.C. Home Games – June 3, June 24, July 8 Follow us on social media: facebook.com/SeasideCA, Instagram: @cityofseaside, Twitter: @City_of_Seaside
B. PRESENTATION FROM ENVIRONMENTAL INNOVATIONS REGARDING

BUSINESS OUTREACH EFFORTS (BROOKE WRIGHT AND JAKKI

CASTORENA-DAVILA)
Ms. Wright and Ms. Castorena-Davila provided a presentation on business outreach regarding the use of plastics.

8. CONSENT AGENDA
Item 8C was pulled by Mayor/Chair Oglesby and there were no comments from the public.

On motion by Mayor Pro Tem/Vice Chair Pacheco and second by Council Member Garcia-Arrazola and carried by the following vote, the City Council/Successor Agency moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented, with the exception of Item 8C, which was pulled.

RESULT: 5-0-0-0
AYES: Burks, Garcia-Arrazola, Oglesby, Pacheco, Miller
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
A. APPROVE MINUTES FROM MAY 18, 2023
ACTION: Approved
B. APPROVE A PROCLAMATION DECLARING THE WEEK OF JUNE 19-25, 2023 AS POLLINATOR WEEK
ACTION: Approved
Packet Page 12
Thursday, June 1, 2023 City Council REGULAR Meeting Page 3 C. APPROVE APPOINTMENT TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION

COMMISSION
On motion by Mayor/Chair Oglesby and second by Council Member Garcia-Arrazola and carried by the following vote, the City Council/Successor Agency moved to approve the appointment to the Parks and Recreation Commission.

RESULT: 4-0-0-1
AYES: Burks, Garcia-Arrazola, Oglesby, Pacheco
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Miller
ACTION: Approved
D. ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CONTRACTUAL 2.48% RATE

INCREASE IN THE COLLECTION OF SOLID WASTE, RECYCLING, AND ORGANICS RATE EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2023, ACCORDING TO THE INDEX

BASED RATE ADJUSTMENT CALCULATION OF THE FRANCHISE
AGREEMENT WITH GREENWASTE RECOVERY, INC.

ACTION: Adopted Reso #23-88
E. ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE REGEN MONTEREY

AND ITS MEMBER AGENCIES REGARDING COSTS OF IMPLEMENTING

ORGANIC WASTE RECYCLING LAWS
ACTION: Adopted Reso #23-89
F. ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FISCAL YEAR 2023-2024 STREET REPAIR PROJECT LIST TO BE FUNDED IN PART WITH SB1: THE ROAD MAINTENANCE REPAIR AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2017 FUNDS,

AND AUTHORIZING STAFF TO SUBMIT TO THE CALIFORNIA

TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
ACTION: Adopted Reso #23-90
G. ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS

FOR LINCOLN CUNNINGHAM PARK BASKETBALL COURT
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, APPROPRIATING $164,752.00 FROM THE

GENERAL FUND TO THE PROJECT, AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION

AGREEMENT TO MONTEREY PENINSULA ENGINEERING FOR AN
AMOUNT EXCEED $325,990.00 AND A TOTAL PROJECT CONSTRUCTION COST INCLUDING CONTINGENCY OF $358,589.00
ACTION: Adopted Reso #23-91
Packet Page 13
Thursday, June 1, 2023 City Council REGULAR Meeting Page 4 H. ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

AGREEMENT WITH WALLACE GROUP FOR CONSTRUCTION

MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION SERVICES FOR THE LINCOLN

CUNNINGHAM PARK BASKETBALL COURT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $69,801.00
ACTION: Adopted Reso #23-92
I. ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER ON BEHALF

OF THE LOCAL REUSE AUTHORITY (LRA) TO EXECUTE A QUIT CLAIM DEED TO TRANSFER PARCEL E29A.1 TO THE CITY OF DEL REY OAKS (CEQA CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT SECTION 15312)
ACTION: Adopted Reso #23-93
J. ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROPRIATING AND ENCUMBERING
$86,600.00 FROM THE POMA FUND BALANCE FOR THE PURCHASE OF TWO (2) PICKUP TRUCKS FROM THE FORD STORE MONTEREY FOR USE

ON THE PRESIDIO OF MONTEREY ANNEX
ACTION: Adopted Reso #23-94
K. ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXTENSION OF THE FACADE

LOCAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (FLIP) SEASIDE PROGRAM DEADLINE UNTIL JUNE 30, 2024 AND APPROVING CARRYOVER OF THE
REMAINING ACTUAL BALANCE OF THE FLIP SEASIDE FUNDS TO FY23- 24 ACTION: Adopted Reso #23-95
L. ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH WHITSON ENGINEERS

FOR COMMUNITY OUTREACH FOR THE LINCOLN CUNNINGHAM AND

HAVANA SOLIZ PARKS MASTER PLANS PROJECT FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $18,600.00
ACTION: Adopted Reso #23-96
M. ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE

A CONTRACT WITH CARMEL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATES FOR FIRE

PREVENTION, PLAN REVIEW AND ALARM SYSTEM INSPECTION
SERVICES FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $100,000.00
ACTION: Adopted Reso #23-97

9. PUBLIC HEARING
Packet Page 14
Thursday, June 1, 2023 City Council REGULAR Meeting Page 5 A. ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1620 BROADWAY AVENUE (SECOND READING - ROLL CALL VOTE) (CEQA CLASS 32 EXEMPTION)
Community & Economic Development Planning Manager Andrew Myrick presented the item.

Public Comment: Michelle Overmeyer
On motion by Council Member Miller and second by Council Member Garcia-Arrazola and carried by the following vote, the City Council/Successor Agency moved to adopt an ordinance approving a Zoning Map Amendment for 1620 Broadway Avenue.

RESULT: 5-0-0-0
AYES: Burks, Garcia-Arrazola, Miller, Oglesby, Pacheco
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ACTION: Adopted Ord #2024
B. INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SEASIDE MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 12.04 STREET EXCAVATIONS AND ESTABLISHING A

MORATORIUM AGAINST CUTS ON RECENTLY RESURFACED STREETS

WITHIN THREE TO FIVE YEARS (FIRST READING - ROLL CALL VOTE) Public Works Director/Engineer Nisha Patel provided the presentation and responded to questions from the Council. There were no comments from the public.

On motion by Council Member Miller and second by Council Member Garcia-Arrazola and carried by the following vote, the City Council/Successor Agency moved to approve staff recommendations.

RESULT: 5-0-0-0
AYES: Burks, Garcia-Arrazola, Miller, Oglesby, Pacheco
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ACTION: 2ND Reading to be held on June 15, 2023

10. BUSINESS ITEMS
A. ADOPT A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING APPLICATION PROCEDURES

FOR MOBILE FOOD VENDORS AND LIMITING THE NUMBER OF MOBILE

FOOD VENDORS ALLOWED TO OPERATE IN THE CITY
Packet Page 15
Thursday, June 1, 2023 City Council REGULAR Meeting Page 6 Community & Economic Development Planning Manager Andrew Myrick provided the presentation and responded to questions from the Council.

Public Comment: unknown name, Michelle Overmeyer, Karla Lobo, Tanya Roos ACTION: Will be brought back at a future date
B. ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

AGREEMENT WITH PAVEMENT ENGINEERING INCORPORATED TO
PROVIDE ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE FY 2022/2023

PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROJECT FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO
EXCEED $385,000.00
Public Works Director/Engineer Nisha Patel provided the presentation and responded to questions from the Council. There were no comments from the public.

On motion by Mayor Pro Tem/Vice Chair Pacheco and second by Council Member Garcia-Arrazola and carried by the following vote, the City Council/Successor Agency moved to adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a professional service agreement with Pavement Engineering Incorporated to provide engineering design services for the FY 2022/2023 Pavement Rehabilitation Project for an amount not to exceed $385,000.00.

RESULT: 5-0-0-0
AYES: Burks, Garcia-Arrazola, Miller, Oglesby, Pacheco
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ACTION: Adopted Reso #23-98
C. ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

AGREEMENT WITH PAVEMENT ENGINEERING INCORPORATED TO
PROVIDE ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE "HOT SPOT"

PAVEMENT REPAIR PROJECT FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED
$93,650.00
Public Works Director/Engineer Nisha Patel provided the presentation and responded to questions from the Council. There were no comments from the public.

On motion by Council Member Garcia-Arrazola and second by Council Member Burks and carried by the following vote, the City Council/Successor Agency moved to adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a professional service agreement with Pavement Engineering Incorporated to provide engineering design services for the "Hot Spot" Pavement Repair Project for an amount not to exceed $93,650.00.

RESULT: 5-0-0-0
Packet Page 16
Thursday, June 1, 2023 City Council REGULAR Meeting Page 7 AYES: Burks, Garcia-Arrazola, Miller, Oglesby, Pacheco
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ACTION: Adopted Reso #23-99
Recess: 7:34 p.m. – 7:47 p.m.

D. ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS

FOR ORD TERRACE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, APPROPRIATING $99,938.00 FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO

THE PROJECT, AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO COASTAL PAVING AND EXCAVATING INC. FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED
$158,417.00 AND A TOTAL PROJECT CONSTRUCTION COST INCLUDING CONTINGENCY OF $182,180.00
Public Works Director/Engineer Nisha Patel provided the presentation and responded to questions from the Council.

Public Comment: Karla Lobo
On motion by Council Member Garcia-Arrazola and second by Council Member Burks and carried by the following vote, the City Council/Successor Agency moved to adopt a resolution approving the plans and specifications for Ord Terrace Elementary School Crossing Improvement Project, appropriating $99,938.00 from the General Fund to the project, awarding a construction contract to Coastal Paving and Excavating Inc. for an amount not to exceed $158,417.00, establishing a 15% contingency for a total project construction amount of $182,180.00, and authorizing the City Manager to execute the construction contract and any amendments, extensions, and change orders until completion of the project in accordance with the plans and specifications up to the total project construction amount.

RESULT: 4-0-0-1
AYES: Burks, Garcia-Arrazola, Miller, Pacheco
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Oglesby
ACTION: Adopted Reso #23-100
E. ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

AGREEMENT WITH WALLACE GROUP FOR CONSTRUCTION

MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION SERVICES FOR THE ORD TERRACE

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT FOR AN
AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $39,383.00
Packet Page 17
Thursday, June 1, 2023 City Council REGULAR Meeting Page 8 Public Works Director/Engineer Nisha Patel provided the presentation and responded to questions from the Council. There were no comments from the public.

On motion by Council Member Miller and second by Council Member Garcia-Arrazola and carried by the following vote, the City Council/Successor Agency moved to adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Wallace Group to perform construction management and inspection services for the Ord Terrace Elementary School Crossing Improvements Project for an amount not to exceed $39,383.00.

RESULT: 4-0-0-1
AYES: Burks, Garcia-Arrazola, Miller, Pacheco
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Oglesby
ACTION: Adopted Reso #23-101

11. COUNCIL MEMBER REQUESTS
A. NEW COUNCIL MEMBER REQUESTS
None.

B. FOLLOW UP ON PREVIOUS REQUESTS
None.

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

AND REPORTS ON COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS
Reports provided.

13. CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney Damon read the closed session items and did not anticipate a read out.

There were no comments from the public on closed session items.

A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOGIATORS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE 54956.8
Property: The Property Commonly Referred to as Campus Town (Property bounded by Highway 1/1st Avenue, 7th Avenue, Lightfighter/Colonel Durham Street, and Gigling)
Agency Negotiators: City Manager, et. al.

Negotiating Parties: Danny Bakewell Jr., et. al. and City of Seaside Under Negotiation: Purchase and Sale Agreement Terms
B. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOGIATORS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE 54956.8
Packet Page 18
Thursday, June 1, 2023 City Council REGULAR Meeting Page 9 Property: A portion of APN 031-151-055 located to the east of General Jim Moore Blvd./Generally South of Lightfighter commonly referred to as the Presidio of Monterey Fire Station
Agency Negotiators: City Manager, et. al.

Negotiating Parties: US Army and City of Seaside
Under Negotiation: price, terms of payment or both
C. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATIONS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE 54956.8
Property: A thirty foot (30') wide strip crossing a portion of APN 031-152-007, 031- 151-064 and/or 031-211-003 totally approximately 3.72 acres located generally along the most easterly boundary of the City of Seaside (more commonly referred to as Pure Water Monterey Expansion Land for pipelines and access) Agency Negotiators: City Manager, et al.

Negotiating Parties: Monterey 1 Water and City of Seaside Under Negotiation: price, terms of payment or both
D. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE 54956.9- POTENTIAL LITIGATION (2 MATTERS)
Potential Litigation (2 Matters)
Upon return from closed session, City Attorney Damon did not have any announcements to report.

14. ADJOURNMENT
With no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m. in remembrance of Kimmy Howell.

Respectfully submitted,
_________________________ _________________________
Dominique L. Davis, City Clerk Ian N. Oglesby, Mayor
Packet Page 19

CITY OF SEASIDE

STAFF REPORT
Item No.: 8.B.

TO: City Council
FROM: Jaime M. Fontes, City Manager
BY: Dan Meewis, Recreation Director
DATE: June 15, 2023
SUBJECT: APPROVE A PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING JUNE 2023 AS

PRIDE MONTH IN THE CITY OF SEASIDE

RECOMMENDATION
Proclaim the month of June as Pride Month in the City of Seaside.

BACKGROUND
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer/Questioning persons (LGBTQ+) Pride Month is currently celebrated each year in the month of June to honor and remember the 1969 Stonewall Riots.

FISCAL IMPACT
None

ATTACHMENTS

1. 2023 Pride Month Proclamation
Reviewed for Submission to the City Council by:
_________________________________________
Jaime M. Fontes, City Manager
Packet Page 20

CITY OF SEASIDE

PROCLAMATION
RECOGNIZING JUNE AS LGBTQ+

PRIDE MONTH
June 2023
WHEREAS, the City of Seaside has a diverse Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer/Questioning persons (LGBTQ+) community and is committed to celebrating and supporting visibility, dignity and equity for all people in the community; and WHEREAS, many of our residents within the City of Seaside that contribute to the enrichment of our City are a part of the LGBTQ+ community; and
WHEREAS, The City of Seaside has a long and proud history of inclusion and civil rights; and WHEREAS, the City of Seaside commends the bravery and courage of all those in the LGBTQ+ community that face adversity and various forms of violence; and WHEREAS, The Supreme Court decision guaranteeing marriage equality in all 50 States was a historic victory for the LGBTQ+ community, yet our country still has far to go with respect to the equitable treatment of the LGBTQ+ community; and
WHEREAS, continued opposition and oppression against members of the LGBTQ+ community make it important for cities to stand up and show solidarity and support for our LGBTQ+ residents and the community at large; and
WHEREAS, several cities across the United States recognize and celebrate June as LGBTQ+ Pride Month, which has become a symbolic month in which the LGBTQ+ community and allies come together in various celebrations of pride; and
WHEREAS, City Hall will be lit in pride colors; and the pride flag will be flown for the month of June.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT PROCLAIMED, Ian N. Oglesby Mayor of the City of Seaside, do hereby proclaim the month of June 2023, as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer/Questioning Persons Pride month in the City of Seaside, symbolizing the City’s celebration of diversity.
_________________________
Ian N. Oglesby, Mayor
June 15, 2023
Packet Page 21

CITY OF SEASIDE

STAFF REPORT
Item No.: 8.C.

TO: City Council
FROM: Jaime M. Fontes, City Manager
BY: Dan Meewis, Recreation Director
DATE: June 15, 2023
SUBJECT: APPROVE A PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING JULY 2023 AS

PARKS AND RECREATION MONTH

RECOMMENDATION
Proclaim July 2023 as Parks and Recreation Month in the City of Seaside.

BACKGROUND
The request is to accept the proclamation designating July 2023 as Parks and Recreation Month.

FISCAL IMPACT
No fiscal impact

ATTACHMENTS

1. Parks and Recreation Month Proclamation 2023
Reviewed for Submission to the City Council by:
_________________________________________
Jaime M. Fontes, City Manager
Packet Page 22
City of Seaside

PROCLAMATION
Parks and Recreation Month
July 2023
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 2023, 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
June 15, 2023
Packet Page 23

CITY OF SEASIDE

STAFF REPORT
Item No.: 8.D.

TO: City Council
FROM: Jaime M. Fontes, City Manager
BY: Dan Meewis, Recreation Director
DATE: June 15, 2023
SUBJECT: APPROVE A FEE WAIVER REQUEST FROM SEASIDE HIGH

SCHOOL FOR COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE ANNUAL
HOMECOMING PARADE ON SEPTEMBER 01, 2023

RECOMMENDATION
Approve a request from Seaside High School to waive fees for Public Works and Police services in the amount of $975.00 for costs associated with the 2023 Homecoming Parade scheduled for September 1st, 2023.

BACKGROUND
Seaside High School is planning to hold their annual Homecoming Parade on Friday, September 1st, 2023, from 3:00 p.m - 5:30 p.m. A special event application was submitted for review by the special event committee. The committee did not have any questions or concerns about the application. They will be providing proof of insurance.

The attached event application has information detailing the specifications of this event.

The last fee waiver submitted to the City Council for Seaside High School was approved on September 15th, 2022.

FISCAL IMPACT
The approximate fees that are being requested to be waived are:

Special Event Application Fee: $110.00
Police Fees: 3 Officers for 2 Hours $547.00
Public Works Fee: $318.00
TOTAL $975.00
Packet Page 24

Item No. 8.D. Page 2 of 2

ATTACHMENTS

1. SHS Homecoming Parade Fee Waiver and Special Event Application 2023

2. SHS Homecoming Parade - Route (Map) 2023

Packet Page 25
Packet Page 26
Packet Page 27
Packet Page 28
Packet Page 29
Packet Page 30
Packet Page 31
Packet Page 32
Packet Page 33
Packet Page 34
Packet Page 35

CITY OF SEASIDE

STAFF REPORT
Item No.: 8.E.

TO: City Council
FROM: Jaime M. Fontes, City Manager
BY: Dan Meewis, Recreation Director
DATE: June 15, 2023
SUBJECT: APPROVE MAYOR'S YOUTH FUND CONTRIBUTION REQUEST

FROM SEASIDE POLICE ACTIVITIES LEAGUE TO COVER THE

COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE SPORTS PROGRAM,

INCLUDING THE PURCHASE OF NEW EQUIPMENT, UNIFORMS,

TOURNAMENT FEES, INSURANCE, AND REGISTRATION COST

FOR TRANSPORTATION

RECOMMENDATION
Approve a request from Seaside Police Activities League (P.A.L.) for a donation of $3,000.00 from the Mayor’s Youth Fund to help cover the costs of new equipment and basketball uniforms.

BACKGROUND
The Seaside Police Activities League is requesting a donation of $3000.00 from the Mayor's Youth Fund to cover the costs associated with expenses related to their sports programs, including the purchase of new equipment, uniforms, tournament fees, insurance, and registration costs related to transportation. The Seaside Police Activities League is a juvenile crime prevention program designed to provide athletic, recreational, and educational opportunities for at-risk youth. Seaside PAL was incorporated in February 2001. It is comprised of Police Officers, volunteers, Police Personnel, and Recreation Staff who serve as coaches, mentors, instructors, and role models. All funds and donations for P.A.L. are used solely for the purpose of providing the resources needed to continue upholding P.A.L.'s mission. Seaside P.A.L.'s current activities include, JR Giants Baseball, Youth Basketball, and youth leadership experience, and the Seaside Police Department Cadet Program. In 2016, the Seaside P.A.L. merged with the City of Seaside's Recreation Department to strengthen existing and future sports programs for Seaside youth. Currently, the Seaside P.A.L. provides organized sports and activities to 200 + local youth.

Packet Page 36

Item No. 8.E. Page 2 of 2
Based on the information provided in the application, the request meets the criteria for the Mayor’s Youth Fund Policy. They received their last donation at the February 17, 2022 City Council meeting. They submitted their 2022 Mayor's Youth Fund Closing Report within the 60 day time frame.

FISCAL IMPACT
This request would be funded by a donation from the Green Waste Recovery's donation to the Mayor's Youth Fund. The current balance is the Mayor's Youth Fund account (601-2106) is $32,349.43. If the City Council approves this request, the balance will decrease to $29,349.43. This is for fiscal year 2022/23.

In the event that all of the funds in the Mayor's Youth Fund become exhausted, staff will keep a file of all applications. Once Green Waste issues the next round of funding, all applications on file will be processed at the next available City Council meeting.

ATTACHMENTS

1. MYF Seaside PAL 2023

2. Seaside PAL - W-9 - 2023

3. Seaside PAL 501(c)(3) information

4. Mayor's Youth Fund Closing Report - Seaside Police Activities League (PAL) 2022 Reviewed for Submission to the City Council by:
_________________________________________
Jaime M. Fontes, City Manager
Packet Page 37
Packet Page 38
Packet Page 39
Packet Page 40
Packet Page 41
Packet Page 42
Packet Page 43
Packet Page 44
Packet Page 45
Packet Page 46
Packet Page 47

CITY OF SEASIDE

STAFF REPORT
Item No.: 8.F.

TO: City Council
FROM: Jaime M. Fontes, City Manager
BY: Dan Meewis, Recreation Director
DATE: June 15, 2023
SUBJECT: APPROVE A MAYOR'S YOUTH FUND CONTRIBUTION REQUEST

FROM SEASIDE HIGH SCHOOL BASEBALL TEAM FOR COSTS

ASSOCIATED WITH NEW EQUIPMENT AND UNIFORMS

RECOMMENDATION
Approve a request from Seaside High School Baseball Team for a donation of $3,000.00 from the Mayor’s Youth Fund to help cover the costs of new equipment and baseball uniforms.

BACKGROUND
The Seaside High School Baseball Team is requesting a donation of $3,000.00 from the Mayor's Youth Fund to cover the costs associated with purchasing nets for the batting cages, a pitching machine, balls, gloves, uniforms, helmets, bats, and a riding lawn mower.

The Seaside High School Baseball Team purchases healthy food and recyclable items to be sold at the snack bar. The student athletes clean up the facilities and recycle plastic bottles and aluminum cans. They promote the practice of using reusable containers and water bottles.

Based on the information provided, staff has determined that the application meets the requirements of the Mayor's Youth Fund Policy. The Seaside High School Baseball Team received their last donation at the April 21, 2022 City Council meeting. They submitted their 2022 Mayor's Youth Fund Closing Report within the 60 day time frame.

FISCAL IMPACT
This request would be funded by a donation from the Green Waste Recovery's donation Packet Page 48

Item No. 8.F. Page 2 of 2
to the Mayor's Youth Fund. The current balance is the Mayor's Youth Fund account (601-2106) is $29,349.43. If the City Council approves this request, the balance will decrease to $26,349.43. This is for fiscal year 2022/23.

In the event that all of the funds in the Mayor's Youth Fund become exhausted, staff will keep a file of all applications. Once Green Waste issues the next round of funding, all applications on file will be processed at the next available City Council meeting.

ATTACHMENTS

1. MYF Seaside High School Boys Baseball 2023

2. W-9 Seaside High School Baseball Team 2023
Reviewed for Submission to the City Council by:
_________________________________________
Jaime M. Fontes, City Manager
Packet Page 49
Packet Page 50
Packet Page 51
Packet Page 52
Packet Page 53
Packet Page 54

CITY OF SEASIDE

STAFF REPORT
Item No.: 8.G.

TO: City Council
FROM: Jaime M. Fontes, City Manager
BY: Leslie Llantero, Assistant Engineer
Nisha Patel, Public Works Director/City Engineer
DATE: June 15, 2023
SUBJECT: APPROVE THE REMOVAL OF THE 2-HOUR PARKING SIGNS IN

FRONT OF THE JAGUAR - LAND ROVER - VOLVO DEALERSHIP
AT 1711 DEL MONTE BOULEVARD AS RECOMMENDED BY THE

TRAFFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE

RECOMMENDATION
Approve to remove the 2 hour parking on Del Monte Boulevard in front of Jaguar - Land Rover - Volvo Dealership at 1711 Del Monte Boulevard.

BACKGROUND
The General Manager of the Jaguar - Land Rover - Volvo Dealership (Dealership), located at 1711 Del Monte Boulevard, is requesting the removal of the 2-hour parking signs along the frontage of the property. The area zoned for 2 hour limited timed parking is 165 feet long, providing parking for approximately 7-8 vehicles. If removed, this area will revert to unlimited timed parking.

The Dealership is located on the 1700 block of Del Monte Boulevard near the intersection of Clementina Avenue. Del Monte Boulevard is a 4 lane, 2 lanes in either direction, arterial roadway with parking permitted on both sides of the street. The posted speed limit on Del Monte Boulevard is 35 miles per hour. The remainder of the corridor from Clementina Avenue to Auto Center Parkway/Tioga Avenue does not have time-limited parking restrictions. The 2 hour parking limit sign designation was originally requested by the owner in 2006 to prevent vehicles from parking all day.

The General Manager of the auto dealership indicated that there is limited customer and staff parking on-site and is aware, if the request is granted, the area will revert back to unlimited timed parking.

Packet Page 55

Item No. 8.G. Page 2 of 2
The Traffic Advisory Committee recommends removing the 2-hour parking signs in front of 1711 Del Monte Boulevard and having this area reverted back to unlimited timed parking.

FISCAL IMPACT
The applicant is required to pay the cost for maintenance staff time to remove the signs and poles.

ATTACHMENTS

1. TAC Application Request
Reviewed for Submission to the City Council by:
_________________________________________
Jaime M. Fontes, City Manager
Packet Page 56

APPLICATION FEE PER THE CURRENT ADOPTED FEE SCHEDULE
Traffic Advisory Committee
Request Application
The following information is required to process all Traffic Advisory Committee requests. This information will be used to contact the applicant should staff have questions or needs clarification on the request. This information will also appear in the staff report presented to the Traffic Advisory Committee and/or City Council.

The Traffic Advisory Committee meets the 3
rd Tuesday of every month at 5:00 PM in the City of
Seaside's City Hall Conference room. This meeting is open to the public and applicants are encouraged to attend.

Name: �v\J,s:c--J
Address: \�\ \ "Ch,\
Type of Request ( check all that apply):

XParking Designations □ Crosswalk
Date:

Phone:
□ Curb Markings (White, Yellow, etc.)
□ Warning Sign □ Traffic Signal/Stop Sign □ Signing/Striping □ Other ----------------------------

FEES WILL APPLY FOR PARKING AND CURB MARKING REQUESTS
Request: :Re...-.AA.¢>Ve...,,, th� Z - �urde$�±;_\ Ok:\ '\, I\ f'ro-"\--b Request Procedures are outlined on the back of this form. For any questions regarding the Traffic Advisory Committee (TAC) please contact 899-6825. 2/27/23
Packet Page 57
Packet Page 58

CITY OF SEASIDE

STAFF REPORT
Item No.: 8.H.

TO: City Council
FROM: Jaime M. Fontes, City Manager
BY: Nisha Patel, Public Works Director/City Engineer
Patrick Grogan, Associate Engineer
DATE: June 15, 2023
SUBJECT: ADOPT A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CAPITAL

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TO INCLUDE THE LOCAL ROADWAY
SAFETY PLAN PROJECT; AWARDING A PROFESSIONAL

SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH PARAMETRIX FOR AN AMOUNT
NOT TO EXCEED $87,890.00, AND APPROPRIATING $96,679.00

FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO THE PROJECT ACCOUNT

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution amending the Capital Improvement Program to include the Local Roadway Safety Plan Development Project; awarding a professional services agreement with Parametrix for an amount not to exceed $87,890.00; and appropriating $96,679.00 from the General Fund to the project budget; establishing a 10% contingency for a total project amount not to exceed of $96,679.00; authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement.

BACKGROUND
On Jan 19, 2023, the City Council approved the Public Works Department to submit an application for funding from the California State Highway Safety Improvement Program to develop a Local Roadway Safety Program (LRSP).

The LRSP is a crash data driven safety evaluation of the City's roadway network, which develops and prioritizes systemic safety improvements for all modes of transportation, including pedestrians and cyclists. The goal of the LRSP is to reduce traffic related fatalities and severe injuries on the City's roadways and intersections. This is accomplished through a variety of tools, including public education, enforcement of laws and regulations, engineering solutions to traffic related problems, and emergency medical services. The plan will target pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular safety Packet Page 59

Item No. 8.H. Page 2 of 3
improvements where they are needed the most.

The development of a LRSP allows the City to be eligible to apply for other funding opportunities, including Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A), and HSIP funding, as well as supporting future Caltrans ATP funding, Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program funding, and Complete Streets funding. Having a LRSP is becoming a common prerequisite for several transportation related grant opportunities.

Grant funds for the project are 90% of the total cost, up to a maximum of $40,000.00, including match funding of 10% of the grant amount. The City has been notified of the award of a $36,000.00 grant.

The funding opportunities provided by the development of the LRSP are generally consistent with the City General Plan, providing funding for a variety of improvement projects that overlap or directly relate to the goals of the City General Plan. These goals in the General Plan which the improvements satisfy include developing and maintaining a City circulation system that promotes safety and satisfies demand, and promotes the use of multi-modal transportation, including bicycle and pedestrian integration into the City's circulation system.

Public Works Staff have received a proposal from Parametrix to develop the LRSP for the City in the amount of $87,890.00. Parametrix is approved on the City's on-call list for Transportation Engineering as Parisi Transportation Consulting, which is now a division of Parametrix. Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds the scope and fee acceptable.

ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
Organizational and administrative study is categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines when it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.

Subsequent environmental review will be completed with the design of any resulting projects.

FISCAL IMPACT
The proposed professional services agreement with Parametrix is a not to exceed amount of $87,890.00. A contingency of 10%, or $96,679.00, is appropriate for a project of this scope of work.

This project was not originally included in the adopted fiscal year 2022/2023 budget.

Based upon the design services necessary for the project, project notification costs, and the design contingency, an additional amount of $96,679.00 from the General Fund is Packet Page 60

Item No. 8.H. Page 3 of 3
needed to complete the project. Grant funds for a total of $36,000.00 will be available for partial reimbursement of the City's cost.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution

2. Professional Services Agreement
Reviewed for Submission to the City Council by:
_________________________________________
Jaime M. Fontes, City Manager
Packet Page 61
RESOLUTION NO. 23-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEASIDE

AMENDING THE CAPITAL PROGRAM TO INCLUDE THE LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PROJECT; AWARDING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

AGREEMENT WITH PARAMETRIX FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED
$87,890.00, AND APPROPRIATING $96,679.00 FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO

THE PROJECT ACCOUNT
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Seaside approved the application for grant funds to develop a Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) from the California State Highway Safety Improvement Program; and
WHEREAS, the City of Seaside was awarded funding to develop a LRSP; and WHEREAS, the Local Roadway Safety Plan Development Project was not included in the Fiscal Year 2022/2023 Capital Program; and
WHEREAS, Parametrix provided a proposal to develop a LRSP for a not to exceed amount of $87,890.00; and
WHEREAS, Parametrix are included on the approved On-Call List for Transportation Engineering; and
WHEREAS, an amount of $8,789.00 contingency, approximately 10% of the contract value, should be authorized on an as required basis; and WHEREAS, the City has determined that the project budget is $96,679.00; and WHEREAS, there is sufficient General Fund balance to fund the additional budget request; and
WHEREAS, the project is categorically exempt from environmental review per section 15061(b)(3) of CEQA because the project is an organizational or administrative study.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Seaside amends the Fiscal Year 2022/2023 Capital Program to include the LRSP Development Project; and
Packet Page 62
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Seaside approves a fiscal year 2022/2023 budget appropriation in the amount of $96,679.00 from the General Fund to the LRSP Development Project, and directs the Finance Director to make appropriate budget adjustments; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Seaside City Council authorizes the City Manager to execute a professional services agreement with Parametrix for an amount not to exceed $87,890.00;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Seaside authorizes the City Manager to execute up to an additional 10% contingency for written amendments, extensions, and change orders to the construction contract outlined above such that the full value may not exceed $96,679.00.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular City Council meeting of the City of Seaside duly held on the 15th day of June, 2023 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 63
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Rev. 1/18 Page 1 COS Design PSA

CITY OF SEASIDE

DESIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT

FOR CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

LOCAL ROADWAY TRAFFIC PLAN
THIS AGREEMENT, is made and effective June 15, 2023, between the City of Seaside, a municipal corporation ("Agency") and Parametrix, 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 June 30, 2024, 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
Packet Page 64
Local Roadway Safety Plan
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 B, 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 EIGHTY SEVEN THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED NINETY dollars ($87,890.00) 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
Packet Page 65
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Rev. 1/18 Page 3 COS Design PSA
(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 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 Packet Page 66
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Rev. 1/18 Page 4 COS Design PSA
computer software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling, transferring, and printing computer files.

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
Packet Page 67
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Rev. 1/18 Page 5 COS Design PSA
Consultant 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.

11. INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT
(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 Packet Page 68
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Rev. 1/18 Page 6 COS Design PSA
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
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 Packet Page 69
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Rev. 1/18 Page 7 COS Design PSA
(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 Agency: __City of Seaside__________
__440 Harcourt Ave________
__Seaside, CA 93955_______
Attention: City Clerk
To Consultant: ________________________
____________________ __
__________________ __

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, David Parisi shall be the Project Manager and Engineer of Record for the services described in this Agreement.

David Parisi 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 David Parisi 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.

Packet Page 70
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Rev. 1/18 Page 8 COS Design PSA

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 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
AGENCY and CONSULTANT agree that time is of the essence in this AGREEMENT. AGENCY and CONSULTANT further agree that CONSULTANT's failure to perform on or at the times set forth in this AGREEMENT will damage and injure AGENCY, but the extent of such damage and injury is difficult or speculative to ascertain. Consequently, AGENCY and CONSULTANT agree that any failure to perform by CONSULTANT at or within the times set forth herein shall result in liquidated damages of [Insert amount] dollars ($__.00) per day for each and every day such performance is late or delayed. AGENCY and CONSULTANT agree that such sum is reasonable and fair. Furthermore, AGENCY and CONSULTANT agree that this AGREEMENT is subject to Government Code Section 53069.85 and that each party hereto is familiar with and understands the obligations of said Section of the Government Code.

22. CONTENTS OF REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL AND PROPOSAL
Consultant is bound by the contents of Agency's Request for Proposal, Exhibit "D" 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.

Packet Page 71
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Rev. 1/18 Page 9 COS Design PSA
CONSULTANT: _________________
By: ______________________________ Date:_________________ Nathan Johnson, Senior Vice President
City of Seaside
A Municipal Corporation
______________________________ Date:_________________
Jaime M. Fontes, City Manager
Attachments: Exhibit A Scope of Work
Exhibit B Fee Schedule
Exhibit C Insurance Requirements
Exhibit D RFQ: On-Call Consultants – Engineering
Transportation Services
Exhibit E Resolution 21-21 Approving On-Call Engineering Transportation Services
Packet Page 72
800 BANCROFT WAY, SUITE 203 | BERKELEY, CA 94710 | P 510.343.6400 May 25, 2023
Patrick Grogan
Associate Civil Engineer
City of Seaside, Public Works Engineering
440 Harcourt Avenue
Seaside, CA 93955
Re: Scope of Work for Developing a Local Road Safety Plan for City of Seaside Dear Mr. Grogan:

Parisi, a Division of Parametrix, is pleased to provide the following work plan and estimated fee for development of a Local Road Safety plan for the City of Seaside.

WORK PLAN
Task 1: Project Management
Project management includes management of the consulting team, biweekly check-ins between the project managers over the course of the project, quality assurance review of products, and preparation of monthly progress reports and invoices.
• Deliverables: Check-in meeting summaries, progress reports, and invoices Task 2: Technical Advisory Committee Coordination
With input from the City, Parisi will convene a technical advisory committee (TAC) made up of City staff, law enforcement, public health, school, and other stakeholders to advise and guide the development of the LRSP. The TAC will provide input on the LRSP vision and goals, high collision network, and emphasis area goals and strategies. One TAC meeting will be held in person and up to TAC meetings will be held remotely.
• Deliverables: Meeting summaries from up to 3 TAC meetings Task 3: LRSP Vision & Goals
Parisi will develop a vision and goals for the LRSP. These will be informed by a review of LRSPs from nearby jurisdictions as well as feedback from City staff. • Deliverable: Final vision and goals
Exhibit A
Packet Page 73
Patrick Grogan
June 2, 2023

Task 4: 2019-2021 Collision Data Analysis
Crash data for the period of January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2021 will be obtained through the Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS). Collision data will be collected for collisions resulting in injury or fatality that occurred on local, arterial, and collector roadways. A descriptive analysis will be prepared, including tables summarizing the collision data: collisions by time and severity, mode, primary collision factors, crash types, and other relevant trends. • Deliverable: 3-year collision data and descriptive analysis Task 5: High Collision Network Analysis
Parisi will analyze collision data on Seaside’s road segments and at intersections. A High Collision Network consisting of up to 15 intersections and up to 15 road segments with the highest number of collisions resulting in injury or fatality will be compiled. Collision trends will be analyzed at these locations. The City shall provide the latest road and intersection GIS data available. • Deliverables: High Collision Network collision analysis and maps Task 6: Emphasis Area Goals & Strategies
Parisi will compile goals and strategies, including projects and/or programs, to address emphasis areas within Seaside. Emphasis areas may be specific locations, behaviors, or user types involved in collisions.

Strategies will include engineering, education, and enforcement. • Deliverables: Emphasis areas, goals, and strategies
Task 7: Community Outreach
Parisi will hold one community outreach meetings to inform community of study; receive share crash data; and discuss emphasis areas and strategies.
• Deliverable: Summary notes from one community meetings Task 8: LRSP Preparation
The document shall include a description of safety partners, existing transportation safety efforts, a collision data summary, emphasis areas, and a description of evaluation and implementation methods.

Assume two rounds of review and comment of the draft LRSP. • Deliverables: Draft and final LRSP document

ESTIMATED FEE
The estimated fee for accomplishing the above work plan tasks is provided on the next page.

Exhibit A
Packet Page 74
Patrick Grogan
June 2, 2023

IN CLOSING
We look forward to working with the City of Seaside on this important project. Please feel free to reach out to me with any questions.

Sincerely,
David Parisi
Principal Consultant
Principal Engineer Planner
Consultant III III
Task $310 $155 $145

1. Project Management 20 10 30 $ 7,650

2. Technical Advisory Committee Coordination 10 16 26 $ 5,420

3. LRSP Vision & Goals 6 16 22 $ 4,180

4. 2019-2021 Collision Data Analysis 12 32 48 92 $ 15,640

5. High Collision Network Analysis 12 20 60 92 $ 15,520

6. Emphasis Area Goals & Strategies 12 32 48 92 $ 15,640

7. Community Outreach 12 16 28 $ 6,040

8. LRSP Preparation 16 28 40 84 $ 15,100
Expenses (Travel, Reproduction, Etc.) $ 2,700
Totals 100 112 254 466 $ 87,890
Hours Fee
Exhibit %
Packet Page 75
Local Roadway Safety Plan EXHIBIT C

EXHIBIT C

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.

Note: Verify minimum limit for each coverage with Risk Manager.

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.

Note: May need to delete workers' compensation and employer's liability insurance requirements for certain sole proprietorships, partnerships, or corporations without employees.

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 76
Local Roadway Safety Plan EXHIBIT C
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 77
Local Roadway Safety Plan EXHIBIT C
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 78
Local Roadway Safety Plan EXHIBIT C
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 79
J:\08_PUBLIC WORKS\Personnel\Traffic Engineer\2020 On-Call List\RFQ Traffic Engineer 2020_2020-10-15.docx

REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS
2020 - TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SERVICES

FOR CITY OF SEASIDE
Table of Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Proposal Requirements .................................................................................................................................................. 1 Statement of Qualifications Submittal Requirements ................................................................................................ 1 Schedule for Selection Process ...................................................................................................................................... 2 Questions Regarding This Project ................................................................................................................................. 2 Form of Agreement ....................................................................................................................................................... 3 Evaluation and Rating Criteria ...................................................................................................................................... 3 QUALIFICATIONS ...................................................................................................................................................... 3 PRELIMINARY SCOPE OF SERVICES ..................................................................................................................... 4 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 Statements of Qualifications (SOQs) from qualified firms to provide professional Traffic Engineering (consultant) services. The City intends to select up to three 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
SOQs must be received by 3:00 PM November 10, 2020 at the following address:

Nisha Patel, City Engineer
City of Seaside
440 Harcourt Avenue
Seaside, CA 93955
SOQ received after this deadline will not be accepted. The SOQ and any accompanying documents shall be submitted in a sealed envelope with the words “Traffic Engineering Services” 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.

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.

Packet Page 80
City of Seaside-Request for Qualifications
Traffic Engineering Services
-2 -

2. Brief description and history of the proposed project team and experience of the principal contact. Clearly describe project team member’s experience in traffic engineering design, traffic analysis, traffic calming, and transportation studies. 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’ experience.

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 RFP Tuesday, October 20, 2020
Proposal due Tuesday, November 10, 2020
Interview Select Proposers, if necessary November 10 to 25, 2020 if needed Project Award December 17, 2020
Questions Regarding This Project
All questions and/or contacts regarding this Request should be directed to:

Misty Bradshaw
City of Seaside-Engineering Division
440 Harcourt Avenue
Seaside, CA 93955
E-mail: [email protected]
Phone (831) 899-6886
Packet Page 81
City of Seaside-Request for Qualifications
Traffic Engineering Services
-3 -
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. Proposal: Organization, presentation, and content of proposal. Conformance to the specified proposal format. – Max 5 points.

2. Company/Organization: Does the firm/individual offer the quality of services required for the types of services listed in the Scope of Work? Consultants do not need to be able to provide all services described in the “Preliminary Scope of Services,” below. Has the firm/individual demonstrated the ability to successfully provide services for projects of a similar complexity and nature as described herein? Firm possess familiarity with the locality and ability to perform services within the City of Seaside. Ability to respond to request for services in a timely manner and to facilitate meetings with City Staff. – Max 35 points.

3. Project Team: Do the qualifications of key personnel to be assigned to the anticipated projects coincide with tasks listed in the Scope of Work? Does the principal contact and the assigned personnel have requisite education, experience, and professional qualifications? – Max 35 points.

4. Contractual Ability: Confirmed acceptance of standard contract. – Max 5 points.

5. Past Performance: Are the firm’s/individual’s references from past clients and associates favorable? Are deliverables submitted on time and within budget? - Max 20 points.

Proposals 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.

QUALIFICATIONS
Interested consultants should possess competency in the following areas of expertise and documents:
• General traffic engineering and provide a project manager that possesses certification as a Traffic Engineer from the California Board for Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors and Geologists.
• Traffic Signal design (per Caltrans and City standards) • California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices latest Edition • ITE Traffic Control Devices Handbook
• ASSHTO Roadside Design Guide
• Familiarity with Caltrans Standards
Packet Page 82
City of Seaside-Request for Qualifications
Traffic Engineering Services
-4 -

PRELIMINARY SCOPE OF SERVICES
The scope of work will vary as need arises and will be at the discretion of the City. Provide Traffic Engineering services for various projects at the request of city staff. The request for services may include:
• Conduct or review traffic engineering, traffic analysis, and transportation planning studies or project specific traffic related issues analysis; • Provide comprehensive analyses of existing and projected traffic conditions; roundabout analysis and design, intersection design, speed humps, and traffic data collection services:
• Provide electronic traffic control device studies and design (signs, signals, pavement markings, and school zone flashers);
• Perform pedestrian and bicycle studies including those to provide safe routes to school; • Review subdivision or new development projects involving traffic impact analyses, transportation modeling, area-wide transportation studies and road impact fee analyses; • Traffic signal design including plans, specifications, engineer’s cost estimate and contract bid documents (for projects that are bid) for new permanent signal installation; modifications to existing signals and flashing beacon;
• Speed data analysis, intersection control studies including multi way stop control and traffic signal or alternatives, safety studies, and miscellaneous traffic engineering services.
• Transportation, roadway, and Complete Streets design including construction drawings or plans, specifications, engineer’s cost estimate and contract bid documents. • Construction management and inspection support for roadway improvement and transportation projects.
• Assist and provide technical assistance in identification and preparation of various traffic and roadway improvement grant opportunities and applications.

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. 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 prospective Consultant(s) for the City to verify all information contained therein. If the Packet Page 83
City of Seaside-Request for Qualifications
Traffic Engineering Services
-5 -
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.

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.

Packet Page 84
City of Seaside-Request for Qualifications
Traffic Engineering Services
-6 -
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.

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 Packet Page 85
City of Seaside-Request for Qualifications
Traffic Engineering Services
-7 -
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 86
RESOLUTION NO. 21-21

A RESOLUTION OF THE CFTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEASIDE

APPROVING FEHR & PEERS, HARRISON ENGINEERING, KIMLEY HORN,

PARISI TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING, AND RUGGERI JENSEN AZAR TO

PROVIDE ON-CALL TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SERVICES
WHEREAS, Traffic Engineering Services included a vast array of specialties including transportation planning, traffic impact analysis, complete street design, traffic signal design, speed surveys, and peer review; and
WHEREAS, the City of Seaside, on occasion, is in need of consultants who specialize in traffic engineering; and
WHEREAS, on October 20, 2020, the City released a Request for Qualifications for professional services for Traffic Engineering Services; and WHEREAS, on November 16, 2020, proposals were received from six firms offering Traffic Engineering Services; and
WHEREAS, a selection panel reviewed and selected the five top firms: Fehr & Peers, Harrison Engineering, Kimley Horn, Parisi Transportation Consulting, and Ruggeri Jensen Azar as the most qualified to perform these services based on professional qualifications, similar experience and sufficient staffing capabilities to provide service in a timely manner.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Seaside hereby approves Fehr & Peers, Harrison Engineering, Kimley Horn, Parisi Transportation Consulting, and Ruggeri Jensen Azar, to provide Traffic Engineering Services on an as needed basis; and
Packet Page 87
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, approval to provide Traffic Engineering Services is for a period of three (3) years and may be extended at the City Manager's recommendation for two (2) one year extensions through March 18, 2026. Agreements will have a defined scope, schedule and fee arrangements that will be negotiated on a project by project basis.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular City Council meeting of the City of Seaside duly held on the 18th day of March, 2021 by the following vote:

AYES: 5 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Campbell, Garcia-Arrazola, Oglesby, Pacheco, Wizard NOES: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
APPROVED:
lan N. Oglesby, F^yor
ATTEST:
><A-^
Dominique L. (&6vis, City Clerk
Packet Page 88

CITY OF SEASIDE

STAFF REPORT
Item No.: 8.I.

TO: City Council
FROM: Jaime M. Fontes, City Manager
BY: Dan Meewis, Recreation Director
DATE: June 15, 2023
SUBJECT: ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LAGUNA GRANDE

REGIONAL PARK TRAIL AND VEGETATION MAINTENANCE

STRATEGY PROJECT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM,

AND ADOPT THE LAGUNA GRANDE REGIONAL PARK TRAIL

MAINTENANCE STRATEGY

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution approving the Laguna Grande Regional Park Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy Project Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigated Monitoring and Reporting Program and Strategy Document.

BACKGROUND
On December 2, 2019, the Laguna Grande Regional Park (LGRP) Joint Powers Agency (JPA) approved the release of a Request for Proposal for two projects - a new park plan and trail maintenance strategy. The JPA discussed the desire to have an entire park plan updated but also emphasized that a trail maintenance strategy was its highest priority at that time. Key considerations would be cost and relationship to regional projects such as the Fort Ord Regional Trail and Greenway project (FORTAG).

Staff met with the two City Managers (Seaside & Monterey) and the General Manager of MPRPD and determined there is inadequate funding to pay for the parks plan at this time and recommended that the JPA move forward with only the Trail Maintenance Strategy. The proposed Trail Maintanence Strategy included the following key steps:

1. Inventory existing trail network and biotic communities

2. Prepare a draft trail maintenance strategy and vegetation management recommendations
Packet Page 89

Item No. 8.I. Page 2 of 4

3. Review maintenance strategy with stakeholders such as the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Coastal Commission and Regional Water Quality Control Board and interested parties such as the Audubon Society and residents

4. Revise the maintenance strategy based on public and stakeholders' input

5. Present the maintenance strategy to the JPA and finalize the project description

6. Prepare the required environmental documentation

7. Present maintenance strategy and environmental document to the JPA for certification
As part of the planning process, the public and stakeholders requested that the strategy focus on a number of goals and implementation items. If the document is certified by all member agencies of the JPA, the JPA would then need to authorize funding and pursuit of permits for the project from various resource agencies such as the Regional Water Quality Control Board, etc. Work could commence after all permits are obtained.

Project Description:

The proposed project involved updates to the Laguna Grande Regional Park Trail Maintenance Strategy by way of maintenance and enhancement of the existing trail system. The purpose was to provide the JPA with a clear set of priorities and means for maintaining the trails and vegetation throughout the park. The project will implement maintenance strategies to create a more accessible, safe, and long-lasting park for the surrounding community and region.

The following are some of the key items the project includes:

1. Seasonal Trail Development

2. Vegetation Clearing

3. Trail Maintenance and Improvements

4. Accessibility Improvements

5. Invasive Species Removal and Restoration Planting

6. Lighting
The project provides directions to meet the regulations for the maintenance of sensitive habitats and around bodies of water set forth by the state and federal government agencies. The stated goals of the project are:

1. Address Encampment, Health and Safety Concerns

2. Improve Personal Safety

3. Maintain and Improve the Quality of Natural Resources Environmental Determination:

Packet Page 90

Item No. 8.I. Page 3 of 4
The proposed project is located in both the cities of Seaside and Monterey and includes ownership by the Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District, the cities of Seaside and Monterey, and private owners. The JPA adopted Resolution 2021-01, allowing Monterey to manage the project and environmental review. The JPA adopted the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (ISMND) on March 30, 2023, as the lead agency. Both cities of Seaside and Monterey and MPRPD will need to adopt the ISMND as responsible agencies. The City of Monterey approved the ISMND on Tuesday June 6, 2023, and it is anticipated that MPRDP will approve the ISMND in the coming weeks.

A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted according to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15072, and a Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (ISMND) were circulated for public review for the required 30-day public review period, from January 18, 2023, to February 17, 2023, (CEQA Guidelines Section 15073), during which time all related documents were made available at the Monterey City Hall Planning Office and on the City of Monterey's website.

The ISMND identifies that the project could result in potentially significant environmental impacts associated with air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and solids, tribal cultural resources, and mandatory findings of significance. Mitigation Measures have been required that will reduce the potential impacts to a less than significant level. These mitigation measures are discussed in this report (See Analysis Section).

No comment letters were received during the public review period. There is no evidence before the JPA indicating that the proposed project could cause significant adverse environmental effects which have not already been considered, analyzed, and mitigated in the ISMND. Further, the Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated with the Initial Study. The JPA adopted Resolutions adopting the ISMND and program on March 30, 2023. Once adopted by the City Council, a Notice of Determination will be filed according to CEQA requirements.

The JPA has prepared a Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) that will be implemented to ensure compliance with mitigation measures and critical timing of these measures. City or Park District staff will complete that last column of the MMRP to verify that the mitigation measure has been completed.

Alternatives Considered:

The City Council could decide not to adopt the mitigated negative declaration. The City Council could conclude that a mitigation measure in a mitigated negative declaration is infeasible or otherwise undesirable. It may adopt a substitute measure of equal or greater efficacy without recirculating the document if the substitution is considered at a Packet Page 91

Item No. 8.I. Page 4 of 4
public meeting and the City Council makes a written finding that the measure is of equal or great efficiency and will not itself cause any potential significant impact on the environment.

FISCAL IMPACT
The LGRP JPA awarded $109,965 to BFS Landscape Architects to prepare the LGRP Trail Maintenance Strategy and environmental review document for the project. The JPA approved a budget amendment ($18,600) on March 30, 2023, to address unanticipated issues discovered during the project's environmental review. In addition, the Cities of Seaside and Monterey, and the Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District staff time that has been spent on the project. The following is a list of the funds that have been allocated to the project so far:

The City of Seaside - $31,782.50
The City of Monterey - $31,782.50
Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District - $66,800.00
Total - $128,565.00
Project permits and implementation costs are not yet funded. The anticipated costs for the permits is approximately $60,000, and the initial cost estimate for the implementation of the project scope (including invasive species removal, tree maintenance, trail repairs, landscape maintenance, and seasonal trail development) are expected to exceed $1,000,0000. Actual costs will likely exceed this value.

The cost for the project permits will be split between the three JPA members, while the funding mechanism for the implementation of the project scope still needs to be discussed with the members of the JPA.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution JPA MND

2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

3. Mitigated Negative Declaration

4. Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy
Reviewed for Submission to the City Council by:
_________________________________________
Jaime M. Fontes, City Manager
Packet Page 92
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEASIDE

ADOPTING THE LAGUNA GRANDE REGIONAL PARK TRAIL AND VEGETATION

MAINTENANCE STRATEGY PROJECT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

AND MITIGATION MONIORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Agency approved the release of a Request for Proposal for the trail maintenance strategy; and WHEREAS, the JPA awarded a contract to BFS Landscape Architects to create the Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy; and
WHEREAS, the Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy project includes key items including seasonal trail development, vegetation clearing, trail maintenance and improvements, accessibility improvements, invasive species removal and restoration planting and new replacement lighting; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project is located in both cities of Seaside and Monterey and includes ownership by the Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District, cities of Seaside and Monterey, and private property owners. The JPA, cities and the parks district must certify the environmental document if the project is to move forward; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Intent to Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted according to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15072 and a Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) were circulated for public review for the required 30 day public review period, from January 18, 2023 to February 17, 2023 (CEQA Section 15073), during which time all related documents were made available at the Monterey City Hall Planning Office and on the City’s website; and WHEREAS, the IS/MND discloses that the project could result in potentially significant environmental impacts associated with air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, tribal cultural resources, and mandatory findings of significance. Mitigation Measures have been required that will reduce the potential impacts to a less-than-significant level; and
WHEREAS, no comment letters were received during the public review period. There is no evidence before the City indicating that the proposed project could cause significant adverse environmental affects which have not already been considered, analyzed, and mitigated in the IS/MND; and
WHEREAS, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared that will be implemented to ensure compliance with mitigation measures and critical timing of these measures; and
Packet Page 93
WHEREAS, the Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Agency, at a properly noticed public hearing on March 30, 2023, carefully considered all of the information presented to it, including the agenda report and information submitted at the public hearing by interested persons; and adopted the Laguna Grande Regional Park Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Seaside hereby adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Laguna Grande Regional Park Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy project;
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Seaside duly held on the 15th day of June by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
______________________________
Ian N. Oglesby, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
Dominique Davis, City Clerk
Packet Page 94
Laguna Grande Regional Park Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy Project Exhibit B
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure Implementation and
Monitoring/Reporting
Responsibility
Timing Requirements Reporting
Requirements &
Verification of
Compliance (Completed
As Part of Project)
AQ-1 All construction equipment will be
maintained and properly tuned in accordance with
manufacturer’s specifications and will be checked
by a certified visible emissions evaluator. All nonroad diesel construction equipment will, at a minimum, meet Tier 3 emission standards listed in
the Code of Federal Regulations Title 40, Part 89,
Subpart B, §89.112. Further, where feasible,
construction equipment will use alternative fuels
such as compressed natural gas, propane,
electricity or biodiesel.

JPA Staff and/or
Contractor
Prior and During
Construction
BIO-1 Prior to ground disturbance, a qualified
biologist shall conduct a training session for all
construction personnel. At a minimum, the training
shall include a description of special-status
species potentially occurring in the project vicinity,
including, but not limited to, California red-legged
frog, Coast Range newt, western pond turtle,
burrowing owl, tricolored blackbird, American
badger, Monterey dusky-footed woodrat, Monterey
shrew, special-status bats, and nesting birds and
raptors. Their habitats, general measures that are
being implemented to conserve species as they
relate to the project, and the boundaries within
which disturbance activities will occur will be
explained. Informational handouts with
JPA Staff and/or
Contractor
Prior and During
Construction
Packet Page 95
Laguna Grande Regional Park Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy Project Exhibit B
photographs clearly illustrating the species’
appearances shall be used in the training session.

All new construction personnel shall undergo this
mandatory environmental awareness training.

The qualified biologist will train biological monitors
selected from the construction crew by the
construction contractor (typically the project
foreman). Before the start of work each day, the
monitor will check for animals under any
equipment such as vehicles and stored pipes
within active disturbance areas. The monitor will
also check all excavated steep-walled holes or
trenches greater than one foot deep for trapped
animals. If a special-status species is observed
within an active disturbance area, the qualified
biologist will be notified immediately and all work
within 50 feet of the individual will be halted and all equipment turned off until the individual has left
the disturbance area. The Laguna Grande
Regional Park Joint Powers Authority shall
document evidence of completion of this training
prior to ground disturbance.

BIO-2 A qualified biologist shall conduct
preconstruction surveys following the guidance
documented in the Revised Guidance on Site
Assessments and Field Surveys for the California
Red-legged Frog (USFWS 2005) no more than
two weeks (14 days) prior to the start of
disturbance activities. The invasive removal,
maintenance or improvement footprints will be
surveyed for potential migratory and/or upland
activity. The qualified biologist shall prepare a
report documenting the results of the
preconstruction surveys for submittal to the
Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers
Authority prior to ground disturbance.

JPA Staff and/or
Contractor
Prior and During
Construction
Packet Page 96
Laguna Grande Regional Park Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy Project Exhibit B
If California red-legged frog is found, the Laguna
Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Authority will
coordinate with the USFWS and/or CDFW to
determine the appropriate course of action per the
requirements of FESA and/or CESA (e.g.,
obtaining Incidental Take Permits) and implement
the permit requirements prior to ground
disturbance.

BIO-3 The following measures from the USFWS
Programmatic Biological Opinion for Issuance of
Permits under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act,
including Authorizations Under 22 Nationwide
Permits, for Projects that May Affect the
Threatened California Red-legged Frog in Nine
San Francisco Bay Area Counties, California
(USFWS 2014) shall be implemented:
a. Plans shall delineate a 100-foot boundary from
the outer edge of riparian vegetation along the
lake and drainages.
b. A qualified biologist shall be on site during all
activities within 100 feet from the outer edge of
riparian vegetation along the lake or drainage that
where California red-legged frog may be
encountered.
c. To the extent possible, all ground-disturbing
work within 100 feet from the outer edge of
riparian vegetation along the lake and drainage
shall be avoided between November 1 and March
31, the time period when California red-legged
frogs are most likely to be moving through upland
areas.
d. All ground-disturbing work within 100 feet from
the outer edge of riparian vegetation should be
accomplished during the dry season, with no
JPA Staff and/or
Contractor
Prior and During
Construction and/or Site
Disturbance
Packet Page 97
Laguna Grande Regional Park Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy Project Exhibit B
disturbance activities occurring during rain events
or within 24 hours following a rain event.
e. Prior to disturbance activities, exclusionary
fencing shall be placed to keep construction
vehicles and personnel from impacting potentially
jurisdictional waters and riparian/wetland habitat
outside of work areas. A biological monitor shall
supervise the installation of exclusionary fencing
and monitor at least once per week until
disturbance activities are complete to ensure that
the protective exclusionary fencing remains intact.

Exclusion fencing material shall be selected to
avoid accidental entrapment of wildlife species,
such as fencing with a smaller gauge or no gaps at
all (e.g., Animex™ fencing).
f. To minimize harassment, injury, death, and harm
in the form of temporary habitat disturbances, all
project-related vehicle traffic shall be restricted to
established roads, disturbance areas, equipment
staging, storage, parking, and stockpile areas.
g. If a California red-legged frog is encountered, all
activities which have the potential to result in the
harassment, injury, or death of the individual shall
be immediately halted. A qualified biologist shall
then assess the situation and select a course of
action that shall avoid or minimize adverse effects
to the animal.
h. Uneaten human food and trash attracts crows,
ravens, coyotes, and other predators of the
California red-legged frog. A litter control program
shall be instituted at each project site. All workers
shall ensure their food scraps, paper wrappers,
food containers, cans, bottles, and other trash are
deposited in covered or closed trash containers.

The trash containers shall be removed from the
project site at the end of each working day.

Packet Page 98
Laguna Grande Regional Park Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy Project Exhibit B
i. Loss of soil from run-off or erosion shall be
prevented with straw bales, straw wattles, or
similar means provided they do not entangle, block
escape or dispersal routes of the California redlegged frog. j. No insecticides or herbicides shall be used at the
project site during construction or long-term
operational maintenance where there is the
potential for these chemical agents to enter the
river, or uplands that contain potential habitat for
the California red-legged frog.
k. For on-site storage of pipes, conduits, and other
materials that could provide shelter for specialstatus species, an open-top trailer shall be used to elevate the materials above ground. This is
intended to reduce the potential for animals to
climb into the conduits and other materials.
l. To the maximum extent possible, night-time
construction shall be minimized or avoided
because dusk and dawn are often the times when
the California red-legged frog is most actively
moving and foraging.
m. Plastic monofilament netting (erosion control
matting), loosely woven netting, or similar material
in any form shall not be used at the project site
because California red-legged frogs can become
entangled and trapped in them. Materials utilizing
fixed weaves (strands cannot move),
polypropylene, polymer, or other synthetic
materials shall not be used.
n. Trenches or pits one foot or deeper that are
going to be left unfilled for more than 48 hours
shall be securely covered with boards or other
material to prevent the California red-legged frog
from falling into them.

BIO-4 To avoid/minimize impacts to burrowing JPA Staff and/or Prior to Construction Packet Page 99
Laguna Grande Regional Park Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy Project Exhibit B
owls potentially occurring within invasive removal,
maintenance or improvement footprints, a biologist
qualified in ornithology shall conduct surveys for
burrowing owl. The approved biologist shall
conduct a two-visit (i.e., morning and evening)
presence/absence survey at areas of suitable
habitat on and adjacent to the invasive removal,
maintenance or improvement footprints no less
than 14 days prior to the start of construction or
ground disturbance activities. Surveys shall be
conducted according to the methods for take
avoidance described in the Burrowing Owl Survey
Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines (California
Burrowing Owl Consortium 1993) and the
StaffReport on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW
2012). If no burrowing owls are found,
a letter report confirming absence will be prepared
and submitted to the Laguna
Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Authority and
no further mitigation is
required.

Contractor and/or Site Disturbance
BIO-5 To avoid impacts to nesting birds during the
nesting season (January 15 through September
15), all disturbance activities should be conducted
between September 16 and January 14, which is
outside of the bird nesting season. If projectrelated work is scheduled during the nesting season (February 15 to August 30 for small bird
species such as passerines; January 15 to
September 15 for owls; and February 15 to
September 15 for other raptors), a qualified
biologist shall conduct nesting bird surveys.
a. Two surveys for active bird nests will occur
within 14 days prior to start of disturbance
activities, with the final survey conducted within 48
hours prior to disturbance. Appropriate minimum
JPA Staff and/or
Contractor
Prior to Construction
and/or Site Disturbance
Packet Page 100
Laguna Grande Regional Park Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy Project Exhibit B
survey radii surrounding each work area are
typically 250 feet for passerines, 500 feet for
smaller raptors, and 1,000 feet for larger raptors.

Surveys will be conducted at the appropriate times
of day to observe nesting activities. Locations off
the site to which access is not available may be
surveyed from within the site or from public
areas. If no nesting birds are found, a letter report
confirming absence will be prepared and
submitted to the Laguna Grande Regional Park
Joint Powers Authority and no further mitigation is
required.
b. If the qualified biologist documents active nests
within the invasive removal, maintenance or
improvement footprints or in nearby surrounding
areas, an appropriate buffer between each nest
and active disturbance area shall be established.

The buffer shall be clearly marked and maintained
until the young have fledged and are foraging
independently. Prior to ground disturbance, the
qualified biologist shall conduct baseline
monitoring of each nest to characterize “normal”
bird behavior and establish a buffer distance,
which allows the birds to exhibit normal behavior.

The qualified biologist shall monitor the nesting
birds daily during disturbance activities and
increase the buffer if birds show signs of unusual
or distressed behavior (e.g., defensive flights and
vocalizations, standing up from a brooding
position, and/or flying away from the nest). If buffer
establishment is not possible, the qualified
biologist or construction foreman shall have the
authority to cease all work in the area until the
young have fledged and the nest is no longer
active. Once the absence of nesting birds has
been confirmed, a letter report will be prepared
Packet Page 101
Laguna Grande Regional Park Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy Project Exhibit B
and submitted to the Laguna Grande Regional
Park Joint Powers Authority.

BIO-6 Not more than 14 days prior to the
commencement of ground-disturbing activities, a
qualified wildlife biologist shall conduct surveys of
the grassland habitat within or adjacent to invasive
removal, maintenance or improvement footprints
to identify any potential American badger
burrows/dens. If the survey results are negative
(i.e., no badger dens observed), a letter report
confirming absence will be prepared and
submitted to the Laguna Grande Regional Park
Joint Powers Authority and no further mitigation is
required.

If the results are positive (badger dens are
observed), the qualified biologist shall determine if
the dens are active by installing a game camera
for three days and three nights to determine if the
den is in use.
a. If the biologist determines that a den may be
active, coordination with the CDFW shall be
undertaken to develop a suitable strategy to avoid
impacts to American badger. The strategy may
include the following: the biologist shall install a
one-way door in the den opening and continue use
of the game camera. Once the camera captures
the individual exiting the one-way door, the den
can be excavated with hand tools to prevent
badgers from reusing them. If the biologist
determines that the den is a maternity den,
disturbance activities shall be delayed during the
maternity season (February to August), or until the
badgers leave the den on their own accord or the
biologist determines that the den is no longer in
use.

JPA Staff and/or
Contractor
Prior to Construction
and/or Site Disturbance
Packet Page 102
Laguna Grande Regional Park Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy Project Exhibit B
b. If the game camera does not capture an
individual entering/exiting the den, the den can be
excavated with hand tools to prevent badgers from
reusing them.

BIO-7 A qualified biologist shall conduct
preconstruction surveys for woodrat nests within
invasive removal, maintenance or improvement
footprints. All woodrat nests shall be flagged for
avoidance of direct impacts where feasible. If
impacts cannot be avoided, woodrat nests shall be
dismantled no more than three days prior to
dismantling so that the occupants do not attempt
to rebuild. Nests are to be slowly dismantled by
hand in order to allow the occupants to disperse.

JPA Staff and/or
Contractor
Prior to Construction
and/or Site Disturbance
BIO-8 Approximately 14 days prior to tree removal
or disturbance activities, a qualified biologist shall
conduct a habitat assessment for bats and
potential roosting sites in trees to be removed and
in trees within 50 feet of invasive removal,
maintenance or improvement footprints. These
surveys shall include a visual inspection of
potential roosting features (bats need not be
present) and a search for presence of guano
within the project site, access routes, and 50 feet
around these areas.

Cavities, crevices, exfoliating bark, and bark
fissures that could provide suitable potential nest
or roost habitat for bats shall be surveyed.

Assumptions can be made on what species is
present due to observed visual characteristics
along with habitat use, or the bats can be identified
to the species level with the use of a bat
echolocation detector such as an “Anabat” unit.

Potential roosting features found during the survey
shall be flagged or marked. If no roosting sites or
bats are found, a letter report confirming absence
JPA Staff and/or
Contractor
Prior to Construction
and/or Site Disturbance
Packet Page 103
Laguna Grande Regional Park Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy Project Exhibit B
shall be prepared and submitted to Laguna
Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Authority and
no further mitigation is required. If bats or roosting
sites are found, bats shall not be disturbed without
specific notice to and consultation with CDFW.

If bats are found roosting outside of the nursery
season (May 1 through October 1), CDFW shall be
consulted prior to any eviction or other action. If
avoidance or postponement is not feasible, a Bat
Eviction Plan will be submitted to CDFW for written
approval prior to project implementation. A request
to evict bats from a roost includes details for
excluding bats from the roost site and monitoring
to ensure that all bats have exited the roost prior to
the start of activity and are unable to re-enter the
roost until activity is completed. Any bat eviction
shall be timed to avoid lactation and youngrearing. If bats are found roosting during the nursery season, they shall be monitored to
determine if the roost site is a maternal roost. This
could occur by either visual inspection of the roost
bat pups, if possible, or by monitoring the roost
after the adults leave for the night to listen for bat
pups. Because bat pups cannot leave the roost
until they are mature enough, eviction of a
maternal roost cannot occur during the nursery
season. Therefore, if a maternal roost is present, a
50-foot buffer zone (or different size if determined
in consultation with the CDFW) shall be
established around the roosting site within which
no activities including tree removal or structure
disturbance shall occur until after the nursery
season.

BIO-9 Arroyo willow woodland, California bulrush
marsh, wetlands or estuarine habitat within 25 feet
of invasive removal, maintenance or improvement
JPA Staff and/or
Contractor
During Construction
and/or Site Disturbance
Packet Page 104
Laguna Grande Regional Park Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy Project Exhibit B
footprints will be protected from disturbance. Prior
to activities adjacent to arroyo willow woodland,
California bulrush marsh, wetlands or estuarine
habitat, a
qualified botanist will erect environmentally
sensitive area fencing around areas near the
invasive removal, maintenance or improvement
area to identify and protect sensitive plant
communities or Environmentally Sensitive Habitat
Areas.

The location of the fencing will be marked in the
field with stakes and flagging. Vegetation clearing
activities, vehicle operation, material and
equipment storage, and other surface-disturbing
activities will be prohibited within the fenced
environmentally sensitive area.

BIO-10 If avoidance cannot be accommodated
within invasive removal, maintenance or
improvement plans, then the Laguna Grande
Regional Park Joint Powers Authority shall be
responsible for ensuring the implementation of a
restoration plan. The restoration plan shall be
designed by a qualified biologist and shall include
the following:
a. Prior to implementation of invasive removal,
maintenance, or improvement activities, the
location and extent of the areas to be restored will
be clearly delineated and mapped. A plant palette
shall be determined, with preference to plant
species endemic to coastal Monterey County. The
plant palette used for restoration will be reviewed
and approved by the Laguna Grande Regional
Park Joint Powers Authority.
b. The restoration plan will include seed collection
and transplantation/preservation or
restoration/preservation guidelines. Maintenance
JPA Staff and/or
Contractor
During Construction
and/or Site Disturbance
Packet Page 105
Laguna Grande Regional Park Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy Project Exhibit B
activities may include, but not be limited to,
watering during the plant establishment period,
supplemental seed planting as needed, and
removal of non-native invasive plants. Monitoring
will occur for a minimum of five years after
mitigation area installation to verify that restoration activities have been successful and will include, at
a minimum, quarterly monitoring reports for the
first year and annual reports for the remaining four
years.
c. The abundance of annual plants naturally varies
from year to year depending on multiple factors
including disturbance and rainfall. The
performance standard for successful mitigation will
be a minimum 2:1 replacement ratio (i.e. two
plants observed in the restoration area for each
plant lost from the impact area) during at least one
spring occurring in year 3, 4, or 5 after installation.

The plan will contain options for corrective action
and extended maintenance/monitoring if the
performance standard is not achieved during the
5-year monitoring period.
d. During each monitoring effort undertaken in the
restoration area, a qualified biologist will conduct a
comparison of spring survey conditions from the
previous year(s) and prepare a written report for
the Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers
Authority. If adaptive management (corrective
measures) are warranted, a description and
recommendation will be included in the annual
report.

BIO-11 Prior to disturbance in or within 25 feet
adjacent to wetlands, a qualified biologist will
prepare a wetland delineation to determine the
extent of potential wetlands and waterways
regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
JPA Staff and/or
Contractor
Prior to Construction
and/or Site Disturbance
Packet Page 106
Laguna Grande Regional Park Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy Project Exhibit B
Regional Water Quality Control Board, and
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. If the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers claims jurisdiction,
the Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers
Authority will retain a qualified biologist to obtain a Clean Water Act Section 404 Nationwide Permit. If
the impacts to the drainage features do not qualify
for a Nationwide Permit, the Laguna Grande
Regional Park Joint Powers Authority shall
proceed with the qualified biologist in obtaining an
Individual Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. The Laguna Grande Regional Park
Joint Powers Authority will also retain a qualified
biologist to coordinate with the Regional Water
Quality Control Board to obtain a Clean Water Act
Section 401 Water Quality Certification. If
necessary, the Laguna Grande Regional Park
Joint Powers Authority will also retain a qualified
biologist to coordinate with the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife to obtain a
Streambed Alteration Agreement.

To compensate for temporary and/or permanent
impacts to jurisdictional features that would be
impacted as a result of the proposed project,
mitigation shall be provided as required by the
regulatory permits. Mitigation would be provided
through one of the following mechanisms:
i. A Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall
be developed that will outline mitigation and
monitoring obligations for temporary impacts to
wetlands and other waters as a result of
disturbance activities. The Wetland Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan would include thresholds of
success, monitoring and reporting requirements,
and site-specific plans to compensate for wetland
losses resulting from the project. The Wetland
Packet Page 107
Laguna Grande Regional Park Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy Project Exhibit B
Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall be submitted
to the appropriate regulatory agencies for review
and approval during the permit application
process.

Or
ii. To compensate for permanent impacts, the
purchase and/or dedication of land to provide
suitable wetland restoration or creation shall
ensure a no net loss of wetland values or
functions. If restoration is available and feasible, a
minimum 1:1 mitigation to impact ratio would apply
to projects for which mitigation is provided in
advance.

BIO-12 Per section 8.54.060 of the Seaside City
Ordinance, the zoning administrator, or his
designee (a qualified forester or arborist) will
prepare a report on trees based on the applicant’s
plans and a site inspection of the land.

Implementation of specific protections for
preserved trees during disturbance activities will
be followed; and replacement plantings for
damaged or removed trees will be installed.

JPA Staff and/or
Contractor
Prior and During
Construction and/or Site
Disturbance
CR-1 If any archeological, prehistoric, or historic
subsurface resources, including tribal cultural
resources, are discovered during grounddisturbing (including tree and vegetation removal, path widening):
a. All work within 50- meter (165 feet) shall be
halted and a qualified archaeologist shall be
consulted to assess the significance of the finding
according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.
b. If any find is determined to be significant,
representatives from the City of Monterey
Recreation Department and the archaeologist shall
meet to determine the appropriate avoidance
measures or other appropriate mitigation.

JPA Staff and/or
Contractor
During Construction
and/or Site Disturbance
Packet Page 108
Laguna Grande Regional Park Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy Project Exhibit B
c. All significant prehistoric cultural materials and
or tribal cultural resources recovered shall be;
returned to Native American tribes traditionally and
culturally affiliated with the area.
d. In considering any suggested mitigation
proposed by the consulting archaeologist to
mitigate impacts to historical resources or unique
archaeological resources, the City shall determine
whether avoidance is necessary and feasible in
light of factors such as the nature of the find,
proposed project design, costs, and other
considerations.
e. If avoidance is infeasible, other appropriate
measures (e.g., data recovery) would be
implemented.
f. Work may proceed on other parts of the project
site while mitigation for historical resources or
unique archaeological resources is being carried
out.

CR-2 California Health and Safety Code Section
7050.5 and the CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.5(e) contain the mandated procedures of
conduct following the discovery of human remains.

According to the provisions in CEQA, if human
remains are encountered at the site, all work in the
immediate vicinity of the discovery shall cease and
necessary steps to ensure the integrity of the
immediate area shall be taken. The Monterey
County Coroner shall be notified immediately.

The Coroner shall then determine whether the
remains are Native American. If the Coroner
determines the remains are Native American, the
Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage
Commission within 24 hours, who would, in turn,
notify the person the Native American Heritage
Commission identifies as the Most Likely
JPA Staff and/or
Contractor
During Construction
and/or Site Disturbance
Packet Page 109
Laguna Grande Regional Park Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy Project Exhibit B
Descendant of any human remains. Further
actions shall be determined, in part, by the desires
of the Most Likely Descendant. The Most Likely
Descendant has 48 hours to make
recommendations regarding the disposition of the
remains following notification from the Native
American Heritage Commission of the discovery. If
the Most Likely Descendant does not make
recommendations within 48 hours, the owner shall,
with appropriate dignity, reinter the remains in an
area of the property secure from further
disturbance. Alternatively, if the owner does not
accept the Most Likely Descendant’s
recommendations, the owner or the descendent
may request mediation by the Native American
Heritage Commission.

GEO-1 All construction personnel must receive
paleontological resources awareness training that
includes information on the possibility of
encountering fossils during construction; the types
of fossils likely to be seen, based on past finds in
the project area; and proper procedures in the
event fossils are encountered. Worker training
shall be prepared and presented by a qualified
paleontologist. The Laguna Grande Regional Park
Joint Powers Authority shall document evidence of
completion of this training prior to ground
disturbance
JPA Staff and/or
Contractor
Prior to Construction
and/or Site Disturbance
GEO-2 If vertebrae fossils are discovered during
construction, all work within 50 feet of the
discovery shall stop immediately until a qualified
professional paleontologist can assess the nature
and importance of the find and recommend
appropriate treatment. Treatment may include
avoidance, if feasible, preservation in place, or
preparation and recovery of fossil materials so that
JPA Staff and/or
Contractor
During Construction
and/or Site Disturbance
Packet Page 110
Laguna Grande Regional Park Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy Project Exhibit B
they can be housed in an appropriate museum or
university collection and may also include
preparation of a report for publication describing
the finds.

TCR-1 The Laguna Grande Regional Park JPA will
notify the KaKoon Ta Ruk Band of OhloneCostanoan Indians of the Big Sur Rancheria twoweeks prior to any earthmoving activity and the Tribe’s cultural resource specialist(s) will be
allowed onsite for monitoring. Appropriate safety
protocols shall be adhered to by all people on-site
during the project or site access may be revoked.

The Tribe’s treatment protocol should be
implemented.

JPA Staff and/or
Contractor
Prior and During
Construction and/or Site
Disturbance
Packet Page 111
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation
Maintenance Strategy
January 2023
Prepared by
EMC Planning Group
Packet Page 112
Packet Page 113
This document was produced on recycled paper.

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

LAGUNA GRANDE TRAIL AND VEGETATION

MAINTENANCE STRATEGY

PREPARED FOR
BFS Landscape Architects
Elizabeth Matz, Associate Principal
425 Pacific Street #201
Monterey, CA 93940
Tel 831.646.1388
[email protected]

PREPARED BY
EMC Planning Group Inc.
601 Abrego Street
Monterey, CA 93940
Tel 831.649.1799
Fax 831.649.8399
Polaris Kinison Brown
[email protected]
www.emcplanning.com
January 2023
Packet Page 114
Packet Page 115
EMC Planning Group Inc. 1

PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
In Compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Project Name
Lead Agency
Project Proponent
Project Location
Project Description
Public Review Period
Written Comments To
Proposed Findings
Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Agency (JPA)
Laguna Grande Regional Park JPA
401 Virgin Ave, Monterey, CA 93940
The proposed project involves updates to the Laguna Grande Regional Park Trail Maintenance Strategy. The purpose is to provide the JPA with a clear set of priorities and means for maintaining the trails and vegetation throughout the park.

The project will implement maintenance strategies to create a more accessible, safe, and vibrant park for the surrounding community and region.

January 18, 2023 to February 17, 2023
Chris Schmidt, Senior Associate Planner
City of Monterey, Planning Office
570 Pacific Street, Monterey, CA 93940
[email protected]
The Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Agency is
the custodian of the documents and other material that
constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based.

The initial study indicates that the proposed project has the potential to result in significant adverse environmental impacts. However, the mitigation measures identified in the initial study would reduce the impacts to a less than
significant level. There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency Laguna Grande
Regional Park Joint Powers Agency that the project, with mitigation measures incorporated, may have a significant effect on the environment. See the following project-specific mitigation measures:

Packet Page 116
2 EMC Planning Group Inc.

Mitigation Measures
Air Quality
AQ-1 All construction equipment will be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications and will be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator. All non-road diesel construction equipment will, at a minimum, meet Tier 3 emission standards listed in the Code of Federal Regulations Title 40, Part 89, Subpart B, §89.112. Further, where feasible, construction equipment will use alternative fuels such as compressed natural gas, propane, electricity or biodiesel.

Biological Resources
BIO-1 Prior to ground disturbance, a qualified biologist shall conduct a training session for all construction personnel. At a minimum, the training shall include a description of special-status species potentially occurring in the project vicinity, including, but not limited to, California red-legged frog, Coast Range newt, western pond turtle, burrowing owl, tricolored blackbird, American badger, Monterey dusky-footed woodrat, Monterey shrew, special-status bats, and nesting birds and raptors. Their habitats, general measures that are being implemented to conserve species as they relate to the project, and the boundaries within which disturbance activities will occur will be explained. Informational handouts with photographs clearly illustrating the species’ appearances shall be used in the training session. All new construction personnel shall undergo this mandatory environmental awareness training.

The qualified biologist will train biological monitors selected from the construction crew by the construction contractor (typically the project foreman).

Before the start of work each day, the monitor will check for animals under any equipment such as vehicles and stored pipes within active disturbance areas. The monitor will also check all excavated steep-walled holes or trenches greater than one foot deep for trapped animals. If a special-status species is observed within an active disturbance area, the qualified biologist will be notified immediately and all work within 50 feet of the individual will be halted and all equipment turned off until the individual has left the disturbance area.

The Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Authority shall document evidence of completion of this training prior to ground disturbance.

BIO-2 A qualified biologist shall conduct preconstruction surveys following the guidance documented in the Revised Guidance on Site Assessments and Field Surveys for the California Red-legged Frog (USFWS 2005) no more than two weeks (14 days) prior to the start of disturbance activities. The invasive removal, maintenance or Packet Page 117
EMC Planning Group Inc. 3
improvement footprints will be surveyed for potential migratory and/or upland activity. The qualified biologist shall prepare a report documenting the results of the preconstruction surveys for submittal to the Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Authority prior to ground disturbance.

If California red-legged frog is found, the Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Authority will coordinate with the USFWS and/or CDFW to determine the appropriate course of action per the requirements of FESA and/or CESA (e.g., obtaining Incidental Take Permits) and implement the permit requirements prior to ground disturbance.

BIO-3 The following measures from the USFWS Programmatic Biological Opinion for Issuance of Permits under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, including Authorizations Under 22 Nationwide Permits, for Projects that May Affect the Threatened California Red-legged Frog in Nine San Francisco Bay Area Counties, California (USFWS 2014) shall be implemented:
a. Plans shall delineate a 100-foot boundary from the outer edge of riparian vegetation along the lake and drainages.
b. A qualified biologist shall be on site during all activities within 100 feet from the outer edge of riparian vegetation along the lake or drainage that where California red-legged frog may be encountered.
c. To the extent possible, all ground-disturbing work within 100 feet from the outer edge of riparian vegetation along the lake and drainage shall be avoided between November 1 and March 31, the time period when California red-legged frogs are most likely to be moving through upland areas.
d. All ground-disturbing work within 100 feet from the outer edge of riparian vegetation should be accomplished during the dry season, with no disturbance activities occurring during rain events or within 24 hours following a rain event.
e. Prior to disturbance activities, exclusionary fencing shall be placed to keep construction vehicles and personnel from impacting potentially jurisdictional waters and riparian/wetland habitat outside of work areas. A biological monitor shall supervise the installation of exclusionary fencing and monitor at least once per week until disturbance activities are complete to ensure that the protective exclusionary fencing remains intact. Exclusion Packet Page 118
4 EMC Planning Group Inc.
fencing material shall be selected to avoid accidental entrapment of wildlife species, such as fencing with a smaller gauge or no gaps at all (e.g., Animex™ fencing).
f. To minimize harassment, injury, death, and harm in the form of temporary habitat disturbances, all project-related vehicle traffic shall be restricted to established roads, disturbance areas, equipment staging, storage, parking, and stockpile areas.
g. If a California red-legged frog is encountered, all activities which have the potential to result in the harassment, injury, or death of the individual shall be immediately halted. A qualified biologist shall then assess the situation and select a course of action that shall avoid or minimize adverse effects to the animal.
h. Uneaten human food and trash attracts crows, ravens, coyotes, and other predators of the California red-legged frog. A litter control program shall be instituted at each project site. All workers shall ensure their food scraps, paper wrappers, food containers, cans, bottles, and other trash are deposited in covered or closed trash containers. The trash containers shall be removed from the project site at the end of each working day.
i. Loss of soil from run-off or erosion shall be prevented with straw bales, straw wattles, or similar means provided they do not entangle, block escape or dispersal routes of the California red-legged frog.
j. No insecticides or herbicides shall be used at the project site during construction or long-term operational maintenance where there is the potential for these chemical agents to enter the river, or uplands that contain potential habitat for the California red-legged frog.
k. For on-site storage of pipes, conduits, and other materials that could provide shelter for special-status species, an open-top trailer shall be used to elevate the materials above ground. This is intended to reduce the potential for animals to climb into the conduits and other materials. l. To the maximum extent possible, night-time construction shall be minimized or avoided because dusk and dawn are often the times when the California red-legged frog is most actively moving and foraging.

Packet Page 119
EMC Planning Group Inc. 5
m. Plastic monofilament netting (erosion control matting), loosely woven netting, or similar material in any form shall not be used at the project site because California red-legged frogs can become entangled and trapped in them. Materials utilizing fixed weaves (strands cannot move), polypropylene, polymer, or other synthetic materials shall not be used. n. Trenches or pits one foot or deeper that are going to be left unfilled for more than 48 hours shall be securely covered with boards or other material to prevent the California red-legged frog from falling into them.

BIO-4 To avoid/minimize impacts to burrowing owls potentially occurring within invasive removal, maintenance or improvement footprints, a biologist qualified in ornithology shall conduct surveys for burrowing owl. The approved biologist shall conduct a two-visit (i.e., morning and evening) presence/absence survey at areas of suitable habitat on and adjacent to the invasive removal, maintenance or improvement footprints no less than 14 days prior to the start of construction or ground disturbance activities. Surveys shall be conducted according to the methods for take avoidance described in the Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines (California Burrowing Owl Consortium 1993) and the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW 2012). If no burrowing owls are found, a letter report confirming absence will be prepared and submitted to the Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Authority and no further mitigation is required.

BIO-5 To avoid impacts to nesting birds during the nesting season (January 15 through September 15), all disturbance activities should be conducted between September 16 and January 14, which is outside of the bird nesting season. If project-related work is scheduled during the nesting season (February 15 to August 30 for small bird species such as passerines; January 15 to September 15 for owls; and February 15 to September 15 for other raptors), a qualified biologist shall conduct nesting bird surveys.
a. Two surveys for active bird nests will occur within 14 days prior to start of disturbance activities, with the final survey conducted within 48 hours prior to disturbance. Appropriate minimum survey radii surrounding each work area are typically 250 feet for passerines, 500 feet for smaller raptors, and 1,000 feet for larger raptors. Surveys will be conducted at the appropriate times of day to observe nesting activities. Locations off the site to which access is not available may be surveyed from within the site or from public areas. If no nesting birds are found, a letter report confirming absence will Packet Page 120
6 EMC Planning Group Inc.
be prepared and submitted to the Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Authority and no further mitigation is required. b. If the qualified biologist documents active nests within the invasive removal, maintenance or improvement footprints or in nearby surrounding areas, an appropriate buffer between each nest and active disturbance area shall be established. The buffer shall be clearly marked and maintained until the young have fledged and are foraging independently. Prior to ground disturbance, the qualified biologist shall conduct baseline monitoring of each nest to characterize “normal” bird behavior and establish a buffer distance, which allows the birds to exhibit normal behavior. The qualified biologist shall monitor the nesting birds daily during disturbance activities and increase the buffer if birds show signs of unusual or distressed behavior (e.g., defensive flights and vocalizations, standing up from a brooding position, and/or flying away from the nest). If buffer establishment is not possible, the qualified biologist or construction foreman shall have the authority to cease all work in the area until the young have fledged and the nest is no longer active. Once the absence of nesting birds has been confirmed, a letter report will be prepared and submitted to the Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Authority.

BIO-6 Not more than 14 days prior to the commencement of ground-disturbing activities, a qualified wildlife biologist shall conduct surveys of the grassland habitat within or adjacent to invasive removal, maintenance or improvement footprints to identify any potential American badger burrows/dens. If the survey results are negative (i.e., no badger dens observed), a letter report confirming absence will be prepared and submitted to the Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Authority and no further mitigation is required.

If the results are positive (badger dens are observed), the qualified biologist shall determine if the dens are active by installing a game camera for three days and three nights to determine if the den is in use.
a. If the biologist determines that a den may be active, coordination with the CDFW shall be undertaken to develop a suitable strategy to avoid impacts to American badger. The strategy may include the following: the biologist shall install a one-way door in the den opening and continue use of the game camera. Once the camera captures the individual exiting the one-way door, the den can be excavated with hand tools to prevent badgers from reusing them. If the biologist determines that the den is a maternity den, disturbance activities shall be delayed during the maternity season Packet Page 121
EMC Planning Group Inc. 7
(February to August), or until the badgers leave the den on their own accord or the biologist determines that the den is no longer in use. b. If the game camera does not capture an individual entering/exiting the den, the den can be excavated with hand tools to prevent badgers from reusing them.

BIO-7 A qualified biologist shall conduct preconstruction surveys for woodrat nests within invasive removal, maintenance or improvement footprints. All woodrat nests shall be flagged for avoidance of direct impacts where feasible. If impacts cannot be avoided, woodrat nests shall be dismantled no more than three days prior to dismantling so that the occupants do not attempt to rebuild. Nests are to be slowly dismantled by hand in order to allow the occupants to disperse.

BIO-8 Approximately 14 days prior to tree removal or disturbance activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct a habitat assessment for bats and potential roosting sites in trees to be removed and in trees within 50 feet of invasive removal, maintenance or improvement footprints. These surveys shall include a visual inspection of potential roosting features (bats need not be present) and a search for presence of guano within the project site, access routes, and 50 feet around these areas.

Cavities, crevices, exfoliating bark, and bark fissures that could provide suitable potential nest or roost habitat for bats shall be surveyed. Assumptions can be made on what species is present due to observed visual characteristics along with habitat use, or the bats can be identified to the species level with the use of a bat echolocation detector such as an “Anabat” unit. Potential roosting features found during the survey shall be flagged or marked.

If no roosting sites or bats are found, a letter report confirming absence shall be prepared and submitted to Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Authority and no further mitigation is required.

If bats or roosting sites are found, bats shall not be disturbed without specific notice to and consultation with CDFW.

If bats are found roosting outside of the nursery season (May 1 through October 1), CDFW shall be consulted prior to any eviction or other action. If avoidance or postponement is not feasible, a Bat Eviction Plan will be submitted to CDFW for written approval prior to project implementation. A request to evict bats from a roost includes details for excluding bats from the roost site and monitoring to ensure that all bats have exited the roost prior to the start of activity and are unable to re-enter the roost until activity is completed. Any bat eviction shall be timed to avoid lactation and young-rearing. If bats are found roosting during the Packet Page 122
8 EMC Planning Group Inc.
nursery season, they shall be monitored to determine if the roost site is a maternal roost. This could occur by either visual inspection of the roost bat pups, if possible, or by monitoring the roost after the adults leave for the night to listen for bat pups. Because bat pups cannot leave the roost until they are mature enough, eviction of a maternal roost cannot occur during the nursery season. Therefore, if a maternal roost is present, a 50-foot buffer zone (or different size if determined in consultation with the CDFW) shall be established around the roosting site within which no activities including tree removal or structure disturbance shall occur until after the nursery season.

BIO-9 Arroyo willow woodland, California bulrush marsh, wetlands or estuarine habitat within 25 feet of invasive removal, maintenance or improvement footprints will be protected from disturbance. Prior to activities adjacent to arroyo willow woodland, California bulrush marsh, wetlands or estuarine habitat, a qualified botanist will erect environmentally sensitive area fencing around areas near the invasive removal, maintenance or improvement area to identify and protect sensitive plant communities or Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas.

The location of the fencing will be marked in the field with stakes and flagging.

Vegetation clearing activities, vehicle operation, material and equipment storage, and other surface-disturbing activities will be prohibited within the fenced environmentally sensitive area.

BIO-10 If avoidance cannot be accommodated within invasive removal, maintenance or improvement plans, then the Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Authority shall be responsible for ensuring the implementation of a restoration plan. The restoration plan shall be designed by a qualified biologist and shall include the following:
a. Prior to implementation of invasive removal, maintenance, or improvement activities, the location and extent of the areas to be restored will be clearly delineated and mapped. A plant palette shall be determined, with preference to plant species endemic to coastal Monterey County. The plant palette used for restoration will be reviewed and approved by the Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Authority.
b. The restoration plan will include seed collection and transplantation/preservation or restoration/preservation guidelines.

Maintenance activities may include, but not be limited to, watering during the plant establishment period, supplemental seed planting as needed, and removal of non-native invasive plants. Monitoring will occur for a minimum of five years after mitigation area installation to verify that Packet Page 123
EMC Planning Group Inc. 9
restoration activities have been successful and will include, at a minimum, quarterly monitoring reports for the first year and annual reports for the remaining four years.
c. The abundance of annual plants naturally varies from year to year depending on multiple factors including disturbance and rainfall. The performance standard for successful mitigation will be a minimum 2:1 replacement ratio (i.e. two plants observed in the restoration area for each plant lost from the impact area) during at least one spring occurring in year 3, 4, or 5 after installation. The plan will contain options for corrective action and extended maintenance/monitoring if the performance standard is not achieved during the 5-year monitoring period.
d. During each monitoring effort undertaken in the restoration area, a qualified biologist will conduct a comparison of spring survey conditions from the previous year(s) and prepare a written report for the Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Authority. If adaptive management (corrective measures) are warranted, a description and recommendation will be included in the annual report.

BIO-11 Prior to disturbance in or within 25 feet adjacent to wetlands, a qualified biologist will prepare a wetland delineation to determine the extent of potential wetlands and waterways regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and California Department of Fish and Wildlife. If the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers claims jurisdiction, the Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Authority will retain a qualified biologist to obtain a Clean Water Act Section 404 Nationwide Permit. If the impacts to the drainage features do not qualify for a Nationwide Permit, the Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Authority shall proceed with the qualified biologist in obtaining an Individual Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Authority will also retain a qualified biologist to coordinate with the Regional Water Quality Control Board to obtain a Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification. If necessary, the Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Authority will also retain a qualified biologist to coordinate with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to obtain a Streambed Alteration Agreement.

To compensate for temporary and/or permanent impacts to jurisdictional features that would be impacted as a result of the proposed project, mitigation shall be provided as required by the regulatory permits. Mitigation would be provided through one of the following mechanisms:

Packet Page 124
10 EMC Planning Group Inc.
i. A Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall be developed that will outline mitigation and monitoring obligations for temporary impacts to wetlands and other waters as a result of disturbance activities. The Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan would include thresholds of success, monitoring and reporting requirements, and site-specific plans to compensate for wetland losses resulting from the project. The Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall be submitted to the appropriate regulatory agencies for review and approval during the permit application process.

Or
ii. To compensate for permanent impacts, the purchase and/or dedication of land to provide suitable wetland restoration or creation shall ensure a no net loss of wetland values or functions. If restoration is available and feasible, a minimum 1:1 mitigation to impact ratio would apply to projects for which mitigation is provided in advance.

BIO-12 Per section 8.54.060 of the Seaside City Ordinance, the zoning administrator, or his designee (a qualified forester or arborist) will prepare a report on trees based on the applicant’s plans and a site inspection of the land. Implementation of specific protections for preserved trees during disturbance activities will be followed; and replacement plantings for damaged or removed trees will be installed.

Cultural Resources
CR-1 If any archeological, prehistoric, or historic subsurface resources, including tribal cultural resources, are discovered during ground-disturbing (including tree and vegetation removal, path widening):
a. All work within 50- meter (165 feet) shall be halted and a qualified archaeologist shall be consulted to assess the significance of the finding according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.

Packet Page 125
EMC Planning Group Inc. 11
b. If any find is determined to be significant, representatives from the City of Monterey Recreation Department and the archaeologist shall meet to determine the appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation.
c. All significant prehistoric cultural materials and or tribal cultural resources recovered shall be; returned to Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the area.
d. In considering any suggested mitigation proposed by the consulting archaeologist to mitigate impacts to historical resources or unique archaeological resources, the City shall determine whether avoidance is necessary and feasible in light of factors such as the nature of the find, proposed project design, costs, and other considerations. e. If avoidance is infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g., data recovery) would be implemented.
f. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while mitigation for historical resources or unique archaeological resources is being carried out.

CR-2 California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e) contain the mandated procedures of conduct following the discovery of human remains. According to the provisions in CEQA, if human remains are encountered at the site, all work in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall cease and necessary steps to ensure the integrity of the immediate area shall be taken. The Monterey County Coroner shall be notified immediately.

The Coroner shall then determine whether the remains are Native American. If the Coroner determines the remains are Native American, the Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours, who would, in turn, notify the person the Native American Heritage Commission identifies as the Most Likely Descendant of any human remains. Further actions shall be determined, in part, by the desires of the Most Likely Descendant. The Most Likely Descendant has 48 hours to make recommendations regarding the disposition of the remains following notification from the Native American Heritage Commission of the discovery. If the Most Likely Descendant does not make recommendations within 48 hours, the owner shall, with appropriate dignity, reinter the remains in an area of the property secure from further disturbance. Alternatively, if the owner does not accept the Most Likely Descendant’s recommendations, the owner or the descendent may request mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission.

Packet Page 126
12 EMC Planning Group Inc.

Geology and Soils
GEO-1 All construction personnel must receive paleontological resources awareness training that includes information on the possibility of encountering fossils during construction; the types of fossils likely to be seen, based on past finds in the project area; and proper procedures in the event fossils are encountered.

Worker training shall be prepared and presented by a qualified paleontologist.

The Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Authority shall document evidence of completion of this training prior to ground disturbance GEO-2 If vertebrae fossils are discovered during construction, all work within 50 feet of the discovery shall stop immediately until a qualified professional paleontologist can assess the nature and importance of the find and recommend appropriate treatment. Treatment may include avoidance, if feasible, preservation in place, or preparation and recovery of fossil materials so that they can be housed in an appropriate museum or university collection and may also include preparation of a report for publication describing the finds.

Tribal Cultural Resources
TCR-1 The Laguna Grande Regional Park JPA will notify the KaKoon Ta Ruk Band of Ohlone-Costanoan Indians of the Big Sur Rancheria two-weeks prior to any earthmoving activity and the Tribe’s cultural resource specialist(s) will be allowed onsite for monitoring. Appropriate safety protocols shall be adhered to by all people on-site during the project or site access may be revoked. The Tribe’s treatment protocol should be implemented.

Packet Page 127
EMC Planning Group Inc.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. BACKGROUND..................................................................................................................... 1 B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED............................................. 15 C. DETERMINATION.............................................................................................................. 16 D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ............................................................. 17

1. Aesthetics.............................................................................................................................. 18

2. Agriculture and Forest Resources...................................................................................... 20

3. Air Quality............................................................................................................................. 22

4. Biological Resources............................................................................................................ 25

5. Cultural Resources............................................................................................................... 50

6. Energy.................................................................................................................................... 53

7. Geology and Soils ................................................................................................................ 54

8. Greenhouse Gas Emissions............................................................................................... 58

9. Hazards and Hazardous Materials..................................................................................... 59

10. Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................................ 61

11. Land Use and Planning ....................................................................................................... 64

12. Mineral Resources................................................................................................................ 65

13. Noise...................................................................................................................................... 66

14. Population and Housing ..................................................................................................... 68

15. Public Services...................................................................................................................... 69

16. Recreation ............................................................................................................................. 70

17. Transportation...................................................................................................................... 71

18. Tribal Cultural Resources ................................................................................................... 72

19. Utilities and Services Systems............................................................................................. 74

20. Wildfire .................................................................................................................................. 76

21. Mandatory Findings of Significance.................................................................................. 77 E. SOURCES............................................................................................................................. 79 Packet Page 128
EMC Planning Group Inc.

Appendices
Appendix A Draft – Laguna Grande Regional Park Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy Appendix B Special-Status Species in the Project Vicinity Figures
Figure 1 Location Map .................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 2 Aerial Photograph............................................................................................................. 7 Figure 3 Site Photographs............................................................................................................... 9 Figure 4 Overall Site Plan - North............................................................................................... 11 Figure 5 Overall Site Plan - South ............................................................................................... 13 Figure 6 Special-Status Species Known to Occur in the Project Vicinity.............................. 29 Figure 7 National Wetlands Inventory........................................................................................ 45 Tables
Table 1 North Central Coast Air Basin Attainment Status .................................................... 23 Packet Page 129
Section A Background 1 EMC Planning Group
Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy January 2023 A. BACKGROUND
The Laguna Grande Regional Park (“park”) is largely comprised of an emergent wetland with a system of trails for the public use. The park consists of approximately 13.3 acres; 80.5 percent (10.7 acres) of which is located within the City of Seaside and 19.5 percent (2.6 acres) located within the City of Monterey. The entire park, with the exception of a small portion adjacent to Canyon Del Rey Boulevard, is located within the Coastal Zone. It’s nestled between Del Monte Boulevard to the north, Canyon Del Rey Boulevard to the east, and Fremont Boulevard and the City of Del Rey Oaks to the south. The park is located south of State Route 1, approximately one-half mile north of the Monterey Regional Airport, and five miles southwest of the California State University Monterey Bay campus. The park is surrounded by urban development on all sides, with commercial to the north, residential to the east, commercial and residential to the south, and residential to the west.

Figure 1, Location Map, shows the location of the project and Figure 2, Aerial Photograph, illustrates the park and its surroundings.

Project Title Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation
Maintenance Strategy
Lead Agency Contact Person
and Phone Number
Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers
Agency
831-646-3910
Date Prepared December 5, 2022
Study Prepared by EMC Planning Group Inc.
601 Abrego Street
Monterey, CA 93940
Project Location 401 Virgin Ave, Monterey, CA 93940
Project Sponsor Name and Address Chris Schmidt
Joint Powers Authority of Monterey
(Monterey Representative)
[email protected]
Local Coastal Program/General Plan
Designation
City of Seaside: Coastal Parks and Open
Space (CPOS)
City of Monterey: Parks and Open Space
Zoning City of Seaside: Coastal Parks and Open
Space (CPOS)
City of Monterey: Open Space
Packet Page 130
Section A Background 2 EMC Planning Group
Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy January 2023 Laguna Grande Regional Park is managed separately by their respective owners and operators, Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District (MPRPD), City of Seaside, and City of Monterey. The portion of the park within the City of Seaside is completely within the coastal zone and is guided by the policies and implementation contained in the City of Seaside Local Coastal Program (“LCP”).

Background
Laguna Grande Lake was once a flowing estuary called the Canyon Del Rey Creek, collecting runoff from the 16.8 square mile Canyon Del Rey watershed and flowing into the Monterey Bay.

Laguna Grande Lake and Roberts Lake, which existed as a single body of water, were separated in the 1880s by the Southern Pacific Railroad. Over time, the surrounding landscape developed and populations grew, the creek, the wetlands and estuary slowly filled and eventually were cut off from the bay. Slowly landfill operations filled in the marsh areas and edges of the lakes transforming this body of water into its current state.

In 1950, the County of Monterey established Laguna Grande Regional Park. In 1976, the cities of Seaside and Monterey and MRPD formed the Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Agency (JPA) to coordinate the development and maintenance of the park.

Several plans have previously been prepared and adopted for the area. In 1976, the JPA adopted Seaside’s 1975 conceptual plan (Laguna Grande Redevelopment General Conceptual Plan) as its first step in preparation of a master plan for the park. In 1978, the Laguna Grande Regional Park Master Plan and EIR Addendum (Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Agency) (master plan) was prepared for Laguna Grande jointly by the cities of Monterey and Seaside and the Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District. However, the master plan was never fully implemented. The northern end of the park was built out with playgrounds, fields and park facilities. The south end of the park, meant to become an extension of the lake, was not completed due to lack of funds.

Description of Project
Project Summary
The proposed project involves updates to the Laguna Grande Regional Park Trail Maintenance Strategy (Appendix A) by way of maintenance and enhancement of the existing trail system. The purpose is to provide the JPA with a clear set of priorities and means for maintaining the trails and vegetation throughout the park. The project will implement maintenance strategies to create a more accessible, safe, and long-lasting park for the surrounding community and region.

The following are some of the key items the project will include:

Seasonal Trail Development
 Provide eight-foot-wide seasonal mulch trails through southern riparian woodland with seasonal foot bridges for creek crossing; and
 Mitigate habitat removal with invasive removal and restoration planting.

Packet Page 131
Section A Background 3 EMC Planning Group
Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy January 2023 Vegetation Clearing
 Clearing and limbing around trail curves and corners as well as around illegal camp sites to improve access for monitoring and cleaning; and
 Clearing at docks.

Trail Maintenance and Improvements
 Replace sections of trail impacted by root damage or erosion and repair/replace culverts under trails;
 Add mulch seasonally to portions of seasonal trail that are degraded; and  Provide formal trail connection to Fremont Boulevard and along Virgin Street.

Accessibility Improvements
 Restore accessibility to north bridge and install accessible paths to docks to make compliant with local building codes;
 Repair areas with trip hazards; and
 Provide trail connection with anticipated Fort Ord Trail and Greenway Project (FORTAG) segment that will travel through the park utilizing the existing trail and provide access to trail users from Del Monte Boulevard to the north and from the corner of Freemont Street and canyon Del Rey to the south.

Invasive Species Removal and Restoration Planting
 Restore native plantings where invasives are fully removed; and  Create new native habitat along southern gravel trail.

Lighting
 Repair or replace existing lighting; and
 Extend new lighting along the southern gravel trail.

Figure 3, Site Photographs, provides a visual of the existing conditions at the park. Figure 4, Overall Site Plan - North, and Figure 5, Overall Site Plan – South, include the proposed project’s site plan for the north and south sides of the property.

Project Goals
The project provides direction to meet the regulations for maintenance of sensitive habitats and around bodies of water set forth by the state and federal government agencies.

The stated goals of the project are:

1. Address Encampment, Health and Safety Concerns;

2. Improve Personal Safety; and

3. Maintain and Improve Quality of Natural Resources.

Packet Page 132
Section A Background 4 EMC Planning Group
Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy January 2023 Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required
 City of Monterey;
 City of Seaside;
 Regional Water Quality Control Board; and
 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.?
The tribe KaKoon Ta Ruk band of Ohlone-Costanoan Indians of the Big Sur Rancheria (“Tribe”) requested consultation. The Tribe did not provide its treatment protocol for environmental review. The JPA concluded the consultation process without incorporating additional mitigation measures recommended by the Tribe.

Note: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process. (See Public Resources Code section 21080.3.2.) Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per Public Resources Code section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that Public Resources Code section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.

Packet Page 133
k
Project Site
Source: ESRI 2014
Figure 1
Location Map
Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy – Initial Study 0 2 miles
Project
Location
£¤101
UV1 £¤101
k
Salinas
UV152 Gilroy
San Jose
San Francisco
Modesto
Santa Cruz
Monterey
Seaside
§¨¦580
§¨¦5
§¨¦280
§¨¦680
UV1
UV99
Regional Location UV1
UV68
UV68
UV1
UV1
UV1
Marina
Seaside
Monterey
Pacific
Grove Sand
City
·••--------
Packet Page 134
Section A Background 6 EMC Planning Group
Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy January 2023 This side intentionally left blank.

Packet Page 135
Aerial Photograph
Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy – Initial Study 0 500 feet
Figure 2
Source: Monterey County GIS 2022, Google Earth 2022
Seaside Branch
Library
Seaside City
Hall
Residences
Residences
Canyon Del Rey Blvd.

Fremont Blvd.

Laguna Grande
Lake
Commercial Uses
State Route 1
Del Rey Oaks
Seaside
Monterey
Del Monte Blvd.

Residences
Commercial Uses
Roberts
Lake
Coastal Zone
Coastal Zone
Coastal Zone
Laguna Grande Park Boundary
Parcels Not Included in Project
City Boundary
Parcels
Coastal Zone
•••
Packet Page 136
Section A Background 8 EMC Planning Group
Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy January 2023 This side intentionally left blank.

Packet Page 137
4 3 2
1 On the north side of the project site facing south
across laguna Grande Lake. 4
3 On Branner Avenue facing the park’s soccer field.
2 On the southside of the project site facing southwest.

On the northeast side of the project site facing
southwest across Laguna Grande Lake. 1
Seaside BBQ/Picnic Area
The western edge of the park also has traditional park programming with a synthetic turf soccer fi restroom facility, playground, synthetic turf volleyball court, BBQ and picnic areas. There is al riparian woodland with seasonal mulch trails.

Monterey Volleyball Court Monterey Soccer Field

TOPOGRAPHY
The property rises from 12-feet above sea level at the lake water level to 50-feet above sea lev the southern end along Fremont Boulevard and Laguna Grande Court. The southern end of the functions like a valley between two 30-foot slopes to the east, south and west. The slopes level o they move north towards the lake. The majority of the site sits 6-feet to 8-feet above the lake w level and is relatively flat and accessible.

VEGETATION
The Park, with its unique aquatic features, hosts a wide variety of vegetation. Much of this vegeta is native to the region and provides habitat for various wildlife but has been impacted by the sp of invasive species. See appendix A and B. Vegetation is maintained by the cities on a weekly b with a focus on the traditional park areas. Special maintenance activities, such as tree limbing trail clearing, are performed a few times throughout the year. Dense vegetation throughout the obstructs sight lines along the trail and to the docks and is a safety concern.

Photographs: EMC Planning Group 2021,
Laguna Grande Reginal Park
Joint Powers Authority 2022
Source: Google Earth 2022
Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy – Initial Study Site Photographs
Figure 3
Project Site
-
0 0
0 0
Packet Page 138
Section A Background 10 EMC Planning Group
Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy January 2023 This side intentionally left blank.

Packet Page 139

























































































































































 

 


























 

















Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy – Initial Study Overall Site Plan - North
Figure 4
Source: Laguna Grande Regional Park
Joint Powers Authority 2022 0 300 feet
Packet Page 140
Section A Background 12 EMC Planning Group
Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy January 2023 This side intentionally left blank.

Packet Page 141







































































  






































 



 

 



































 




Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy – Initial Study Overall Site Plan - South
Figure 5
Source: Laguna Grande Regional Park
0 300 feet Joint Powers Authority 2022
Packet Page 142
Section A Background 14 EMC Planning Group
Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy January 2023 This side intentionally left blank.

Packet Page 143
Section B Environmental Factors Potentially Affected 15 EMC Planning Group Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy January 2023 B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
☐ Aesthetics ☐ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ☐ Public Services ☐ Agriculture and Forestry
Resources
☐ Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
☐ Recreation
☐ Air Quality ☐ Hydrology/Water Quality ☐ Transportation ☐ Biological Resources ☐ Land Use/Planning ☐ Tribal Cultural Resources ☐ Cultural Resources ☐ Mineral Resources ☐ Utilities/Service Systems ☐ Energy ☐ Noise ☐ Wildfire
☐ Geology/Soils ☐ Population/Housing ☐ Mandatory Findings of Significance
Packet Page 144
Section C Determination 16 EMC Planning Group
Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy January 2023 C. DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
☐ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
☒ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
☐ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
☐ I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
☐ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Name and Title Date
Packet Page 145
Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 17 EMC Planning Group Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy January 2023 D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Notes

1. All answers take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as onsite, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

2. Once it has been determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

3. “Negative Declaration: Less-Than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less-Than-Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less-than-significant level (mitigation measures from section XVII, “Earlier Analyses,” may be cross-referenced).

4. Earlier analyses are used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. [Section 15063(c)(3)(D)] In this case, a brief discussion would identify the following:
a. “Earlier Analysis Used” identifies and states where such document is available for review.
b. “Impact Adequately Addressed” identifies which effects from the checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and states whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c. “Mitigation Measures”—For effects that are “Less-Than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” mitigation measures are described which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

5. Checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances, etc.) are incorporated. Each reference to a previously prepared or outside document, where appropriate, includes a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

6. “Supporting Information Sources”—A source list is attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted are cited in the discussion.

7. The explanation of each issue identifies:
a. The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b. The mitigation measure identified, if any to reduce the impact to less than significant.

Packet Page 146
Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 18 EMC Planning Group Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy – Initial Study January 2023

1. AESTHETICS
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099 (Modernization of Transportation Analysis for Transit-Oriented Infill Projects), would the project:

Comments:
a. The proposed project includes the maintenance and enhancement of the existing trail system at the Laguna Grande Regional Park. The Laguna Grande Regional Park is identified within the City of Seaside’s LCP and the City of Monterey General Plan as a visual resource. The following policy from the LCP applies to the project:

Policy NCR-LG 2.1.B – Management of Visual Resources
i. Coordinate with the Regional Park District to provide viewshed improvements to areas identified on Figure 2-4 as a component of Coastal Visitor-Serving Commercial land use development and park improvements proposed for Laguna Grande.
ii. The City shall develop Gateway Guidelines for the Fremont Corridor adjacent to Laguna Grande Park.

The following policy from the City of Monterey General Plan applies to the project:

Policy d.3.

Coordinate with the City of Seaside to assure that Roberts Lake and Laguna Grande remain as marsh habitat and scenic resources for both Seaside and Monterey.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those
that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage
points.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would
the project conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Packet Page 147
Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 19 EMC Planning Group Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy – Initial Study January 2023 The proposed project complies with Policy NCR-LG 2.1.Bi through its intent on enhancing and preserving the park and its trails and clearing invasive species vegetation that has overgrown and blocked views of the Laguna Grande Lake. The scenic resource (i.e., Laguna Grande Regional Park) would benefit from implementation of the proposed project occurring. The proposed project complies with Policy d.3 as it is a collaborative effort to maintain and enhance the exiting habitat and scenic resources for both Seaside and Monterey.
b. The nearest state scenic highway is the eligible portion of State Route 1 located approximately 0.17 miles west of the site (it is eligible from the intersection of Fremont Boulevard going north and the official state designated portion of State Route 1 is from this intersection going south). The official state designated portion of State Route 1 is located approximately one mile southwest of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. c. The project site is within an urbanized area on the border of the cities of Seaside and Monterey. The proposed project involves the maintenance and enhancement of the existing trail system within Laguna Grande Regional Park and would have no conflicts with the zoning of the project site or other regulations governing scenic quality. The proposed project would be in compliance, and beneficial, to the regulations governing scenic quality in the area because the purpose of the project is to preserve and enhance the scenic quality of the Laguna Grande Regional Park.
d. The proposed project includes repairing existing lighting and extending new lighting in areas where the park trail has no ambient street lighting. However, the lighting involved with the project would be minimal and is meant for the safety of trail users. There would be no glare concerns with this project.

Although the project would create new sources of light, these sources would be minor and down-casted for the safety of the public using the trails and, therefore, would not significantly affect day or nighttime views in the area.

Packet Page 148
Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 20 EMC Planning Group Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy – Initial Study January 2023

2. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts on agricultural resources are significant environmental effects and in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:

Comments:
a. The project site does not contain any prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. Therefore, the project would not convert these farmlands to nonagricultural use.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by Government
Code section 51104(g))?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e. Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Packet Page 149
Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 21 EMC Planning Group Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy – Initial Study January 2023 b. The project site does not include any farmlands, therefore, there are no conflicts with Williamson Act contracts. The project site is zoned Coastal Parks and Open Space (CPOS) (City of Seaside) and Open Space (City of Monterey) and, therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use. c. The project site is zoned Coastal Parks and Open Space (CPOS) (City of Seaside) and Open Space (City of Monterey). There are also no forest lands or timberland zones within the City of Seaside; therefore, the project would not conflict with the existing zoning of forest lands or timberlands.
d. The project site is zoned Coastal Parks and Open Space (CPOS) (City of Seaside) and Open Space (City of Monterey). Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. e. The project site is zoned Coastal Parks and Open Space (CPOS) (City of Seaside) and Open Space (City of Monterey) and would not involve other changes in the existing environment which result in the conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.

Packet Page 150
Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 22 EMC Planning Group Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy – Initial Study January 2023

3. AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.

Would the project:

Comments:
a. The project site is located in the North Central Coast Air Basin (hereinafter “air basin”), which is under the jurisdiction of the Monterey Bay Air Resources District (hereinafter “air district”). Regional air districts must prepare air quality plans specifying how state air quality standards will be met. The air district’s currently adopted plan is 2012-2015 Air Quality Management Plan. The air district specifies air quality management plan consistency for population-related projects only. The proposed project involves improvements to the Laguna Grande Regional Park, which would not result in an increase in population.

Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
b. The air district is responsible for monitoring air quality in the air basin, which is designated, under state criteria, as a nonattainment area for ozone and suspended particulate matter (PM10). Under federal criteria, the air basin is at attainment (8-hour standard) for ozone and particulates. Table 1, North Central Coast Air Basin Attainment Status, presents a summary of attainment status with federal and state standards.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
nonattainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
d. Result in other emissions, such as those leading to
odors adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Packet Page 151
Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 23 EMC Planning Group Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy – Initial Study January 2023 Table 1 North Central Coast Air Basin Attainment Status Pollutant California Standards National Standards
O3 Non-attainment Attainment
PM10 Non-attainment Attainment
PM2.5 Attainment Attainment
CO Unclassified (San Benito County) Attainment
NO2 Attainment Attainment
SO2 Attainment Attainment
Pb Attainment Attainment
SOURCE: Monterey Bay Air Resources District 2017
As identified in Table 1, with respect to national standards, the air basin has achieved attainment.

The air district has developed criteria pollutant emissions thresholds, which are used to determine whether or not a proposed project would violate an air quality standard or contribute to an existing violation during operations and/or construction. A significant environmental impact would occur if the proposed project would generate emissions that would exceed state thresholds for criteria air pollutants.

Operational Impacts
Based on the air district’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (hereinafter “air district CEQA Guidelines”), a project would have a significant operational air quality impact if it would:
 Emit 137 pounds per day or more of direct and indirect volatile organic compounds (VOC);
 Emit 137 pounds per day or more of direct and indirect nitrogen oxides (NOx);  Directly emit 550 pounds per day or more of carbon monoxide (CO);  Emit 82 pounds per day or more of suspended particulate matter (PM10) on‐site and from vehicle travel on unpaved roads off-site; or
 Directly emit 150 pounds per day or more of sulfur oxides (SOx).

The proposed project involves maintenance of the Laguna Grande Regional Park. During operations, the only energy demand would be the electricity used for the existing and proposed lighting sources along the park trails. This planned source of energy demand would replace the existing source of energy demand from the lights and create new sources of energy through the extension of new lighting on park trails that have no ambient street light. Air emissions from this electricity generation would not significantly increase relative to existing baseline conditions. Therefore, the project would not contribute to cumulative operational air emissions in the air basin and would have no cumulative impact.

Packet Page 152
Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 24 EMC Planning Group Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy – Initial Study January 2023 Construction Impacts
Pursuant to the air district’s CEQA Guidelines, if activities disturb more than 2.2 acres then dust control measures are needed. As a park maintenance project, the amount of surface disturbance that would occur on any given day would be minimal and less than

2.2 acres. Therefore, fugitive dust emissions impacts would be less than significant.

However, it is recommended that hand tools are used where possible and mechanical equipment greater than 50 horsepower must meet the Environmental Protection Agency’s Tier 3 engines. Further, the use of electric equipment should be minimized as much as possible.
c. According to the air district CEQA Guidelines, a sensitive receptor is generally defined as any residence including private homes, condominiums, apartments, and living quarters; education resources such as preschools and kindergarten through grade twelve (K-12) schools; daycare centers; and health care facilities such as hospitals or retirement and nursing homes.

The proposed project involves minimal construction activities as it is all maintenance and enhancement of the existing trail system. However, the project site is surrounded by residences to the west and east.

The project would not require intensive use of diesel-powered construction equipment that would generate significant diesel exhaust containing toxic air contaminants. Further, dust emissions should be minimal as described in “b” above. Nevertheless, the adjacent sensitive receptors could be exposed to pollutant concentrations that could conservatively be considered potentially significant. The Joint Powers Authority will implement the following measure to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.

Mitigation Measure
AQ-1 All construction equipment will be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications and will be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator. All non-road diesel construction equipment will, at a minimum, meet Tier 3 emission standards listed in the Code of Federal Regulations Title 40, Part 89, Subpart B, §89.112. Further, where feasible, construction equipment will use alternative fuels such as compressed natural gas, propane, electricity or biodiesel. d. The proposed project, as a maintenance and enhancement project of the existing Laguna Grande Regional Park’s trail system, would not produce new odors during operation. The minimal activities that would occur during the implementation phase would not involve demolition or substantial grading activities that could temporarily generate objectionable odors.

Packet Page 153
Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 25 EMC Planning Group Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy – Initial Study January 2023

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Comments:

This section is based on reconnaissance‐level biological field surveys and focused plant surveys conducted by EMC Planning Group biologist Patrick Furtado, M.S., on May 18, May 24, and June 15, 2021, to document existing plant communities/wildlife habitats and evaluate the potential for special‐status species to occur on the project site. Biological resources were documented in field notes, including species observed, dominant plant communities, significant wildlife habitat characteristics, and riparian and wetland habitat. Qualitative estimations of plant cover, structure, and spatial changes in species composition were used to determine plant Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife
or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US
Fish and Wildlife Service?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.), through direct
removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Packet Page 154
Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 26 EMC Planning Group Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy – Initial Study January 2023 communities and wildlife habitats. Habitat quality and disturbance levels were also described. The results of the focused plant surveys are included in the Laguna Grande Regional Park Vegetation Mapping and Focused Plant Survey Results [Appendix A of the Laguna Grande Regional Park Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy (“Maintenance Strategy”), which is Appendix A of this initial study) BFS 2022].

Prior to conducting the surveys, Mr. Furtado reviewed aerial photographs, natural resource database mapping and reports, and other relevant scientific literature. This included searching the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Endangered Species Database (USFWS 2021), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CDFW 2021), and California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (CNPS 2021) to identify special-status plants, wildlife, and habitats known to occur in the vicinity of the project site. Special-status species in this report are those listed as Endangered, Threatened, or Rare, or as Candidates for listing by the USFWS and/or CDFW; as Species of Special Concern or Fully Protected species by the CDFW; or as Rare Plant Rank 1B or 2B species by the CNPS.

Critical habitat is a designation used by the USFWS for specific geographic areas that contain features essential to the conservation of an endangered or threatened species and that may require special management and protection. The project site is not within a critical habitat area.

The Laguna Grande Regional Park Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy (“Maintenance Strategy”, BFS 2022) includes three major goals, one of which is to maintain and improve the quality of natural resources through the preservation and protection of existing habitat, removal of invasive vegetation, and the mitigation of habitat disturbance as a result of vegetation removal. Appendix B of the Maintenance Strategy identifies specific guidelines for invasive, non-native plant removal/control.

Laguna Grande Regional Park contains over 13 acres of native plant and wildlife habitat and is a refuge for over 200 species of migratory and resident birds. Three dominant habitat types were identified during the reconnaissance-level biological survey of the project site: arroyo willow woodland, California bulrush marsh, and ruderal/weedy vegetation. These habitats are described in detail below and are shown in Figures 1 and 2 of the focused plant survey report in Appendix A of the Maintenance Strategy (Appendix A of this initial study).

Arroyo Willow Woodland. The most extensive plant community at Laguna Grande Park is the arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis) riparian woodland. This native plant community grows in discontinuous patches along the shoreline of the lake and forms a dense and wide woodland along Canyon del Rey Creek south of the lake. Other riparian tree species found with arroyo willow are box elder (Acer negundo), black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa), and Pacific willow (Salix lasiandra). Abundant soil moisture allows the growth of a well-developed understory composed of native shrubs including California blackberry (Rubus ursinus), poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), and creek dogwood (Cornus sericea). Ground cover consists of mugwort (Artemisia douglasiana), hedge nettle (Stachys bullata), and giant horsetail (Equisetum telmateia var. braunii). Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) grow on the drier edge of the riparian corridor.

Packet Page 155
Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 27 EMC Planning Group Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy – Initial Study January 2023 The park has perhaps the largest extent of native arroyo willow woodland in the local urban landscape and each spring and summer the wetland provides home to hundreds of nesting birds such as downy woodpecker (Dryobates pubescens), chestnut-backed chickadee (Poecile rufescens), Swainson’s thrush (Catharus ustulatus), Hutton’s vireo (Vireo huttoni), orange-crowned warbler (Leiothlypis celata), and Wilson’s warbler (Cardellina pusilla) (Roberson 2002).

The arroyo willow woodland riparian vegetation is dense and structurally complex making this community exceptionally diverse. Bird diversity is especially high and includes visiting species from the American tropics. These birds are known as Neotropical migrants and include stunningly attractive species such as Townsend’s warbler (Setophaga townsendi) and yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia). Abundant riparian food and cover allow them to nest successfully before returning to their winter accommodations in the tropics.

The riparian habitat makes Laguna Grande Park one of the top bird watching hotspots on the Central Coast. In fact, clumps of willow growing at creek and river mouths along the Central Coast are a specialized habitat known as “vagrant traps.” Clumps of willow attract misoriented migrating birds in the spring and fall. These “vagrants” are sometimes thousands of miles from their regular migration corridors and offer rare bird observations (Roberson 2002).

The freshwater lake ringed by the arroyo willow woodland also provides excellent resting and foraging habitat to numerous waterfowl including Canada goose (Branta canadensis), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), bufflehead (Bucephala albeola), ruddy duck (Oxyura jamaicensis), double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus), and pied-billed grebe (Podilymbus podiceps).

California Bulrush Marsh. California bulrush (Schoenoplectus californicus) grows in patches, often alternating with willow, along the lake shoreline. Also commonly called tule, bulrush is dominant in the herbaceous layer with other associated wetland plants such as broad-leaved cattail (Typha latifolia), Pacific silverweed (Potentilla anserina), fat hen (Atriplex prostrata), fleshy jaumea (Jaumea carnosa), willow herb (Epilobium ciliatum), Pacific oenanthe (Oenanthe sarmentosa), and curly dock (Rumex crispus). Emergent trees and shrubs may be present at low cover including arroyo willow, pacific willow, creek dogwood, California blackberry, and poison oak.

This marsh habitat supports a wealth of bird and other wildlife such as red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), sora (Porzana carolina), Virginia rail (Rallus limicola), green heron (Butorides virescens), black-crowned night-heron (Nycticorax nycticorax), marsh wren (Cistothorus palustris), and the strikingly beautiful common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichus). The emergent marsh vegetation provides food, nest sites, and materials.

Ruderal Vegetation. Areas of ruderal vegetation are found in pockets on the west side of Laguna Grande Lake and in the southernmost area of the park near Fremont Street. Ruderal refers to disturbed habitat and is characterized by weedy, non-native grasses such as ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), wild oats (Avena fatua), and foxtail barley (Hordeum murinum). These grasses are mostly introduced from Europe and are highly adapted to the Mediterranean climate of California. Other invasive plant species are also dominant here and include Italian thistle (Carduus Packet Page 156
Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 28 EMC Planning Group Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy – Initial Study January 2023 pycnocephalus), wild radish (Raphanus sativus), fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), French broom (Genista monspessulana), poison hemlock (Conium maculatum), wild mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), and bristly ox-tongue (Helminthotheca echioides).
a. Special-Status Species. Special-status species are those listed as Endangered, Threatened, or Rare, or as Candidates for listing by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or CDFW under the state and/or federal Endangered Species Acts. The special-status designation also includes CDFW Species of Special Concern and Fully Protected species, California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Rare Plant Rank 1B and 2B species, and other locally rare species that meet the criteria for listing as described in Section 15380 of CEQA Guidelines. Special-status species are generally rare, restricted in distribution, declining throughout their range, or have a critical, vulnerable stage in their life cycle that warrants monitoring.

A search of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) was conducted for the target Seaside USGS quadrangle, and eight surrounding quadrangles (Monterey OE N, Marina, Salinas, Monterey, Spreckels, Soberanes Point, Mount Carmel, and Carmel Valley) to generate a list of potentially occurring special-status wildlife species in the project vicinity (CDFW 2021). Records of occurrence for special-status plants were also reviewed for those twelve USGS quadrangles in the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (CNPS 2021). A U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Endangered Species Program threatened and endangered species list was generated for San Benito County (USFWS 2021). Appendix B, Special-Status Species in the Project Vicinity, presents tables with CNDDB results, which lists special-status species documented within the project vicinity, their listing status and suitable habitat description, and their potential to occur on the site. Figure 6, Special-Status Species Known to Occur in the Project Vicinity, presents a map with CNDDB results.

Special-Status Plant Species. Of the special-status plant species known to occur in the project vicinity identified in Appendix B, the following species have the potential to occur on the project site: arcuate bush-mallow (Malacothamnus arcuatus), bent-flowered fiddleneck (Amsinckia lunaris), blue coast gilia (Gilia capitata ssp. chamissonis), Choris' popcorn-flower (Plagiobothrys chorisianus var. chorisianus), coast triquetrella (Triquetrella californica), Diablo helianthella (Helianthella castanea), fragrant fritillary (Fritillaria liliacea), Franciscan thistle (Cirsium andrewsii), Hickman's cinquefoil (Potentilla hickmanii), Kellogg’s horkelia (Horkelia cuneata ssp. sericea), pappose tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. parryi), perennial goldfields (Lasthenia californica ssp. macrantha), rose leptosiphon (Leptosiphon rosaceus), San Francisco Bay spineflower (Chorizanthe cuspidata var. cuspidata), San Francisco campion (Silene verecunda ssp. verecunda), San Francisco owl's-clover (Triphysaria floribunda), and western leatherwood (Dirca occidentalis).

Packet Page 157
Monterey
pine
Monterey pine
Monterey pine Monterey pine
Eastwood's
goldenbush
Eastwood's
goldenbush
American
badger
Salinas
harvest
mouse
Kellogg's
horkelia
Jolon clarkia
Central
Maritime
Chaparral
Monterey
shrew
Eastwood's
goldenbush
seaside
bird's-beak
Smith's blue
butterfly
burrowing owl
northern
curly-leaved
monardella
northern curly-leaved
monardella
northern
curly-leaved
monardella
Yadon's rein orchid
Yadon's
rein orchid
Yadon's
rein
orchid
Yadon's
rein orchid
Pajaro
manzanita
sandmat manzanita sandmat
manzanita
sandmat
manzanita
sandmat
manzanita
sandmat
manzanita
sandmat
manzanita
sandmat manzanita
sandmat manzanita
globose
dune beetle Eastwood's
goldenbush
pine rose
sand-loving wallflower
Northern
California
legless lizard
Northern
California
legless lizard
Northern California
legless
lizard
Monterey spineflower
Monterey
spineflower
Monterey spineflower
Monterey spineflower
Northern
California
legless lizard
Northern California
legless
lizard
Northern
California
legless lizard
Northern
California legless
lizard
Northern
California
legless lizard
sand-loving
wallflower
Monterey
spineflower
Monterey spineflower
Monterey gilia
sandmat manzanita
Monterey
gilia
Eastwood's goldenbush
Monterey
spineflower
Northern California
legless
lizard
sand-loving
wallflower
sand-loving
wallflower
Monterey
spineflower
Monarch
0 1,400 feet
Laguna Grande Trail Maintenance CEQA
Special-Status Species Known to Occur in the Project Vicinity Figure 6
Source: ESRI 2021, CDFW CNDDB 2021 Approximate Park Boundary 1-Mile Radius
Special-Status Plants
Special-Status Wildlife
STAFF PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT-FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY-CA GOVT CODE SECTION 6254(A) •••
I ~------· I I I '-------.! =-·········
■
.......... :
....

C,
' ::0
a.

C
g
0-
0 '-'c,~
I
I
I
I
~
~
.........

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
n
~ ..
!!! M11;iM
Ord
Mvnl11t
Kirn
0 Packet Page 158
Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 30 EMC Planning Group Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy – Initial Study January 2023 This side intentionally left blank.

Packet Page 159
Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 31 EMC Planning Group Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy – Initial Study January 2023 EMC Planning Group associate biologist Patrick Furtado completed focused plant surveys for special-status plant species on May 24, 2021 and June 15, 2021 in accordance with current California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW 2009) and California Native Plant Society (CNPS 2001) rare plant survey protocols. According to the United States Drought Monitor, the project site is located in an area experiencing severe drought conditions at the time of surveys (National Drought Mitigation Center 2021).

Mr. Furtado also visited nearby special-status plant reference populations for seaside bird’s beak (Cordylanthus rigidus ssp. littoralis), Monterey spineflower (Chorizanthe pungens var. pungens), Monterey gilia (Gilia tenuiflora ssp. arenaria), Yadon’s rein orchid (Piperia yadonii), and sand-loving wallflower (Erysimum ammophilum) to determine that these plant species were identifiable at the time of the surveys.

All suitable habitats for special-status plant species within the Laguna Grande Park survey area were systematically surveyed and plant species observed were recorded in field notes.

Plant species were identified in the field or collected for subsequent identification using plant keys contained in The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California (Baldwin et. al 2012).

Taxonomy follows the Jepson Flora Project (2022) for scientific and common names.

No special-status plant species were observed within the Laguna Grande Regional Park survey area. Appendix A of the Maintenance Strategy presents the results of the focused plant survey, including maps and a list of all plant species that were observed at the park during the focused plant surveys (the Maintenance Strategy is Appendix A of this initial study). Survey results are generally considered valid for five years.

Special-Status Wildlife Species. Wildlife species identified with the potential to occur on the project site include:
 California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii);
 Coast Range newt (Taricha torosa);
 Western pond turtle (Emys marmorata);
 Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia);
 Tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor);
 American badger (Taxidea taxus);
 Monterey dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes luciana);  Monterey shrew (Sorex ornatus salarius);
 Hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus); and
 Townsend's big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii).

Special-Status Amphibians and Reptiles. The following special-status amphibian and reptile species occur in the project vicinity and were assessed for the potential to occur on the project site: California red-legged frog, Coast Range newt, and Western pond turtle.

Packet Page 160
Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 32 EMC Planning Group Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy – Initial Study January 2023 California Red‐legged Frog. A federally-listed threatened species and California Species of Special Concern, California red‐legged frog occurs in lowlands and foothills primarily in perennial or ephemeral ponds, pools, and streams where water remains long enough (14‐28 weeks) for breeding and metamorphosis of tadpoles. Specific breeding sites include streams, creeks, ponds, marshes, sag ponds, deep pools, backwater areas, dune ponds, lagoons, and estuaries. California red-legged frog may disperse from their aquatic breeding habitats to upland habitats during the dry season. They prefer upland habitats that provide moisture to prevent desiccation and protection from predators, including downed logs, woody vegetation, boulders, moist leaf litter, or other refugia during the dry season. In areas where upland habitats do not contain structure, they take refuge in burrows. However, if there is sufficient water at their breeding location, they may remain in aquatic habitats year‐ round instead of moving to adjacent uplands.

During wet seasons, frogs can move long distances between habitats, traversing upland areas or ephemeral drainages. Dispersal distances are typically less than 0.3 mile, with a few individuals moving 1.2‐2.2 miles. Seeps and springs in open grasslands can function as foraging habitat or refugia for wandering frogs.

CNDDB records indicate that the closest known occurrence of California red-legged frog is approximately 2.5 miles south of the project site (Occurrence No. 939, CNDDB 2021). There are no known occurrences within the project area lake or drainages, however breeding and upland habitat is potentially present. If impacts to California red-legged frog occur, they could be significant. Implementation of mitigation measures BIO-1, BIO-2 and BIO-3 would reduce this potential, significant impact to California red-legged frog to a less-than-significant level.

Mitigation Measures
BIO-1 Prior to ground disturbance, a qualified biologist shall conduct a training session for all construction personnel. At a minimum, the training shall include a description of specialstatus species potentially occurring in the project vicinity, including, but not limited to, California red-legged frog, Coast Range newt, western pond turtle, burrowing owl, tricolored blackbird, American badger, Monterey dusky-footed woodrat, Monterey shrew, special-status bats, and nesting birds and raptors. Their habitats, general measures that are being implemented to conserve species as they relate to the project, and the boundaries within which disturbance activities will occur will be explained. Informational handouts with photographs clearly illustrating the species’ appearances shall be used in the training session. All new construction personnel shall undergo this mandatory environmental awareness training.

The qualified biologist will train biological monitors selected from the construction crew by the construction contractor (typically the project foreman). Before the start of work each day, the monitor will check for animals under any equipment such as vehicles and stored pipes within active disturbance areas. The monitor will also check all excavated Packet Page 161
Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 33 EMC Planning Group Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy – Initial Study January 2023 steep-walled holes or trenches greater than one foot deep for trapped animals. If a special-status species is observed within an active disturbance area, the qualified biologist will be notified immediately and all work within 50 feet of the individual will be halted and all equipment turned off until the individual has left the disturbance area.

The Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Authority shall document evidence of completion of this training prior to ground disturbance.

BIO-2 A qualified biologist shall conduct preconstruction surveys following the guidance documented in the Revised Guidance on Site Assessments and Field Surveys for the California Redlegged Frog (USFWS 2005) no more than two weeks (14 days) prior to the start of disturbance activities. The invasive removal, maintenance or improvement footprints will be surveyed for potential migratory and/or upland activity. The qualified biologist shall prepare a report documenting the results of the preconstruction surveys for submittal to the Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Authority prior to ground disturbance.

If California red-legged frog is found, the Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Authority will coordinate with the USFWS and/or CDFW to determine the appropriate course of action per the requirements of FESA and/or CESA (e.g., obtaining Incidental Take Permits) and implement the permit requirements prior to ground disturbance.

BIO-3 The following measures from the USFWS Programmatic Biological Opinion for Issuance of Permits under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, including Authorizations Under 22 Nationwide Permits, for Projects that May Affect the Threatened California Red-legged Frog in Nine San Francisco Bay Area Counties, California (USFWS 2014) shall be implemented:
a. Plans shall delineate a 100-foot boundary from the outer edge of riparian vegetation along the lake and drainages.
b. A qualified biologist shall be on site during all activities within 100 feet from the outer edge of riparian vegetation along the lake or drainage that where California red-legged frog may be encountered.
c. To the extent possible, all ground-disturbing work within 100 feet from the outer edge of riparian vegetation along the lake and drainage shall be avoided between November 1 and March 31, the time period when California red-legged frogs are most likely to be moving through upland areas.
d. All ground-disturbing work within 100 feet from the outer edge of riparian vegetation should be accomplished during the dry season, with no disturbance activities occurring during rain events or within 24 hours following a rain event. e. Prior to disturbance activities, exclusionary fencing shall be placed to keep construction vehicles and personnel from impacting potentially jurisdictional waters and riparian/wetland habitat outside of work areas. A biological monitor shall supervise the installation of exclusionary fencing and monitor at least once per week Packet Page 162
Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 34 EMC Planning Group Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy – Initial Study January 2023 until disturbance activities are complete to ensure that the protective exclusionary fencing remains intact. Exclusion fencing material shall be selected to avoid accidental entrapment of wildlife species, such as fencing with a smaller gauge or no gaps at all (e.g., Animex™ fencing).
f. To minimize harassment, injury, death, and harm in the form of temporary habitat disturbances, all project-related vehicle traffic shall be restricted to established roads, disturbance areas, equipment staging, storage, parking, and stockpile areas. g. If a California red-legged frog is encountered, all activities which have the potential to result in the harassment, injury, or death of the individual shall be immediately halted. A qualified biologist shall then assess the situation and select a course of action that shall avoid or minimize adverse effects to the animal. h. Uneaten human food and trash attracts crows, ravens, coyotes, and other predators of the California red-legged frog. A litter control program shall be instituted at each project site. All workers shall ensure their food scraps, paper wrappers, food containers, cans, bottles, and other trash are deposited in covered or closed trash containers. The trash containers shall be removed from the project site at the end of each working day.
i. Loss of soil from run-off or erosion shall be prevented with straw bales, straw wattles, or similar means provided they do not entangle, block escape or dispersal routes of the California red-legged frog.
j. No insecticides or herbicides shall be used at the project site during construction or long-term operational maintenance where there is the potential for these chemical agents to enter the river, or uplands that contain potential habitat for the California red-legged frog.
k. For on-site storage of pipes, conduits, and other materials that could provide shelter for special-status species, an open-top trailer shall be used to elevate the materials above ground. This is intended to reduce the potential for animals to climb into the conduits and other materials.
l. To the maximum extent possible, night-time construction shall be minimized or avoided because dusk and dawn are often the times when the California red-legged frog is most actively moving and foraging.
m. Plastic monofilament netting (erosion control matting), loosely woven netting, or similar material in any form shall not be used at the project site because California red-legged frogs can become entangled and trapped in them. Materials utilizing fixed weaves (strands cannot move), polypropylene, polymer, or other synthetic materials shall not be used.

Packet Page 163
Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 35 EMC Planning Group Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy – Initial Study January 2023 n. Trenches or pits one foot or deeper that are going to be left unfilled for more than 48 hours shall be securely covered with boards or other material to prevent the California red-legged frog from falling into them.

Coast Range Newt. Coast Range newt is a California Species of Special Concern. This species is endemic to California and distributed along the coast and coast range mountains from central Mendocino County south to San Diego County. It is found from sea level to at least 1,280 meters on Mt. Hamilton in Santa Clara County. Coast Range newt burrows in or uses soil, fallen logs, or debris for cover. Central California localities are found in wet forests, oak forests, chaparral, and rolling grasslands. It will occupy upland habitats when not breeding. During reproduction, Coast Range newts will migrate to intermittent streams, rivers, lakes, and ponds where they lay eggs in shallow water attached to submerged rocks or twigs. CNDDB records indicate one occurrence of Coast Range newt approximately six miles southwest of the project site (Occurrence No. 70, CNDDB 2021). There are no known occurrences within the project area lake or drainages, however breeding and upland habitat is potentially present. Mitigation measure BIO-1, presented above, which requires a training session on special-status species potentially present on the site for all personnel, and BIO-2 and BIO-3, which require preconstruction surveys and measures for the protection of California red-legged frog, would also protect Coast Range newt, if present. Implementation of these measures would reduce the potential, significant impact to Coast Range newt to a less-thansignificant level and no additional measures are recommended.

Western Pond Turtle. Western pond turtle is a California Species of Special Concern. It is uncommon to common in suitable aquatic habitat throughout California including freshwater marshes, stock ponds, lakes, rivers, and streams. This species is considered omnivorous. Aquatic plant material, including pond lilies, beetles and a variety of aquatic invertebrates as well as fishes, frogs, and even carrion have been reported among their food. Pond turtles require basking sites such as partially submerged logs, rocks, mats of floating vegetation, or open mud banks. Turtles slip from basking sites to underwater retreats at the approach of humans or potential predators.

CNDDB records indicate one occurrence of western pond turtle approximately 3.5 miles southwest of the project site (Occurrence No. 1014, CNDDB 2021). There are no known occurrences within the lake or drainages, however breeding and upland habitat is potentially present. Mitigation measure BIO-1, presented above, which requires a training session on special-status species potentially present on the site for all personnel, and BIO2 and BIO-3, which require preconstruction surveys and measures for the protection of California red-legged frog, would also protect western pond turtle, if present.

Implementation of these measures would reduce the potential, significant impact to western pond turtle to a less-than-significant level and no additional measures are recommended.

Special-Status Birds. The following special-status bird species occur in the project vicinity and were assessed for the potential to occur on the project site: burrowing owl, tricolored blackbird, and protected nesting birds and raptors.

Packet Page 164
Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 36 EMC Planning Group Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy – Initial Study January 2023 Burrowing Owl. Burrowing owl is a California Species of Special Concern. Burrowing owls live and breed in burrows in the ground, especially in abandoned California ground squirrel burrows. Optimal habitat conditions include large open, dry and nearly level grasslands or prairies with short to moderate vegetation height and cover, areas of bare ground, and populations of burrowing mammals. A general, non-specific record for this species has been recorded approximately 900 feet north and west of the project site (Occurrence No. 574, CNDDB 2021). The project site’s non-native grassland provides marginally suitable foraging habitat for burrowing owl, and a few scattered small mammal burrows on the site could be utilized for nesting habitat, but burrowing owl has low potential to occur on the site. If burrowing owl is present on or adjacent to invasive removal, maintenance or improvement footprints, disturbance activities could result in the loss or disturbance of individual animals. This would be a significant adverse environmental impact. Implementation of mitigation measures BIO-1, presented earlier, which requires a training session on special-status species potentially present on the site for all personnel, and BIO-4 would reduce this potentially significant impact to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure
BIO-4 To avoid/minimize impacts to burrowing owls potentially occurring within invasive removal, maintenance or improvement footprints, a biologist qualified in ornithology shall conduct surveys for burrowing owl. The approved biologist shall conduct a two-visit (i.e., morning and evening) presence/absence survey at areas of suitable habitat on and adjacent to the invasive removal, maintenance or improvement footprints no less than 14 days prior to the start of construction or ground disturbance activities. Surveys shall be conducted according to the methods for take avoidance described in the Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines (California Burrowing Owl Consortium 1993) and the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW 2012). If no burrowing owls are found, a letter report confirming absence will be prepared and submitted to the Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Authority and no further mitigation is required.

Because burrowing owls occupy habitat year-round, seasonal no-disturbance buffers, as outlined in the Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines (CBOC 1993) and the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW 2012), shall be in place around occupied habitat prior to and during any ground disturbance activities. The following table includes buffer areas based on the time of year and level of disturbance (CDFW 2012), unless a qualified biologist approved by the CDFW verifies through non-invasive measures that either: 1) birds have not begun egg laying and incubation; or 2) that juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival.

Location Time of Year Level of Disturbance Buffers (meters) Low Med High
Nesting Sites April 1 – Aug 15 200 m 500 m 500 m
Nesting Sites Aug 16 – Oct 15 200 m 200 m 500 m
Nesting Sites Oct 16 – Mar 31 50 m 100 m 500 m
Packet Page 165
Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 37 EMC Planning Group Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy – Initial Study January 2023 If burrowing owl is found and avoidance is not possible, burrow exclusion may be conducted by qualified biologists only during the non-breeding season, before breeding behavior is exhibited and after the burrow is confirmed empty through non-invasive methods, such as surveillance. Occupied burrows shall be replaced with artificial burrows at a ratio of one collapsed burrow to one constructed artificial burrow (1:1). Evicted burrowing owls may attempt to colonize or re-colonize an area that would be impacted, thus ongoing surveillance during project activities shall be conducted at a rate sufficient to detect burrowing owls if they return.

If surveys locate occupied burrows in or near invasive removal, maintenance or improvement footprints, consultation with the CDFW shall occur to interpret survey results and develop a project-specific avoidance and minimization approach. Once the absence of burrowing owl has been confirmed or a plan is in place to avoid or minimize impacts, a letter report will be prepared and submitted to the Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Authority.

Protected Nesting Birds. Protected nesting birds have the potential to nest in buildings or structures, on open ground, or in any type of vegetation, including trees, during the nesting bird season (January 15 through September 15). The project site contains a variety of potential habitats for nesting birds. Ground disturbance can impact nesting birds protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code, should nesting birds be present during disturbance activities. If protected bird species are nesting adjacent to the invasive removal, maintenance or improvement footprints during the bird nesting season, then noise-generating activities could result in the loss of fertile eggs, nestlings, or otherwise lead to the abandonment of nests.

Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1, presented above, which requires a training session on special-status species potentially present on the site for all personnel, and BIO-5 would reduce potential, significant impacts to nesting birds to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure
BIO-5 To avoid impacts to nesting birds during the nesting season (January 15 through September 15), all disturbance activities should be conducted between September 16 and January 14, which is outside of the bird nesting season. If project-related work is scheduled during the nesting season (February 15 to August 30 for small bird species such as passerines; January 15 to September 15 for owls; and February 15 to September 15 for other raptors), a qualified biologist shall conduct nesting bird surveys. a. Two surveys for active bird nests will occur within 14 days prior to start of disturbance activities, with the final survey conducted within 48 hours prior to disturbance. Appropriate minimum survey radii surrounding each work area are typically 250 feet for passerines, 500 feet for smaller raptors, and 1,000 feet for larger raptors. Surveys will be conducted at the appropriate times of day to observe nesting activities. Locations off the site to which access is not available may be surveyed from within the site or from public areas. If no nesting birds are found, a letter Packet Page 166
Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 38 EMC Planning Group Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy – Initial Study January 2023 report confirming absence will be prepared and submitted to the Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Authority and no further mitigation is required. b. If the qualified biologist documents active nests within the invasive removal, maintenance or improvement footprints or in nearby surrounding areas, an appropriate buffer between each nest and active disturbance area shall be established. The buffer shall be clearly marked and maintained until the young have fledged and are foraging independently. Prior to ground disturbance, the qualified biologist shall conduct baseline monitoring of each nest to characterize “normal” bird behavior and establish a buffer distance, which allows the birds to exhibit normal behavior. The qualified biologist shall monitor the nesting birds daily during disturbance activities and increase the buffer if birds show signs of unusual or distressed behavior (e.g., defensive flights and vocalizations, standing up from a brooding position, and/or flying away from the nest). If buffer establishment is not possible, the qualified biologist or construction foreman shall have the authority to cease all work in the area until the young have fledged and the nest is no longer active. Once the absence of nesting birds has been confirmed, a letter report will be prepared and submitted to the Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Authority.

Tricolored Blackbird. Tricolored blackbird is a California Species of Special Concern found mostly throughout the Central Valley and San Francisco Bay Delta regions. Tricolored blackbirds forage in annual grasslands; wet and dry vernal pools and other seasonal wetlands; and croplands. They also forage occasionally in riparian scrub habitats and along marsh borders. Tricolored blackbirds’ nest near freshwater marshes. There are CNDDB records indicating tricolored blackbird activity within five miles of the project site, and riparian and wetland vegetation along the lake and drainage may support this species. Measures recommended for the protection of nesting birds (above) are anticipated to determine if tricolored blackbirds are present and provide protection during disturbance activities, if needed.

Special-Status Mammals
The following special-status mammal species occur in the project vicinity and were assessed for the potential to occur on the project site: American badger, Monterey duskyfooted woodrat, hoary bat, and Townsend’s big-eared bat.

American Badger. American badger is a California Species of Special Concern. It is an uncommon, permanent resident found throughout most of the state, except in the northern North Coast area. This large member of the weasel family uses most shrub, forest, and herbaceous habitats with friable soils suitable for burrows. Prey species include fossorial rodents such as rats, mice, chipmunks, ground squirrels, and pocket gophers. Badger diet shifts seasonally depending on the availability of prey and may also include reptiles, insects, earthworms, eggs, birds, and carrion. Mixed oak woodland, coastal scrub, and grassland habitats provide cover, drier soils for burrowing, and prey resources for this species. A historic record for American badger was recorded Packet Page 167
Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 39 EMC Planning Group Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy – Initial Study January 2023 approximately 700 feet east of the project site (Occurrence No. 171, CDFW 2021), and a more recent (1992) observation was recorded approximately 2.3 miles east of the project site (Occurrence No. 241, CDFW 2021). Open grassland areas and openings along trails provide suitable habitat for the American badger. American badgers are known to occur in the region and could den and forage on the project site. Ground disturbance could result in impacts to this species from direct mortality or injury. Loss or harm to American badger is considered a significant adverse impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, presented above, which requires a training session on special-status species potentially present on the site for all personnel, and BIO-6 would reduce potential, significant impacts to American badger to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure
BIO-6 Not more than 14 days prior to the commencement of ground-disturbing activities, a qualified wildlife biologist shall conduct surveys of the grassland habitat within or adjacent to invasive removal, maintenance or improvement footprints to identify any potential American badger burrows/dens. If the survey results are negative (i.e., no badger dens observed), a letter report confirming absence will be prepared and submitted to the Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Authority and no further mitigation is required.

If the results are positive (badger dens are observed), the qualified biologist shall determine if the dens are active by installing a game camera for three days and three nights to determine if the den is in use.
a. If the biologist determines that a den may be active, coordination with the CDFW shall be undertaken to develop a suitable strategy to avoid impacts to American badger. The strategy may include the following: the biologist shall install a one-way door in the den opening and continue use of the game camera. Once the camera captures the individual exiting the one-way door, the den can be excavated with hand tools to prevent badgers from reusing them. If the biologist determines that the den is a maternity den, disturbance activities shall be delayed during the maternity season (February to August), or until the badgers leave the den on their own accord or the biologist determines that the den is no longer in use.
b. If the game camera does not capture an individual entering/exiting the den, the den can be excavated with hand tools to prevent badgers from reusing them.

After dens have been excavated and the absence of American badger confirmed, a letter report will be prepared and submitted to the Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Authority.

Monterey Dusky-Footed Woodrat. The Monterey dusky-footed woodrat is a California species of Special Concern typically found within dens chaparral or oak woodland habitats with moderately dense understory growth and abundant dead wood for nest construction.

Monterey dusky-footed woodrat is known to occur in the project vicinity and woodland and riparian habitat at the project site is considered potential habitat. Removal or Packet Page 168
Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 40 EMC Planning Group Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy – Initial Study January 2023 disturbance of habitat during nesting season is considered a significant impact.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, presented above, which requires a training session on special-status species potentially present on the site for all personnel, and BIO7 would reduce potential, significant impacts to Monterey dusky-footed woodrat to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure
BIO-7 A qualified biologist shall conduct preconstruction surveys for woodrat nests within invasive removal, maintenance or improvement footprints. All woodrat nests shall be flagged for avoidance of direct impacts where feasible. If impacts cannot be avoided, woodrat nests shall be dismantled no more than three days prior to dismantling so that the occupants do not attempt to rebuild. Nests are to be slowly dismantled by hand in order to allow the occupants to disperse.

Monterey Shrew. The Monterey shrew is a California species of Special Concern. This species is an endemic subspecies of shrew occurring only on the Monterey Peninsula.

Preferred habitats include riparian areas and other moist microclimates with available insect prey. Little is known about this species, since it is difficult to locate and does not survive well in traps due to very high metabolic rates. A general observation of this species has been recorded to include the project site; however, the record is from 1919 and it the current distribution of Monterey shrew in the area is unknown (Occurrence No. 3, CDFW 2021). Riparian and woodland habitats within the project area could support this species, if present. Disturbance activities at the project site could result in the loss of individuals on or adjacent to the project site. Mitigation measure BIO-1, presented above, which requires a training session on special-status species potentially present on the site for all personnel, and BIO-2 and BIO-3, which require preconstruction surveys and measures for the protection of California red-legged frog would also protect Monterey shrew, if present. Implementation of these measures would reduce the potential, significant impact to Monterey shrew to a less-than-significant level and no additional measures are recommended.

Special-Status Bats. Trees and/or buildings or structures on or adjacent to the project site could provide roosting habitat for state-listed species of special concern hoary bat and Townsend's big-eared bat. Hoary bat is a solitary species that generally prefers dense foliage of medium to large trees. Townsend’s big-eared bat prefers roosting and nesting found in caves, tunnels, mines, and buildings. These species have been identified as occurring within 1.2 and seven miles to the west and east of the project site, however little is known about their distribution in the project vicinity (CNDDB 2021). Activities at the project site could result in the disturbance of roost and natal sites occupied by specialstatus bats on or adjacent to invasive removal, maintenance or improvement footprints, if present. Implementation of mitigation measures BIO-1, presented earlier, which requires a training session on special-status species potentially present on the site for all personnel, and BIO-8 would reduce this potential, significant impact to special-status bats to a lessthan-significant level.

Packet Page 169
Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 41 EMC Planning Group Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy – Initial Study January 2023 Mitigation Measure
BIO-8 Approximately 14 days prior to tree removal or disturbance activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct a habitat assessment for bats and potential roosting sites in trees to be removed and in trees within 50 feet of invasive removal, maintenance or improvement footprints. These surveys shall include a visual inspection of potential roosting features (bats need not be present) and a search for presence of guano within the project site, access routes, and 50 feet around these areas. Cavities, crevices, exfoliating bark, and bark fissures that could provide suitable potential nest or roost habitat for bats shall be surveyed. Assumptions can be made on what species is present due to observed visual characteristics along with habitat use, or the bats can be identified to the species level with the use of a bat echolocation detector such as an “Anabat” unit. Potential roosting features found during the survey shall be flagged or marked.

If no roosting sites or bats are found, a letter report confirming absence shall be prepared and submitted to Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Authority and no further mitigation is required.

If bats or roosting sites are found, bats shall not be disturbed without specific notice to and consultation with CDFW.

If bats are found roosting outside of the nursery season (May 1 through October 1), CDFW shall be consulted prior to any eviction or other action. If avoidance or postponement is not feasible, a Bat Eviction Plan will be submitted to CDFW for written approval prior to project implementation. A request to evict bats from a roost includes details for excluding bats from the roost site and monitoring to ensure that all bats have exited the roost prior to the start of activity and are unable to re-enter the roost until activity is completed. Any bat eviction shall be timed to avoid lactation and youngrearing. If bats are found roosting during the nursery season, they shall be monitored to determine if the roost site is a maternal roost. This could occur by either visual inspection of the roost bat pups, if possible, or by monitoring the roost after the adults leave for the night to listen for bat pups. Because bat pups cannot leave the roost until they are mature enough, eviction of a maternal roost cannot occur during the nursery season. Therefore, if a maternal roost is present, a 50-foot buffer zone (or different size if determined in consultation with the CDFW) shall be established around the roosting site within which no activities including tree removal or structure disturbance shall occur until after the nursery season.
b. Riparian Habitat or Sensitive Natural Communities. The Laguna Grande Lake was originally part of a larger estuary flowing into the Pacific Ocean. As areas adjacent to the estuary were filled and developed, Laguna Grande Lake was isolated from the ocean.

Riparian and wetland habitats, including arroyo willow woodland and California bulrush marsh, can be found throughout the park (see Figures 1 and 2 of the focused plant survey report in Appendix A of the Maintenance Strategy, which is Appendix A of this initial study). Natural Communities are California vegetation types ranked by their rarity and threat by CDFW. Natural Communities with ranks of S1-S3 are considered “sensitive Packet Page 170
Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 42 EMC Planning Group Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy – Initial Study January 2023 natural communities” to be addressed in the environmental review processes of CEQA and its equivalents. Both arroyo willow woodland and California bulrush marsh are listed by CDFW as sensitive natural communities. In addition, both communities are also considered Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA) by the California Coastal Commission (CCC), as well as the emergent wetland and estuarine habitats associated with Laguna Grande Lake.

Disturbance activities could result in the disturbance of arroyo willow woodland, California bulrush marsh, wetlands or estuarine habitat if present within or adjacent to invasive removal, maintenance or improvement footprints. Policy LUD-CZ 3.1A of the LCP/LUP identifies a minimum 50-foot buffer of ESHA is typically required, however the buffer may be reduced to 25 feet in conjunction with additional mitigation measures, including implementation of a restoration plan. Where possible, a 25-foot buffer of ESHA will be incorporated into project plans, however impacts where invasive removal and restoration activities intended to improve ESHA are unavoidable. Implementation of mitigation measures BIO-9 and BIO-10 would reduce this potential, significant impact to sensitive natural communities and ESHA to a less-than-significant level.

Mitigation Measures
BIO-9 Arroyo willow woodland, California bulrush marsh, wetlands or estuarine habitat within 25 feet of invasive removal, maintenance or improvement footprints will be protected from disturbance. Prior to activities adjacent to arroyo willow woodland, California bulrush marsh, wetlands or estuarine habitat, a qualified botanist will erect environmentally sensitive area fencing around areas near the invasive removal, maintenance or improvement area to identify and protect sensitive plant communities or Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas. The location of the fencing will be marked in the field with stakes and flagging. Vegetation clearing activities, vehicle operation, material and equipment storage, and other surface-disturbing activities will be prohibited within the fenced environmentally sensitive area.

BIO-10 If avoidance cannot be accommodated within invasive removal, maintenance or improvement plans, then the Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Authority shall be responsible for ensuring the implementation of a restoration plan. The restoration plan shall be designed by a qualified biologist and shall include the following:
a. Prior to implementation of invasive removal, maintenance, or improvement activities, the location and extent of the areas to be restored will be clearly delineated and mapped. A plant palette shall be determined, with preference to plant species endemic to coastal Monterey County. The plant palette used for restoration will be reviewed and approved by the Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Authority.
b. The restoration plan will include seed collection and transplantation/preservation or restoration/preservation guidelines. Maintenance activities may include, but not be limited to, watering during the plant establishment period, supplemental seed planting as needed, and removal of non-native invasive plants. Monitoring will occur Packet Page 171
Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 43 EMC Planning Group Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy – Initial Study January 2023 for a minimum of five years after mitigation area installation to verify that restoration activities have been successful and will include, at a minimum, quarterly monitoring reports for the first year and annual reports for the remaining four years. c. The abundance of annual plants naturally varies from year to year depending on multiple factors including disturbance and rainfall. The performance standard for successful mitigation will be a minimum 2:1 replacement ratio (i.e. two plants observed in the restoration area for each plant lost from the impact area) during at least one spring occurring in year 3, 4, or 5 after installation. The plan will contain options for corrective action and extended maintenance/monitoring if the performance standard is not achieved during the 5-year monitoring period. d. During each monitoring effort undertaken in the restoration area, a qualified biologist will conduct a comparison of spring survey conditions from the previous year(s) and prepare a written report for the Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Authority. If adaptive management (corrective measures) are warranted, a description and recommendation will be included in the annual report. c. Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. A review of the National Wetlands Inventory online database was conducted to identify the closest jurisdictional aquatic features on or adjacent to the project site (USFWS 2021). As shown on Figure 7, National Wetlands Inventory, three types occur within the project boundary: freshwater emergent wetland, freshwater forested/shrub wetland, and lake. Areas of wetland vegetation, including cattail, common reed, and bulrush/tule, and riparian vegetation, including arroyo willow woodland, are shown on Figures 1 and 2 of the focused plant survey report in Appendix A of the Maintenance Strategy, which is Appendix A of this initial study.

Potentially jurisdictional features include Laguna Grande Lake, associated wetland or riparian woodland areas adjacent to the Lake, and the drainage associated with Canyon del Rey Creek.

If located within or adjacent to invasive removal, maintenance or improvement footprints, impacts to jurisdictional wetland and waterway features are considered significant adverse environmental impacts. Policy LUD-CZ 3.1C of the LCP/LUP identifies a minimum 50-foot buffer of ESHA, including wetlands, is typically required, however the buffer may be reduced to 25 feet in conjunction with additional mitigation measures, including implementation of a restoration plan. Where possible, a 25-foot buffer of ESHA will be incorporated into project plans, however impacts where invasive removal and restoration activities intended to improve ESHA are unavoidable. The following mitigation measure would assure that this potentially significant impact is reduced to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure
BIO-11 Prior to disturbance in or within 25 feet adjacent to wetlands, a qualified biologist will prepare a wetland delineation to determine the extent of potential wetlands and waterways regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and California Department of Fish and Wildlife. If the U.S. Army Corps Packet Page 172
Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 44 EMC Planning Group Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy – Initial Study January 2023 of Engineers claims jurisdiction, the Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Authority will retain a qualified biologist to obtain a Clean Water Act Section 404 Nationwide Permit. If the impacts to the drainage features do not qualify for a Nationwide Permit, the Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Authority shall proceed with the qualified biologist in obtaining an Individual Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Authority will also retain a qualified biologist to coordinate with the Regional Water Quality Control Board to obtain a Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification. If necessary, the Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Authority will also retain a qualified biologist to coordinate with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to obtain a Streambed Alteration Agreement.

To compensate for temporary and/or permanent impacts to jurisdictional features that would be impacted as a result of the proposed project, mitigation shall be provided as required by the regulatory permits. Mitigation would be provided through one of the following mechanisms:
i. A Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall be developed that will outline mitigation and monitoring obligations for temporary impacts to wetlands and other waters as a result of disturbance activities. The Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan would include thresholds of success, monitoring and reporting requirements, and site-specific plans to compensate for wetland losses resulting from the project.

The Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall be submitted to the appropriate regulatory agencies for review and approval during the permit application process.

Or
ii. To compensate for permanent impacts, the purchase and/or dedication of land to provide suitable wetland restoration or creation shall ensure a no net loss of wetland values or functions. If restoration is available and feasible, a minimum 1:1 mitigation to impact ratio would apply to projects for which mitigation is provided in advance. d. Wildlife Movement. Terrestrial species must navigate a habitat landscape that meets their needs for breeding, feeding and shelter. Natural and semi-natural components of the landscape must be large enough and connected enough to meet the needs of all species that use them. Wildlife movement corridors provide connectivity between habitat areas, enhancing species richness and diversity, and usually also provide cover, water, food, and breeding sites.

Laguna Grande Regional Park is one of the largest remaining freshwater open spaces in the area. The proposed project includes measures to remove invasive species, enhance and restore habitats, and improve trail facilities. These measures are anticipated to provide beneficial impacts to habitat for wildlife, and further facilitate movement through the park to Canyon del Rey. No mitigation measures are necessary.

Packet Page 173
National Wetland Inventory Map
Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy – Initial Study 0 800 feet
Figure 7
Source: ESRI 2022, USFWS 1998
Legend
Project Location
Estuarine and Marine Deepwater
Estuarine and Marine Wetland
Freshwater Emergent Wetland
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
Freshwater Pond
Lake
Riverine
r····-. I I
....... .1
-
D
D
-
D
-
-
•••
... . ,. . • . • . t· .•
-...- ., ~' "'~ I ..-~ •
...

Packet Page 174
Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 46 EMC Planning Group Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy – Initial Study January 2023 This side intentionally left blank.

Packet Page 175
Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 47 EMC Planning Group Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy – Initial Study January 2023 e. Local Biological Resource Policies/Ordinances. The City of Monterey General Plan includes a Conservation Element that provides direction for the conservation, development and utilization of natural resources. Goal b, Water Quality, protects “creeks, lakes, wetlands, beaches, and Monterey Bay from pollutants” and calls for retaining and restoring “wetlands, riparian areas, and other habitats, which provide remediation for degraded water quality.” Goal d, Flora and Fauna and Marine Resources, seeks to “protect the character and composition of existing native vegetative communities.

Conserve, manage, and restore habitats for endangered species, and protect biological diversity represented by special status plant and wildlife species.” This goal is supported by policies such as Policy d.5, which calls for reducing “biotic impacts to a less-thansignificant level on project sites by ensuring that mitigation measures identified in biotic reports are incorporated as conditions of approval for development projects.” The City of Seaside General Plan includes a Conservation and Open Space Element containing “goals and policies to protect and maintain natural resources such as water, soils, wildlife and minerals, and prevent wasteful resource exploitation, degradation and destruction.” Additionally, it contains “goals and policies to manage open space areas including undeveloped lands and environmentally constrained areas.” Policy COS-4.2 calls for the protection and enhancement of “creeks, lakes, and adjacent wetlands for their value in providing visual amenity, habitat for wildlife, and recreational opportunities.”
Implementation plans require close consultation “with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) during the discretionary project permitting and CEQA review of any project that may result in the alteration of a stream bed, involve the removal of vegetation in wetland and riparian habitats, or disturb Waters of the United States.” Public development projects are also required “to comply with the City of Seaside’s certified Local Coastal Program, which protects natural features within the beachfront areas in the City, including the Laguna Grande/Roberts Lake Areas.” The Laguna Grande/Roberts Lake Local Coastal Program was adopted by the Monterey City Council in 1981 with an accompanying Land Use Plan developed in 2000. Its policies seek “to preserve and enhance the natural resources, environmental quality, and community character of the coastal zone.” It calls for shoreline improvements to Laguna Grande Lake to be “designed so as to encourage use by wildlife.” The Seaside LCP/LUP was adopted in 2013 and contains a number of policies applicable to the protection of natural resources. Policy NCR-CZ 1.1.C limits development to minimize adverse effects to natural coastal resources. Policies NCR-CZ 1.2.A and NCRCZ 1.2.B include the definition of ESHA and measures for the protection of ESHA.

Policies NCR-CZ 1.3.A and NCR-CZ 1.3.B include the definition of wetlands and measures for the protection of aquatic resources. Policy LUD-CZ 3.1A identifies the need for site-specific biological analysis, setbacks from ESHA, and mitigation requirements. Policy LUD-CZ 3.1B identifies the need for a site-specific vegetation management report, including a plant inventory, appropriate buffers, and mitigation Packet Page 176
Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 48 EMC Planning Group Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy – Initial Study January 2023 requirements. Policy LUD-CZ 3.1C identifies the need for a site-specific wetland delineation and guidelines for the protection of wetland resources, including permit acquisition and compensatory mitigation.

Additional policies specific to the Laguna Grande Subarea include Policy NCR-LG 1.1.A, which requires using the best available methods for vegetation management for exotic and invasive plant removal, planting, and maintenance of native vegetation. Policy NCRLG 4.1.A requires the protection of water quality within Laguna Grande Lake to improve recreational opportunities and preserve and enhance habitat values.

Mitigation measures contained in this section will mitigate impacts to biological resources to a less-than-significant level. With these considerations, the proposed project would not conflict with local policies and ordinances related to biological resources.

Trees. Chapter 37, Preservation of Trees and Shrubs, of the City Code of Monterey, assures preservation of trees and replacement of trees when removal is unavoidable.

Section 37-12, Local Landmark Trees, defines oak trees with a ten-inch diameter trunk and conifers with a twelve-inch trunk as “local landmark trees.” The “local landmark tree” category establishes a process for reviewing and recommending trees that should be protected and preserved because of their outstanding size, prominence, and/or health.

Chapter 8.54 of the Seaside City Ordinance restricts the removal of trees citywide. A tree is defined as a woody perennial plant which usually but not necessarily has a single trunk and a height of ten feet or more, or has a circumference of twenty inches measured at twenty-four inches above the ground. No person can conduct any tree cutting or removal without first obtaining a permit from the Director of Public Works. Section 8.54.060 outlines the requirements for tree removal permits for projects proposing new construction. Section 8.54.070 and 8.54.080 include replacement ratios and protection of trees during construction.

The proposed project includes the removal of non-native trees, including acacia, blue gum eucalyptus, white ash, Ngaio tree, cherry plum, and Chinese elm trees. Although no native trees are currently planned for removal, invasive removal, maintenance or improvement footprints will remove or encroach on protected trees. Impacts to protected trees are considered significant adverse environmental impacts. The following mitigation measure would assure that this potentially significant impact is reduced to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure
BIO-12 Per section 8.54.060 of the Seaside City Ordinance, the zoning administrator, or his designee (a qualified forester or arborist) will prepare a report on trees based on the applicant’s plans and a site inspection of the land. Implementation of specific protections for preserved trees during disturbance activities will be followed; and replacement plantings for damaged or removed trees will be installed.

Packet Page 177
Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 49 EMC Planning Group Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy – Initial Study January 2023 f. Conservation Plans. There are no critical habitat boundaries, habitat conservation plans, natural community conservation plans, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans applicable to the proposed project site.

Packet Page 178
Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 50 EMC Planning Group Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy – Initial Study January 2023

5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Comments:

This section is based on the on the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) archival data record search and the archaeological pedestrian survey conducted by EMC Planning Group Inc.’s archaeologist on October 13, 2021. NWIC number for this project is NWIC #21-0317.

According to the NWIC records, there are no resources within the project area. There are two resources located within 1/8 the project area. The resources within 1/8 of the project include a 200-foot segment of the Southern Pacific Railroad and two obsidian isolates. The railroad segment lacks integrity and, therefore; there is not additional information regarding significant associations it may possess. Due to the two obsidian flakes being isolates they are not eligible for California Register of Historic Places (CRHR) listing. Additionally, according to the NWIC records there are a total of eleven reports located within 1/8-mile radius of the Laguna Grande Maintenance project. The project will not impact the resources mentioned in those reports.

The archaeological pedestrian survey results were negative. There was no trace evidence of cultural resources such as shell fragments, groundstone, debitage (flaked rock from toolmaking), or charring from hearths. There was a memorial plaque for the associate editor of the Monterey Peninsula, Ed Kennedy, observed and it is located near the bathrooms by the playground which is located next to the Russian Orthodox Church.
a. This project would have no impact to historic resources. b. Although there was no trace evidence of archaeological resources on the surface of the project area there may be unknown buried archaeological resources, and could be damaged or destroyed by ground-disturbing construction activities associated with the proposed project plan. This would be considered a significant impact. Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce this potential, significant impact to a less than significant level.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to section 15064.5?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to section
15064.5?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of dedicated cemeteries?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Packet Page 179
Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 51 EMC Planning Group Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy – Initial Study January 2023 Mitigation Measure
CR-1 If any archeological, prehistoric, or historic subsurface resources, including tribal cultural resources, are discovered during ground-disturbing (including tree and vegetation removal, path widening):
a. All work within 50- meter (165 feet) shall be halted and a qualified archaeologist shall be consulted to assess the significance of the finding according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.
b. If any find is determined to be significant, representatives from the City of Monterey Recreation Department and the archaeologist shall meet to determine the appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation.
c. All significant prehistoric cultural materials and or tribal cultural resources recovered shall be; returned to Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the area.
d. In considering any suggested mitigation proposed by the consulting archaeologist to mitigate impacts to historical resources or unique archaeological resources, the City shall determine whether avoidance is necessary and feasible in light of factors such as the nature of the find, proposed project design, costs, and other considerations. e. If avoidance is infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g., data recovery) would be implemented.
f. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while mitigation for historical resources or unique archaeological resources is being carried out. c. There were no evidence of human remains on the surface, nonetheless the soils underlying the project site area and ground disturbing activities associated with the proposed project could damage or destroy previously undiscovered human remains. This would be a significant impact. Implementation of mitigation measure CR-1 and CR-2 would ensure potential impacts are less than significant.

Mitigation Measure
CR-2 California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e) contain the mandated procedures of conduct following the discovery of human remains. According to the provisions in CEQA, if human remains are encountered at the site, all work in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall cease and necessary steps to ensure the integrity of the immediate area shall be taken. The Monterey County Coroner shall be notified immediately. The Coroner shall then determine whether the remains are Native American. If the Coroner determines the remains are Native American, the Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours, who would, in turn, notify the person the Native American Heritage Commission identifies as the Most Likely Descendant of any human remains. Further actions shall be determined, in part, by the desires of the Most Likely Descendant. The Most Likely Descendant has 48 hours to make recommendations regarding the disposition of the remains following notification from the Packet Page 180
Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 52 EMC Planning Group Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy – Initial Study January 2023 Native American Heritage Commission of the discovery. If the Most Likely Descendant does not make recommendations within 48 hours, the owner shall, with appropriate dignity, reinter the remains in an area of the property secure from further disturbance. Alternatively, if the owner does not accept the Most Likely Descendant’s recommendations, the owner or the descendent may request mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission.

Packet Page 181
Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 53 EMC Planning Group Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy – Initial Study January 2023

6. ENERGY
Would the project:

Comments:
a-b. The proposed project includes the maintenance and enhancement of the trail systems within Laguna Grande Regional Park and would not directly or indirectly result in inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy. The project would not conflict with state or local plans for energy efficiency.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Result in a potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Packet Page 182
Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 54 EMC Planning Group Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy – Initial Study January 2023

7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:

Comments:
a. Fault. The Monterey Peninsula, including Seaside, is located in a seismically active area.

The regional faults include the San Andreas and its eastern branches including the Monterey Bay Fault Zone and its on-land extensions, the Chupines and Navy Faults, the San Gregorio-Palo Colorado Fault Zone, the King City-Reliz-Rinconada Fault, and the Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
(1) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
(2) Strong seismic ground shaking? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
(3) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
(4) Landslides? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d. Be located on expansive soil, creating substantial
direct or indirect risks to life or property?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Packet Page 183
Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 55 EMC Planning Group Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy – Initial Study January 2023 Zayante-Vergeles Fault. Local faults include Ord Terrace Fault and Seaside Fault (City of Seaside 2004). According to the Monterey County Parcel Report Web App, the Chupines Fault runs approximately 0.13 miles northeast of the project site and is classified as potentially active. However, the project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (California Department of Conservation 2022).

Implementation of the proposed project would not significantly increase exposure of people to rupture of a known fault because all trail users would be outdoors and the damage would be of a much smaller scale due to the lack of structures onsite (aside from the restroom facilities) where the threat from falling buildings and earthquake-induced fire is high. Further, it is impossible to anticipate a seismic event so there are no precautions that can be taken to avoid or reduce seismic events for trail users in the area.

Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Seismic Ground-Shaking. According to the Final Seaside General Plan EIR (“Seaside General Plan EIR”), the entire City of Seaside, which includes the project site, is at risk for damage by seismic ground-shaking. However, as discussed under “Faults,” all trail users would be outdoors and the damage would be of a small scale due to the lack of structures onsite (aside from the restroom facilities) where the threat from falling buildings and earthquake-induced ground-shaking is high. Further, no precautions can be taken for outdoor trail-users to avoid or reduce seismic events. This impact would be less than significant.

Liquefaction. According to the Monterey County Parcel Report Web App, the project site has high risk potential for liquefaction. However, the threat of liquefaction is higher for development projects since it causes structural instability in buildings due to the ground’s failure to handle the stress load from the structures. The proposed project involves the maintenance and enhancement of the existing trail system at the Laguna Grade Regional Park, which would not result in direct or indirect adverse effects involving liquefaction. Therefore, the project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects involving liquefaction.

Landslide. There is no history of landslides in the City of Seaside and landslides in the area are not identified on the U.S. Landslide Inventory (USGS 2022). As such, there is considered to be a negligible level of risk related to landslides. Therefore, this issue is not discussed further.
b. According to the Monterey County Parcel Report Web App, the project site has low and moderate erosion potential.

Construction. Phase one of the project implementation for individual portions of the trail system would result in a total ground disturbance that is less than 1.0 acre. Therefore, the project would not be subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order No. 2012-0006-DWQ) adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board.

Packet Page 184
Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 56 EMC Planning Group Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy – Initial Study January 2023 Compliance with local regulations, such as the City of Seaside Municipal Code Section

15.32.180, City of Monterey Municipal Code Chapter 31.5, and Monterey County Code Chapter 16.12, that contain design standards, permitting, and grading regulations for runoff and erosion control would reduce soil erosion and the loss of topsoil. Compliance with these local regulations would reduce the risk of soil erosion during implementation of the proposed project, ensuring impacts would be less than significant.

Operation. As indicated previously, the project site has low and moderate erosion potential. As such, erosion may occur during project operation. The existing trail system includes gravel, DG, and mulch pathways with concrete limited to the existing restroom facilities and at bridge abutments on the north end of the site. The existing trail system includes unpaved shoulders on each side. Continued use of the trails has the potential to result in soil erosion and loss of topsoil. However, trail maintenance as part of the project would include upkeep of the gravel, DG, and mulch trails, ensuring soil compaction to reduce erosion. The project also includes installation of headers or curbs to maintain trail edges along the lake that has been impacted by erosion; this would also guide recreational users to stay on the trails, maintaining the natural habitat where there is the potential to increase erosion and soil loss. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project (i.e., maintenance to the trail system) would ensure impacts related to operational erosion would remain less than significant.
c. According to the LCP, lateral spreading is considered to be potentially significant at the project site (p. 3.5). However, the threat of lateral spreading is higher for development projects since it causes structural instability in the soil. The proposed project involves the maintenance and enhancement of the existing trail system at the Laguna Grade Regional Park, which would not result in the increase of existing adverse impacts involving soil that is unstable. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant d. The Baywood Sand and Rindge Muck soils in the project area (Monterey County 2022) are generally not expansive, so risks associated with expansive soils are anticipated to be low. The proposed project as a park maintenance project would not create substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property.
e. The project site consists of a public restroom and would not involve septic systems. The proposed project would not result in any impacts related to soil capability to support the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater.
f. The project site is not in an area of high paleontological sensitivity as shown on Figure

4.7-4 of the certified Fort Ord Trail and Greenway Project Final Environmental Impact Report (Transportation Agency for Monterey County, 2020) or the County of Monterey GIS maps (Monterey County, accessed 2022). In addition, the project does not include any construction activities requiring that a depth of disturbance beyond a maximum of a couple of feet. Therefore, it is improbable that paleontological resources would be discovered on-site given the low potential for such resources and extent of disturbance.

However, there is still a possibility that construction activities could result in the Packet Page 185
Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 57 EMC Planning Group Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy – Initial Study January 2023 disturbance and/or accidental destruction of paleontological resources. Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce this potential, significant impact to a less-than-significant level.

Mitigation Measures
GEO-1 All construction personnel must receive paleontological resources awareness training that includes information on the possibility of encountering fossils during construction; the types of fossils likely to be seen, based on past finds in the project area; and proper procedures in the event fossils are encountered. Worker training shall be prepared and presented by a qualified paleontologist. The Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Authority shall document evidence of completion of this training prior to ground disturbance
GEO-2 If vertebrae fossils are discovered during construction, all work within 50 feet of the discovery shall stop immediately until a qualified professional paleontologist can assess the nature and importance of the find and recommend appropriate treatment. Treatment may include avoidance, if feasible, preservation in place, or preparation and recovery of fossil materials so that they can be housed in an appropriate museum or university collection and may also include preparation of a report for publication describing the finds.

Packet Page 186
Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 58 EMC Planning Group Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy – Initial Study January 2023

8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:

Comments:
a-b. The proposed project does not involve typical construction activities such as grading or demolition; the activities occurring during implementation of the proposed project would be a minor source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The Monterey Bay Air Resources District does not provide guidance for use by local lead agencies for assessing the impacts of GHG emissions either during construction or operation of development projects.

Given this fact, lead agencies within the air district boundary have commonly referred to GHG impact analysis guidance provided by an adjacent air district – the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (reference BAAQMD’s 2017 CEQA Guidelines). That guidance does not include a threshold of significance for construction phase GHG emissions; only operational emissions are subject to analysis for their potential to cause significant impacts. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District is expected to adopt new GHG impact analysis guidance for assessing GHG impacts of development projects in the coming months. That guidance is expected to be similar in regards to how construction emissions are addressed.

Relative to typical land use development projects, the proposed project includes only minor improvements that would not require the use of typical construction equipment and would only occur for short periods of time. GHG emissions from this activity would be minor and the GHG impact would be less than significant.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Packet Page 187
Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 59 EMC Planning Group Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy – Initial Study January 2023

9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:

Comments:
a-b. The proposed project includes the maintenance and enhancement of the trail systems within Laguna Grande Regional Park. Therefore, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. c. The project site is located within one-quarter mile of the Cypress Continuation High School. However, the proposed project includes the maintenance and enhancement of Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a result,
create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e. For a project located within an airport land-use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or a public-use airport,
result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
g. Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Packet Page 188
Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 60 EMC Planning Group Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy – Initial Study January 2023 the trail systems within Laguna Grande Regional Park and would, therefore, not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste that would impact the school.
d. The project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5 (California Department of Toxic Substances Control 2022) and, as a result, would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
e. The project site is located within two miles of the Monterey Peninsula Regional Airport and within the Monterey Peninsula Regional Airport Land Use Plan (Monterey County 2019). However, the project involves the maintenance and enhancement of the existing Laguna Grande Regional Park. Therefore, the project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area. f. The proposed project involves the maintenance and enhancement of the existing Laguna Grande Regional Park and would not impact the three nearest evacuation routes pursuant to the Monterey County’s peninsula region evacuation guide (Del Monte Avenue, Fremont Boulevard, and Canyon Del Rey Boulevard) (Monterey County Office of Emergency Services 2022). Therefore, the project would not impair the implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
g. The LCP identifies the project site as being within 2,400 meters of a moderate threat of wildfire (Figure 2-6). Refer also to Section 20, Wildfire. The project would not expose people or structures, directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires.

Packet Page 189
Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 61 EMC Planning Group Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy – Initial Study January 2023

10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:

Comments:
a. As discussed in the response under “b” in Section 7.0, Geology and Soils, phase one of the project implementation for individual portions of the trail system would result in a total ground disturbance that is less than 1.0 acre. Therefore, the project would not be subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order No. 2012-0006-DWQ) adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade
surface or ground water quality?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such
that the project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
(1) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite; ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
(2) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding onor off-site; ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
(3) Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water
drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff; or
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
(4) Impede or redirect flood flows? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Packet Page 190
Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 62 EMC Planning Group Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy – Initial Study January 2023 Homeless encampments occur within the Laguna Grande Regional Park creating water quality concerns due to anthropogenic debris. The proposed project would remove dense and overgrown vegetation within the area, which have attracted homeless encampments over the years. Maintaining the cleanliness of the site is anticipated to decrease, if not completely remove, the homelessness attraction of the area. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially degrade surface or ground water quality and may improve the water quality standards of the site.
b. All runoff from the proposed project drains into the soil (or non-asphalt/concrete trails) onsite or drains through surface and subsurface pathways into the Laguna Grande Lake encouraging groundwater recharge. As a park maintenance and enhancement project, the proposed project would have no impact on groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge.
c. Erosion. As identified in Section 7.0, Geology and Soils, the project site contains low and moderate erosion potential.

During implementation of the proposed project, soil disturbance is minimal and would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite. Compliance with local regulations, such as the City of Seaside Municipal Code Section 15.32.180, City of Monterey Municipal Code Chapter 31.5, and Monterey County Code Chapter 16.12, that contain design standards, permitting, and grading regulations for erosion control would ensure impacts remain less than significant.

Erosion may occur during project operation. However, trail maintenance as part of the project would include upkeep of the gravel, DG, and mulch trails, ensuring soil compaction to reduce erosion. Impacts from operational erosion would be less than significant. Refer back to Section 7.0, Geology and Soils, response to checklist question b for more detail.

Flooding and Runoff. All runoff from the proposed project drains into the soil (or nonasphalt/concrete trails) onsite or drains through surface and subsurface pathways into the Laguna Grande Lake. The water within the Laguna Grande Lake is connected through a man-made canal that runs underneath Del Monte Boulevard and directs the water flow towards the ocean. The proposed project includes repairing existing asphalt trails that are impacted by root growth and have become a concern for accessibility and safety. The proposed project would not increase the number of impervious surfaces at the project site or alter the existing drainage pattern. As a maintenance and enhancement park project, it would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing storm drainage systems. Onsite drainage and natural filtration of surface runoff would improve through the project’s clearing of dense, overgrown vegetation and restoring native plant communities. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impacts on runoff and would not increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite.

Packet Page 191
Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 63 EMC Planning Group Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy – Initial Study January 2023 Flood Flows. The proposed project would repair and enhance the existing trail system at the Laguna Grande Regional Park and would not impede or redirect flood flows through its implementation.
d. The project site includes the Laguna Grande Lake; therefore, it is almost entirely within the 0.2 percent annual chance flood hazard zone (Zone AE) (FEMA 2022). Being in the coastal zone, the project site is also within a tsunami evacuation zone (City of Seaside 2013, Figure 2-7) and seiches could occur in the area.

However, the project is the maintenance and enhancement of the existing trail system at the Laguna Grande Regional Park and, therefore, would not exacerbate existing conditions related to flooding, tsunamis, or seiches on the site during or after implementation.
e. The proposed project, as a maintenance and enhancement park project, has no impact on groundwater and would, therefore, have no conflict with a sustainable groundwater management plan. Water quality would be improved at the Laguna Grande Regional Park as natural filtration of pollutants in surface waters onsite would occur through the project’s clearing of dense, overgrown vegetation and restoring native plant communities.

As identified previously, the proposed project would have no impacts on groundwater and, therefore, would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a sustainable groundwater management plan.

Packet Page 192
Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 64 EMC Planning Group Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy – Initial Study January 2023

11. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:

Comments:
a. The proposed project involves the maintenance and enhancement of the existing Laguna Grande Regional Park and, therefore, would not physically divide an established community.
b. The project involves trail maintenance and enhancement within the existing Laguna Grande Regional Park. These activities are supported and encouraged by, rather than conflicting with, the City of Seaside LCP, the City of Monterey General Plan, and the Laguna Grande Regional Park Master Plan and EIR Addendum (Laguna Grande Regional Joint Powers Agency 1978) that govern the area. The proposed project complies with the City of Seaside LCP: Policy NCR-LG 2.1.B by its intent on enhancing and preserving the park and its trails and clearing invasive species vegetation that has overgrown and blocked views of the Laguna Grande Lake; Policy NCR-CA 1.1.B through its implementation of native enhancement and restoration that will sustain the biological productivity of coastal waters; Policy PAR-CZ 1.1.B by maximizing and protecting pedestrian and bicycle connectivity and recreational opportunities in the coastal zone; Policy PAR-CZ 1.1.D by its protecting and enhancing public recreational facilities (i.e., Laguna Grande Regional Park); and Policy PAR-CZ 1.3.A through its maintenance of the existing trail system. The proposed project complies with the City of Monterey General Plan Policy d.3 as it is a collaborative effort to maintain and enhance the exiting habitat and scenic resources for both Seaside and Monterey.

With implementation of mitigation measures presented in section 4, the proposed project would not conflict with any local policies and ordinances related to biological resources.

The project also does not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a sustainable groundwater management plan.

Therefore, the proposed project would not cause any significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Physically divide an established community? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Cause any significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Packet Page 193
Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 65 EMC Planning Group Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy – Initial Study January 2023

12. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Comments:
a-b. The 2010 Monterey County General Plan (“County General Plan”) states that although Monterey County contains useful minerals, geological complexity caused by faulting and deformation makes further investigation difficult and inconclusive (Monterey County 2010). The County General Plan does not identify any specific mineral resources or mineral sites. The City of Monterey and the City of Seaside do not include any land zoned for mineral extraction and no mineral extraction occurs within the project area. No mineral resources are known to occur within the project site (United States Geological Survey 2022). Furthermore, as a project that does not include structures, the proposed project would not affect the long-term availability of mineral resources that could occur within the study area. Therefore, there would be no impact to mineral resources.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Result in loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated in a local
general plan, specific plan, or other land-use plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Packet Page 194
Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 66 EMC Planning Group Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy – Initial Study January 2023

13. NOISE
Would the project result in:

Comments:
a. Sensitive receptors (i.e., residences) surround the project site to the west and east, the nearest being on the southwestern border of the project site. The proposed project would not result in any impacts to ambient noise levels during its operation, but may result in temporary increases in ambient noise levels during its implementation activities.

However, this noise would be temporary and be limited to daytime hours per the City of Seaside’s Noise Ordinance (Section 9.12.030.D). Therefore, this potential impact is ensured to remain at a less-than-significant level.
b. Implementation activities associated with the proposed project include clearing nonnative vegetation and overgrown brush, tree and limb removal, paving on existing trails to level out those that are a safety hazard due to root damage, implementation of a new eight-foot seasonal mulch trail through the southern riparian woodland, installation of a header or curb to maintain trail edges along the lakeside, repairing or replacing culverts under the existing park trails, and providing a formal trail connection to Fremont Boulevard. The majority of these activities would not involve ground-borne vibrations or the generation of excessive ground-borne noise levels. However, a few activities (such as improving existing trails with root damage, the installation of a header or curb, and the formal trail connection to Fremont Boulevard) may result in the generation of excessive ground-borne vibrations or noise levels.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or in applicable
standards of other agencies?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b. Generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or
ground borne noise levels?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land-use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public-use airport, expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive
noise levels?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Packet Page 195
Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 67 EMC Planning Group Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy – Initial Study January 2023 Project construction activities would be temporary and within limited hours per the City of Monterey Municipal Code Section 38-112 to between 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturday, and 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Sunday; and per the City of Seaside’s Noise Ordinance (Section 9.12.030) to between 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on Saturday, Sunday, and holidays ensuring potential impacts remain at a less-than-significant level. c. The proposed project does not involve increasing the residential population of the region in a way that could expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels from the nearby Monterey Regional Airport located approximately 0.6 miles south of the project site.

Packet Page 196
Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 68 EMC Planning Group Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy – Initial Study January 2023

14. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:

Comments:
a-b. The proposed project involves the maintenance and enhancement of the trail systems within Laguna Grande Regional Park. The project does not involve inducing unplanned population growth in an area or displacing any numbers of existing people or housing.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Packet Page 197
Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 69 EMC Planning Group Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy – Initial Study January 2023

15. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the following public services:

Comments:
a-c, e. The proposed project involves the maintenance and enhancement of the Laguna Grande Regional Park trail system and would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or need for new or physically altered fire, police, or school facilities, the construction of which could cause significant adverse environmental impacts.
d. The maintenance and enhancement of the project site have been discussed and planned for by the City of Seaside for years and was continuously put off due to the lack of funding. Implementation of the proposed project would result in a significant benefit to the park and City of Seaside and, therefore, would not increase the use of the park such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Fire protection? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Police protection? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c. Schools? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d. Parks? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e. Other public facilities? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Packet Page 198
Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 70 EMC Planning Group Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy – Initial Study January 2023

16. RECREATION
Comments:
a-b. The proposed project’s maintenance and enhancement of the Laguna Grande Regional Park trail system would not increase the residential population in the region it would serve and, therefore, would not directly result in an increased demand for and use of existing recreational facilities. However, the project itself would provide an improved recreational resource that already exists. The maintenance and enhancement of the project site have been discussed and planned for by the City of Seaside for years and was continuously put off due to the lack of funding. Implementation of the proposed project would result in a significant benefit to the park and City of Seaside and, therefore, would not increase the use of the park such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Packet Page 199
Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 71 EMC Planning Group Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy – Initial Study January 2023

17. TRANSPORTATION
Would the project:

Comments:
a. The proposed project as a maintenance and enhancement of the existing trails system within the Laguna Grande Regional Park would not conflict, but rather comply, with the programs, plans, ordinances, and policies addressing the circulation of the area. The proposed project would benefit the existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities within the Laguna Grande Regional Park through its implementation of maintenance strategies that would create a more accessible, safe, and long-lasting park for the surrounding community and region.
b. The proposed project involves the maintenance and enhancement of the Laguna Grande Regional Park and would not increase the number of vehicles coming and going from the site. The proposed project’s purpose of providing a clear set of priorities and means for maintaining the trails and vegetation throughout the project site has no association with transportation vehicle miles traveled. Therefore, the project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b). c. The proposed project involves the maintenance of the existing trail system within the Laguna Grande Regional Park and would improve existing hazards, not increase them.

Therefore, there would be no impact.
d. The proposed project would clear non-native vegetation and overgrown brush to provide maintenance for emergency services foot access. At the southside of the project site, proposed tasks include enhancing an existing trail section and width for the use of Type 3 firetrucks and provide for a location for firetruck turnaround. Therefore, the proposed project would improve emergency access at the site.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA guidelines
section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d. Result in inadequate emergency access? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Packet Page 200
Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 72 EMC Planning Group Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy – Initial Study January 2023

18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
Comments:
a. (1,2) The CEQA statue as amended by Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) (Public Resources Code Section 21073 and 21074) defines “tribal cultural resources”, and “California Native American tribe” as a Native American tribe located in California that is on the contact list maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission. Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1 outlines procedures for tribal consultation as part of the environmental review process. On October 5, 2021, on behalf of the Laguna Grande Regional Park JPA, EMC Planning Group sent an offer of consultation letter to the tribal representatives of the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band, Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista, Costanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe, Esselen Tribe of Monterey County, Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan, Kakoon Ta Ruk Band of Ohlone- Costanoan Indians of the Big Sur Rancheria, Ohlone/Costanoan- Esselen Nation, Rumsen Am:a Tur:ataj Ohlone, Salinan Tribe of Monterey, San Luis Obispo Counties, Santa Rosa Rancheria tachi Yokut Tribe, Tule River Indian Tribe, Wuksache Indian Tribe/ Eshom Valley Band, and XolonSalinan Tribe.

On October 25, 202, EMC Planning Group the City received a response letter and request for consultation with the Laguna Grande Regional Park JPA, from the KaKoon Ta Ruk Band of Ohlone-Costanoan Indians of the Big Sur Rancheria (“Tribe”). No other requests for consultation per AB 52 were received. The Tribe has provided its Cultural a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public
Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, or cultural landscape that is geographically
defined in terms of the size and scope of the
landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value
to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
(1) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public Resources
code section 5020.1(k), or
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
(2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the significance of the resource
to a California Native American tribe.
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Packet Page 201
Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 73 EMC Planning Group Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy – Initial Study January 2023 Resources Treatment Protocol for Handling Human Remains and Cultural Items Affiliated with the KaKoon Ta Ruk Band of Ohlone-Costanoan Indians of the Big Sur Rancheria (Appendix C). In the unlikely event that cultural resources are encountered, outreach to the appropriate Native American tribal representatives would occur and implementation of mitigation measures outlined in Section 5.0, Cultural Resources, would be required to ensure that impacts related to tribal cultural resources are less than significant.

Mitigation Measure
TCR-1 The Laguna Grande Regional Park JPA will notify the KaKoon Ta Ruk Band of Ohlone-Costanoan Indians of the Big Sur Rancheria two-weeks prior to any earthmoving activity and the Tribe’s cultural resource specialist(s) will be allowed onsite for monitoring. Appropriate safety protocols shall be adhered to by all people on-site during the project or site access may be revoked. The Tribe’s treatment protocol should be implemented.

Packet Page 202
Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 74 EMC Planning Group Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy – Initial Study January 2023

19. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS
Would the project:

Comments:
a. The proposed project involves the maintenance and enhancement of the Laguna Grande Regional Park trail system and does not impact any facilities that use water, wastewater treatment, storm drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities.

Therefore, no impact would occur with implementation of the project. b. The proposed project does not require the use of water and, therefore, would not impact water supplies.
c. The proposed project does not propose additional facilities that would generate water requiring water treatment or distribution facilities and, therefore, would not impact wastewater treatment providers.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, storm
water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and multiple dry
years?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand in addition to the provider’s
existing commitments?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e. Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Packet Page 203
Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 75 EMC Planning Group Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy – Initial Study January 2023 d-e. The proposed project, as a maintenance and enhancement park project, would not generate solid waste and, therefore, would not result in excess solid waste of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals nor conflict with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

Packet Page 204
Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 76 EMC Planning Group Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy – Initial Study January 2023

20. WILDFIRE
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:

Comments:
a-d. The project site is not located in or near a state responsibility area or land classified as very high fire hazard severity zone. The nearest high fire hazard in a state responsibility zone is located approximately 1.3 miles south of the project site (CalFire 2022).

Therefore, no discussion is necessary.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire
or the uncontrolled spread of wildfire?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency
water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d. Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Packet Page 205
Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 77 EMC Planning Group Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy – Initial Study January 2023

21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Comments:
a. As discussed in Section 4, Biological Resources, there are several special-status species potentially occurring in the project vicinity including, but not limited to, California redlegged frog, Coast Range newt, western pond turtle, burrowing owl, tricolored blackbird, American badger, Monterey dusky-footed woodrat, Monterey shrew, special-status bats, and nesting birds and raptors. Arroyo willow woodland and California bulrush marsh located within the site are listed by CDFW as sensitive natural communities. In addition, both communities are also considered Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA) by the California Coastal Commission (CCC), as well as the emergent wetland and estuarine habitats associated with Laguna Grande Lake. There are also protected trees on site.

Disturbance activities could result in impacts to special-status species, the disturbance of arroyo willow woodland, California bulrush marsh, wetlands or estuarine habitat, or protected trees. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-12 would reduce these potential impacts to a less-than-significant level.

As described in Section 5, Cultural Resources, the project site does not consist of historic structures on-site and is not known to contain any historic or prehistoric resources.

However, it is possible that these resources could be accidentally uncovered during Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-than-Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment; substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below selfsustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; substantially reduce the number or
restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species; or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c. Does the project have environmental effects, which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Packet Page 206
Section D Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 78 EMC Planning Group Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy – Initial Study January 2023 grading and construction activities. In the event this should occur, Mitigation Measures CR-1 and CR-2 outlined in this section would ensure that the potential impacts would not be significant.
b. Based on the analysis provided in this initial study, the proposed project, the proposed project does not have individually limited, but cumulatively considerable impacts. c. Based on the analysis provided in this initial study, the proposed project does not have environmental effects, which would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.

Packet Page 207
Section E Sources 79 EMC Planning Group
Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy January 2023 E. SOURCES
Environmental Setting
City of Monterey. Adopted January 2005. last amended March 2016, City of Monterey General Plan.

Monterey, CA.

City of Seaside. June 2013. City of Seaside Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan. Seaside, CA.

Google Earth. 2022.

Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Agency. September 1978. Laguna Grande Regional Park Master Plan and EIR Addendum. https://seasidecityca.documents-ondemand.com/document/621e71b6-b2e0-e911-a2d3- 000c29a59557/LAGUNA%20GRANDE%20MASTER%20PLAN%20EIR_19092616 040.PDF&fromFrame=1
Transportation Agency for Monterey County. Fort Ord Trail and Greenway Project Final Environmental Impact Report. March 2020. Salinas, CA.

Project Description
Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Authority. February 2022. Draft – Laguna Grande Regional Park Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy.

Aesthetics
Caltrans. “California State Scenic Highway System Map.” Accessed on March 24, 2022. https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46 cc8e8057116f1aacaa
City of Monterey. Adopted January 2005, last amended March 2016. City of Monterey General Plan.

Monterey, CA.

City of Seaside. June 2013. City of Seaside Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan. Seaside, CA.

Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Authority. February 2022. Draft – Laguna Grande Regional Park Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy.

Agriculture and Forest Resources
City of Monterey. Adopted January 2005, last amended March 2016. City of Monterey General Plan.

Monterey, CA.

City of Seaside. August 2003. Seaside General Plan. City of Seaside, CA.

Packet Page 208
Section E Sources 80 EMC Planning Group
Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy – Initial Study January 2023 City of Seaside. January 2004. Final Seaside General Plan EIR. City of Seaside, CA.

Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Authority. February 2022. Draft – Laguna Grande Regional Park Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy.

Air Quality
Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Authority. February 2022. Draft – Laguna Grande Regional Park Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy.

Monterey Bay Air Resources District. March 2017. 2012-2015 Air Quality Management Plan.

Monterey, CA. https://www.mbard.org/files/6632732f5/2012-2015- AQMP_FINAL.pdf
Monterey Bay Air Resources District (formerly, Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District). 2008. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. Monterey, CA. https://www.mbard.org/files/0ce48fe68/CEQA+Guidelines.pdf Biological Resources
BFS. 2022. Laguna Grande Regional Park Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy.

California Burrowing Owl Consortium. 1993. Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation.

State of California Natural Resources Agency.

California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2001. CNPS Botanical Survey Guidelines. https://cnps.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/cnps_survey_guidelines.pdf.

California Native Plant Society. 2021. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California online database. http://www.rareplants.cnps.org
CDFW. 2018. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities.
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=18959&inline.

CDFW. 2021. Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS) online database. http://bios.dfg.ca.gov
CDFW. 2021. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) online database. https://wildlife.ca.gov/data/cnddb
City of Monterey, Adopted January 2005, last amended March 2016. City of Monterey General Plan.

Monterey, CA.

City of Monterey. Municipal Code.

Packet Page 209
Section E Sources 81 EMC Planning Group
Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy – Initial Study January 2023 City of Seaside. 2013. Local Coastal Program / Land Use Plan.

City of Seaside. Municipal Code, Chapter 8.54. Trees.

Jameson, E. W., and Hans J. Peeters. 2004. Mammals of California. University of California Press.

Thomson, R. C. 2016. California Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern, University of California Press.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2005. Revised Guidance on Site Assessments and Field Surveys for the California Red-legged Frog.

USFWS. 2014. USFWS Programmatic Biological Opinion for Issuance of Permits under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, including Authorizations Under 22 Nationwide Permits, for Projects that May Affect the Threatened California Red-legged Frog in Nine San Francisco Bay Area Counties, California.

USFWS. 2021. National Wetlands Inventory online database. U.S. Department of the Interior.

Washington, D.C. http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/
USFWS. 2021. Endangered Species Program online database. Species list for San Benito County.

Washington, D.C. http://www.fws.gov/endangered/
Cultural Resources
California Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center File No. 21-0317.

Received 09/16/2022.

Energy
Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Authority. February 2022. Draft – Laguna Grande Regional Park Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy.

Geology and Soils
California Department of Conservation. “Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation.” Accessed on March 3, 2022. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/ City of Monterey. Adopted January 2005, last amended March 2016. City of Monterey General Plan.

Monterey, CA.

City of Seaside. January 2004. Final Seaside General Plan EIR. Seaside, CA.

City of Seaside. June 2013. City of Seaside Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan. Seaside, CA.

City of Seaside. November 2020. Seaside Municipal Code. https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Seaside
Packet Page 210
Section E Sources 82 EMC Planning Group
Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy – Initial Study January 2023 Transportation Agency for Monterey County. Fort Ord Trail and Greenway Project Final Environmental Impact Report. March 2020. Salinas, CA.

Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Authority. February 2022. Draft – Laguna Grande Regional Park Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy.

Monterey County. “Parcel Report Web App.” Accessed on March 3, 2022. https://maps.co.monterey.ca.us/wab/parcelreportwebapp/
USGS. “U.S. Landslide Inventory.” Accessed on March 3, 2022. https://usgs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=ae120962f459434b8 c904b456c82669d
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Bay Area Air Quality Management District. May 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-andresearch/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Authority. February 2022. Draft – Laguna Grande Regional Park Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
CalFire. “FHSZ Viewer.” Accessed on March 2, 2022. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/ California Department of Toxic Substances Control. “EnviroStor Database.” Accessed March 2, 2022. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=seasideca City of Monterey, Adopted January 2005, last amended March 2016, City of Monterey General Plan.

Monterey, CA.

City of Seaside. June 2013. City of Seaside Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan. Seaside, CA.

Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Authority. February 2022. Draft – Laguna Grande Regional Park Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy.

Monterey County. February 2019. Monterey Regional Airport – Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.

Salinas, CA.

Monterey County Office of Emergency Services. “Peninsula Evacuation Region Guide (DRAFT).” Accessed on March 2, 2022.
https://www.co.monterey.ca.us/home/showpublisheddocument/105410/6376800988 11670000
Packet Page 211
Section E Sources 83 EMC Planning Group
Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy – Initial Study January 2023 Hydrology and Water Quality
City of Monterey, Adopted January 2005, last amended March 2016, City of Monterey General Plan.

Monterey, CA.

City of Seaside. June 2013. City of Seaside Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan. Seaside, CA.

FEMA. “FEMA Flood Map Service Center.” Accessed on April 1, 2022. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search#searchresultsanchor
Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Authority. February 2022. Draft – Laguna Grande Regional Park Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy.

Land Use and Planning
City of Monterey, Adopted January 2005, last amended March 2016, City of Monterey General Plan.

Monterey, CA.

City of Seaside. June 2013. City of Seaside Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan. Seaside, CA.

Laguna Grande Regional Joint Powers Agency. September 1978. Laguna Grande Regional Park Master Plan and EIR Addendum.

Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Authority. February 2022. Draft – Laguna Grande Regional Park Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy.

Mineral Resources
Monterey County. October 2010. 2010 Monterey County General Plan. Salinas, CA. https://www.co.monterey.ca.us/home/showpublisheddocument/46016/63638994918 7800000
United States Geological Survey. “Mineral Resources Online Spatial Data.” Accessed on March 3, 2022. https://mrdata.usgs.gov/general/map-us.html#home Noise
City of Monterey. Adopted January 2005. last amended March 2016.City of Monterey General Plan.

Monterey, CA.

City of Monterey. Municipal Code.

City of Seaside. November 2020. Seaside Municipal Code. https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Seaside
Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Authority. February 2022. Draft – Laguna Grande Regional Park Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy.

Packet Page 212
Section E Sources 84 EMC Planning Group
Laguna Grande Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy – Initial Study January 2023 Monterey County. “Parcel Report Web App.” Accessed on March 3, 2022. https://maps.co.monterey.ca.us/wab/parcelreportwebapp/
Population and Housing
Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Authority. February 2022. Draft – Laguna Grande Regional Park Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy.

Public Services
Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Authority. February 2022. Draft – Laguna Grande Regional Park Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy.

Recreation
Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Authority. February 2022. Draft – Laguna Grande Regional Park Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy.

Transportation
Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Authority. February 2022. Draft – Laguna Grande Regional Park Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy.

Tribal Cultural Resources
Native American Heritage Commission, Sacred Land File. Received 10/05/2021 Utilities and Service Systems
Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Authority. February 2022. Draft – Laguna Grande Regional Park Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy.

Wildfire
CalFire. “FHSZ Viewer.” Accessed on March 2, 2022. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/ City of Monterey, Adopted January 2005, last amended March 2016, City of Monterey General Plan.

Monterey, CA.

City of Seaside. June 2013. City of Seaside Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan. Seaside, CA.

Mandatory Findings of Significance
Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Authority. February 2022. Draft – Laguna Grande Regional Park Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy.

Packet Page 213
Draft – Laguna Grande Regional Park Trail and
Vegetation Maintenance Strategy A

APPENDIX
Packet Page 214
Packet Page 215

LAGUNA GRANDE REGIONAL PARK JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY

LAGUNA GRANDE

T R A I L A N D V E G E T A T I O N

M A I N T E N A N C E

STRATEGY
FEBRUARY 28, 2022

REGIONAL PARK
Packet Page 216
Packet Page 217
TABLE OF CONTENTS | iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. HISTORY........................................................................................................................ 1

2. EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................................................................................ 3

3. FUTURE PLANNING .................................................................................................... 13

4. COMMUNITY OUTREACH .......................................................................................... 17

5. GOALS ........................................................................................................................ 21

6. OVERALL PLAN .......................................................................................................... 23

7. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ONE.................................................................................. 29

8. COST ESTIMATES........................................................................................................ 33

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A LAGUNA GRANDE FOCUSED PLANT SURVEY

APPENDIX B INVASIVE PLANT CONTROL

APPENDIX C WILDLIFE ANALYSIS

APPENDIX D COMMUNITY OUTREACH MATERIALS

FIGURES
FIGURE 1 CIRCULATION MAP......................................................................................9 FIGURE 2 TRAIL CONDITIONS MAP ..........................................................................10 FIGURE 3 PARCEL OWNERSHIP MAP ........................................................................11 FIGURE 4 FORTAG TRAIL – CANYON DEL REY/SR218 SEGMENT .............................15 FIGURE 5 COMMUNITY SITE WALK PHOTOS ............................................................19 FIGURE 6 COMMUNITY SITE WALK PHOTOS ............................................................20 FIGURE 7 OVERALL PLAN - NORTH...........................................................................25 FIGURE 8 OVERALL PLAN - SOUTH ...........................................................................26 FIGURE 9 SOUTH WOODS SEASONAL TRAIL DEVELOPMENT PLAN........................27 FIGURE 10 PHASE ONE PLAN - NORTH ......................................................................31 FIGURE 11 PHASE ONE PLAN - SOUTH.......................................................................32 Packet Page 218
iv | LAGUNA GRANDE TRAIL AND VEGETATION MAINTENANCE STRATEGY

THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Packet Page 219
History | 1
HISTORY 01

HISTORICAL NARRATIVE
Laguna Grande Lake was a flowing estuary called the Canyon Del Rey Creek, collecting runoff from the 16.8 square mile Canyon Del Rey watershed and flowing into the Monterey Bay. Laguna Grande Lake and Roberts Lake which existed as a single body of water were separated in the 1880s by the Southern Pacific Railroad. Over time the surrounding landscape developed and populations grew, the creek, the wetlands and estuary slowly filled and eventually were cut off from the bay. Slowly landfill operations filled in the marsh areas and edges of the lakes transforming this body of water into its current state.

Laguna Grande Regional Park (LGRP / Park) did not find its beginnings until the 1960’s when the cities of Monterey, Seaside and Del Rey Oaks came together to petition the state for a feasibility study for developing a “Recreation and Park District for Laguna Grande”. During this time there were grand visions for the park. A pamphlet from the Seaside Chamber of Commerce proudly read “It will beautify and make more attractive the City of Seaside and the entrance to the Monterey Peninsula. It should, from this standpoint, be of interest to every Peninsula community and individual.” In 1968, the cities of Monterey and Seaside formed the Laguna Grande Agency to study the area. They developed the “Laguna Grande Plan” prepared by D’Amico and Associates and Charles R. Haugh. Shortly after, in 1975, the City of Seaside contracted Richard Murray and Associates to develop the “Laguna Grande Redevelopment General Conceptual Plan”.

Many new developments began for LGRP in 1976. The cities of Monterey and Seaside and the Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District formed the Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Source: Laguna Grande Regional Park Master Plan and EIR Addendum September 11, 1978 Packet Page 220
2 | LAGUNA GRANDE TRAIL AND VEGETATION MAINTENANCE STRATEGY Powers Agency (JPA) in February. That same year the Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District purchased the Laguna Grande site. The JPA adopted Seaside’s 1975 conceptual plan as its’ first step in preparation of a master plan. In 1978, the “Laguna Grande Regional Park Master Plan and EIR Addendum” was completed by J.P. Manachek, A.I.A, and consulting landscape architect Charles R. Haugh.

The master plan’s main objective was to “preserve and enhance Laguna Grande through a wateroriented park facility.” The plan proposed to dredge a portion of the southern marsh lands and add an additional 5 acres to the lake to provide more opportunities for fishing, fly-casting, and non-power boating. The lost waterfowl habitat would be relocated to Roberts Lake, while also retaining a portion of the southern marsh as a natural preserve with boardwalk paths throughout.

The lake at the time was significantly polluted. The plan proposed the addition of an aeration system, silting basin, and the removal of tule growth along the edges to help decrease nitrogen levels in the water.

In 1981 the “Land Use Plan for the Laguna Grande/Roberts Lake Local Coastal Program”, was completed by the cities of Monterey and Seaside to come under compliance with the Regional Coastal Commission. It was not until 1982 that the Park was opened to the public. The master plan for the Park was never fully implemented. The northern end of the park was built out with playgrounds, fields and park facilities. The south end of the park, meant to become an extension of the lake, was not completed due to lack of funds. As droughts became more frequent in California and with the slow buildup of sediments, the marshy, low wetlands to the south began to dry and more mature vegetation developed, forming a low dense woodland of willows and brambles that exist today.

REFERENCES
Schmalz, David. “Despite a persistent problem of encampments at Laguna Grande Park, the years go by, and nothing seems to change.” Monterey County Weekly 07 Mar 2019. Web. 20 Oct 2021 Laguna Grande Regional Park Master Plan and EIR Addendum. J.P. Manacheck, A.I.A., and Charles R Haugh. 1978
Land Use Plan for the Laguna Grande/Roberts Lake Local Coastal Program. Duncan and Jones. 1981
Packet Page 221
Existing Conditions | 3
EXISTING CONDITIONS 02
The following section is a summary of information compiled from several field studies conducted by the consultant, interviews with staff from the City of Monterey, City of Seaside and Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District, and review of maps and plans prepared previously for Laguna Grande Regional Park. The field studies focused on vegetation and sensitive habitat, park physical features, review of park conditions for accessibility and observations of park uses by the public.

Many of the studies confirmed the Park is a rich resource for wildlife, vegetation and provides the community with a diverse range of programmed uses. There are several areas of the park which are used for illegal camping and this has resulted in park safety concerns and a substantial amount of trash and debris collecting in sensitive habitat areas. Interviews with maintenance staff, fire officials and other officials has confirmed the Consultant team findings.

In order to provide a clear understanding of the park and its specific areas, below is a map highlighting key features and the areas that will be discussed throughout this plan.

NORTH
EAST
SOUTH
Riparian
Woodland
BBQ / Picnic Area Riparian
Woodland
Maintenance
Yard
Traditional
Park
Soccer
Field
Stage
Laguna Grande
Lake
Virgin Ave.

English Ave.

Cassanova Ave. Grant Ave.

Montecito Ave.

Branner Ave.

Sequoia Ave.

Kolb Ave.

Laguna Grande Ct.

Charles Ave.

Williams Ave.

Francis Ave.

Marin St.

Hilby Ave.

Canyon Del Rey Blvd.

Fremont Blvd.

Del Monte Blvd.

Harcourt Ave.

Sonoma Ave.

Encina Ave.

English Ave.

Traditional
Park
St. Seraphim’s
Church
Chili’s
Embassy Suites
by Hilton
Holiday Inn
Express
In-N-Out
Burger
WEST
Packet Page 222
4 | LAGUNA GRANDE TRAIL AND VEGETATION MAINTENANCE STRATEGY

AESTHETICS
Laguna Grande Regional Park is a unique
aquatic landscape situated between
Monterey and Seaside. There are clear views
into the park from Canyon Del Rey Boulevard
to the east and from the surrounding
neighborhoods to the west. Interior views
include: the lake, native aquatic bird species,
low woodlands, and rolling grassy hills. The
south end of the Park has elevated hillsides,
that provide views toward the Bay.

ACCESS AND CIRCULATION
The Park provides multiple pedestrian and vehicular access points with the exception of the southern end. The southern end of the park has no accessible pedestrian or vehicular access connecting to Fremont Boulevard. An existing set of stairs leads down into the park near Canyon Del Rey Boulevard.

There are no sidewalk connections to the stairs from Canyon Del Rey Boulevard or Fremont Boulevard.

Parking around the lake is facilitated with three public parking lots, two on the east and one on the west, as well as street parking on the west. Pedestrian connections to park trails are accessible from multiple points, two off of Del Monte Boulevard, four off of Canyon Del Rey Boulevard, and four off of Virgin Avenue. Trails connect to a central loop that runs along the perimeter of the lake. There is a wide path that leads to the south end of the park and dead ends with stairs which lead up to Fremont Boulevard. Secondary paths on the east and west sides of the park connect to the main loop around the lake. See Circulation Map Figure 01.

TRAIL SURFACE/MATERIAL CONDITIONS
The Park has a number of trail materials including: asphalt, concrete, gravel, decomposed granite (DG), boardwalks, and mulch. The general trail conditions are good due to weekly maintenance and repairs from the cities. All trails have been kept clear of vegetation allowing easy access. See Trail Conditions Map Figure 02.

The majority of park trails are asphalt and conditions vary. There are two areas that have been heavily impacted by root growth and become areas of concern for accessibility and safety that need replacement. Along the asphalt trails there are many areas where the edge of the path, particularly on the lake side, is deteriorating. Some areas impacted by erosion and root damage have been clearly demarcated by maintenance staff for public safety.

Packet Page 223
Existing Conditions | 5
Asphalt Trail Root Impacts Asphalt Trail in Poor Condition The use of concrete throughout the park has been limited to restroom facilities and at bridge abutments on the north end of the park. The concrete throughout the park is in good condition, however, in some locations where the trail transitions from concrete to DG, rutting has occurred.

Gravel has only been used for the trail that runs to the south end of the park. This portion of the trail has been well maintained is in good condition.

DG has been used on the northwest side of the park running from the end of the traditional park on the west side up to the In-N-Out Burger to the north. The DG path has been well maintained and is in good condition with no root impacts or erosion.

Gravel Trail DG Trail Mulch Trail
Packet Page 224
6 | LAGUNA GRANDE TRAIL AND VEGETATION MAINTENANCE STRATEGY Wood decking is limited to the two bridges and five piers around the lake. These appear to be in good condition. Accessibility to these bridges and piers varies greatly. Many of the piers are inaccessible to wheelchairs due to grade change, as well as connections to the main trail that are too steep or narrow. The bridge at the north end of the park is not considered accessible by code.

The mulch trails are seasonal and
have been limited to the riparian
woodland along the northwest
edge of the lake. These trails
vary in width and condition,
with some portions of the trail
subsiding into wet soil. The
application of new mulch has
kept much of the trail in good
condition.

Bridge Boardwalk

ADJACENT ACTIVITIES / SURROUNDING LAND USE
The main trail loop is surrounded by a diverse set of land uses and activities. The north end of the park is adjacent to privately owned hotels, fast food and drive-in restaurants.

On the east side adjacent to Canyon Del Rey Boulevard there is a traditional neighborhood park with an event lawn and stage, restroom facility, and playground. There is also is a private parcel with St.

Seraphim’s Russian Orthodox church, which is accessed through the park.

Seaside Playground
Image Credit: https://filmmonterey.org
St. Seraphim’s Church
Packet Page 225
Existing Conditions | 7
The southern portion of the park consists
predominately of a riparian woodland and creek
that are largely inaccessible to the public. South
of the church are grassy slopes with BBQ / picnic
areas and strolling paths. At the very southern
tip of the park, adjacent to Fremont Boulevard,
is a maintenance and storage yard for the city of
Seaside.

Seaside BBQ/Picnic Area
The western edge of the park also has traditional park programming with a synthetic turf soccer field, restroom facility, playground, synthetic turf volleyball court, BBQ and picnic areas. There is also a riparian woodland with seasonal mulch trails.

Monterey Volleyball Court Monterey Soccer Field

TOPOGRAPHY
The property rises from 12-feet above sea level at the lake water level to 50-feet above sea level at the southern end along Fremont Boulevard and Laguna Grande Court. The southern end of the park functions like a valley between two 30-foot slopes to the east, south and west. The slopes level out as they move north towards the lake. The majority of the site sits 6-feet to 8-feet above the lake water level and is relatively flat and accessible.

VEGETATION
The Park, with its unique aquatic features, hosts a wide variety of vegetation. Much of this vegetation is native to the region and provides habitat for various wildlife but has been impacted by the spread of invasive species. See appendix A and B. Vegetation is maintained by the cities on a weekly basis with a focus on the traditional park areas. Special maintenance activities, such as tree limbing and trail clearing, are performed a few times throughout the year. Dense vegetation throughout the park obstructs sight lines along the trail and to the docks and is a safety concern.

Packet Page 226
8 | LAGUNA GRANDE TRAIL AND VEGETATION MAINTENANCE STRATEGY Invasive Giant Reed and French Broom Native Lavatera assurgentiflora - Island Mallow Refer to Appendix A – Laguna Grande Focused Plant Survey (EMC) Refer to Appendix B – Invasive Plant Control (EMC and BRG)

WILDLIFE AND SENSITIVE SPECIES
Refer to Appendix C – Wildlife Analysis (EMC)

GENERAL MAINTENANCE
The Park is generally visited daily to clean restrooms and provide a quick visual check of park conditions. Operations improvements are scheduled weekly or monthly depending on the season.

However, over the years persistent homeless encampments have considerably grown and become more permanent. City of Seaside staff are now checking encampments one to two times per week.

Shelters, however, have tunneled deeper into the thickets to avoid easy observation. The increasing population has alarmed neighbors and created water quality and safety hazards for park visitors.

Encampments in Woods
Image Credit: City of Seaside
Encampments in Thickets
Packet Page 227
EXISTING CONDITIONS | 9
LEGEND
Main Trail Loop
South Trail
Secondary Trails
Seasonal Trails
Social Trails
Stairs
Pedestrian Access
Vehicular Access
Virgin Ave.

English Ave.

Cassanova Ave. Grant Ave.

Montecito Ave. Branner Ave.

Sequoia Ave.

Kolb Ave.

Laguna Grande Ct.

Charles Ave.

Williams Ave.

Francis Ave.

Marin St.

Hilby Ave.

Canyon Del Rey Blvd.

Fremont Blvd.

Del Monte Blvd.

Harcourt Ave.

Sonoma Ave.

Encina Ave.

English Ave.

Laguna Grande Lake

CITY OFMONTEREY

CITY OF SEASIDE

CITY OF MONTEREY

CITY OF SEASIDE

PROJECT BOUNDARY

PROJECT BOUNDARY

PROJECT BOUNDARY

PROJECT BOUNDARY
LEGEND
Main Trail Loop
South Trail
Secondary Trails
Seasonal Trails
Social Trails
Stairs
Pedestrian Access
Vehicular Access
Virgin Ave.

English Ave.

Cassanova Ave. Grant Ave.

Montecito Ave. Branner Ave.

Sequoia Ave.

Kolb Ave.

Laguna Grande Ct.

Charles Ave.

Williams Ave.

Francis Ave.

Marin St.

Hilby Ave.

Canyon Del Rey Blvd.

Fremont
Blvd.

Del
Mo
nte
Blvd.

Harcourt Ave.

Sonoma Ave.

Encina Ave.

English Ave.

Laguna Grande Lake

CITY OFMONTEREY

CITY OF SEASIDE

CITY OF MONTEREY

CITY OF SEASIDE
TY O

PROJECT BOUNDARY

PROJECT BOUNDARYPROJEC

PROJECT BOUNDARY
PROJEC

T BOUNDARY
FIGURE 1: LAGUNA GRANDE REGIONAL PARK CIRCULATION
Packet Page 228
10 | LAGUNA GRANDE TRAIL AND VEGETATION MAINTENANCE STRATEGY LEGEND
Trail in Good Condition
Trail in Fair Condition -
will need repaired/
replaced in next 5 years
Trail in Poor Condition -
will need replaced within
the next 2 years
Virgin Ave.

English Ave.

Cassanova Ave. Grant Ave.

Montecito Ave. Branner Ave.

Sequoia Ave.

Kolb Ave.

Laguna Grande Ct.

Charles Ave.

Williams Ave.

Francis Ave.

Marin St.

Hilby Ave.

Canyon Del Rey Blvd.

Fremont Blvd.

Del Monte Blvd.

Harcourt Ave.

Sonoma Ave.

Encina Ave.

English Ave.

Laguna Grande Lake

CITY OF MONTEREY

CITY OF SEASIDE

CITY OF MONTEREY

CITY OF SEASIDE

PROJECT BOUNDARY

PROJECT BOUNDARY

PROJECT BOUNDARY

PROJECT BOUNDARY
LEGEND
Trail in Good Condition
Trail in Fair Condition -
will need repaired/
replaced in next 5 years
Trail in Poor Condition -
will need replaced within
the next 2 years
Virgin Ave.

English Ave.

Cassanova Ave. Grant Ave.

Montecito Ave. Branner Ave.

Sequoia Ave.

Kolb Ave.

Laguna Grande Ct.

Charles Ave.

Williams Ave.

Francis Ave.

Marin St.

Hilby Ave.

Canyon Del Rey Blvd.

Fremont
Blvd.

Del Mo
nte
Blvd.

Harcourt Ave.

Sonoma Ave.

Encina Ave.

English Ave.

Laguna Grande Lake

CITY OF MONTEREY

CITY OF SEASIDE

CITY OF MONTEREY

CITY OF SEASIDE

PROJECT BOUNDARY
PROJEC

T BOUNDARY
PROJEC

PROJECT BOUNDARY
PROJEC

T BOUNDARY
FIGURE 2: LAGUNA GRANDE REGIONAL PARK TRAIL CONDITIONS
Packet Page 229
EXISTING CONDITIONS | 11
Montecito Ave. Branner Ave.

Sequoia Ave.

Kolb Ave.

Laguna Grande Ct.

Charles Ave.

Williams Ave.

Francis Ave.

Marin St.

Hilby Ave.

Canyon Del Rey Blvd.

Fremont Blvd.

Del Monte Blvd.

Harcourt Ave.

Sonoma Ave.

English Ave.

Laguna Grande Lake

CITY OF MONTEREY

CITY OF SEASIDE

CITY OF MONTEREY

CITY OF SEASIDE
LEGEND
MPRPD Parcels
Parcel Boundaries
Monterey Parcels
Seaside Parcels
Private Parcels
Right of Way
Montecito Ave. Branner Ave.

Sequoia Ave.

Kolb Ave.

Laguna Grande Ct.

Charles
Williams
Ave.

Ave.

Francis Ave.

Marin St.

Hilby Ave.

Canyon Del Rey Blvd.

Fremont
Blvd.

Del Monte Blvd.

Harcourt Ave.

Sonoma Ave.

English Ave.

Laguna Grande Lake
EREY

CITY OF MONTER
IDE

CITY OF SEASIDE

CITY OF MONTEREY

CITY OF SEASIDE
LEGEND
MPRPD Parcels
Parcel Boundaries
Monterey Parcels
Seaside Parcels
Private Parcels
Right of Way
Virgin Ave.

English Ave.

Cassanova Ave. Grant Ave.

Encina Ave.

Parcels Not Included in
Project
PAR-1
PAR-2
PAR-3
PAR-4
PAR-1
PAR-1
PAR-1 PAR-1
PAR-1
PAR-1
PAR-1
PAR-1
PAR-1
PAR-2
PAR-2
PAR-2 PAR-2 PAR-2 PAR-2 PAR-2 PAR-2
PAR-3
PAR-3 PAR-3
PAR-3
PAR-3
PAR-3
PAR-3
PAR-3
PAR-3
PAR-3
PAR-3
PAR-3
PAR-4
PAR-4
PAR-4
PAR-4
PAR-4
PAR-1

PROJECT BOUNDARY

PROJECT BOUNDARY

PROJECT BOUNDARY

PROJECT BOUNDARY
FIGURE 3: LAGUNA GRANDE REGIONAL PARK PARCEL OWNERSHIP
Packet Page 230
12 | LAGUNA GRANDE TRAIL AND VEGETATION MAINTENANCE STRATEGY

THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Packet Page 231
Future Planning | 13
FUTURE PLANNING 03
Several projects are being planned and designed in and around Laguna Grande Regional Park. Many of these projects revolve around improving trails and multi-use corridors within and around the park which will improve regional trail connectivity and create safe connections along busy street corridors.

In addition to improving trails and multi-use corridors, an update to the Laguna Grande Regional Park Master Plan, dated 1978, is forthcoming. Two significant projects which will affect the park are the North Fremont Street Sidewalk Gap Closure Project and the Fort Ord Trail and Greenway (FORTAG) Canyon Del Rey/SR 218 Segment Project
North Fremont Street Sidewalk Gap Closure Project: In the summer of 2021 the City of Monterey introduced an improvement project which will construct a multi-use ADA accessible bicycle and pedestrian path along North Fremont Street between Casanova Avenue and Canyon Dey Rey Blvd. The project includes a bridge that will link the existing sidewalk and Class IV bicycle lane to the future Fort Ord Trail and Greenway (FORTAG) project. Currently the gap closure project is going through the required environmental review process and the City of Monterey is looking to secure grant funding to complete construction. This planned improvement will greatly benefit the Park. Residents will be able to utilize Fremont Street by either walking or biking and connect directly into the park at the corner of Fremont Street and Canyon Del Rey Boulevard. This project will then link to the FORTAG Project which is planned to traverse through LGRP.

Fort Ord Trail and Greenway (FORTAG) Canyon Del Rey/SR 218 Segment Project: The FORTAG Canyon Del Rey/SR 218 Segment Project is a part of a much larger trail system that will connect the Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail, the trails of the Fort Ord National Monument and the Coastal Rec Trail into a continuous system. Spearheaded by a group of private citizens, FORTAG has many stakeholders including the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC). Part of the FORTAG Packet Page 232
14 | LAGUNA GRANDE TRAIL AND VEGETATION MAINTENANCE STRATEGY Canyon Del Rey/SR 218 Segment is planned to travel through LGRP, utilizing the existing trail system. At the north end of the end park the trail users will be provided a safe crossing at Del Monte Boulevard connecting LGRP to Roberts Lake and at the south end of the park the trail will provide much needed accessibility improvements taking trail users up to the corner of Fremont Street and Canyon Del Rey Boulevard. The anticipated trail improvements, because of the FORTAG project, will greatly benefit the park through the widening of existing trails and paving improvements improving accessibility. In March 2020, TAMC certified the FORTAG Final Environmental Impact Report and in October of 2020 Phase 1 of the Canyon Del Rey/SR 218 Segment Project was funded for engineering design and community outreach. Phase 1 of this segment covers Fremont Street to Carlton Drive.

Packet Page 233
FUTURE PLANNING | 15
LEGEND
Proposed FORTAG
Trail Alignment
Phase 2 Trail Alignment
*Trail enhanced for visual clarity. See
FORTAG Conceptual Design Report for
approved trail alignment.

Virgin Ave.

English Ave.

Cassanova Ave. Grant Ave.

Encina Ave.

Montecito Ave. Branner Ave.

Sequoia Ave.

Kolb Ave.

Laguna Grande Ct.

Charles Ave.

Williams Ave.

Francis Ave.

Marin St.

Hilby Ave.

Canyon Del Rey Blvd.

Fremont Blvd.

Del Monte Blvd.

Harcourt Ave.

Sonoma Ave.

English Ave.

Laguna Grande Lake

CITY OF MONTEREY

CITY OF SEASIDE

CITY OF MONTEREY

CITY OF SEASIDE
FORTAG Trail Alignmnet per the FORTAG
Conceptual Design Report - September 2020
Ã218
Ave
Fremont St
Del

MONTEREY
!C

LAGUNA GRANDE

REGIONA
L
PARK

ROBERTS LAKE
DEL R
[
Phase 1
Phase 2

PROJECT BOUNDARY

PROJECT BOUNDARY

PROJECT BOUNDARY

PROJECT BOUNDARY
LEGEND
Proposed FORTAG
Trail Alignment
Phase 2 Trail Alignment
*Trail enhanced for visual clarity. See
FORTAG Conceptual Design Report for
approved trail alignment.

Virgin Ave.

English Ave.

Cassanova Ave. Grant Ave.

Encina Ave.

Montecito Ave. Branner Ave.

Sequoia Ave.

Kolb Ave.

Laguna Grande Ct.

Charles Ave.

Williams Ave.

Francis Ave.

Marin St.

Hilby Ave.

Canyon Del Rey Blvd.

Fremont
Blvd.

De
l Monte Blvd.

Harcourt Ave.

Sonoma Ave.

English Ave.

Laguna Grande Lake

CITY OF MONTEREY

TY OF MO

CITY OF SEASIDE

TY OF SEAS

CITY OF MONTEREY

CITY OF SEASIDE
FORTAG Trail Alignmnet per the FORTAG
Conceptual Design Report - September 2020
Ã
e
Fremont St
D

MONTEREY
!

LAGUNA GRANDE

REGIONA
LA
PARK

ROBERTS LAKE
DEL
[
Phase 1
Phase 2 Pha

PROJECT BOUNDARY

PROJECT BOUNDARYPROJEC

PROJECT BOUNDARY
PROJEC
T

BOUNDARY
FIGURE 4: FORTAG TRAIL - CANYON DEL REY/SR2I8 SEGMENT
Packet Page 234
16 | LAGUNA GRANDE TRAIL AND VEGETATION MAINTENANCE STRATEGY

THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Packet Page 235
Community Outreach | 17
COMMUNITY OUTREACH 04
In order to provide equitable engagement to the community within the planning process, the project team set up a website, haveyoursaymonterey.org, to allow community members of varying backgrounds and ages equal opportunity to comment and engage with the plans. Community meetings, public comments, plan drafts and design team meeting minutes were all made available throughout the planning process.

The opportunity for stakeholder and community engagement included a virtual townhall held on July 28, 2021 and a community site walk held on August 14, 2021. The virtual townhall, with 40 people in attendance, provided the community with an introduction to the planning process and key objectives. Community members were invited to provide comments. Key priorities heard from the community included:
• Improve park safety
• Address and fix accessibility issues
• Maintain and improve planting
• Disclose all funding sources for improvements
• Engage neighboring businesses adjacent to the Park
After the townhall, the community was invited to participate in a site walk around the Park. The project team engaged with community members and were able to address specific concerns throughout the park. There was a total of 32 people in attendance. Key takeaways from the site walk include:
• Unauthorized encampments are a personal safety, water quality, and fire danger security issue • Design focus should be on accessibility improvements and vegetation maintenance • Desire for clear sight lines along trails
• Protect and extend habitat areas and resources
• Aesthetic upgrades are not a priority – the park is generally well maintained • Community should continue to be involved in the decision-making process • Funding sources

OUTREACH SUMMARY
The virtual town hall was recorded and made public on haveyoursaymonterey.org. A video of the site walk was created and also posted to the project website. Fliers and meeting minutes and materials for community engagement events can be seen in Appendix D. Opportunities for public comment and input will continue throughout the planning process.

Packet Page 236
18 | LAGUNA GRANDE TRAIL AND VEGETATION MAINTENANCE STRATEGY

THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Packet Page 237
Community ommunity Outreach utreach | 19

LAGUNA GRANDE

SEASIDE

CANYON DEL REY BOULEVARD

NORTH FREMONT STREET

MONTEREY

DEL MONTE AVENUE
CASANOVA AVE.

ENGLISH AVE.

ENGLISH AVE.

VIRGIN AVE.

HILBY AVE.

HARCOUT AVE.

SONOMA AVE.

NORTH FREMONT STREET

CANYON DEL REY BOULEVARD
WILLIAMS AVE.

GRANT AVE.

MONTECITO AVE.

BRANNER AVE.

L. GRANDE CT.

FORTAG TRAIL ALIGNMENT OPTIONS
Caminata por el sitio
de la communidad
Laguna Grande
Sábado, 14 de agosto de 2021
10:00 AM - 12:00 PM
https://haveyoursaymonterey.org/laguna-grande-park-plan Nos reuniremos en Hillside BBQ, espacio #1
Estacionamiento en Eucalyptus
Estamos buscando ideas y sugerencias
sobre el mantenimiento de los senderos y de
la vegetación del parque Laguna Grande
Seeking public input on the maintenance of
trails and vegetation at Laguna Grande Park
Meet at Hillside BBQ Space #1
Parking at the Eucalyptus Lot
Laguna Grande Park
Community Site Walk
Saturday, August 14th 2021
10 AM - 12:00 PM
https://haveyoursaymonterey.org/laguna-grande-park-plan FIGURE 5: LAGUNA GRANDE REGIONAL PARK COMMUNITY SITE WALK Packet Page 238
20 | LAGUNA GRANDE TRAIL AND VEGETATION MAINTENANCE STRATEGY FIGURE 6: LAGUNA GRANDE REGIONAL PARK COMMUNITY SITE WALK Packet Page 239
Goals | 21
GOALS 05
The purpose of the Trail and Vegetation Maintenance Strategy (Strategy) is to provide the Joint Powers Authority (JPA) a clear set of priorities and means for maintaining the trails and vegetation throughout the Park. The proposed Plan will implement maintenance strategies to create a more accessible, safe, and long-lasting park for the surrounding community and region. Laguna Grande Regional Park is a unique landscape within the cities of Monterey and Seaside, providing visitors access to rarely seen aquatic and migratory birds, riparian vegetation, and fresh water lakes. Increased maintenance will require an intentional and thoughtful approach. The proposed Strategy provides direction to meet the regulations for maintenance of sensitive habitats and around bodies of water set forth by the State and Federal government agencies.

1. ADDRESS ENCAMPMENT, HEALTH AND SAFETY CONCERNS
• Provide seasonal trails through south riparian woods for consistent monitoring • Access and Monitoring: clear non-native vegetation and overgrown brush to discourage illegal camping and provide maintenance for emergency services foot access Black Crowned Night Heron (Nycticorax nycticorax)
Image Credit: www.reconnectwithnature.org
Packet Page 240
22 | LAGUNA GRANDE TRAIL AND VEGETATION MAINTENANCE STRATEGY

2. IMPROVE PERSONAL SAFETY
• Access and Monitoring: clear vegetation and overgrown brush to increase public visibility and surveillance and discourage illegal camping; provide on-going maintenance for access and clean up.
• Sightline Visibility: create clear sight lines at curves and corners by limbing trees and clearing understory
• Accessibility Improvements: trail maintenance and repair • Repair existing lighting and extend new lighting where park trail has no ambient street light

3. MAINTAIN AND IMPROVE QUALITY OF NATURAL RESOURCES
• Preserve and protect existing habitat
• Remove invasive vegetation where practical
• Mitigate habitat disturbance from vegetation removal as deemed appropriate at a 3:1 replacement ratio
Mallards (Anas platyrhynchos)
Packet Page 241
Overall Plan | 23
OVERALL PLAN 06

TRAIL AND VEGETATION MAINTENANCE STRATEGY
The north side of the Park has a looped trail around the lake with direct neighborhood access and parking for visitors. This segment of the Park is well visited. The south end, extending back to Fremont Boulevard, does not have a looped path or easy neighborhood access. As a result, the dense vegetation has attracted homeless encampments. Warming fires are a concern to neighbors.

Park visitors feel threatened by itinerant groups and observed drug exchanges.

Overall, residents feel the looped trail and active park areas are generally well maintained. Seaside and Monterey have been attentive to community needs in the primary recreation spaces. The JPA focus should begin with the southern half of the park.

As described in other sections of this report, any disturbance of identified habitat areas will be mitigated by habitat enhancement elsewhere in the park. Annually, a description and map of probable disturbance and enhancement will be submitted to the JPA for approval.

In order to meet the Goals and priorities above, the following maintenance strategies are recommended for Laguna Grande Regional Park.

1. SEASONAL TRAIL DEVELOPMENT
• Provide 8’ wide seasonal mulch trails through southern riparian woodland with seasonal foot bridges for creek crossing
• Mitigate habitat removal with invasive removal and restoration planting

2. VEGETATION CLEARING
• Clearing and limbing around trail curves and corners
• Clearing at docks
• Clearing and limbing around illegal camp sites to improve access for monitoring and cleaning • Mitigate habitat removal with invasive removal and restoration planting

3. TRAIL MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENTS
• Replace sections of trail impacted by root damage
• Repair edges of trail impacted by erosion – install header or curb to maintain trail edge along the lakeside.
• Add mulch seasonally to portions of seasonal trail that are degraded • Repair or replace culverts under trail
Packet Page 242
24 | LAGUNA GRANDE TRAIL AND VEGETATION MAINTENANCE STRATEGY • Provide formal trail connection to Fremont St
• Provide formal trail connection along Virgin St

4. ACCESSIBILITY IMPROVEMENTS
• Restore accessibility to north bridge - make compliant with local building codes • Repair areas with trip hazards
• Install accessible paths to docks - make compliant with local building codes • Provide accessible ingress/egress to Laguna Grande from Fremont St.

5. INVASIVE SPECIES REMOVAL AND RESTORATION PLANTING
• Priority 1 (1-3 years)
• Priority 2 (1-5 years)
• Priority 3 (6-10 years)
• Priorities 4-5
• Priority 6 (no action)
• Restore native plantings where invasives are fully removed • Create new native habitat along southern gravel trail

6. LIGHTING
• Repair or replace existing lighting
• Extend new lighting along the southern gravel trail
Packet Page 243
OVERALL PLAN | 25
Invasive Species Clearing
Clearing - Priority 1 (1-3 years)
Clearing - Priority 4/5
Priority 6 - No Action
Clearing - Priority 2 (1-5 years)
Restore Planting at Invasive
Clearing Areas
Clearing - Priority 3 (6-10 years)
Habitat Removal Mitigation Planting
Replace Trail Impacted by Roots
Trail Maintenance and Improvements
Accessibility Improvements
Lighting
Repair Edge of Trail - Erosion
Add Mulch to Seasonal Trail
Restore Trail Accessibility
Repair/Replace Existing Lighting
Repair/replace Culverts
Extend New Lighting
Provide Formal Trail Connection
LEGEND
Enhance Existing Social Trails
Similar to Seasonal Trails
Seasonal Mulch Trail to Finish
Loop
Vegetation Clearing
Clear and Limb
South Woods Seasonal Trail Development
Clearing of Vegetation and
Debris Consistent with Current
Maintenance Practices
Accessibility Improvements per
FORTAG Trail Alignment. See
Figure 3.

Invasive Species Clearing
Clearing - Priority 1 (1-3 years)
Clearing - Priority 4/5
Priority 6 - No Action
Clearing - Priority 2 (1-5 years)
Restore Planting at Invasive
Clearing Areas
Clearing - Priority 3 (6-10 years)
Habitat Removal Mitigation Planting
Replace Trail Impacted by Roots
Trail Maintenance and Improvements
Accessibility Improvements
Lighting
Repair Edge of Trail - Erosion
Add Mulch to Seasonal Trail
Restore Trail Accessibility
Repair/Replace Existing Lighting
Repair/replace Culverts
Extend New Lighting
Provide Formal Trail Connection
LEGEND
Enhance Existing Social Trails
Similar to Seasonal Trails
Seasonal Mulch Trail to Finish
Loop
Vegetation Clearing
Clear and Limb
South Woods Seasonal Trail Development
Clearing of Vegetation and
Debris Consistent with Current
Maintenance Practices
Accessibility Improvements per
FORTAG Trail Alignment. See
Figure 3.

PROJECT BOUNDARY
TRM-1
TRM-1
TRM-1
TRM-2
TRM-2
TRM-2
TRM-2
TRM-2
TRM-2
TRM-1
TRM-1
TRM-3
TRM-2
TRM-4
TRM-5
ADA-1
ADA-1
ADA-1
ADA-1
ADA-1
ADA-1
VEG-1
VEG-1
VEG-1
VEG-1
VEG-1
VEG-1
VEG-1
ISR-1
ISR-1
ISR-1
ISR-1
ISR-1
ISR-1
ISR-1
ISR-1
ISR-1
ISR-2
ISR-2
ISR-2
ISR-2
ISR-2
ISR-2
ISR-4
ISR-4
ISR-4
ISR-4
ISR-4
ISR-4
ISR-4
ISR-4
ISR-4
ISR-4
ISR-4
ISR-4
ISR-4
LGT-1
LGT-1
LGT-2
LGT-2
LGT-2
ISR-1
TRM-5
TRM-2
TRM-3
TRM-3
TRM-3
ISR-1
ISR-4
TRM-1
TRM-1
ISR-2
ISR-2
ISR-4
RES
RES
RES
RES
TRM-2
QTY 4
QTY 7
QTY 34
QTY 27
LGT-2 QTY 17
QTY 2
LGT-2 QTY 3
TRM-1
ADA-1
STR-1
ISR-1
ISR-2
ISR-3
ISR-4
ISR-5
RES
MIT
LGT-2
TRM-2
ADA-2
TRM-3
TRM-4
STR-2
VEG-1
VEG-2
TRM-5
LGT-1

MATCHLINE - SOUTH
Virgin Ave.

CITY OF MONTEREY

CITY OF SEASIDE
Canyon Del Rey Blvd.

English Ave.

Harcourt Ave. Branner Ave.

Montecito Ave.

Grant Ave.

Laguna Grande Lake
Existing Turf
Parking
Existing Soccer Field
Parking
Parking
Existing
Turf
Encina Ave.

Virgin Ave.

MATCHLINE - SOUTH

PROJECT BOUNDARY

PROJECT BOUNDARY

CITY OF MONTEREY

CITY OF SEASIDE
FIGURE 7: OVERALL PLAN - NORTH
Packet Page 244
26 | LAGUNA GRANDE TRAIL AND VEGETATION MAINTENANCE STRATEGY Invasive Species Clearing
Clearing - Priority 1 (1-3 years)
Clearing - Priority 4/5
Priority 6 - No Action
Clearing - Priority 2 (1-5 years)
Restore Planting at Invasive
Clearing Areas
Clearing - Priority 3 (6-10 years)
Habitat Removal Mitigation Planting
Replace Trail Impacted by Roots
Trail Maintenance and Improvements
Accessibility Improvements
Lighting
Repair Edge of Trail - Erosion
Add Mulch to Seasonal Trail
Restore Trail Accessibility
Repair/Replace Existing Lighting
Repair/replace Culverts
Extend New Lighting
Provide Formal Trail Connection
LEGEND
Enhance Existing Social Trails
Similar to Seasonal Trails
See Figure 8 for the South Woods
Seasonal Trail Development Plan
Seasonal Mulch Trail to Finish
Loop
Vegetation Clearing
Clear and Limb
South Woods Seasonal Trail Development
Clearing of Vegetation and
Debris Consistent with Current
Maintenance Practices
Accessibility Improvements per
FORTAG Trail Alignment. See
Figure 3.

Invasive Species Clearing
Clearing - Priority 1 (1-3 years)
Clearing - Priority 4/5
Priority 6 - No Action
Clearing - Priority 2 (1-5 years)
Restore Planting at Invasive
Clearing Areas
Clearing - Priority 3 (6-10 years)
Habitat Removal Mitigation Planting
Replace Trail Impacted by Roots
Trail Maintenance and Improvements
Accessibility Improvements
Lighting
Repair Edge of Trail - Erosion
Add Mulch to Seasonal Trail
Restore Trail Accessibility
Repair/Replace Existing Lighting
Repair/replace Culverts
Extend New Lighting
Provide Formal Trail Connection
LEGEND
Enhance Existing Social Trails
Similar to Seasonal Trails
See Figure 8 for the South Woods
Seasonal Trail Development Plan
Seasonal Mulch Trail to Finish
Loop
Vegetation Clearing
Clear and Limb
South Woods Seasonal Trail Development
Clearing of Vegetation and
Debris Consistent with Current
Maintenance Practices
Accessibility Improvements per
FORTAG Trail Alignment. See
Figure 3.

MATCHLINE - NORTH

MATCHLINE - NORTH
TRM-1
ADA-1
STR-1
ISR-1
ISR-2
ISR-3
ISR-4
ISR-5
RES
MIT
LGT-2
TRM-5
VEG-1
VEG-1
VEG-2
VEG-2
STR-1
ISR-1
ISR-1
ISR-1
ISR-1
ISR-1
ISR-1
ISR-1
ISR-2
ISR-3
ISR-4
ISR-4
ISR-4
ISR-4
ISR-5
ISR-5
MIT
LGT-2
ISR-4
ISR-1
ISR-2
TRM-5
ADA-2
TRM-5
TRM-1
TRM-2
RES

RES RES
QTY 13
LGT-2 QTY 36
ADA-2
STR-2
STR-2
TRM-3
TRM-4
STR-2
VEG-1
VEG-2
TRM-5
LGT-1
STR-2
STR-2
STR-1
Canyon Del Rey Blvd.

Fremont Blvd.

English Ave.

English Ave.

Sequoia Ave.

Kolb Ave.

Laguna Grande Ct.

Cassanova Ave.

Charles Ave.

Williams Ave.

Francis Ave.

Marin St.

Hilby Ave.

PROJECT BOUNDARY

PROJECT BOUNDARY

PROJECT BOUNDARY

CITY OF MONTEREY

CITY OF SEASIDE

CITY OF MONTEREY

CITY OF SEASIDE
Laguna Grande Lake
BBQ / Picnic Area
1 1
1 1
1 1
FIGURE 8: OVERALL PLAN - SOUTH
Packet Page 245
OVERALL PLAN | 27
Invasive Species Clearing
Clearing - Priority 1 (1-3 years)
Clearing - Priority 4/5
Priority 6 - No Action
Clearing - Priority 2 (1-5 years)
Restore Planting at Invasive
Clearing Areas
Clearing - Priority 3 (6-10 years)
Habitat Removal Mitigation Planting
Replace Trail Impacted by Roots
Trail Maintenance and Improvements
Accessibility Improvements
Lighting
Repair Edge of Trail - Erosion
Add Mulch to Seasonal Trail
Restore Trail Accessibility
Repair/Replace Existing Lighting
Repair/replace Culverts
Extend New Lighting
Provide Formal Trail Connection
LEGEND
Enhance Existing Social Trails
Similar to Seasonal Trails
See Figure 8 for the South Woods
Seasonal Trail Development Plan
Seasonal Mulch Trail to Finish
Loop
Vegetation Clearing
Clear and Limb
South Woods Seasonal Trail Development
Clearing of Vegetation and
Debris Consistent with Current
Maintenance Practices
Accessibility Improvements per
FORTAG Trail Alignment. See
Figure 3. MATCHLINE - NORTH MATCHLINE - NORTH
TRM-1
ADA-1
STR-1
RES
MIT
LGT-2
VEG-1
VEG-2
VEG-2
ISR-1
ISR-1
ISR-1
ISR-1
ISR-2
ISR-3
ISR-4
ISR-5
LGT-2
ISR-4
TRM-5
ADA-2
TRM-5 TRM-2
RES
RES
QTY 13
LGT-2 QTY 36
ADA-2
STR-2
STR-2
TRM-3
TRM-4
STR-2
VEG-1
VEG-2
TRM-5
LGT-1
Canyon Del Rey Blvd.

Fremont Blvd.

English Ave.

English Ave.

Sequoia Ave.

Kolb Ave.

Laguna Grande Ct.

Cassanova Ave.

Charles Ave.

Williams Ave.

Francis Ave.

Marin St.

Hilby Ave.

PROJECT BOUNDARY

PROJECT BOUNDARY

PROJECT BOUNDARY

CITY OF MONTEREY

CITY OF SEASIDE

CITY OF MONTEREY

CITY OF SEASIDE
Laguna Grande Lake
BBQ / Picnic Area
1 1
1 1
1 1
Invasive Species Clearing
Clearing - Priority 1 (1-3 years)
Clearing - Priority 4/5
Priority 6 - No Action
Clearing - Priority 2 (1-5 years)
Restore Planting at Invasive
Clearing Areas
Clearing - Priority 3 (6-10 years)
Habitat Removal Mitigation Planting
Replace Trail Impacted by Roots
Trail Maintenance and Improvements
Accessibility Improvements
Lighting
Repair Edge of Trail - Erosion
Add Mulch to Seasonal Trail
Restore Trail Accessibility
Repair/Replace Existing Lighting
Repair/replace Culverts
Extend New Lighting
Provide Formal Trail Connection
LEGEND
Enhance Existing Social Trails
Similar to Seasonal Trails
See Figure 8 for the South Woods
Seasonal Trail Development Plan
Seasonal Mulch Trail to Finish
Loop
Vegetation Clearing
Clear and Limb
South Woods Seasonal Trail Development
Clearing of Vegetation and
Debris Consistent with Current
Maintenance Practices
Accessibility Improvements per
FORTAG Trail Alignment. See
Figure 3. MATCHLINE - NORTH MATCHLINE - NORTH
TRM-1
ADA-1
STR-1
RES
MIT
LGT-2
VEG-1
VEG-2
VEG-2
ISR-1
ISR-1
ISR-1
ISR-1
ISR-2
ISR-3
ISR-4
ISR-5
LGT-2
ISR-4
TRM-5
ADA-2
TRM-5 TRM-2
RES
RES
QTY 13
LGT-2 QTY 36
ADA-2
STR-2
STR-2
TRM-3
TRM-4
STR-2
VEG-1
VEG-2
TRM-5
LGT-1
Canyon Del Rey Blvd.

Fremont Blvd.

English Ave.

English Ave.

Sequoia Ave.

Kolb Ave.

Laguna Grande Ct.

Cassanova Ave.

Charles Ave.

Williams Ave.

Francis Ave.

Marin St.

Hilby Ave.

PROJECT BOUNDARY

PROJECT BOUNDARY

PROJECT BOUNDARY

CITY OF MONTEREY

CITY OF SEASIDE

CITY OF MONTEREY

CITY OF SEASIDE
Laguna Grande Lake
BBQ / Picnic Area
1 1
1 1
1 1
FIGURE 9: SOUTH WOODS SEASONAL TRAIL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Invasive Species Clearing
Clearing - Priority 1 (1-3 years)
Clearing - Priority 4/5
Priority 6 - No Action
Clearing - Priority 2 (1-5 years)
Restore Planting at Invasive
Clearing Areas
Clearing - Priority 3 (6-10 years)
Habitat Removal Mitigation Planting
Replace Trail Impacted by Roots
Trail Maintenance and Improvements
Accessibility Improvements
Lighting
Repair Edge of Trail - Erosion
Add Mulch to Seasonal Trail
Restore Trail Accessibility
Repair/Replace Existing Lighting
Repair/replace Culverts
Extend New Lighting
Provide Formal Trail Connection
LEGEND
Enhance Existing Social Trails
Similar to Seasonal Trails
See Figure 8 for the South Woods
Seasonal Trail Development Plan
Seasonal Mulch Trail to Finish
Loop
Vegetation Clearing
Clear and Limb
South Woods Seasonal Trail Development
Clearing of Vegetation and
Debris Consistent with Current
Maintenance Practices
Accessibility Improvements per
FORTAG Trail Alignment. See
Figure 3. MATCHLINE - NORTH MATCHLINE - NORTH
TRM-1
ADA-1
STR-1
RES
MIT
LGT-2
VEG-1
VEG-2
VEG-2
ISR-1
ISR-1
ISR-1
ISR-1
ISR-2
ISR-3
ISR-4
ISR-5
LGT-2
ISR-4
TRM-5
ADA-2
TRM-5 TRM-2
RES
RES
QTY 13
LGT-2 QTY 36
ADA-2
STR-2
STR-2
TRM-3
TRM-4
STR-2
VEG-1
VEG-2
TRM-5
LGT-1
Canyon Del Rey Blvd.

Fremont Blvd.

English Ave.

English Ave.

Sequoia Ave.

Kolb Ave.

Laguna Grande Ct.

Cassanova Ave.

Charles Ave.

Williams Ave.

Francis Ave.

Marin St.

Hilby Ave.

PROJECT BOUNDARY

PROJECT BOUNDARY

PROJECT BOUNDARY

CITY OF MONTEREY

CITY OF SEASIDE

CITY OF MONTEREY

CITY OF SEASIDE
Laguna Grande Lake
BBQ / Picnic Area
1 1
1 1
1 1
LEGEND
Existing Park Trail - Enhance
trail section and width for Type
¿UHWUXFN3RWHQWLDOIXQGLQJ
WKURXJK0HDVXUH;

3URYLGH¿UHWUXFNWXUQDURXQGDW
HQGRIWUDLO3RWHQWLDOIXQGLQJ
WKURXJK0HDVXUH;

6HDVRQDO0XOFK7UDLOV/)
&OHDUIRRWWUDLOZLWKPXOFKWRS
GUHVVLQJ&OHDUYHJHWDWLRQDV
UHTXLUHG

0HDVXUH;ZDVDWD[LQFUHDVHPHDVXUH
ZKLFKZDVDSSURYHGLQDQGLV
PDQDJHGXQGHUWKH7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ$JHQF\
RI0RQWHUH\&RXQW\
7$0&

6HDVRQDO)RRW%ULGJH
Existing Creek
([LVWLQJ6RFLDO7UDLOV/)
$GRSWDV6HDVRQDO0XOFK7UDLOV
Widen to 8 feet and clear
YHJHWDWLRQDVUHTXLUHG
LEGEND
Existing Park Trail - Enhance
trail section and width for Type
¿UHWUXFN3RWHQWLDOIXQGLQJ
WKURXJK0HDVXUH;

3URYLGH¿UHWUXFNWXUQDURXQGDW
HQGRIWUDLO3RWHQWLDOIXQGLQJ
WKURXJK0HDVXUH;

6HDVRQDO0XOFK7UDLOV/)
&OHDUIRRWWUDLOZLWKPXOFKWRS
GUHVVLQJ&OHDUYHJHWDWLRQDV
UHTXLUHG

0HDVXUH;ZDVDWD[LQFUHDVHPHDVXUH
ZKLFKZDVDSSURYHGLQDQGLV
PDQDJHGXQGHUWKH7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ$JHQF\
RI0RQWHUH\&RXQW\
7$0&

6HDVRQDO)RRW%ULGJH
Existing Creek
([LVWLQJ6RFLDO7UDLOV/)
$GRSWDV6HDVRQDO0XOFK7UDLOV
Widen to 8 feet and clear
YHJHWDWLRQDVUHTXLUHG

MATCHLINE - NORTH

MATCHLINE - NORTH
Canyon Del Rey Blvd.

Fremont Blvd.

English Ave.

English Ave.

Sequoia Ave.

Kolb Ave.

Laguna Grande Ct.

Cassanova Ave.

Charles Ave.

Williams Ave.

Francis Ave.

Marin St.

Hilby Ave.

PROJECT BOUNDARY

PROJECT BOUNDARY
¶´ PROJECT BOUNDARY
¶´
¶´
¶´
¶´
¶´
¶´
¶´

CITY OF MONTEREY

CITY OF SEASIDE

CITY OF MONTEREY

CITY OF SEASIDE
/DJXQD*UDQGH/DNH %%43LFQLF$UHD
Packet Page 246
28 | LAGUNA GRANDE TRAIL AND VEGETATION MAINTENANCE STRATEGY

THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Packet Page 247
Phase One Implementation | 29
PHASE ONE IMPLEMENTATION 07
Implementation of the recommended maintenance and improvements will require time and approval from the governing agencies. The design team is recommending a phased approach to Strategy implementation in order to alleviate costs and to obtain permit approvals. With safety as the top priority, phase one will address these issues first. Many of the safety issues directly correlate with overgrown vegetation. Vegetation clearing and removal will require permits, but can easily be incorporated into weekly maintenance routines. Other safety items to be addressed include repairing trails heavily impacted by root damage and erosion and clearing defensible space for fire safety.

1. SEASONAL TRAIL DEVELOPMENT
• Provide 8’ wide seasonal mulch trail through southern riparian woodland with seasonal foot bridges for creek crossing. Connect from the gravel trail to English and Sequoia • Mitigate habitat removal with invasive removal and restoration planting • Invasive Species Removal and Restoration Planting:
• Priority 1 (1-3 years):
– Clear invasives where vegetation clearing for safety and defensible space will already be happening.
– Clear invasive species where necessary to mitigate habitat removal • Restore native plantings where invasive species have been fully removed

2. VEGETATION CLEARING
• Clearing and limbing around trail curves and corners particularly in the northwest riparian woodland
• Clearing at docks
• Clearing and limbing around illegal camp sites
• Mitigate habitat removal with invasive removal and restoration planting

3. TRAIL MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENTS
• Replace sections of trail impacted by root damage – trail section along Canyon Del Rey in Seaside traditional park and trail section along soccer field in Monterey traditional park

4. ACCESSIBILITY IMPROVEMENTS
• Restore accessibility compliance to north bridge
Packet Page 248
30 | LAGUNA GRANDE TRAIL AND VEGETATION MAINTENANCE STRATEGY

THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Packet Page 249
PHASE ONE IMPLEMENTATION | 31
FIGURE 10: PHASE ONE PLAN - NORTH
Invasive Species Clearing
Clearing - Priority 1 (1-3 years)
Clearing - Priority 4/5
Priority 6 - No Action
Clearing - Priority 2 (1-5 years)
Restore Planting at Invasive
Clearing Areas
Clearing - Priority 3 (6-10 years)
Habitat Removal Mitigation Planting
Replace Trail Impacted by Roots
Trail Maintenance and Improvements
Accessibility Improvements
Lighting
Repair Edge of Trail - Erosion
Add Mulch to Seasonal Trail
Restore Trail Accessibility
Repair/Replace Existing Lighting
Repair/replace Culverts
Extend New Lighting
Provide Formal Trail Connection
LEGEND
Enhance Existing Social Trails
Similar to Seasonal Trails
Seasonal Mulch Trail to Finish
Loop
Vegetation Clearing
Clear and Limb
South Woods Seasonal Trail Development
Clearing of Vegetation and
Debris Consistent with Current
Maintenance Practices
Accessibility Improvements per
FORTAG Trail Alignment. See
Figure 3.

Invasive Species Clearing
Clearing - Priority 1 (1-3 years)
Clearing - Priority 4/5
Priority 6 - No Action
Clearing - Priority 2 (1-5 years)
Restore Planting at Invasive
Clearing Areas
Clearing - Priority 3 (6-10 years)
Habitat Removal Mitigation Planting
Replace Trail Impacted by Roots
Trail Maintenance and Improvements
Accessibility Improvements
Lighting
Repair Edge of Trail - Erosion
Add Mulch to Seasonal Trail
Restore Trail Accessibility
Repair/Replace Existing Lighting
Repair/replace Culverts
Extend New Lighting
Provide Formal Trail Connection
LEGEND
Enhance Existing Social Trails
Similar to Seasonal Trails
Seasonal Mulch Trail to Finish
Loop
Vegetation Clearing
Clear and Limb
South Woods Seasonal Trail Development
Clearing of Vegetation and
Debris Consistent with Current
Maintenance Practices
Accessibility Improvements per
FORTAG Trail Alignment. See
Figure 3.

MATCHLINE - SOUTH
Virgin Ave.

Canyon Del Rey Blvd.

English Ave.

Harcourt Ave. Branner Ave.

Montecito Ave.

Encina Ave.Grant Ave.

Virgin Ave.

MATCHLINE - SOUTH
TRM-1
TRM-1
TRM-2
TRM-1
ADA-1
ADA-1
ADA-1
ADA-1
ADA-1
ADA-1
VEG-1
VEG-1
VEG-1
VEG-1
VEG-1
TRM-1
TRM-1
TRM-1
TRM-1
ADA-1
STR-1
ISR-1
ISR-2
ISR-3
ISR-4
ISR-5
RES
MIT
LGT-2
TRM-2
ADA-2
TRM-3
TRM-4
STR-2
VEG-1
VEG-2
TRM-5
LGT-1

CITY OF MONTEREY

CITY OF SEASIDE
Laguna Grande Lake
Existing Turf
Existing Turf
Parking
Existing Soccer Field
Parking
Parking
Existing
Turf

CITY OF MONTEREY

CITY OF SEASIDE

PROJECT BOUNDARY

PROJECT BOUNDARY

PROJECT BOUNDARY
Packet Page 250
32 | LAGUNA GRANDE TRAIL AND VEGETATION MAINTENANCE STRATEGY FIGURE 11: PHASE ONE PLAN - SOUTH
Invasive Species Clearing
Clearing - Priority 1 (1-3 years)
Clearing - Priority 4/5
Priority 6 - No Action
Clearing - Priority 2 (1-5 years)
Restore Planting at Invasive
Clearing Areas
Clearing - Priority 3 (6-10 years)
Habitat Removal Mitigation Planting
Replace Trail Impacted by Roots
Trail Maintenance and Improvements
Accessibility Improvements
Lighting
Repair Edge of Trail - Erosion
Add Mulch to Seasonal Trail
Restore Trail Accessibility
Repair/Replace Existing Lighting
Repair/replace Culverts
Extend New Lighting
Provide Formal Trail Connection
LEGEND
Enhance Existing Social Trails
Similar to Seasonal Trails
Seasonal Mulch Trail to Finish
Loop
Vegetation Clearing
Clear and Limb
South Woods Seasonal Trail Development
Clearing of Vegetation and
Debris Consistent with Current
Maintenance Practices
Accessibility Improvements per
FORTAG Trail Alignment. See
Figure 3.

Invasive Species Clearing
Clearing - Priority 1 (1-3 years)
Clearing - Priority 4/5
Priority 6 - No Action
Clearing - Priority 2 (1-5 years)
Restore Planting at Invasive
Clearing Areas
Clearing - Priority 3 (6-10 years)
Habitat Removal Mitigation Planting
Replace Trail Impacted by Roots
Trail Maintenance and Improvements
Accessibility Improvements
Lighting
Repair Edge of Trail - Erosion
Add Mulch to Seasonal Trail
Restore Trail Accessibility
Repair/Replace Existing Lighting
Repair/replace Culverts
Extend New Lighting
Provide Formal Trail Connection
LEGEND
Enhance Existing Social Trails
Similar to Seasonal Trails
Seasonal Mulch Trail to Finish
Loop
Vegetation Clearing
Clear and Limb
South Woods Seasonal Trail Development
Clearing of Vegetation and
Debris Consistent with Current
Maintenance Practices
Accessibility Improvements per
FORTAG Trail Alignment. See
Figure 3. MATCHLINE - NORTH MATCHLINE - NORTH
Canyon Del Rey Blvd.

Fremont Blvd.

English Ave.

English Ave.

Sequoia Ave.

Kolb Ave.

Laguna Grande Ct.

Cassanova Ave.

Charles Ave.

Williams Ave.

Francis Ave.

Marin St.

Hilby Ave.

VEG-1
VEG-2
ISR-1
ISR-2
ISR-3
ISR-1
ISR-2
STR-2
STR-3
TRM-1
ADA-1
STR-1
ISR-1
ISR-2
ISR-3
ISR-4
ISR-5
RES
MIT
LGT-2
TRM-2
ADA-2
TRM-3
TRM-4
STR-2
VEG-1
VEG-2
TRM-5
LGT-1

CITY OF MONTEREY

CITY OF SEASIDE
Laguna Grande Lake BBQ / Picnic Area

CITY OF MONTEREY

CITY OF SEASIDE

PROJECT BOUNDARY

PROJECT BOUNDARY

PROJECT BOUNDARY
Packet Page 251
cost estimates | 33
COST ESTIMATES 08
Continued Next Page
item description quantity unit cost item total subtotal ZONE 1 - LAGUNA GRANDE PARK-EXCLUDING SOUTH WOODLAND

INVASIVE SPECIES REMOVAL
Priority 1 (1-3 years):

High cost (Hand removal) 24,500 SF $0.35 $8,575
Medium cost (Mechanical removal) 6,500 SF $0.15 $975
Low cost 0 SF $0.07 $0
Tree removal 32 EA $500.00 $16,000 $25,550
Priority 2 (1-5 years):

High cost (Hand removal) 22,250 SF $0.35 $7,788
Medium cost (Mechanical removal) 6,200 SF $0.15 $930
Medium cost (Mechanical removal) in
defensible space
3,500 SF $0.07 $245
Low cost 0 SF $0.25 $0
Tree removal 2 EA $500.00 $1,000 $9,963
Priority 3 (6-10 years):

High cost (Hand removal) 2,100 SF $0.35 $735
Medium cost (Mechanical removal) 1,100 SF $0.15 $165
Low cost 0 SF $0.07 $0
Tree removal 0 EA $500.00 $0 $900
High cost (Hand removal) 93,750 SF $0.35 $32,813
Medium cost (Mechanical removal) 25,000 SF $0.15 $3,750 Low cost 9,600 SF $0.07 $672
Tree removal 0 EA $500.00 $0 $37,235
46,500 SF $0.00 $0 $0
Mitigation planting and irrigation 80,000 SF $5.00 $400,000 $400,000 Fire crew savings1 2 1 LS ($200,000.00) ($200,000.00) ($200,000)

LIMBING, PRUNING, CLEARING
Tree pruning and limbing 50 EA $500.00 $25,000 $25,000
TRAIL REPAIRS - ROOT IMPACTS - 250 LF
Demolition 2,500 SF $3.00 $7,500
Root pruning 1 LS $8,000.00 $8,000
Fine grading 2,500 SF $0.25 $625
Asphalt paving and base 2,500 SF $8.00 $20,000 $36,125
TRAIL REPAIRS - ACCESSIBILITY - 325 LF
Demolition 3,250 SF $3.00 $9,750
Fine grading 3,250 SF $0.25 $813
Asphalt paving and base 3,250 SF $8.00 $26,000
Concrete paving 520 SF $16.00 $8,320 $44,883

LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE

1.84 AC $13,000.00 $23,875 $23,875
Project Number: 21.019
Estimate By: DZ
Checked By: BM
Priority 4 (Himalayan Blackberry, English and
Cape Ivy - removal will have short and long term
impact on habitat)

LAGUNA GRANDE REGIONAL PARK COST ESTIMATE
Project: Laguna Grande Regional Park -
Maintenance Strategy
Client: Laguna Grande Regional Park JPA
Issuance: Strategy Draft
Date: February 28, 2022
Priority 5 (Himalayan Blackberry - No Action at this
time)
Annual maintenance for mitigation landscape
areas
BFS Landscape Architects 1 of 3
Packet Page 252
34 | LAGUNA GRANDE TRAIL AND VEGETATION MAINTENANCE STRATEGY ZONE 2 - SOUTH WOODLAND

INVASIVE SPECIES REMOVAL
Priority 1 (1-3 years):

High cost (Hand removal) 5,800 SF $0.35 $2,030
Medium cost (Mechanical removal) 0 SF $0.15 $0
Low cost 0 SF $0.07 $0
Tree removal 29 EA $500.00 $14,500
Tree removal in defensible space 8 EA $500.00 $4,000 $20,530 Priority 2 (1-5 years):

High cost (Hand removal) in
defensible space
4,000 SF $0.35 $1,400
Medium cost (Mechanical removal) 0 SF $0.15 $0
Low cost 0 SF $0.07 $0
Tree removal 0 EA $500.00 $0 $1,400
Priority 3 (6-10 years):

High cost (Hand removal) in
defensible space
4,000 SF $0.35 $1,400
Medium cost (Mechanical removal) 0 SF $0.15 $0
Low cost 0 SF $0.07 $0
Tree removal 0 EA $500.00 $0 $1,400
High cost (Hand removal) 31,700 SF $0.35 $11,095
High cost (Hand removal) in
defensible space
4,000 SF $0.35 $1,400
Medium cost (Mechanical removal) 0 SF $0.15 $0
Low cost 0 SF $0.07 $0
Tree removal 0 EA $500.00 $0 $12,495
179,500 SF $0.00 $0 $0
35,500 SF $0.00 $0 $0
Mitigation planting and irrigation 35,000 SF $5.00 $175,000 $175,000 Fire crew savings1 2 1 LS ($98,250.00) ($98,250) ($98,250) Seasonal footbridge at ditch crossing 4 AL $6,500.00 $26,000 Clear and grub 24,400 SF $0.50 $12,200
Fine grading 24,400 SF $0.50 $12,200
Mulch-3" depth 226 CY $120.00 $27,120
Mitigation planting and irrigation 24,400 SF $5.00 $122,000 $199,520 Fire crew savings1 2 3 1 LS ($61,680.00) ($61,680) ($61,680) 8' SEASONAL TRAIL DEVELOPMENT - 3050 LF
Priority 4 (Himalayan Blackberry, English and
Cape Ivy - removal will have short and long term
impact on habitat)
Priority 5 (Himalayan Blackberry - No Action at this
time) in defensible space
Priority 5 (Himalayan Blackberry - No Action at this
time)
BFS Landscape Architects 2 of 3
Continued Next Page
Packet Page 253
cost estimates | 35

LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE

1.36 AC $13,000.00 $17,727
Seasonal trail maintenance 1 AL $25,000.00 $25,000 $42,727 TOTAL $1,056,602
Potential Fire Crew Savings -$359,930
NOTES

1. Fire crews consist of 12-15 crew members and a fire captain. Cost $225 a day and bring their own equipment.

2. Assumed fire crews will clear and grub at $0.25 a SF and could plant at $3.00 a SF The above items, amounts, quantities, and related information are based on BFS Landscape Architects' judgment at this level of document preparation and is offered only as reference data. BFS has no control over construction quantities, costs, and related factors affecting costs, and advises the client that significant variations may occur between this estimate of probable construction costs and actual construction prices.

3. Assumed fire crews will clear and grub at $0.25 a SF and mulch at $90.00 a CY.

Annual maintenance for mitigation landscape
areas
BFS Landscape Architects 3 of 3
Continued Next Page
Packet Page 254
36 | LAGUNA GRANDE TRAIL AND VEGETATION MAINTENANCE STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION PHASE 1
item description quantity unit cost item total subtotal

LIMBING, PRUNING, CLEARING
Tree pruning and limbing 50 EA $500.00 $25,000 $25,000

LIMBING, PRUNING, CLEARING AT ENCAMPMENTS
Tree pruning and limbing 50 EA $500.00 $25,000 $25,000
TRAIL REPAIRS - ROOT IMPACTS - 250 LF
Demolition 2,500 SF $3.00 $7,500
Root pruning 1 LS $8,000.00 $8,000
Fine grading 2,500 SF $0.25 $625
Asphalt paving and base 2,500 SF $8.00 $20,000 $36,125
TRAIL REPAIRS - ACCESSIBILITY - 200 LF
Demolition 2,000 SF $3.00 $6,000
Fine grading 2,000 SF $0.25 $500
Asphalt paving and base 2,000 SF $8.00 $16,000
Concrete paving 520 SF $16.00 $8,320 $30,820
Seasonal footbridge at ditch crossing 1 AL $6,500.00 $6,500 Clear and grub 3,200 SF $0.50 $1,600
Fine grading 3,200 SF $0.50 $1,600
Mulch-3" depth 30 CY $120.00 $3,600
Mitigation planting and irrigation 3,200 SF $5.00 $16,000 $29,300 Fire crew savings1 2 3 1 LS ($8,100.00) ($8,100) ($8,100)

INVASIVE SPECIES REMOVAL - NON-SOUTH WOODS
3,600 SF $0.35 $1,260
3,000 SF $0.15 $450
600 SF $0.07 $42 $1,752

LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE

0.07 AC $13,000.00 $955
Seasonal trail maintenance 1 AL $8,000.00 $8,000 $8,955 TOTAL $156,952
Potential Fire Crew Savings -$8,100
NOTES

1. Fire crews consist of 12-15 crew members and a fire captain. Cost $225 a day and bring their own equipment.

2. Assumed fire crews will clear and grub at $0.25 a SF and could plant at $3.00 a SF 8' SEASONAL TRAIL DEVELOPMENT - 400 LF
LAGUNA GRANDE REGIONAL PARK PHASE 1 COST ESTIMATE
Project: Laguna Grande Regional Park -
Maintenance Strategy
Client: Laguna Grande Regional Park JPA
Issuance: Strategy Draft
Date: February 28, 2022
Project Number: 21.019
Estimate By: DZ
Checked By: BM

3. Assumed fire crews will clear and grub at $0.25 a SF and mulch at $90.00 a CY.

High cost (Hand removal)
Medium cost (Mechanical removal)
Low cost
The above items, amounts, quantities, and related information are based on BFS Landscape Architects' judgment at this level of document preparation and is offered only as reference data. BFS has no control over construction quantities, costs, and related factors affecting costs, and advises the client that significant variations may occur between this estimate of probable construction costs and actual construction prices.

Annual maintenance for mitigation landscape
BFS Landscape Architects 1 of 1
Packet Page 255
cost estimates | 37
Packet Page 256
Packet Page 257

A P P E N D I X A

P L A N T S U R V E Y
Packet Page 258

MEMORANDUM
To: Elizabeth Matz, BFS Landscape Architects
From: Patrick Furtado
Date: July 2, 2021
Re: Laguna Grande Regional Park Vegetation Mapping and Focused Plant Survey Results
Vegetation Mapping
EMC Planning Group associate biologist Patrick Furtado, M.S. conducted geographic information system (GIS) mapping of Laguna Grande Regional Park on May 18, 2021. Plant communities and several other features including invasive plants, trails, and homeless camps were mapped using Environmental Systems Research Institute’s (ESRI) Field Maps mobile mapping application and a Trimble R1 sub-meter Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver.

Plant communities were classified and mapped generally according to the alliance level of the Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer et al. 2009). Figure 1, Vegetation Map – North, and Figure 2, Vegetation Map – South, are attached to this memorandum. Electronic GIS data can be provided upon request.

Focused Plant Survey
EMC Planning Group associate biologist Patrick Furtado completed focused plant surveys for special-status plant species on May 24, 2021 and June 15, 2021 in accordance with current California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW 2009) and California Native Plant Society (CNPS 2001) rare plant survey protocols. According to the United States Drought Monitor, the project site is located in an area experiencing extreme drought conditions at the time of surveys (National Drought Mitigation Center 2021).

Packet Page 259
Ms. Matz
BFS Landscape Architects
July 2, 2021, Page 2

MEMORANDUM
Mr. Furtado also visited nearby special-status plant reference populations for seaside bird’s beak (Cordylanthus rigidus ssp. littoralis), Monterey spineflower (Chorizanthe pungens var. pungens), Monterey gilia (Gilia tenuiflora ssp. arenaria), Yadon’s rein orchid (Piperia yadonii), and sand-loving wallflower (Erysimum ammophilum) to determine that these plant species were identifiable at the time of the surveys. All of these species except for Yadon’s rein orchid were identifiable. Yadon’s rein orchid may not be germinating or flowering in normal numbers this season due to the current extreme drought conditions (NDMC 2021). However, habitat for Yadon’s rein orchid was not found on the Laguna Grande Park project site.

All suitable habitats for special-status plant species within the Laguna Grande Park survey area were systematically surveyed and plant species observed were recorded in field notes. Plant species were identified in the field or collected for subsequent identification using plant keys contained in The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California (Baldwin et. al 2012). Taxonomy follows the Jepson Flora Project (2021) for scientific and common names.

Special-status species are those listed as Endangered, Threatened, or Rare, or as Candidates for listing by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or CDFW under the state and/or federal Endangered Species Acts. The special-status designation also includes CDFW Species of Special Concern and Fully Protected species, California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Rare Plant Rank 1B and 2B species, and other locally rare species that meet the criteria for listing as described in Section 15380 of CEQA Guidelines. Special-status species are generally rare, restricted in distribution, declining throughout their range, or have a critical, vulnerable stage in their life cycle that warrants monitoring.

A total of 112 plant taxa were identified within the park boundaries, including 47 native California taxa (42 percent) and 65 non-native taxa (58 percent). No special-status plant species were observed within the Laguna Grande Regional Park survey area. Appendix A, Plant Species Observed, presents the list of all plant species that were observed at the park during the focused plant surveys.

Packet Page 260
Ms. Matz
BFS Landscape Architects
July 2, 2021, Page 3

MEMORANDUM
Focused plant survey results are generally considered valid for about five years. Please contact me with any questions. I look forward to further assisting you with this important project.

Sincerely,
Patrick Furtado, M.S.

Associate Biologist
Attachments: Figure 1, Vegetation Map – North
Figure 2, Vegetation Map – South
Appendix A, Plant List
Packet Page 261
Ms. Matz
BFS Landscape Architects
July 2, 2021, Page 4

MEMORANDUM
References
Baldwin, B. G., D. H. Goldman, et al. 2012. The Jepson manual: vascular plants of California, University of California Press.

Bossard, Carla C., et al. Invasive Plants of California’s Wildlands. University of California Press, 2000.

Calflora Database. 2021. Calflora: Information on California plants for education, research and conservation online database. Berkeley, California. https://www.calflora.org/ California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2021. Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS) online database. http://bios.dfg.ca.gov
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2021. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) online database. https://wildlife.ca.gov/data/cnddb
California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC). 2021. Cal-IPC Invasive Plant Inventory online database. https://www.cal-ipc.org/plants/inventory/
California Native Plant Society (CNPS), Rare Plant Program. 2021. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California online database. http://www.rareplants.cnps.org Jepson Flora Project. 2021. Jepson eFlora online database. https://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/ Matthews, Mary Ann, and Michael Mitchell. 2015. The Plants of Monterey County: An Illustrated Field Key. Monterey Bay Chapter, California Native Plant Society.

National Drought Mitigation Center (NDMC). 2021. United States Drought Monitor. https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/CurrentMap/StateDroughtMonitor.aspx?CA Sawyer, J. O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J.M. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation.

California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2021. Endangered Species Program online database. Species list for Monterey County. Washington, D.C. http://www.fws.gov/endangered/
Yeager, Rod M., and Michael Mitchell. Monterey County Wildflowers: A Field Guide.

Monterey Bay Chapter, California Native Plant Society, 2016.

Packet Page 262
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
Arroyo Willow
Monterey
cypress
Arroyo
Willow
Arroyo
Willow
Arroyo
Willow
Arroyo
Willow
Arroyo
Willow
Arroyo
Willow
Arroyo Willow
Arroyo
Willow
Tule
Tule
Tule
Tule
Tule
Tule
Arroyo
Willow
Arroyo
Willow
Arroyo
Willow
Arroyo
Willow
Arroyo Willow
Arroyo
Willow
Ruderal
Ruderal
French Broom
French
Broom
French Broom
Arroyo Willow
Arroyo
Willow
Arroyo Willow
Arroyo
Willow
Common Reed
(Native)
Cattail
Cattail
Cattail
Tule
French Broom
Ruderal
Ruderal
Chinese Elm
Monterey
cypress
Acacia
Tule
Tule
Tule
Himalayan
blackberry
Iceplant
Eucalyptus
Giant Reed
(Invasive)
Alder
Acacia
Acacia
Acacia
Acacia
Monterey Cypress
Giant Reed
(Invasive)
Cottonwood
Privet
English Ivy
Acacia
Alder Acacia
Coast
Live Oak
Coast
Live Oak
Monterey
Cypress
Coast
Live Oak
Vinca
Coast
Live Oak
Himalayan
Himalayan Blackberry
Blackberry
English Ivy
Tule
Alder
Alder
Coast Redwood
Alder
Alder
Tule
Camp
Himalayan
Blackberry
English Ivy
Diseased
Redwood
English Ivy
Sycamore
Walnut
Plum
Iceplant
Coast
Live Oak
Monterey
Cypress
Iceplant
Alder
Camp
English Ivy
Giant Reed
(Invasive)
Poison
Hemlock
Cattail
Kikuyu Grass
Poison
Hemlock
English Ivy
Coast
Live Oak
0 250 feet
Laguna Grande Trail Maintenance Strategy IS/MND
Vegetation Map - North
Figure 1
Source: ESRI 2021, Monterey County GIS 2019
Priority Invasive Plant Removal and Native Plant Resoration Area Priority Invasive Plant Removal
and Native Plant Restoration Area
Priority Invasive Plant Removal
and Native Plant Restoration Area
Priority Invasive Plant Removal and Native Plant Resoration Area All areas identified as Ruderal are potential sites for native plant gardens, butterfly gardens, or native plant restoration areas.

Approximate Park Boundary
Secondary or Social Trail
Monterey cypress Ruderal
Arroyo Willow Acacia
Cattail
Common Reed (Native)
French Broom
Himalayan Blackberry
Bulrush/Tule Iceplant
Main Trail
Packet Page 263
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
Arroyo Willow
Arroyo
Willow
Arroyo
Willow
Himalayan blackberry
Ruderal
Ruderal
French Broom
Acacia
Acacia
Acacia
Tule
Tule
Himalayan
blackberry
Himalayan blackberry
Iceplant
Eucalyptus
Giant Reed
(Invasive)
Alder Giant Reed
(Invasive)
Cottonwood
Privet
English Ivy
Eucalyptus
English Ivy Himalayan
Blackberry
Alder
Acacia
Alder
Alder
Eucalyptus
English Ivy
Acacia
Camp
Camp
Alder
Camp
Camp
Pampas grass
Camp
Camp
Camp
Camp
Himalayan
Blackberry
Camp
Acacia
Alder Acacia
Coast
Live Oak
Coast
Live Oak
Monterey
Cypress
Coast Live Oak
Vinca
Coast
Live Oak
Himalayan
Blackberry
English Ivy
Coast
Live Oak
Monterey
Cypress
English Ivy
Coast
Live Oak
Coast
Live Oak
Coast
Live Oak
Camp
0 250 feet
Laguna Grande Trail Maintenance Strategy IS/MND
Vegetation Map - South
Figure 2
Source: ESRI 2021, Monterey County GIS 2019
Priority Invasive Plant Removal
and Native Plant Restoration Area
Priority Invasive Plant Removal
and Native Plant Restoration Area
All areas identified as Ruderal are potential sites for native plant gardens, butterfly gardens, or native plant restoration areas.

Approximate Park Boundary
Secondary or Social Trail
Monterey cypress Ruderal
Priority Invasive Plant Removal
and Native Plant Restoration Area
Arroyo Willow Acacia
Cattail
Common Reed (Native)
French Broom
Himalayan Blackberry
Tule Iceplant
Main Trail
Packet Page 264

APPENDIX A
PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED MAY 24 AND JUNE 15, 2021
Packet Page 265
Packet Page 266
Laguna Grande Regional Park Focused Plant Survey
EMC Planning Group Inc. 1
Appendix A: Plant Species Observed May 24 and June 15, 2021 Family Species Name Common Name Native/Non-Native Form
Aizoaceae Carpobrotus edulis Iceplant • invasive non-native Perennial herb Anacardiaceae Toxicodendron diversilobum Poison oak native Vine, Shrub Apiaceae Apium graveolens Celery non-native Annual, Biennial herb Apiaceae Conium maculatum Poison hemlock • invasive non-native Perennial herb Apiaceae Foeniculum vulgare Fennel • invasive non-native Perennial herb Apiaceae Oenanthe sarmentosa Water parsley native Perennial herb Apocynaceae Vinca major Vinca • invasive non-native Perennial herb Araceae Zantedeschia aethiopica Callalily • invasive non-native Perennial herb Araliaceae Hedera helix English ivy • invasive non-native Vine, Shrub Asteraceae Baccharis pilularis Coyote brush native Shrub Asteraceae Carduus pycnocephalus Italian thistle • invasive non-native Annual herb Asteraceae Cirsium vulgare Bullthistle • invasive non-native Perennial herb Asteraceae Cotula coronopifolia Brass buttons • invasive non-native Perennial herb Asteraceae Delairea odorata Cape ivy • invasive non-native Perennial herb Asteraceae Helminthotheca echioides Bristly ox-tongue • invasive non-native Annual, Perennial herb Asteraceae Hypochaeris glabra Smooth cats ear • invasive non-native Annual herb Asteraceae Hypochaeris radicata Hairy cats ear • invasive non-native Perennial herb Asteraceae Jaumea carnosa Marsh jaumea native Perennial herb Asteraceae Lactuca serriola Prickly lettuce • invasive non-native Annual herb Asteraceae Matricaria discoidea Pineapple weed native Annual herb Asteraceae Pseudognaphalium luteoalbum Jersey cudweed non-native Annual herb Asteraceae Sonchus asper Spiny sowthistle • invasive non-native Annual herb Asteraceae Taraxacum officinale Red seeded dandelion • invasive non-native Perennial herb Packet Page 267
Appendix A
2 EMC Planning Group Inc.

Family Species Name Common Name Native/Non-Native Form
Betulaceae Alnus rhombifolia White alder native Tree
Boraginaceae Heliotropium curassavicum var. oculatum Seaside heliotrope native Perennial herb Brassicaceae Brassica nigra Black mustard • invasive non-native Annual herb Brassicaceae Hirschfeldia incana Mustard • invasive non-native Perennial herb Brassicaceae Nasturtium officinale Watercress native Perennial herb (aquatic) Brassicaceae Raphanus sativus Jointed charlock • invasive non-native Annual, Biennial herb Caryophyllaceae Silene gallica Common catchfly non-native Annual herb Chenopodiaceae Atriplex prostrata Fat-hen non-native Annual herb Convolvulaceae Calystegia macrostegia Island morning glory native Perennial herb, Vine Cornaceae Cornus sericea American dogwood native Shrub
Cucurbitaceae Marah fabacea California man-root native Perennial herb, Vine Cupressaceae Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey cypress native Tree Cupressaceae Sequoia sempervirens Coast redwood native Tree Cyperaceae Bolboschoenus robustus Sturdy bullrush native Perennial grasslike herb Cyperaceae Cyperus eragrostis Tall cyperus native Perennial grasslike herb Cyperaceae Schoenoplectus acutus var. occidentalis Tule native Perennial grasslike herb Cyperaceae Schoenoplectus californicus California bulrush native Perennial grasslike herb Cyperaceae Schoenoplectus pungens var. longispicatus Common threesquare native Perennial grasslike herb Cyperaceae Scirpus microcarpus Small fruited bulrush native Perennial grasslike herb Equisetaceae Equisetum telmateia ssp. braunii Giant horsetail native Fern Fabaceae Acacia dealbata Silver wattle • invasive non-native Tree, Shrub Fabaceae Acacia longifolia Golden wattle non-native Tree Fabaceae Acacia melanoxylon Blackwood acacia • invasive non-native Tree Fabaceae Genista monspessulana French broom • invasive non-native Shrub Packet Page 268
Laguna Grande Regional Park Focused Plant Survey
EMC Planning Group Inc. 3
Family Species Name Common Name Native/Non-Native Form
Fabaceae Lupinus arboreus Coastal bush lupine native Shrub Fabaceae Lupinus nanus Valley sky lupine native Annual herb Fabaceae Medicago polymorpha California burclover • invasive non-native Annual herb Fabaceae Melilotus albus White sweetclover • invasive non-native Annual, Biennial herb Fabaceae Melilotus indicus Annual yellow sweetclover non-native Annual herb Fabaceae Trifolium repens White clover non-native Perennial herb Fabaceae Vicia sativa Spring vetch non-native Annual herb, Vine Fagaceae Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak native Tree
Geraniaceae Erodium botrys Big heron bill non-native Annual herb Geraniaceae Geranium dissectum Wild geranium • invasive non-native Annual herb Geraniaceae Geranium rotundifolium Round leaved geranium non-native Annual herb Juglandaceae Juglans hindsii Northern california black walnut native Tree Juncaceae Juncus effusus ssp. pacificus Pacific rush native Perennial grasslike herb Juncaceae Juncus patens Rush native Perennial grasslike herb Malvaceae Malva pseudolavatera Cretan mallow non-native Shrub Malvaceae Malva sylvestris High mallow non-native Perennial herb Myrsinaceae Lysimachia arvensis Scarlet pimpernel non-native Annual herb Myrtaceae Eucalyptus globulus Blue gum • invasive non-native Tree Onagraceae Epilobium ciliatum Slender willow herb native Perennial herb Onagraceae Oenothera elata Evening primrose native Perennial herb Papaveraceae Eschscholzia californica California poppy native Annual, Perennial herb Plantaginaceae Plantago coronopus Cut leaf plantain • invasive non-native Annual herb Plantaginaceae Plantago lanceolata Ribwort • invasive non-native Perennial herb Plantaginaceae Plantago major Common plantain non-native Perennial herb Packet Page 269
Appendix A
4 EMC Planning Group Inc.

Family Species Name Common Name Native/Non-Native Form
Platanaceae Platanus racemosa California sycamore native Tree Poaceae Agrostis stolonifera Redtop • invasive non-native Perennial grass Poaceae Arundo donax Giant reed • invasive non-native Perennial grass Poaceae Avena fatua Wildoats • invasive non-native Annual grass Poaceae Bromus diandrus Ripgut brome • invasive non-native Annual grass Poaceae Bromus sitchensis var. carinatus California brome native Perennial grass Poaceae Digitaria sanguinalis Crabgrass non-native Annual grass Poaceae Distichlis spicata Salt grass native Perennial grass Poaceae Ehrharta erecta Upright veldt grass • invasive non-native Perennial grass Poaceae Festuca myuros Rattail sixweeks grass • invasive non-native Annual grass Poaceae Festuca perennis Italian rye grass • invasive non-native Annual, Perennial grass Poaceae Holcus lanatus Common velvetgrass • invasive non-native Perennial grass Poaceae Hordeum murinum Foxtail barley • invasive non-native Annual grass Poaceae Pennisetum clandestinum Kikuyu grass • invasive non-native Perennial grass Poaceae Phragmites australis Common reed native Perennial grass Poaceae Poa annua Annual blue grass non-native Annual grass Polygonaceae Persicaria amphibia Water smartweed native Perennial herb (aquatic) Polygonaceae Polygonum aviculare Prostrate knotweed non-native Annual, Perennial herb Polygonaceae Rumex acetosella Sheep sorrel • invasive non-native Perennial herb Polygonaceae Rumex crispus Curly dock • invasive non-native Perennial herb Polygonaceae Rumex pulcher Fiddleleaf dock non-native Perennial herb Rhamnaceae Ceanothus thyrsiflorus Blueblossom native Tree, Shrub Rhamnaceae Frangula californica California coffeeberry native Shrub Rosaceae Potentilla anserina Silver weed cinquefoil native Perennial herb Packet Page 270
Laguna Grande Regional Park Focused Plant Survey
EMC Planning Group Inc. 5
Family Species Name Common Name Native/Non-Native Form
Rosaceae Prunus cerasifera Cherry plum • invasive non-native Tree Rosaceae Prunus ilicifolia Holly leaf cherry native Tree, Shrub Rosaceae Prunus virginiana Chokecherry native Tree, Shrub Rosaceae Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry • invasive non-native Shrub Rosaceae Rubus ursinus California blackberry native Vine, Shrub Salicaceae Populus trichocarpa Black cottonwood native Tree Salicaceae Salix laevigata Polished willow native Tree
Salicaceae Salix lasiandra Pacific willow native Tree
Salicaceae Salix lasiolepis Arroyo willow native Tree, Shrub Sapindaceae Acer negundo Boxelder native Tree
Scrophulariaceae Myoporum laetum Ngaio tree • invasive non-native Tree, Shrub Scrophulariaceae Verbascum thapsus Woolly mullein • invasive non-native Perennial herb Tropaeolaceae Tropaeolum majus Garden nasturtium non-native Annual herb, Vine Typhaceae Typha latifolia Broadleaf cattail native Perennial herb (aquatic) Urticaceae Parietaria judaica Spreading pellitory non-native Perennial herb Urticaceae Urtica dioica Stinging nettle native Perennial herb Urticaceae Urtica urens Annual stinging nettle non-native Annual herb SOURCE: EMC Planning Group 2021
Packet Page 271

A P P E N D I X B

I N V A S I V E P L A N T

C O N T R O L
Packet Page 272
Laguna Grande Regional Park
Guidelines for Invasive, Non-native Plant Species 1 September 2021

LAGUNA GRANDE REGIONAL PARK

TRAIL MAINTENANCE STRATEGY
September 28, 2021

GUIDELINES FOR INVASIVE, NON-NATIVE PLANT REMOVAL/CONTROL

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Non-native plant species are species not present in California and/or the Monterey Bay prior to Russian, Spanish and/or European colonization. The Spanish discovery of Monterey Bay occurred in the early 1600’s, yet it wasn’t until 1770 that the first non-Native American settlement was established (Gordon, 1996). Available evidence indicates that the vast majority of non-native plants now established in California were introduced after this time (Cal-IPC, 2021). Settlers brought non-native plants accidentally in ship ballast and as contaminants of grain shipments, in livestock and livestock feed, as well as intentionally for food, fiber, medicine, and ornamental uses. Most non-native plants introduced to California in these early times first established at coastal sites near ports and around missions and other settlements. This is likely true for the Monterey Bay region. The majority of the first nonnative plants to establish were of European origin; however, later-arriving species have origins in central and south America, and more recently from Asia and Australia. Many of the arriving nonnative plant species found favorable growing conditions in coastal California and became successful in competing with native plant species for growing space, soil nutrients, and soil moisture. Of the estimated 1,800 non-native plant species established in California, only approximately 200 (11%) are recognized as serious threats to native ecosystems; yet these species have dramatically changed California’s ecological landscape (Cal-IPC, 2021). Species that exhibit aggressive growth patterns that lead to a reduction in native plant diversity and cover are considered to be invasive, non-native plant species.

An aggressive growth pattern of an invasive, non-native plant species can result in a corresponding reduction in the diversity and health of native flora and fauna. A decrease in native plant and animal diversity can lead to a weakening of native ecosystems, making the ecosystem more vulnerable to permanent damage due to stochastic events (i.e., unpredictable events that can affect population and community dynamics, such as disease infestation, wildfire, or unintentional human damage). In addition, as native insects and wildlife rely on native plants for shelter, food and reproduction, the spread of non-utilized non-native plant species can result in the disappearance or reduced numbers and vigor of native species. A study on the ecosystems of California found the impacts of invasive species on native species include genetic impacts (i.e., hybridizing with native species), local or species-level extinctions through disease and displacement, changes in community composition and native species diversity, and altered ecosystem processes such as nutrient cycling and disturbance regimes (Mooney and Zavaleta 2016). Additionally, some invasive non-native plants are toxic to wildlife and insects. Toxic plant materials weaken or kill aquatic life. Finally, the loss of the complex plant cover and plant root systems lead to decreases in soil moisture, increases in soil temperature and changes in soil chemical composition. Soil and moisture changes can lead to increases in erosion potential and decreases in water quality.

Packet Page 273
Laguna Grande Regional Park
Guidelines for Invasive, Non-native Plant Species 2 September 2021 Numerous non-native plant species have been recorded in Laguna Grande Regional Park. Some of these are invasive with infestations having negative effects on the park’s upland and wetland ecosystems. A level of environmental damage has occurred within the Park from infestations of these invasive, non-native plant species. Measures to reduce damage from invasive, non-native plant species, to benefit the Park’s native ecosystems, are identified in this chapter.

2.0 METHODOLOGY
The extent of invasive, non-native plant species within Laguna Grande Regional Park was assessed through literature review, review of the Vegetation Mapping and Focused Plant Survey Results (EMC Planning Group, 2021), and field observations by Kathleen Lyons (plant ecologist) and George McMenamin (restoration specialist). Field surveys were conducted on July 30, August 10 and September 7, 2021 to field-check previously mapped data, identify additional locations of invasive, non-native plant species, evaluate the level of threat an infestation poses to native resources, and evaluate measures for removal and control of infestations. The distribution of the invasive, non-native plant species was depicted onto a base map and EMC Planning Group entered data entered into a Geographic Information System (GIS).

3.0 INVASIVE, NON-NATIVE PLANT SPECIES
Over twenty-five invasive, non-native plant species were identified to be of management concern within Laguna Grande Regional Park. Most of these species are listed by the California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC), as invasive species. Two species are listed as noxious weeds by the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA). Table 1 lists these species and their CalIPC invasive rating. Figures 1 and 2 show the distribution of each species within the regional park.

Plant species have varying patterns for growth and reproduction. These patterns are considered in evaluating their ability to invade native ecosystems as well as control measures. Plants that are annual/biennial species, such as a thistle, typically grows quickly and produce large amounts of seed that is often easily dispersed by wind or by animals. Seeds from annual species typically have relatively short lifespans (1-5 years). Some perennial plants, such as French broom, reproduce by seed; however, the seed can persist in the soil for long periods of time (30+ years).

Some perennial plants, such as Cape ivy, can reproduce from stem fragments. The growth habitat and primary reproductive method of the invasive, non-native plant species is presented in Table 1.

Packet Page 274
Laguna Grande Regional Park
Guidelines for Invasive, Non-native Plant Species 3 September 2021 Figure 1. Invasive, Non-native Plant Species, North
Packet Page 275
Laguna Grande Regional Park
Guidelines for Invasive, Non-native Plant Species 4 September 2021 Figure 2. Invasive, Non-native Plant Species, South
Packet Page 276
Laguna Grande Regional Park
Guidelines for Invasive, Non-native Plant Species 5 September 2021 Table 1. Invasive, Non-native Plant Species of Management Concern, Laguna Grande Regional Park Common Name Scientific Name Cal-IPC
Ranking
Growth Habit Primary Reproduction
TREES
Acacia Acacia melanoxylon
Acacia dealbata
Acacia longifolia
Moderate Perennial, evergreen Seed, roots and stump
sprouts
Blue Gum Eucalyptus Eucalyptus globulus Limited Perennial, evergreen Seed, stump sprouts White Ash Fraxinus americana None Perennial, deciduous Seed, stump and root sprouts
Ngaio Tree (Myoporum) Myoporum laetum None Perennial, evergreen Seed Cherry Plum Prunus cerasifera None Perennial, deciduous Seed, stump sprouts Chinese Elm Ulmus parvifolia None Perennial, deciduous Seed, stump and root sprout

SHRUBS AND WOODY VINES
French Broom Genista monspessulana High Perennial Seed
Glossy Privet Ligustrum lucidum Limited Perennial Seed
Himalayan Blackberry Rubus armeniacus High Perennial Seed, root fragments, cane tips
Elm-leaf (thornless)
Blackberry
Rubus ulmifolius None Perennial Seed, root fragments,
cane tips
Pride of Madeira Echium candicans Limited Perennial Seed

NON-WOODY VINES, GRASSES, AND GROUNDCOVERS
Aloe Aloe arborescens None Perennial Vegetatively, seeds Giant Reed Arundo donax High Perennial Vegetatively
Short-stalked False
Bindweed
Calystegia silvatica None Perennial Seeds, roots
Italian Thistle Carduus pycnocephalus Moderate1 Annual Seed Ice Plant Carpobrotus edulis
Carpobrotus chilensis
High Perennial Roots, plant fragments,
seed
Bull Thistle Cirsium vulgare Moderate1 Biennial Seed
Poison Hemlock Conium maculatum Moderate Biennial Seed
Jubata Grass
Pampas Grass
Cortederia jubata
Cortederia selloana
High Perennial Seed
Cape Ivy Delairea odorata High Perennial Vegetatively
Panic Veldt Grass Ehrharta erecta Moderate Annual Seed
Fennel Foeniculum vulgare Moderate Perennial Seed root fragments English Ivy Hedera helix
Hedera spp. and
cultivars
High Perennial Seed, vegetatively
Japanese Honeysuckle Lonicera japonica None Perennial Seed, vegetatively Kikuyu Grass Pennisetum
clandestinum
Limited Perennial Seed, rhizome, stolen
fragments
Nasturtium Tropaeolum majus None Annual Seed, stem fragments Periwinkle Vinca major Moderate Vegetatively
Calla Lily Zantedeschia aethiopica Limited Perennial Seed, rhizome 1 – species has a pest rating of “C” by CDFA: “State endorsed holding action and eradication if plant found in a nursery; action to retard spread of plant outside nursery at discretion of County Agricultural Commissioner.” Table 2 identifies the inventory categories developed by Cal-IPC to reflect the level of a species negative ecological impact in California. These categories are high, moderate, or limited. Two additional categories are “Alert” and “Watch.” An Alert is listed on species with High or Moderate impacts that have limited distribution in California, but may have the potential to spread much further. Species on the “watch” list have been assessed as posing a high risk of becoming invasive in the future in California.

Packet Page 277
Laguna Grande Regional Park
Guidelines for Invasive, Non-native Plant Species 6 September 2021 Table 2. Cal-IPC Ratings of Invasive Weeds
Ranking Meaning of Ranking
High These species have severe ecological impacts on physical processes, plant and animal communities, and vegetation structure. Their reproductive biology and other attributes are conducive to moderate to high rates of dispersal and establishment. Most are widely distributed ecologically.

Moderate These species have substantial and apparent—but generally not severe—ecological impacts on physical processes, plant and animal communities, and vegetation structure. Their reproductive biology and other attributes are conducive to moderate to high rates of dispersal, though establishment is generally dependent upon ecological disturbance. Ecological amplitude and distribution may range from limited to widespread.

Limited These species are invasive but their ecological impacts are minor on a statewide level or there was not enough information to justify a higher score. Their reproductive biology and other attributes result in low to moderate rates of invasiveness. Ecological amplitude and distribution are generally limited, but these species may be locally persistent and problematic.

Source: Cal-IPC, 2021
The plant species descriptions provided in the following sections are based on general plant life cycles and growth patterns in the central coast region. The information provided should be used as a general guideline and does not replace yearly monitoring. Some biennials may become annuals or short-lived perennials based on extreme conditions, such as drought or years of high rainfall. Additionally, the timing of plant growth and flowering may change under extreme parameters.

3.1 Trees
Most non-native tree species have several common invasive characteristics. Most outcompete many native plant species by blocking sunlight, having rapid growth, and dominating soil moisture and nutrient resources.

Silver wattle (Acacia dealbata), Sydney golden wattle (Acacia longifolia) and blackwood wattle (Acacia melanoxylon) are all non-native trees or shrubs. All three species are native to Australia, fast growing, fix nitrogen, and can re-sprout from cut stumps. They all produce prodigious amounts of seed and likely have leaves with allelopathic properties. The silver wattle usually reaches a height of 40-50 feet and can reproduce from both rhizomes and seed. Sydney golden wattle is usually a small tree or shrub that grows to a height of 20 to 25 feet and may form dense thickets. The blackwood wattle usually reaches heights of 40-50 feet. The blackwood wattle also develops root suckers and can form clonal populations. Both the silver and blackwood wattle may grow taller under some circumstances. All of these species are highly invasive due to their rapid growth, the allelopathic leave litter, their large, seed banks and their ability to spread by rhizome or roots. Once established, they outcompete the native plant species and alter the soil chemistry by fixing nitrogen. Additionally, they can create a significant fire hazard.

Blue gum eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) is a large non-native tree that can grow rapidly to heights of 200 feet or more. It is native to Australia. Blue gum trees have an extensive lateral root system and can re-sprout from cut stumps and roots. Blue gum trees shed bark, leaves and drop branches continuously. This species can flower from late fall through the following spring, with seed capsules forming 10 months to a year later. The blue gum eucalyptus reproduces from seed.

The species is a highly invasive tree due to its rapid growth, existing seed bank, ability to rePacket Page 278 Laguna Grande Regional Park
Guidelines for Invasive, Non-native Plant Species 7 September 2021 sprout, and the allelopathic properties of the thick layer of leaf and bark litter. Additionally, the leaf litter, bark litter and large number of down branches create a significant fire hazard.

White ash (Fraxinus americana) is a non-native, evergreen to semi-deciduous tree native to southeastern Canada and midwestern United States. They can reach heights of 60 feet. Ash trees have large roots and may have adventitious roots. The trees flower in the spring with windborne pollination and they produce large quantities of viable seed. Ash trees are toxic to ruminant animals and may cause dermatitis to humans. The non-native ash species should be considered moderately invasive in riparian corridors or moist soils due to their rapid growth, potential for root sprouts and large quantities of seed.

Chinese elm (Ulmus parvifolia) is a non-native, semi-deciduous tree that can reach heights of 50 feet. It is native to Asia and prefers full to moderate sun. The Chinese elm sheds bark and has large roots. It flowers in late summer and produces viable seed. The seed can be carried by the wind for long distances. Chinese elms are low to moderately invasive in central coastal California, at this time, However, it is highly invasive in North Carolina and has potential to become more invasive along the central coast, due to its windborne seed and tolerance for many environmental conditions.

Cherry plum (Prunus cerasifera) is a non-native, often shrubby, deciduous tree that is native to Europe. Cherry plum trees can re-sprout from cut stumps and roots. This tree flowers in the spring and the plum-like fruit is often transported and spread into new areas, by animals and humans. Although this tree rarely forms groves or dominates habitat, it should be considered moderately invasive in some habitats where there is disturbance, or reduced competition and adequate resources for seedlings to become established.

Ngaio tree (myoporum) (Myoporum laetum) is a non-native, evergreen tree or shrub that can reach a height of 30 feet. It is native to New Zealand. Ngaio trees have a deep taproot and are drought tolerant when mature. Plants may re-sprout when the stems are cut. Ngaio trees flowers in the spring and summer and produces fruit containing 2-6 seeds. They produce large quantities of fruit which is often transported by birds. If the fruit stays intact, the seeds can survive for several years. This plant has regional toxicity if eaten, particularly the leaves. The Ngaio tree is moderately invasive in disturbed areas with sufficient soil moisture. This species can form monocultured stands due to the leaf litter and high seed production.

3.2 Shrubs and Woody Vines
French broom (Genista monspessulana) is a non-native, leguminous, perennial shrub with an average life span of 12-15 years. It is native to the Mediterranean region of Europe. French broom is evergreen and may reach a height of 10+ feet. French broom usually flowers in spring and early summer. A mature plant can produce thousands of seed pods per year. Each pod contains 5- 8 seeds. The seed pods are dehiscent, bursting open in the summer, expelling seeds for a distance of up to 6 feet. French broom seed remains viable in and on the soil for decades. French broom seeds and flowers are toxic to humans and many domestic and native wildlife species. French broom is a highly invasive shrub that spreads rapidly. The prodigious quantities and long-term Packet Page 279
Laguna Grande Regional Park
Guidelines for Invasive, Non-native Plant Species 8 September 2021 viability of the seeds often result in a rapid expansion of the infestation. In addition, French broom will re-sprout from cut stumps unless it is cut below the root crown. Over a period of 3-6 years French broom can create a dense, monocultured stand.

Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) and elm-leaf (thornless) blackberry (Rubus ulmifolius) are long-lived, non-native shrubs/woody vines that develop a perennial root system.

These species grow in numerous forms and create dense thickets. Both species can assume a vine form and climb 20-30 feet into trees. Himalayan blackberry is native to Eurasia; elm-leaf (thornless) blackberry is native to Europe. Both species flower in the spring and usually produces fruit in the summer. Both of these blackberry species are highly invasive and spread quickly.

They produce large quantities of berries and the seeds are often spread by birds and other animals that eat the fruit. Both blackberries develop extensive root systems and can spread vegetatively (re-sprout) from root fragments and re-rooting from cane tips.

Glossy privet (Ligustrum lucidum) is a non-native, evergreen tree or shrub that is native to Asia.

This tree can reach heights of 40 feet and often has multiple stems. Glossy privet can re-sprout from cut stumps or roots. Glossy privet flowers in the late spring to summer. This species produces large quantities of berries that are mostly dispersed by birds. Glossy privet reproduces by both seed and roots. They may be invasive in woodlands or forest habitats where root sprouts and seed can form dense stands over time.

Pride of Madeira (Echium candicans) is a large, long lived, perennial shrub that is native to the island of Madeira, north of the Canary Islands. Pride of Madeira has numerous branches, woody roots and can reach heights of 8 feet. Pride of Madeira is a common landscape ornamental that has escaped cultivation in coastal regions. This species requires full sun and may bloom from April thru July, producing large quantities of viable seed. All parts of the plant are considered poisonous to ingest and can skin contact can cause dermatitis. Due to its long-life span and large quantities of seed, Pride of Madeira is moderately invasive along the central coast.

3.3 Non-woody Vines, Grasses and Groundcovers
Aloe (Aloe arborescens) is an evergreen, perennial succulent, native to southern Africa. Often called torch aloe, it is a large, densely growing succulent shrub that can reach 9 feet in height and spread. The stems support numerous narrow, recurved, soft-toothed margined leaves that are dull green, yellow-green to sometimes blue-green depending on the location and amount of sunlight received. Coral-red flowers bloom in late fall and early winter. Aloe spreads vegetatively, from a branch or stem and can also reproduce by seed. Due to Aloe’s ability to spread both vegetatively and by seed, this species is considered somewhat invasive.

Giant reed (Arundo donax) is a non-native, long-lived, perennial grass that can grow to heights of 10+ feet. It is native to the Mediterranean area and tropical Asia. Giant reed has an extremely thick, aggressive, rhizomatous root system that can survive periodic flooding. Although it can flower year-round in some areas, seedlings are not encountered in California. It reproduces almost exclusively from rhizomes and root fragments which are often spread during flooding or high-water levels. In addition, Giant reed is highly flammable and can increase the risk of fire.

Packet Page 280
Laguna Grande Regional Park
Guidelines for Invasive, Non-native Plant Species 9 September 2021 Giant reed is invasive, particularly in riparian corridors where it forms dense, impenetrable stands completely eliminating native plant species and greatly reducing habitat values.

Short-stalked false bindweed (Calystegia sylvatica) is a non-native, aggressive, perennial vine with an extensive root system. It is native to Europe. The vines are extremely aggressive climbers and grow rapidly. They can grow high into trees and can smother small trees and shrubs. The vines die back each year to the roots. Each flower produces a capsule with 2-4 seeds. Shortstalked false bindweed spreads both vegetatively and by seed. Once established, this bindweed can be difficult to eradicate due to the extensive root system and seed bank.

Bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare) is usually a biennial, from Eurasia and Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus) is usually an annual, both native to the Mediterranean area. Bull thistle mostly flowers in late spring through the summer of the second year, with seed viability ranging from 3 to 5 years. Italian thistle usually flowers from mid-April through May and seed viability ranges from 4-8 years. Italian thistle produces 2 types of seed; one seed type usually falls near the plant and the other seed type is carried by the wind. Both species of thistle may continue to produce flowers until soil moisture becomes too low. Both of these thistles reproduce only by seed. Bull thistle represents a greatest threat in areas with soil moisture continuing later into the summer and the plant can re-sprout from cut roots, if conditions are right. Bull thistle may continue to produce some flower heads well into the fall under good conditions. Italian thistle prefers ground with reduced late spring moisture.

Ice plant (Carpobrotus edulis/Carpobrotus chilensis - may include hybrids) is a non-native, ground creeping, succulent, perennial shrub. It is native to South Africa. Trailing stems can reach lengths of 10+ feet and root at the nodes. Ice plant can form large, extremely dense mats of clonal plants. It is drought tolerant and often grows year around. On the central coast, ice plant flowers for most of the year and may flower year around. It produces numerous seeds with seed viability of 2 years. However, it is thought that ice plant mainly produces seedings only in disturbed soils, due to herbivory. Once introduced into an area, ice plant can be highly invasive, in full sun.

Additionally, it creates high levels of organic matter that can lead to invasions by additional nonnative plant species. In this area, ice plant appears to spread mainly by root or plant fragments.

Poison hemlock (Conium maculatum) is a non-native, biennial, invasive plant that can grow to 10+ feet in height. It is native to Europe. It does not require much light and can grow in almost full shade. Poison hemlock can grow in most habitats as long as there is sufficient soil moisture.

A large plant can produce up to several thousand flowers and seeds. Poison hemlock usually flowers April through July, but can continue to flower through the summer. Damaged stems may flower into the following spring. Seed viability is thought to be 3-4 years. Poison hemlock is extremely toxic to human and animals when eaten. It can cause contact dermatitis in some humans. It is not uncommon for animals to ingest Poison hemlock in early spring or when desirable vegetation becomes scarce, in the late summer and fall. Poison hemlock is highly invasive, particularly in areas with some sunlight, and good soil moisture, although it can be invasive in most types of habitats. It does not spread vegetatively, but can re-sprout multiple times from its large taproot if the stem is cut or broken.

Packet Page 281
Laguna Grande Regional Park
Guidelines for Invasive, Non-native Plant Species 10 September 2021 Pampas grass and Jubata grass (Cortederia selloana and C. jubata) are both non-native, perennial, densely tufted, grasses with long basal leaves and feathery inflorescence plumes. Both species are native to the Andes Mountains and several other sections of South America. The basal leaves and floral plumes can reach heights of 8-10 feet. The rhizomes and roots form a dense clump. Old pampas grass plants can have roots 10 feet deep and rhizomes 20 feet wide. Jubata grass tussocks are usually smaller than those of pampas grass. Although both species can produce large quantities of seed, pampas grass requires both male and female plants, in range, to create seed. All jubata grasses are female and produce viable seed. Each seed plume can have up to 100,000 seeds that are viable soon after emerging from the grass sheath. However, seed viability is less than 1 year and so a persisting seedbank does not occur. Pampas grass seedlings can survive a greater number of environmental conditions than jubata grass. In areas with disturbed soil, bare ground or low levels of competition from grasses or sedges, these two species can be highly invasive and greatly limit the establishment of native plant species.

Cape ivy (Delairea odorata) is a non-native, perennial vine that is usually evergreen, but can become deciduous under drought or extreme heat conditions. It is native to South Africa. Vines can form dense patches and smother all other vegetation. Additionally, the vines can grow 60+ feet in trees. Once established, Cape ivy vines and rhizomes can have growth rates of more than 20 feet in all directions per year. In California, Cape ivy flowers in mid to late winter and early spring. Although most Cape ivy seed is not viable in California, it is viable in some other countries and has proven viable under lab conditions. Cape ivy is mildly toxic to wildlife and can become toxic to fish and aquatic wildlife, if sufficient contact with water and dissolved plant matter occurs. Cape ivy is extremely invasive in riparian or shaded habitat. Although it does not usually produce viable seed in California, it has an extremely high growth rate and spreads vegetatively. The vines, stolons, and rhizomes are easily fragmented; a fragment as small as a half inch, with a node, can develop roots and re-sprout. As Cape ivy has a high carbohydrate and water content, even if left to dry for 2 or 3 months or more, a fragment can re-sprout when it rains or contacts moisture.

Panic veldt grass (Ehrharta erecta) is a perennial non-native grass. It is native to South Africa.

The roots usually form a shallow clump although they can grow deeper in sandy soil. Panic veldt grass can grow in conditions from full sun to almost full shade. This species can create flowers and prodigious seed year-round. On the Central coast, seeds can germinate any time of the year in areas with sufficient moisture or fog. Due to the fact that this grass grows well in almost full shade, produces ample seed and germinates year-round, it represents a serious threat to riparian, wooded or other partially shaded areas, where it can outcompete native understory plants.

Fennel (Foeniculum vulgare) is a non-native, perennial invasive plant that can grow to 10+ feet in height. Fennel is native to Europe. It seems to grow best in areas of soil disturbance and may inhibit the growth of native plants, possibly due to allelopathic properties. The cultivar forms used for human consumption are usually not invasive. A single plant may produce multiple stems and 1000s of flowers and seeds. It usually flowers from late spring through the end of summer.

Fennel mostly reproduces by seed, but under good conditions can spread from root fragments.

Fennel is invasive in some habitats and is particularly invasive in areas with soil disturbance.

Packet Page 282
Laguna Grande Regional Park
Guidelines for Invasive, Non-native Plant Species 11 September 2021 Once it develops a dense stand it will exclude native plant species due to it competitive seed bank and possibly allelopathic properties.

English ivy (Hedera helix, H. spp. and cultivars) is a general term used for a group of species.

There are over 12 Hedera species and hundreds of cultivars. They are morphologically similar and often require chromosome testing to identify accurately. Most plants in this area are likely one of three species with very similar morphological features and reproductive patterns. These species are native to Europe and often hybridize. English ivy is a non-native, perennial woody plant with 2 growth forms. When young it assumes a vine form that can grow upward to 100+ feet. This allows it to grow high into trees and form dense, monocultural coverage on the ground that eliminates almost all other vegetation. When it reaches the mature reproductive form, it is often erect and has tree or shrub-like stems. It mostly forms flowers in the fall and berries in the spring on vertical surfaces. Each plant can produce 1000s of seeds. English ivy is mildly toxic to wildlife and has been called a green desert. English ivy is highly invasive and spreads both vegetatively and by seed. Birds can spread the seed large distances. English ivy can grow over and smother almost all other vegetation. Additionally, it will grow up in trees and damage them from the weight, dense coverage and wind breakage.

Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) is a perennial climbing and ground cover vine. It is an evergreen and is a native to eastern Asia. The vines grow rapidly and can reach lengths of 30 feet. This honeysuckle flowers in late spring throughout the summer. Japanese honeysuckle is mildly toxic to humans, but does have some edible uses. Japanese honeysuckle can be highly invasive. Japanese honeysuckle grows rapidly and can smother or girdle small trees and shrubs with its vines. As ground cover it can outcompete native plant species. It spreads by both seed and rhizomatous stems which can root at each node.

Kikuyu grass (Pennisetum clandestinum) is a non-native perennial grass that is native to tropical portions of Africa. It has prostate stems with a complex system of tough, branching rhizomes and stolons, mostly in the top 4-6 inches of soil. Kikuyu grass flowers from April to October and seed may be long-lived in some habitats. This grass can spread by both seed and vegetatively by rhizome or stolon fragments. When established, Kikuyu grass can form dense mat-like patches or grass areas that limit the growth of native plant species.

Garden nasturtium (Tropaeolum majus) is a non-native, annual or perennial, invasive garden escape. It is native to Central and South America. It can grow in multiple habitats, and often becomes invasive in riparian habitat. It has long climbing stems or vines that grow rapidly.

Garden nasturtium may form a dense groundcover and cover small shrubs or trees. Garden nasturtium flowers from late spring through the summer and produces ample seed. This species reproduces from the seed and vegetatively from stem fragments. Garden nasturtium is moderately invasive, particularly in riparian habitats with ample sun and well-draining soils. It may densely cover the ground and inhibit the growth of native plants. Once established Garden nasturtium can be difficult to control with its large seed bank.

Packet Page 283
Laguna Grande Regional Park
Guidelines for Invasive, Non-native Plant Species 12 September 2021 Periwinkle (Vinca major) is a non-native, perennial, evergreen, invasive plant that is native to Europe. Periwinkle usually flowers from April to August. However, this species stems and flowers are almost always sterile, so spread from seed is uncommon. Trailing stems have been observed as long as 6+ feet and can re-root at each node. Periwinkle spreads almost exclusively from trailing stems and stem fragments. Periwinkle is highly toxic and most species will not usually eat it, including goats.

Periwinkle is highly invasive in shaded habitats once it is introduced. It creates a dense, monocultured ground cover that prevents native seedlings or the growth of native species.

Calla lily (Zantedeschia aethiopica) is a non-native, perennial, monocot that is native to South Africa. It is usually deciduous in the central coast, due to the long dry season. It can grow in full shade, but usually does not bloom without some sunlight. Calla lily usually flowers in the late spring to early summer. Each seed pod can contain up to 50 seeds. All parts of a Calla lily are toxic to humans and wildlife. Calla lily is moderately invasive in riparian or partially shaded habitats with well-draining soils. However, it usually does not flower in full shade. Calla lily spreads by seed and vegetatively by rhizomes. Additionally, each plant can create large numbers of specialized buds along the rhizome the result in new stems and flowers.

4.0 PRIORITY AND TREATMENT
The management of invasive, non-native plants refers to the removal/control of species that have been considered be a significant threat to the habitat value of the park’s riparian woodland and/or wetlands. To guide management actions and allocation of resources, priorities for species/occurrence removal were developed. This plan identifies six priority levels based on a species infestation, its ability to spread into habitat areas, and available removal/treatment actions. In addition, priority levels identify where removal actions may result in significant short or longer-term impacts to native riparian and/or wetland resources. Table 3 outlines the six priority levels.

Table 3. Priority Levels for Invasive, Non-native Plant Species Removal and Control

CODE PRIORITY RATIONALE
1 Highest Isolated patches of highly invasive species that significantly degrade habitats.

The goal is eradication in Years 1-3
2 High Localized occurrences suitable for complete control/eradication in Years 1-5 3 Moderate Isolated patches unlikely to spread significantly in next 5 years. If resources are not initially available treat in Years 6-10
4 Low Occurrences confined by trails or other barriers. Occurrences are intermixed with native species and removal/control would have significant short and/or long-term impacts on native woodland/wetland habitat.
5 Lowest Dense occurrences within inaccessible wooded terrain; heavy equipment and/or labor costs would be high for initial removal and long-term control; significant short and/or long-term impacts to native woodland habitat. 6 No Action Occurrence does not pose a significant impact to native biotic resources or is not likely to pose a significant decline in native habitat values over time.

Packet Page 284
Laguna Grande Regional Park
Guidelines for Invasive, Non-native Plant Species 13 September 2021

4.1 Removal/Control Treatments
Invasive, non-native plant species within the project area can be controlled through use of heavy equipment, hand removal/cutting, mechanical weed whipping and other tool work, and herbicide application. The most effective control techniques must take into account a species growth cycle, its flowering period, seed production/release periods, and its occurrence or level of infestation within the project area. Table 4 identifies techniques and general guidelines for invasive plant control.

General Guidelines and Specifications. The techniques to control specific invasive, non-native plants are numerous. The various techniques and methods have been tailored specifically for the plant species, conditions and locations within the park and are listed in Table 4. Figures 3 and 4 display the priority level and recommended treatment method(s) for each invasive, non-native plant occurrence. Proper training of field personnel is recommended prior to all field work, such that the method and technique is correlated to the biology of the species and the surrounding environmental conditions. Additionally, as natural environments are subject to constant dynamic processes, adjustments to methods or techniques may be required.

Field Training. Although supervision as to timing, technique and general location for invasive plant management can be provided for personnel performing invasive plant fieldwork, the personnel performing the work will need to be capable of operating independently. Untrained personnel will cause negative impacts on plant management results. Therefore, a certain level of field training is required for success. Training should include, but not be limited to, the follow skills and abilities:
▪ The ability to identify the key invasive plant species likely to be encountered within the work area. This could be achieved by disseminating a booklet of major invasive plants and field training sessions.
▪ The ability to identify the key native plants species likely to be encountered within the work area. This could be achieved by disseminating information on native plants in the project area and field training sessions.
▪ Although field personnel often have a high degree of skill with various types of equipment, details of proper techniques and timing should be provided to achieve maximum efficiency and success.
▪ Instructions should be provided so if field personnel encounter plants, animals or situations outside of their scope of training, they will know the proper course of action to take when these situations occur. General guidance should be provided to workers to limit harm to sensitive or protected habitats and species (such as dusky-footed woodrat dens, bird nests), including guidelines to employ that would limit the disruption of work. ▪ Use adaptive management strategies. Field personnel may have useful and efficient ideas and methods for doing a given task. Field supervisors should be encouraged to consider new ideas and potential improvements based on monitoring the effectiveness and effects of actions implemented on both the targeted species and the habitat, short and long-term.

Packet Page 285
Laguna Grande Regional Park
Guidelines for Invasive, Non-native Plant Species 14 September 2021 Figure 3. Treatment of Invasive, Non-native Plant Species, North Packet Page 286
Laguna Grande Regional Park
Guidelines for Invasive, Non-native Plant Species 15 September 2021 Figure 4. Treatment of Invasive, Non-native Plant Species, South Packet Page 287
Laguna Grande Regional Park
Guidelines for Invasive, Non-native Plant Species 16 September 2021 Table 4. Techniques for Removal of Invasive, Non-native Plant Species, Laguna Grande Regional Park Code Technique Possible Applications Treatment Notes
A Mechanical Equipment
(Includes all nonhandheld mechanized
equipment, such as
mowers, backhoes,
chippers, mulchers,
brush cutters, other
heavy equipment)
▪ Ice plant, Jubata grass
▪ Himalayan blackberry, English ivy in areas away from
water and trees- (leave buffer zones around each of
these)
▪ Maintenance and mowing of pathways, yet with care to
avoid spreading periwinkle, Kikuyu grass and panic veldt grass
▪ May be used for mass clearing of areas containing
invasive plant species with no desirable native plant
species
▪ Mowers may be used along pathways dominated by
invasive non-native plant species containing limited
specific native plants that will survive the treatment
▪ Should be avoided in areas of potential erosion or
sedimentation issues
▪ Use should be limited during bird nesting season
B Hand Removal
(includes all nonmotorized, battery or
electric powered)
individual hand
removal work, such as
shovels, pick-axes,
hoes, pulaskis, pruners
and loppers)
▪ All species. excluding trees and shrubs with trunk
diameters greater than 1”
▪ Requires removal of plant and roots for poison
hemlock, fennel, bull thistle, periwinkle, nasturtium,
panic veldt grass, Italian thistle, ice plant, Pride of Madeira, aloe, and calla lily
▪ Useful for removal of above-ground stems of short -
stalked false bindweed and Japanese honeysuckle, yet
these species may require a specific cut and paint
method to kill the underground growth and roots (see
E, below)
▪ Hand pull – maximize root removal, disposal options
vary with species
▪ Hand pull with hand tools; tools used mostly to
loosen soil around roots
▪ Surface cut of weeds (timing is critical, suitable for annual, shallow root species).
▪ Shovel cut to sever root (depth and timing are
critical)
▪ Full dig (mostly biennial and a few perennial
species)
C Herbicide Spot Spray
or Cut and Spray
(with non-ionic
surfactant)
▪ Jubata grass (cut and spray)
▪ Giant reed re sprouts (spot spray)
▪ Periwinkle, Kikuyu grass & calla lily (spot spray on a limited basis)
▪ See suggested guidelines and restrictions section
▪ Spot spray - should be based on herbicide
restrictions and guidelines to limit the chemicals,
quantities and concentrations used.
▪ Some targeted partial plant spray (terminal growth
area only) after initial cutting
D Mechanized Hand
Tools
(includes Individual
methods utilizing gas,
electric or battery
▪ Italian thistle (Needs to be specifically timed; hand removal is the preferred method)
▪ All trees (chainsaws followed by cut and paint
herbicide; See E below)
▪ Blackberries and English ivy (Hedge trimmers and
chainsaws to cut back growth)
▪ May requires specific techniques.
▪ No metal blades during dry season
▪ Timing is often critical for control and seed bank
depletion
Packet Page 288
Laguna Grande Regional Park
Guidelines for Invasive, Non-native Plant Species 17 September 2021 Table 4. Techniques for Removal of Invasive, Non-native Plant Species, Laguna Grande Regional Park Code Technique Possible Applications Treatment Notes
powered equipment,
such as chainsaws,
hedge trimmers,
augers, hammer drills,
brush cutters, weed
whips)
▪ Hedge trimmers and chainsaws for creating access to
areas for removal of other invasive species, such as
English ivy, Cape ivy, blackberries and nasturtium, yet care should be used to limit damage to desirable native plant species
▪ English ivy, Cape ivy and blackberries (large masses) E Cut and Paint
Herbicide
▪ This method is limited to perennial, woody plant
species.
▪ All tree and shrub species where the trunk is greater than 1” in diameter
▪ Short-stalked false bindweed and Japanese honeysuckle may require a specific cut and paint method to kill the underground growth and roots
▪ Cut stem and paint herbicide to cut
▪ Use on woody species capable of stump re-sprouts,
other vegetative growth or having rhizomatous
stems
▪ Requires different concentrations and usually no
surfactant
▪ Use 1” brush or small dabber
▪ Apply to cambium layer only, except for small
diameter stems or Hedera helix
▪ Apply first treatment within 1 minute of cut
▪ A second treatment may be applied within 2
minutes of first application
F Removal from Tree
Trunks
▪ Intended to remove specific invasive plant species
from the canopy of trees and shrubs.
▪ Mostly hand work for English ivy, Cape ivy and invasive blackberry species
▪ Chainsaws may be used to cut large-diameter English
ivy vines
▪ Hand pull and cut with hand tools – maximize stem
removal from lower tree trunk; allow canopy
material to die on site.

Note: Eradication of Cape ivy, English ivy and Himalayan blackberry may require many or all of the treatment methods in Table 4 to be successful. As these three species are often intertwined with native plants and found in riparian woodlands to be retained, efforts at eradication could result in short and moderate-term environmental damage to these woodlands. Additionally, eradicating these three species would require a long-term substantial commitment of time and resources. Therefore, for the purpose of this section, efforts for these species have been limited to control. If eradication of these species is desired, a species-specific long-term plan should be created.

Packet Page 289
Laguna Grande Regional Park
Guidelines for Invasive, Non-native Plant Species 18 September 2021 Herbicide Guidelines and Restrictions. It is suggested that herbicide and associated surfactants be utilized only when conditions and/or resources practically limit other options. Additionally, efforts should be made to limit the quantities of herbicide used, the number of applications of herbicide and to elimination the use of surfactants where possible. Some level of experimentation, within allowable agency and biological restrictions, during the first session of invasive plant control, may provide information that will assist in achieving these goals. As conditions in a particular area may allow approved, appropriate changes from standard application practices or specialized methods, factors to be considered include, but are not limited to:
▪ Proximity to listed or protected species, or associated habitat ▪ Proximity to water or seasonal flows
▪ Method and timing of application to maximize effectiveness ▪ Type and concentration of herbicide
▪ Type and need for surfactant
▪ Potential to reduce the number of applications
▪ Plant species to be treated
▪ The density of focused invasive plant species
▪ The density and proximity of desirable plant species
▪ Timing of application to avoid conflicts with governmental environmental restrictions or biological imperatives.

Input from a Certified Pesticide Advisor may be required prior to herbicide use. Any herbicide applications should follow product label requirements, at a minimum. All herbicide use must follow legal and biological requirements and restrictions for application, cleanup and disposal.

These following considerations may exceed the product label requirements. Additional considerations could include:
▪ Herbicides potentially allowed (subject to approval and conditions). Possible herbicides that could be utilized include Milestone©, Rodeo©, Aquamaster©, Roundup Custom for Aquatic Habitats©, and Garlon 3.
▪ Surfactant allowed (subject to conditions, but recommend non-ionic only) ▪ Appropriate dye should be added to herbicide to identify placement. ▪ If herbicide work is to be done by non-county personnel, herbicide should be mixed on site, at a designated location from unopened containers. ▪ No herbicide should be used near on in running or standing water. ▪ No herbicide should be used within 48 hours after a rain event. ▪ Herbicide applications should not take place within 24 hours of a forecasted 20%+ chance of precipitation.
▪ No herbicide shall be used in proximity to listed species established by the appropriate agencies.
▪ No herbicide shall be used in proximity to nesting birds. ▪ No herbicide shall be used in proximity to bee colonies or like pollinators. ▪ Density or plant coverage protocols should be established for the types of herbicide application, when appropriate.
▪ Removable barriers shall be placed prior to area herbicide spraying (ex; stake and screen erosion fencing), when appropriate.

Packet Page 290
Laguna Grande Regional Park
Guidelines for Invasive, Non-native Plant Species 19 September 2021

4.2 Precautions to Protect Sensitive Biotic Resources
Implementation of some invasive, non-native plant management activities has the potential to harm native plant and animal species, if such resources are present in the work area. For example, ground nesting birds can be harmed if they have nests within areas subject to vegetation removal during the bird nesting season. Dens of dusky-footed woodrat can be harmed if weed control activities inadvertently alter these dens. Measures are described in this section on actions to be implemented to avoid impacts to non-target plants and animals. In addition, work during the rainy season should be avoided, as there can be inadvertent impacts on downstream waters if sediment and soils are dislodged. If work is proposed between October 15 and April 15, work should be conducted away from the active creek channel and not in areas of standing water. If bare ground is created, consider placing erosion control features, such as straw wattles, around the perimeter of the treated area. Additional erosion control measures may be warranted. Work along the creek and pond edge should be done in a manner that avoids impacts to water quality.

Worker access in the creek bed and along the pond edge should be minimized.

Pre-Construction Bird Nest Survey and Woodrat House Avoidance. When invasive plant removal work is to occur within the bird-breeding season (i.e., typically March 1 through August 31) measures are needed to ensure work does not affect nesting birds, as all migratory bird nests are protected under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

Prior to vegetation removal the work area should be walked and inspected to determine presence/absence of nesting migratory birds. This survey should be conducted by a qualified biologist or by trained Park personnel. Meandering walking surveys should be conducted through the work area up to 7 days prior to work. If birds are found nesting within or immediately adjacent to the proposed work area, reschedule work until young have fledged, as determined by a qualified biologist, or the biologist shall establish an appropriate sized buffer zone around the nest(s) where no work shall take place until all young have fledged.

The work area should be walked to identify any wood rat houses. All stick houses are to be retained, with a minimum 10-foot buffer established around each house. Each house should be flagged and workers notified as to the location of each den.

4.3 Implementation Schedule and Adaptive Management
The removal of invasive, non-native plant species control should be timed to coincide with specific weather and plant growth conditions. As much as is possible, let the biology guide the timing of the treatment. Most invasive weed infestations can be effectively controlled when treatments are implemented prior to plant flowering, which reduces seed formation. Some biennial and perennial species are best treated after flowering, when plant nutrients are being expended and treatment actions can stress the plant, reduce its vigor, and inhibit its ability to reproduce. Other species may be best treated when they are focusing on drawing nutrients into the roots or stems for storage (i.e., English ivy, Himalayan blackberry). Table 5 displays the typical flowering period for each species.

Table 6 presents a generalized schedule of when plant species flower so as to schedule invasive weed control and maintenance. This schedule should only be used as a guide, as plant growth, including timing of flowering and seed set, are greatly influenced by rainfall and temperature Packet Page 291
Laguna Grande Regional Park
Guidelines for Invasive, Non-native Plant Species 20 September 2021 patterns. Also, various techniques may require changing patterns to maximize effects.

Management actions should be updated and refined in response to weather patterns, plant responses, and as new information on weed control/treatment is gathered. All management actions should be monitored as to their effectiveness.

Tables 4, 5, and 6, used together, provide guidelines for determining the optimum timing for invasive weed control.

Packet Page 292
Laguna Grande Regional Park
Guidelines for Invasive, Non-native Plant Species 21 September 2021 Table 5. Typical Flowering Period of Invasive, Non-native Plant Species, Laguna Grande Regional Park Common Name Scientific Name Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec TREES
Acacia Acacia melanoxylon; A.
dealbata; A. longifolia
Blue Gum Eucalyptus Eucalyptus globulus
White Ash Fraxinus americana
Ngaio Tree (Myoporum) Myoporum laetum
Cherry Plum Prunus cerasifera
Chinese Elm Ulmus parvifolia

SHRUBS AND WOODY VINES
French Broom Genista monspessulana
Glossy Privet Ligustrum sp.

Himalaya Blackberry Rubus ameniacus
Elm-leaf (thornless) Blackberry Rubus ameniacus
Pride of Madeira Echium candicans

NON-WOODY VINES, GRASSES, AND GROUNDCOVERS
Aloe Aloe arborescens
Giant Reed Arundo donax
Short-stalked False Bindweed Calystegia silvatica
Italian Thistle Carduus pycnocephalus
Ice Plant Carpobrotus edulis; C.
chilensis
Bull Thistle Cirsium vulgare
Poison Hemlock Conium maculatum
Jubata Grass
Pampas Grass
Cortederia jubata; C. selloana
Cape Ivy Delairea odorata
Panic Veldt) Grass Erharta erecta
Fennel Foeniculum vulgare
English ivy Hedera helix; H. spp.

Japanese Honeysuckle Lonicera japonica
Kikuyu Grass Pennisetum clandestinum
Nasturtium Tropaeolum majus
Periwinkle Vinca major
Calla Lily Zantedeschia aethiopica
Packet Page 293
Laguna Grande Regional Park
Guidelines for Invasive, Non-native Plant Species 22 September 2021 Table 6. Invasive, Non-native Plant Treatment, Suggested Implementation Schedule, Years 1-10 Winter Spring Summer Fall
Task Jan Feb Mar Apr1 May Jun July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Yearly Tasks
Develop work plan plan for year, including procurment of specilized personnel, equipment, and/or services.

Conduct field inspection to monitor plant growth and progress of flowering stalks on invasive weed species. Update distribution maps as needed.

Years 1 -3: Highest Priority Occurrences
Year 1 - Priority 1 Trees: Cut and remove priority 1 trees; cut and treat stumps as needed.

Years 2-3: Cut and re-treat any re-sprouting trees
Years 2-3 - Priority 1 Shrub/Groundcovers/Grasses: Remove priority 1 occurrences of giant reed, French broom, English ivy, Cape ivy, palm, veldt grass, Jubata grass, Pride of Madeira, aloe. Re-treat re-sprouts as needed.

Years 1 -5: High Priority Occurrences
Priority 2 Shrub/Groundcovers/Grasses: Remove priority 2 occurrences of French broom, Ngaio tree, ice plant, English ivy, bindweed, Himalaya blackberry, nasturtium.

Cut and re-treat any re-sprouting Priority 1 and 2 occurrences Years 6 -10: Moderate Priority Occurrences
Priority 3 Shrub/Groundcovers/Grasses: Remove priority 3 occurrences of English ivy, kikuyu grass, Himalaya blackberry, nasturtium.

Develop long-term plan for Years 10-20.

Packet Page 294
Laguna Grande Regional Park
Guidelines for Invasive, Non-native Plant Species 23 September 2021 References
Baldwin, B. G., D. H. Goldman, et al. 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, University of California Press.

Bossard, Carla C., et al. Invasive Plants of California’s Wildlands. University of California Press, 2000.

Calflora Database. 2021. Calflora: Information on California plants for education, research and conservation online database. Berkeley, California. https://www.calflora.org/ California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC). 2021. Cal-IPC Invasive Plant Inventory online database. https://www.cal-ipc.org/plants/inventory/
California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC). 2021 California Wildland Invasive Plants by John M.

Randall and Marc C. Hoshovsky. https://www.calipc.org/resources/library/publications/ipcw/cwip/ cal-ipc.org DiTomaso, Joseph M. Weeds of California and Other Western States, Vol 1 and Vol.2. University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, 2007.

EMC Planning Group, 2021. Laguna Grande Regional Park Vegetation Mapping and Focused Plant Survey Results. Report prepared for BFSA., Monterey, CA. July 2021.

Gordon, Burton., 1996. Monterey Bay Area: Natural History and Cultural Imprints. Boxwood Press, Pacific Grove, CA.

Jepson Flora Project. 2021. Jepson eFlora online database. https://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/ Matthews, Mary Ann, and Michael Mitchell. 2015. The Plants of Monterey County: An Illustrated Field Key, 2nd Edition. Monterey Bay Chapter, California Native Plant Society.

Mooney, Harold A., and Erika Zavaleta. Ecosystems of California. University of California Press, 2016. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/j.ctv1xxzp6
Sawyer, J. O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J.M. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA.

Tietje, William D., William L. Preston, and Anne Y. Polyakov. 2019. Natural History of the Central Coast Bioregion. University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources. https://oaks.cnr.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Nat-History-of-CC-BIO-2019.pdf Yeager, Rod M., and Michael Mitchell. Monterey County Wildflowers: A Field Guide. Monterey Bay Chapter, California Native Plant Society, 2016.

Packet Page 295

A P P E N D I X C

W I L D L I F E A N A L Y S I S
Packet Page 296

TABLE OF CONTENTS
DRAFT Wildlife Analysis for the Biological Resources Section of the Initial Study....................................................................................................................1 Introduction .........................................................................................................................1 Special-Status Amphibians and Reptiles .........................................................................2 California Red‐legged Frog ...........................................................................................2 Coast Range Newt ........................................................................................................6 Western Pond Turtle ....................................................................................................7 Special-Status Birds.............................................................................................................7 Burrowing Owl.............................................................................................................7 Nesting Birds................................................................................................................9 Tricolored Blackbird....................................................................................................10 Special-Status Mammals ..................................................................................................11 American Badger ........................................................................................................11 Monterey Dusky-Footed Woodrat ..............................................................................12 Monterey Shrew..........................................................................................................13 Bats .............................................................................................................................13 Sources .........................................................................................................................15 Appendices
Appendix A Special-Status Species in the Project Vicinity Figures
Figure 1-1 Special-Status Species Known to Occur in the Project VicinityError! Bookmark not Packet Page 297
Packet Page 298
Laguna Grande Trail Maintenance CEQA
EMC Planning Group Inc. 1

DRAFT WILDLIFE ANALYSIS FOR THE BIOLOGICAL

RESOURCES SECTION OF THE INITIAL STUDY
Introduction
This section is based on reconnaissance‐level biological field surveys conducted by EMC Planning Group biologist Patrick Furtado, M.S., on May 18, May 24, and June 15, 2021, to document existing plant communities/wildlife habitats and evaluate the potential for special‐ status species to occur on the project site. Biological resources were documented in field notes, including species observed, dominant plant communities, significant wildlife habitat characteristics, and riparian and wetland habitat. Qualitative estimations of plant cover, structure, and spatial changes in species composition were used to determine plant communities and wildlife habitats. Habitat quality and disturbance levels were also described.

Prior to conducting the survey, Mr. Furtado reviewed aerial photographs, natural resource database mapping and reports, and other relevant scientific literature. This included searching the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Endangered Species Database (USFWS 2021), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CDFW 2021), and California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (CNPS 2021) to identify special-status plants, wildlife, and habitats known to occur in the vicinity of the project site. Special-status species in this report are those listed as Endangered, Threatened, or Rare, or as Candidates for listing by the USFWS and/or CDFW; as Species of Special Concern or Fully Protected species by the CDFW; or as Rare Plant Rank 1B or 2B species by the CNPS.

A search of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) was conducted for the target Seaside USGS quadrangle, and eight surrounding quadrangles (Monterey OE N, Marina, Salinas, Monterey, Spreckels, Soberanes Point, Mount Carmel, and Carmel Valley) to generate a list of potentially occurring special-status wildlife species in the project vicinity (CDFW 2021). Records of occurrence for special-status plants were also reviewed for those twelve USGS quadrangles in the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (CNPS 2021). A U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Endangered Species Program threatened and endangered species list was generated for San Benito County (USFWS 2021).

Appendix X, Special-Status Species in the Project Vicinity, presents tables with CNDDB results, which lists special-status species documented within the project vicinity, their listing status and suitable habitat description, and their potential to occur on the site. Figure X, Packet Page 299

5.0 Section Title
2 EMC Planning Group Inc.

Special-Status Species Known to Occur in the Project Vicinity, presents a map with CNDDB results.

Critical habitat is a designation used by the USFWS for specific geographic areas that contain features essential to the conservation of an endangered or threatened species and that may require special management and protection. The project site is not within a critical habitat area.

Wildlife species identified with the potential to occur on the project site include:
▪ California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii);
▪ Coast Range newt (Taricha torosa);
▪ Western pond turtle (Emys marmorata);
▪ Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia);
▪ Tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor);
▪ American badger (Taxidea taxus);
▪ Monterey dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes luciana); ▪ Monterey shrew (Sorex ornatus salarius);
▪ Hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus); and
▪ Townsend's big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii).

Special-Status Amphibians and Reptiles
The following special-status amphibian and reptile species occur in the project vicinity and were assessed for the potential to occur on the project site:
▪ California red-legged frog, federally listed as Threatened and a California Species of Special Concern;
▪ Coast Range newt, California Species of Special Concern; and ▪ Western pond turtle, California Species of Special Concern.

California Red‐legged Frog
A federally-listed Threatened species and California Species of Special Concern, California red‐legged frog occurs in lowlands and foothills primarily in perennial or ephemeral ponds, pools, and streams where water remains long enough
(14‐28 weeks) for breeding and metamorphosis of tadpoles. Specific breeding sites include streams, creeks, ponds, marshes, sag ponds, deep pools, backwater areas, dune ponds, lagoons, and estuaries. California red-legged frog may disperse from their aquatic breeding habitats to upland habitats during the dry season. They prefer upland habitats that provide Packet Page 300
moisture to prevent desiccation and protection from predators, including downed logs, woody vegetation, boulders, moist leaf litter, or other refugia during the dry season. In areas where upland habitats do not contain structure, they take refuge in burrows. However, if there is sufficient water at their breeding location, they may remain in aquatic habitats year‐ round instead of moving to adjacent uplands.

During wet seasons, frogs can move long distances between habitats, traversing upland areas or ephemeral drainages. Dispersal distances are typically less than 0.3 mile, with a few individuals moving 1.2‐2.2 miles. Seeps and springs in open grasslands can function as foraging habitat or refugia for wandering frogs.

CNDDB records indicate that the closest known occurrence of California red-legged frog is approximately 2.5 miles south of the project site (Occurrence No. 939, CNDDB 2021). There are no known occurrences within the project area lake or drainages, however breeding and upland habitat is potentially present. If impacts to California red-legged frog occur, they could be significant. Implementation of mitigation measures BIO-X and BIO-X would reduce this potential, significant impact to California red-legged frog to a less-than-significant level.

BIO-X Prior to ground disturbance, a qualified biologist shall conduct a training session for all construction personnel. At a minimum, the training shall include a description of special-status species potentially occurring in the project vicinity, including, but not limited to, California red-legged frog, Coast Range newt, western pond turtle, burrowing owl, tricolored blackbird, American badger, Monterey dusky-footed woodrat, Monterey shrew, special-status bats, and nesting birds and raptors. Their habitats, general measures that are being implemented to conserve species as they relate to the project, and the boundaries within which construction activities will occur will be explained. Informational handouts with photographs clearly illustrating the species’ appearances shall be used in the training session. All new construction personnel shall undergo this mandatory environmental awareness training.

The qualified biologist will train biological monitors selected from the construction crew by the construction contractor (typically the project foreman).

Before the start of work each day, the monitor will check for animals under any equipment such as vehicles and stored pipes within active construction zones.

The monitor will also check all excavated steep-walled holes or trenches greater than one foot deep for trapped animals. If a special-status species is observed within an active construction zone, the qualified biologist will be notified immediately and all work within 50 feet of the individual will be halted and all equipment turned off until the individual has left the construction area.

Packet Page 301

5.0 Section Title
4 EMC Planning Group Inc.

The Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Authority shall document evidence of completion of this training prior to ground disturbance.

BIO-X A qualified biologist shall conduct preconstruction surveys following the guidance documented in the Revised Guidance on Site Assessments and Field Surveys for the California Red-legged Frog (USFWS 2005) no more than two weeks (14 days) prior to the start of construction activities. The project site will be surveyed for potential migratory and/or upland activity. The qualified biologist shall prepare a report documenting the results of the preconstruction surveys for submittal to the Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Authority prior to ground disturbance.

If California red-legged frog is found, the Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Authority will coordinate with the USFWS and/or CDFW to determine the appropriate course of action per the requirements of FESA and/or CESA (e.g., obtaining Incidental Take Permits) and implement the permit requirements prior to ground disturbance.

3. The following measures from the USFWS Programmatic Biological Opinion for Issuance of Permits under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, including Authorizations Under 22 Nationwide Permits, for Projects that May Affect the Threatened California Red-legged Frog in Nine San Francisco Bay Area Counties, California (USFWS 2014) shall be implemented:
a. Construction documents shall delineate a 100-foot boundary from the outer edge of riparian vegetation along the lake and drainages. b. A qualified biologist shall be on site during all activities within 100 feet from the outer edge of riparian vegetation along the lake or drainage that where California red-legged frog may be encountered.
c. To the extent possible, all ground-disturbing work within 100 feet from the outer edge of riparian vegetation along the lake and drainage shall be avoided between November 1 and March 31, the time period when California red-legged frogs are most likely to be moving through upland areas.
d. All ground-disturbing work within 100 feet from the outer edge of riparian vegetation should be accomplished during the dry season, with no construction activities occurring during rain events or within 24 hours following a rain event.

Packet Page 302
e. Prior to construction activities, exclusionary fencing shall be placed to keep construction vehicles and personnel from impacting potentially jurisdictional waters and riparian/wetland habitat outside of work areas.

A biological monitor shall supervise the installation of exclusionary fencing and monitor at least once per week until construction is complete to ensure that the protective exclusionary fencing remains intact.

Exclusion fencing material shall be selected to avoid accidental entrapment of wildlife species, such as fencing with a smaller gauge or no gaps at all (e.g., Animex™ fencing).
f. To minimize harassment, injury, death, and harm in the form of temporary habitat disturbances, all project-related vehicle traffic shall be restricted to established roads, construction areas, equipment staging, storage, parking, and stockpile areas.
g. If a California red-legged frog is encountered, all activities which have the potential to result in the harassment, injury, or death of the individual shall be immediately halted. A qualified biologist shall then assess the situation and select a course of action that shall avoid or minimize adverse effects to the animal.
h. Uneaten human food and trash attracts crows, ravens, coyotes, and other predators of the California red-legged frog. A litter control program shall be instituted at each project site. All workers shall ensure their food scraps, paper wrappers, food containers, cans, bottles, and other trash are deposited in covered or closed trash containers. The trash containers shall be removed from the project site at the end of each working day. i. Loss of soil from run-off or erosion shall be prevented with straw bales, straw wattles, or similar means provided they do not entangle, block escape or dispersal routes of the California red-legged frog. j. No insecticides or herbicides shall be used at the project site during construction or long-term operational maintenance where there is the potential for these chemical agents to enter the river, or uplands that contain potential habitat for the California red-legged frog. k. No pets shall be permitted at the project site, to avoid and minimize the potential for harassment, injury, and death of the California red-legged frog.

Packet Page 303

5.0 Section Title
6 EMC Planning Group Inc.
l. For on-site storage of pipes, conduits, and other materials that could provide shelter for special-status species, an open-top trailer shall be used to elevate the materials above ground. This is intended to reduce the potential for animals to climb into the conduits and other materials. m. To the maximum extent possible, night-time construction shall be minimized or avoided because dusk and dawn are often the times when the California red-legged frog is most actively moving and foraging. n. Plastic monofilament netting (erosion control matting), loosely woven netting, or similar material in any form shall not be used at the project site because California red-legged frogs can become entangled and trapped in them. Materials utilizing fixed weaves (strands cannot move), polypropylene, polymer, or other synthetic materials shall not be used. o. Trenches or pits one foot or deeper that are going to be left unfilled for more than 48 hours shall be securely covered with boards or other material to prevent the California red-legged frog from falling into them.

Coast Range Newt
Coast Range newt is a California Species of Special Concern. This species is endemic to California and distributed along the coast and coast range mountains from central Mendocino County south to San Diego County. It is found from sea level to at least 1,280 meters on Mt. Hamilton in Santa Clara County. Coast Range newt burrows in or uses soil, fallen logs, or debris for cover. Central California localities are found in wet forests, oak forests, chaparral, and rolling grasslands. It will occupy upland habitats when not breeding.

During reproduction, Coast Range newts will migrate to intermittent streams, rivers, lakes, and ponds where they lay eggs in shallow water attached to submerged rocks or twigs.

CNDDB records indicate one occurrence of Coast Range newt approximately six miles southwest of the project site (Occurrence No. 70, CNDDB 2021). There are no known occurrences within the project area lake or drainages, however breeding and upland habitat is potentially present. Mitigation measure BIO-X, presented above, which requires a training session on special-status species potentially present on the construction site for all personnel, and BIO-X and BIO-X, which require preconstruction surveys and measures for the protection of California red-legged frog would also protect Coast Range newt, if present.

Implementation of these measures would reduce the potential, significant impact to Coast Range newt to a less-than-significant level and no additional measures are recommended.

Packet Page 304
Western Pond Turtle
Western pond turtle is a California Species of Special Concern. It is uncommon to common in suitable aquatic habitat throughout California including freshwater marshes, stock ponds, lakes, rivers, and streams. This species is considered omnivorous. Aquatic plant material, including pond lilies, beetles and a variety of aquatic invertebrates as well as fishes, frogs, and even carrion have been reported among their food. Pond turtles require basking sites such as partially submerged logs, rocks, mats of floating vegetation, or open mud banks.

Turtles slip from basking sites to underwater retreats at the approach of humans or potential predators.

CNDDB records indicate one occurrence of western pond turtle approximately 3.5 miles southwest of the project site (Occurrence No. 1014, CNDDB 2021). There are no known occurrences within the lake or drainages, however breeding and upland habitat is potentially present. Mitigation measure BIO-X, presented above, which requires a training session on special-status species potentially present on the construction site for all personnel, and BIO-X and BIO-X, which require preconstruction surveys and measures for the protection of California red-legged frog would also protect western pond turtle, if present.

Implementation of these measures would reduce the potential, significant impact to western pond turtle to a less-than-significant level and no additional measures are recommended.

Special-Status Birds
The following special-status bird species occur in the project vicinity and were assessed for the potential to occur on the project site:
▪ Burrowing owl, California Species of Special Concern; ▪ Nesting birds; protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code; and
▪ Tricolored blackbird, California Species of Special Concern.

Burrowing Owl
Burrowing owl is a California Species of Special Concern. Burrowing owls live and breed in burrows in the ground, especially in abandoned California ground squirrel burrows.

Optimal habitat conditions include large open, dry and nearly level grasslands or prairies with short to moderate vegetation height and cover, areas of bare ground, and populations of burrowing mammals. A general, non-specific record for this species has been recorded approximately 900 feet north and west of the project site (Occurrence No. 574, CNDDB 2021).

The project site’s non-native grassland provides marginally suitable foraging habitat for burrowing owl, and a few scattered small mammal burrows on the site could be utilized for nesting habitat, but burrowing owl has low potential to occur on the site. If burrowing owl is present on or adjacent to the project site, construction activities could result in the loss or Packet Page 305

5.0 Section Title
8 EMC Planning Group Inc.
disturbance of individual animals. This would be a significant adverse environmental impact. Implementation of mitigation measures BIO-X, presented earlier, which requires a training session on special-status species potentially present on the construction site for all personnel, and BIO-X would reduce this potentially significant impact to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure
BIO-X To avoid/minimize impacts to burrowing owls potentially occurring within the project site, a biologist qualified in ornithology shall conduct surveys for burrowing owl. The approved biologist shall conduct a two-visit (i.e., morning and evening) presence/absence survey at areas of suitable habitat on and adjacent to the project site boundary no less than 14 days prior to the start of construction or ground disturbance activities. Surveys shall be conducted according to the methods for take avoidance described in the Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines (California Burrowing Owl Consortium 1993) and the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW 2012). If no burrowing owls are found, a letter report confirming absence will be prepared and submitted to the Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Authority and no further mitigation is required.

Because burrowing owls occupy habitat year-round, seasonal no-disturbance buffers, as outlined in the Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines (CBOC 1993) and the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW 2012), shall be in place around occupied habitat prior to and during any ground disturbance activities. The following table includes buffer areas based on the time of year and level of disturbance (CDFW 2012), unless a qualified biologist approved by the CDFW verifies through non-invasive measures that either: 1) birds have not begun egg laying and incubation; or 2) that juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival.

Location Time of Year Level of Disturbance Buffers (meters) Low Med High
Nesting Sites April 1 – Aug 15 200 m 500 m 500 m
Nesting Sites Aug 16 – Oct 15 200 m 200 m 500 m
Nesting Sites Oct 16 – Mar 31 50 m 100 m 500 m
If burrowing owl is found and avoidance is not possible, burrow exclusion may be conducted by qualified biologists only during the non-breeding season, before breeding behavior is exhibited and after Packet Page 306
the burrow is confirmed empty through non-invasive methods, such as surveillance. Occupied burrows shall be replaced with artificial burrows at a ratio of one collapsed burrow to one constructed artificial burrow (1:1). Evicted burrowing owls may attempt to colonize or recolonize an area that would be impacted, thus ongoing surveillance during project activities shall be conducted at a rate sufficient to detect burrowing owls if they return.

If surveys locate occupied burrows in or near construction areas, consultation with the CDFW shall occur to interpret survey results and develop a project-specific avoidance and minimization approach. Once the absence of burrowing owl has been confirmed, a letter report will be prepared and submitted to the Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Authority.

Nesting Birds
Protected nesting birds have the potential to nest in buildings or structures, on open ground, or in any type of vegetation, including trees, during the nesting bird season (January 15 through September 15). The project site contains a variety of potential habitats for nesting birds. Construction activities, including ground disturbance, can impact nesting birds protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code, should nesting birds be present during construction. If protected bird species are nesting adjacent to the project site during the bird nesting season, then noise-generating construction activities could result in the loss of fertile eggs, nestlings, or otherwise lead to the abandonment of nests. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-X, presented above, which requires a training session on special-status species potentially present on the construction site for all personnel, and BIO-X would reduce potential, significant impacts to nesting birds to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure
BIO-X To avoid impacts to nesting birds during the nesting season (January 15 through September 15), all construction activities should be conducted between September 16 and January 14, which is outside of the bird nesting season. If construction occurs during the bird nesting season, then a qualified biologist will conduct a pre-construction survey for nesting birds to ensure that no nests would be disturbed during project construction.

If project-related work is scheduled during the nesting season (February 15 to August 30 for small bird species such as passerines; January 15 to September 15 for owls; and February 15 to September 15 for other raptors), a qualified biologist shall conduct nesting bird surveys.

Packet Page 307

5.0 Section Title
10 EMC Planning Group Inc.
a. Two surveys for active bird nests will occur within 14 days prior to start of construction, with the final survey conducted within 48 hours prior to construction. Appropriate minimum survey radii surrounding each work area are typically 250 feet for passerines, 500 feet for smaller raptors, and 1,000 feet for larger raptors.

Surveys will be conducted at the appropriate times of day to observe nesting activities. Locations off the site to which access is not available may be surveyed from within the site or from public areas. If no nesting birds are found, a letter report confirming absence will be prepared and submitted to the Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Authority and no further mitigation is required.
b. If the qualified biologist documents active nests within the project site or in nearby surrounding areas, an appropriate buffer between each nest and active construction shall be established. The buffer shall be clearly marked and maintained until the young have fledged and are foraging independently. Prior to construction, the qualified biologist shall conduct baseline monitoring of each nest to characterize “normal” bird behavior and establish a buffer distance, which allows the birds to exhibit normal behavior. The qualified biologist shall monitor the nesting birds daily during construction activities and increase the buffer if birds show signs of unusual or distressed behavior (e.g., defensive flights and vocalizations, standing up from a brooding position, and/or flying away from the nest). If buffer establishment is not possible, the qualified biologist or construction foreman shall have the authority to cease all construction work in the area until the young have fledged and the nest is no longer active. Once the absence of nesting birds has been confirmed, a letter report will be prepared and submitted to the Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Authority.

Tricolored Blackbird
Tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor) is a California Species of Special Concern found mostly throughout the Central Valley and San Francisco Bay Delta regions. Tricolored blackbirds forage in annual grasslands; wet and dry vernal pools and other seasonal wetlands; and croplands. They also forage occasionally in riparian scrub habitats and along marsh borders. Tricolored blackbirds nest near freshwater marshes. There are CNDDB records indicating tricolored blackbird activity within five miles of the project site, and Packet Page 308
riparian and wetland vegetation along the lake and drainage may support this species.

Measures recommended for the protection of nesting birds (above) are anticipated to determine if tricolored blackbirds are present and provide protection during construction, if needed.

Special-Status Mammals
The following special-status bird species occur in the project vicinity and were assessed for the potential to occur on the project site:
▪ American badger, California Species of Special Concern; ▪ Monterey dusky-footed woodrat, California Species of Special Concern; ▪ Hoary bat, California Species of Special Concern; and ▪ Townsend’s big-eared bat, California Species of Special Concern.

American Badger
American badger is a California Species of Special Concern. It is an uncommon, permanent resident found throughout most of the state, except in the northern North Coast area. This large member of the weasel family uses most shrub, forest, and herbaceous habitats with friable soils suitable for burrows. Prey species include fossorial rodents such as rats, mice, chipmunks, ground squirrels, and pocket gophers. Badger diet shifts seasonally depending on the availability of prey and may also include reptiles, insects, earthworms, eggs, birds, and carrion. Mixed oak woodland, coastal scrub, and grassland habitats provide cover, drier soils for burrowing, and prey resources for this species. A historic record for American badger was recorded approximately 700 feet east of the project site (Occurrence No. 171, CDFW 2021), and a more recent (1992) observation was recorded approximately 2.3 miles east of the project site (Occurrence No. 241, CDFW 2021). Open grassland areas and openings along trails provide suitable habitat for the American badger. American badgers are known to occur in the region and could den and forage on the project site. Ground disturbance could result in impacts to this species from direct mortality or injury. Loss or harm to American badger is considered a significant adverse impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-X, presented above, which requires a training session on special-status species potentially present on the construction site for all personnel, and BIO-X would reduce potential, significant impacts to American badger to less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
BIO-X Not more than 14 days prior to the commencement of ground-disturbing activities, a qualified wildlife biologist shall conduct surveys of the grassland habitat on site to identify any potential American badger burrows/dens. If the survey results are negative (i.e., no badger dens observed), a letter report Packet Page 309

5.0 Section Title
12 EMC Planning Group Inc.
confirming absence will be prepared and submitted to the Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Authority and no further mitigation is required.

If the results are positive (badger dens are observed), the qualified biologist shall determine if the dens are active by installing a game camera for three days and three nights to determine if the den is in use.
a. If the biologist determines that a den may be active, coordination with the CDFW shall be undertaken to develop a suitable strategy to avoid impacts to American badger. The strategy may include the following: the biologist shall install a one-way door in the den opening and continue use of the game camera. Once the camera captures the individual exiting the one-way door, the den can be excavated with hand tools to prevent badgers from reusing them. If the biologist determines that the den is a maternity den, construction activities shall be delayed during the maternity season (February to August), or until the badgers leave the den on their own accord or the biologist determines that the den is no longer in use. b. If the game camera does not capture an individual entering/exiting the den, the den can be excavated with hand tools to prevent badgers from reusing them.

After dens have been excavated and the absence of American badger confirmed, a letter report will be prepared and submitted to the Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Authority.

Monterey Dusky-Footed Woodrat
The Monterey dusky-footed woodrat is a California species of Special Concern typically found within dens chaparral or oak woodland habitats with moderately dense understory growth and abundant dead wood for nest construction. Monterey dusky-footed woodrat is known to occur in the project vicinity and woodland and riparian habitat at the project site is considered potential habitat. Removal or disturbance of habitat during nesting season is considered a significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-X, presented above, which requires a training session on special-status species potentially present on the construction site for all personnel, and BIO-X would reduce potential, significant impacts to Monterey dusky-footed woodrat to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure
BIO-X A qualified biologist shall conduct pre-construction surveys for woodrat nests within the trail improvement area. All woodrat nests shall be flagged for avoidance of direct construction impacts where feasible. If impacts cannot be avoided, woodrat nests shall be dismantled no more than three days prior to Packet Page 310
dismantling so that the occupants do not attempt to rebuild. Nests are to be slowly dismantled by hand in order to allow the occupants to disperse.

Monterey Shrew
The Monterey shrew is a California species of Special Concern. This species is an endemic subspecies of shrew occurring only on the Monterey Peninsula. Preferred habitats include riparian areas and other moist microclimates with available insect prey. Little is known about this species, since it is difficult to locate and does not survive well in traps due to very high metabolic rates. A general observation of this species has been recorded to include the project site; however, the record is from 1919 and it the current distribution of Monterey shrew in the area is unknown (Occurrence No. 3, CDFW 2021). Riparian and woodland habitats within the project area could support this species, if present. Construction activities at the project site could result in the loss of individuals on or adjacent to the project site.

Mitigation measure BIO-X, presented above, which requires a training session on specialstatus species potentially present on the construction site for all personnel, and BIO-X and BIO-X, which require preconstruction surveys and measures for the protection of California red-legged frog would also protect Monterey shrew, if present. Implementation of these measures would reduce the potential, significant impact to Monterey shrew to a less-thansignificant level and no additional measures are recommended.

Bats
Trees and/or buildings or structures on or adjacent to the project site could provide roosting habitat for state-listed species of special concern hoary bat and Townsend's big-eared bat.

Hoary bat is a solitary species that generally prefers dense foliage of medium to large trees.

Townsend’s big-eared bat prefers roosting and nesting found in caves, tunnels, mines, and buildings. These species have been identified as occurring within 1.2 and seven miles to the west and east of the project site, however little is known about their distribution in the project vicinity (CNDDB 2021). Construction activities at the project site could result in the disturbance of roost and natal sites occupied by special-status bats on or adjacent to the project site, if present. Implementation of mitigation measures BIO-X, presented earlier, which requires a training session on special-status species potentially present on the construction site for all personnel, and BIO-X would reduce this potential, significant impact to special-status bats to a less-than-significant level.

Mitigation Measure
BIO-X Approximately 14 days prior to tree removal or construction activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct a habitat assessment for bats and potential roosting sites in trees to be removed, in trees within 50 feet of the construction easement. These surveys shall include a visual inspection of potential roosting features (bats need not be present) and a search for presence of guano within the project site, Packet Page 311

5.0 Section Title
14 EMC Planning Group Inc.
construction access routes, and 50 feet around these areas. Cavities, crevices, exfoliating bark, and bark fissures that could provide suitable potential nest or roost habitat for bats shall be surveyed. Assumptions can be made on what species is present due to observed visual characteristics along with habitat use, or the bats can be identified to the species level with the use of a bat echolocation detector such as an “Anabat” unit. Potential roosting features found during the survey shall be flagged or marked.

If no roosting sites or bats are found, a letter report confirming absence shall be prepared and submitted to Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Authority and no further mitigation is required.

If bats or roosting sites are found, bats shall not be disturbed without specific notice to and consultation with CDFW.

If bats are found roosting outside of the nursery season (May 1 through October 1), CDFW shall be consulted prior to any eviction or other action. If avoidance or postponement is not feasible, a Bat Eviction Plan will be submitted to CDFW for written approval prior to project implementation. A request to evict bats from a roost includes details for excluding bats from the roost site and monitoring to ensure that all bats have exited the roost prior to the start of activity and are unable to re-enter the roost until activity is completed. Any bat eviction shall be timed to avoid lactation and young-rearing. If bats are found roosting during the nursery season, they shall be monitored to determine if the roost site is a maternal roost. This could occur by either visual inspection of the roost bat pups, if possible, or by monitoring the roost after the adults leave for the night to listen for bat pups. Because bat pups cannot leave the roost until they are mature enough, eviction of a maternal roost cannot occur during the nursery season. Therefore, if a maternal roost is present, a 50-foot buffer zone (or different size if determined in consultation with the CDFW) shall be established around the roosting site within which no construction activities including tree removal or structure disturbance shall occur until after the nursery season.

Packet Page 312

SOURCES

1. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. State of California Natural Resources Agency.

2. CDFW. 2018. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=18959&inline.

3. CDFW. 2021. Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS) online database. http://bios.dfg.ca.gov

4. CDFW. 2021. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) online database. https://wildlife.ca.gov/data/cnddb

5. California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2001. CNPS Botanical Survey Guidelines. https://cnps.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/cnps_survey_guidelines.pdf.

6. California Native Plant Society. 2021. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California online database. http://www.rareplants.cnps.org

7. Jameson, E. W., and Hans J. Peeters. 2004. Mammals of California. University of California Press.

8. Thomson, R. C. 2016. California Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern, University of California Press.

9. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2005. Revised Guidance on Site Assessments and Field Surveys for the California Red-legged Frog.

10. USFWS. 2014. USFWS Programmatic Biological Opinion for Issuance of Permits under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, including Authorizations Under 22 Nationwide Permits, for Projects that May Affect the Threatened California Red-legged Frog in Nine San Francisco Bay Area Counties, California.

11. USFWS. 2021. National Wetlands Inventory online database. U.S. Department of the Interior. Washington, D.C. http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/

12. USFWS. 2021. Endangered Species Program online database. Species list for San Benito County. Washington, D.C. http://www.fws.gov/endangered/ Packet Page 313
Monterey
pine
Monterey pine
Monterey pine
Monterey pine
Eastwood's
goldenbush
Eastwood's
goldenbush
American
badger
Salinas
harvest
mouse
Kellogg's
horkelia
Jolon clarkia
Central
Maritime
Chaparral
Monterey
shrew
Eastwood's
goldenbush
seaside
bird's-beak
Smith's blue
butterfly
burrowing owl
northern
curly-leaved
monardella
northern curly-leaved
monardella
northern
curly-leaved
monardella
Yadon's rein orchid
Yadon's
rein orchid
Yadon's
rein
orchid
Yadon's
rein orchid
Pajaro
manzanita
sandmat manzanita sandmat
manzanita
sandmat
manzanita
sandmat
manzanita
sandmat
manzanita
sandmat
manzanita
sandmat manzanita
sandmat manzanita
globose
dune beetle Eastwood's
goldenbush
pine rose
sand-loving wallflower
Northern
California
legless lizard
Northern
California
legless lizard
Northern California
legless
lizard
Monterey spineflower
Monterey
spineflower
Monterey spineflower
Monterey spineflower
Northern
California
legless lizard
Northern California
legless
lizard
Northern
California
legless lizard
Northern
California legless
lizard
Northern
California
legless lizard
sand-loving
wallflower
Monterey
spineflower
Monterey spineflower
Monterey gilia
sandmat manzanita
Monterey
gilia
Eastwood's goldenbush
Monterey
spineflower
Northern California
legless
lizard
sand-loving
wallflower
sand-loving
wallflower
Monterey
spineflower
Monarch
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
0 1,300 feet
Laguna Grande Trail Maintenance CEQA
Special-Status Species Known to Occur in the Project Vicinity Figure X
Source: ESRI 2021, CDFW CNDDB 2021 Approximate Park Boundary 1-Mile Radius
Special-Status Plants
Special-Status Wildlife
Packet Page 314

A P P E N D I X D

C O M M U N I T Y O U T R E A C H

M A T E R I A L S
Packet Page 315
A town hall meeting to discuss
maintenance of trails and vegetation
at Laguna Grande Park.
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86977507440
Meeting ID: 869 7750 7440
Call-In (English): +1(669)900-6833
ID: 869 7750 7440#
Laguna Grande Park
Virtual Town Hall
Wednesday, July 28, 2021
6:30 PM - 8:00 PM
Packet Page 316
Una junta comunitaria para discutir el
mantenimiento de los senderos y la
vegetación en Laguna Grande Park
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86977507440
Meeting ID: 869 7750 7440
Llamada (Ingles ): +1(669)900-6833
ID: 869 7750 7440#
Laguna Grande Park
Junta Comunitaria
Miercoles, 28 de julio de 2021
6:30 PM - 8:00 PM
Packet Page 317
Packet Page 318
Packet Page 319
Packet Page 320
Seeking public input on the maintenance of
trails and vegetation at Laguna Grande Park
Meet at Hillside BBQ Space #1
Parking at the Eucalyptus Lot
Laguna Grande Park
Community Site Walk
Saturday, August 14th 2021
10 AM - 12:00 PM
https://haveyoursaymonterey.org/laguna-grande-park-plan Packet Page 321
Caminata por el sitio
de la communidad
Laguna Grande
Sábado, 14 de agosto de 2021
10:00 AM - 12:00 PM
https://haveyoursaymonterey.org/laguna-grande-park-plan Nos reuniremos en Hillside BBQ, espacio #1
Estacionamiento en Eucalyptus
Estamos buscando ideas y sugerencias
sobre el mantenimiento de los senderos y de
la vegetación del parque Laguna Grande
Packet Page 322
Laguna
Grande
Park
Site Walk
August 14th, 2021
Site walk notes
Stop #1 Stop #4
Stop #2 Stop #5
Stop #3 Stop #6
Site walk notes
www.haveyoursaymonterey.org/laguna-grandepark-plan
Packet Page 323
N

SEASIDE

CANYON DEL REY BOULEVARD

FREMONT BOULEVARD

DEL MONTE BOULEVARD

MONTEREY
Laguna Grande Park
www.haveyoursaymonterey.org/laguna-grandepark-plan
1 2
3 4 5
6 Packet Page 324

L A G U N A G R A N D E

SEASIDE

CANYON DEL REY BOULEVARD

NORTH FREMONT STREET

MONTEREY

DEL MONTE AVENUE
CASANOVA AVE.

ENGLISH AVE.

ENGLISH AVE.

VIRGIN AVE.

HILBY AVE.

HARCOUT AVE.

SONOMA AVE.

NORTH FREMONT STREET

CANYON DEL REY BOULEVARD
WILLIAMS AVE.

GRANT AVE.

MONTECITO AVE.

BRANNER AVE.

L. GRANDE CT.

FORTAG TRAIL ALIGNMENT OPTIONS
Packet Page 325

L A G U N A G R A N D E

SEASIDE

CANYON DEL REY BOULEVARD

NORTH FREMONT STREET

MONTEREY

DEL MONTE AVENUE
CASANOVA AVE. ENGLISH AVE.

ENGLISH AVE. VIRGIN AVE.

HILBY AVE.

HARCOUT AVE.

SONOMA AVE.

NORTH FREMONT STREET
CANYON DEL REY BOULEVARDWILLIAMS AVE.

GRANT AVE.

MONTECITO AVE.

BRANNER AVE.

L. GRANDE CT.

WHERE DO YOU LIVE?
Packet Page 326

L A G U N A G R A N D E

SEASIDE

CANYON DEL REY BOULEVARD

NORTH FREMONT STREET

MONTEREY

DEL MONTE AVENUE
CASANOVA AVE.

ENGLISH AVE.

ENGLISH AVE.

VIRGIN AVE.

HILBY AVE.

HARCOUT AVE.

SONOMA AVE.

NORTH FREMONT STREET

CANYON DEL REY BOULEVARD
WILLIAMS AVE.

GRANT AVE.

MONTECITO AVE.

BRANNER AVE.

L. GRANDE CT.

HABITAT COMMUNITIES
NORTH
Alnus rhombifolia -
White Alder
Phragmites australis -
Common Reed
Invasive Species
Salix lasiolepis -
Arroyo Willow
Schoenoplectus acutus -
Tule
Packet Page 327
20210818_Laguna Grande Park_Site Walk Summary_BFS
August 23, 2021
MEMO TO: Chris Schmidt / Planner
City of Monterey
CC: City of Seaside and Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District FROM: Beth Matz, BFS Landscape Architects
RE: LAGUNA GRANDE SITE WALK AUGUST 14th, 2021 – MEETING NOTES & PUBLIC

COMMENTS
ATTENDEES:

City of Seaside:

Ian Oglesby
Dave Pacheco
Daniel Meewis
MPRPD:

Kevin Raskoff
Caine Camarillo
City of Monterey:

Thys Norton
Louie Marcuzzo
Chris Schmidt
BFS Landscape
Architects:

Mike Bellinger
Beth Matz
Payam Ostovar
Daniel Zuercher
MEETING AGENDA MINUTES:
10:15 – 10:30: Attendees gathered at the Hillside BBQ space in the Eucalyptus parking lot. While waiting attendees were able to review maps of the park outlining habitat communities and showing proposed FORTAG trail alignment options. Attendees were asked to identify areas of concern with orange stickers. See maps below. See Sign-in Sheets for event participants.
10:30 – 11:15: The (32) attendees were split into two groups to begin the site walk around the lake and discuss key points of the park. See map below for key points:
11:15: The two groups reconvened at the south bridge to walk and discuss the forebay section of the park. 12:15 – 12:30: The group returned to the Hillside BBQ space, finishing the site walk.

MEETING SUMMARY:

1. Primary urgency for residents was the forebay area

2. Participants favored both accessibility improvements and vegetation maintenance

3. Participants were not overly interested in adding ‘more’ lake access points or extending sightlines across the lake

4. Participants desire to have sightlines along the main path be clear and vegetation be managed to open up views around the curves of the path and where the paths or lake access points branch off of trail

5. Participants were supportive to protect habitat areas and extend habitat resources

6. Participants want a transparent decision-making process and the opportunity to review materials and decisions being made
Packet Page 328
BFS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS Monday, August 23, 2021 Page 2 Of 6

7. Participants want clear delineation on where the City of Seaside and City of Monterey boundary occurs in the park

8. Aesthetics of the park was not a priority; many participants enjoy the park character as is

9. Participants are frustrated by the slow-moving process for mitigating and reducing illegal camping.

Participants feel like they’ve been put on the backburner for 10 years.

ACTION ITEMS AND NEXT STEPS

1. BFS and JPA staff to respond to participant questions by September 24th. a. Where are the City property lines
b. Is trail resurfacing apart of the project
c. What is the schedule for the project
d. What lighting levels are optimal for park safety
e. What is the budget for the strategy plan and for the maintenance work to occur? Where is funding coming from?

2. Action Item: BFS to provide schedule for project webpage to show deliverables, public meetings, and process

3. Action Item: BFS to provide meeting minutes and site video for project webpage

4. Action Item: JPA provide noticing for next public meeting SITE WALK COMMENTS:

Stop 1: Eucalyptus Parking Lot and Picnic Area
• Concern about the JPA making decisions without the community’s input • Concern about water quality of lake and the ditch around the perimeter of the forebay • Comment: Adjust benches to enhance visibility
• Question: Are trails to be resurfaced as part of maintenance plan? • Question: What is the maintenance plan for the bridge? Stop 2: Lakeside Parking Lot and Picnic Area
• Comment: Preference for consistent paving materials throughout the park • Comment: Repair all trails and pathways within the park • Comment: Preference for D.G. paving materials due to its natural look and maintenance • Comment: Improve visibility of docks from path, need to be able to see if someone is using the dock
• Comment: Improve accessibility to docks from pathway
• Comment: Open up views to the lake, add more benches for better views • Comment: Cut back vegetation at curves in pathway to open-up sightlines • Comment: Sightlines across lake not as important as sightlines along path • Comment: There are not enough trash cans
• Question: Why is there wire fence along lake edge?
Stop 3: North Bridge adjacent to Holiday Inn Express
• Comment: There are not enough trash cans and litter is thrown in the reeds/vegetation • Comment; Adding benches and picnic tables would be nice along the trail • Question: What level of lighting is allowed in habitat areas • Comment: Current light fixtures are not attractive
Packet Page 329
BFS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS Monday, August 23, 2021 Page 3 Of 6 • Comment: Light fixtures need to be tamper proof
• Comment: The section of park path near the large viewing dock is low and floods during wet season • Comment: Nearby businesses need to get involved
• Comment: Clear out vegetation around the dock
• Comment: There is so much vegetation around the lake that you can’t tell there is a trail. Open up site lines to rest of trail to help draw people into the park • Question: Will the plan address accessibility issues? (ie gap at bridge and trail) • Question: Is it feasible to use goats for vegetation maintenance? • Question: Who is responsible for maintenance?
• Question: How is maintenance funded and budgeted?
Stop 4: North-Western Habitat Area at English Street
• Comment: Clean up understory and limb up canopy to allow views around corners of trail • Comment: Culverts are eroded and need repair / replacement • Comment: Thys Norton from Monterey Parks does a good job keeping trail areas clear • Comment: Monterey did major clearing along the informal trails to access illegal camping in this area; residents were not happy, but it has grown back very quickly • Comment: Mowing the bull rush is good, but it does grow back quickly • Comment: The mulched trails in the area helped reduce the encampments • Comment: Check out the website birdability.org-Advocates to create birding opportunities for everyone
• Comment: Monterey Audobon members acknowledge this as a prime bird area • Concern: Accessibility varies through the park and the trails. Habitat area is not accessible • Question: Are there noise abatement options?
• Comment: There are several feral cats that live with in the park • Question Is boardwalk decking an option in low lying areas? • Comment: There is car camping around the perimeter of the park and the parking lots • Comment: Resident still doesn’t go into the habitat areas where trails have been cleared. Resident doesn’t like not being able to see what she is walking up too (ie people congregated or hanging out)
• Comment: Strong support for the habitat area from Monterey Audobon member-would like more park spaces like this space
Stop 5: Laguna Grande Park Soccer Field/Playground/Picnic Area at Virgin Street • Comment: Move playfield fence to the water side of the trail • Comment: This is a good area to install senior work out equipment, similar to El Estero Park • Comment: There are issues with soccer balls going over the fence and into the lake . People go past fence to access the lake
• Question: Should the pathway fence taller?
• Comment: Lift understory and canopy to open up views to lake • Concern that the reeds will fill in the lake
• Comment: Eating areas and trash cans should be in one place • Comment: Add benches or picnic table for watching soccer and enjoying the area • Comment: Pathway sightlines are well maintained in this stretch of the park Packet Page 330
BFS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS Monday, August 23, 2021 Page 4 Of 6 • Comment: Not a priority to add more lake access along western side of park • Question: Where are the city property lines?
Stop 6: Southern Park Extents
• General consensus: Majority of group do not go back into this space, most do not feel comfortable or safe in this space
• General Consensus: Deter illegal camping, open sightlines and provide access for emergency services
• Comment: Pathway width is comfortable and D.G. material is consistent with park character • Comment: Lack of comfort is due to the limited outlet • Question: Is the water quality of the ditch going to be tested? • Discussion: Re-alignment of existing pathway (potentially to become the FORTAG trail connector) to be closer to Canyon Del Rey
o Opportunities: improve pathway visibility
o Opportunities: expand habitat space to offset mitigation required to further develop trails within sensitive habitat areas
o Opportunities: adding more bioswales and drainage features will continue to add to habitat diversity
o Clarification: The FORTAG Trail connector is not a part of the project and development of the trail will not be given priority over mitigating the safety issues of concerned residents o Comment: Residents were promised for multiple years an action plan to deal with illegal camping
o Comment: Vegetation maintenance and new trail development in the ‘forebay’ habitat area should be the number one priority for the strategy plan • Comment: Trails in the forebay area can be mulch similar to the north-west habitat area. • Question: Who manages the forebay area? Which City is the forebay area located in? • Comment: Residents have proposed to City staff the desire for a dog park in the Seaside maintenance/storage area. Dog Park would provide “eyes on” / visibility and extra egress from the forebay
• Comment: Adding lighting would help with safety concerns. • Comment: Noise from the illegal camping does impact residents • Comment: Fire danger from illegal camping is a concern. Residents acknowledge improvements due to consistent vegetation maintenance – but they want to know the plan • Comment: Provide accessible route from corner of N. Fremont down into the park. • Comment: Illegal camping has noticeably been reduced, thanks to the municipalities • Comment: Prioritize the forebay – that’s what has been promised • Question: What is the project schedule?
• Question: What happened to the MPRPD budget of $65,000 that was set aside for the project • Question: How much is the consultant getting paid
• Question: When is the masterplan scheduled to occur?
• Question: What is the next step? How does the review process work Packet Page 331

LAGUNA GRANDE REGIONAL PARK JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY

LAGUNA GRANDE

T R A I L A N D V E G E T A T I O N

M A I N T E N A N C E

STRATEGY
FEBRUARY 28, 2022

REGIONAL PARK
Packet Page 332
Packet Page 333
TABLE OF CONTENTS | iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. HISTORY........................................................................................................................ 1

2. EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................................................................................ 3

3. FUTURE PLANNING .................................................................................................... 13

4. COMMUNITY OUTREACH .......................................................................................... 17

5. GOALS ........................................................................................................................ 21

6. OVERALL PLAN .......................................................................................................... 23

7. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ONE.................................................................................. 29

8. COST ESTIMATES........................................................................................................ 33

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A LAGUNA GRANDE FOCUSED PLANT SURVEY

APPENDIX B INVASIVE PLANT CONTROL

APPENDIX C WILDLIFE ANALYSIS

APPENDIX D COMMUNITY OUTREACH MATERIALS

FIGURES
FIGURE 1 CIRCULATION MAP......................................................................................9 FIGURE 2 TRAIL CONDITIONS MAP ..........................................................................10 FIGURE 3 PARCEL OWNERSHIP MAP ........................................................................11 FIGURE 4 FORTAG TRAIL – CANYON DEL REY/SR218 SEGMENT .............................15 FIGURE 5 COMMUNITY SITE WALK PHOTOS ............................................................19 FIGURE 6 COMMUNITY SITE WALK PHOTOS ............................................................20 FIGURE 7 OVERALL PLAN - NORTH...........................................................................25 FIGURE 8 OVERALL PLAN - SOUTH ...........................................................................26 FIGURE 9 SOUTH WOODS SEASONAL TRAIL DEVELOPMENT PLAN........................27 FIGURE 10 PHASE ONE PLAN - NORTH ......................................................................31 FIGURE 11 PHASE ONE PLAN - SOUTH.......................................................................32 Packet Page 334
iv | LAGUNA GRANDE TRAIL AND VEGETATION MAINTENANCE STRATEGY

THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Packet Page 335
History | 1
HISTORY 01

HISTORICAL NARRATIVE
Laguna Grande Lake was a flowing estuary called the Canyon Del Rey Creek, collecting runoff from the 16.8 square mile Canyon Del Rey watershed and flowing into the Monterey Bay. Laguna Grande Lake and Roberts Lake which existed as a single body of water were separated in the 1880s by the Southern Pacific Railroad. Over time the surrounding landscape developed and populations grew, the creek, the wetlands and estuary slowly filled and eventually were cut off from the bay. Slowly landfill operations filled in the marsh areas and edges of the lakes transforming this body of water into its current state.

Laguna Grande Regional Park (LGRP / Park) did not find its beginnings until the 1960’s when the cities of Monterey, Seaside and Del Rey Oaks came together to petition the state for a feasibility study for developing a “Recreation and Park District for Laguna Grande”. During this time there were grand visions for the park. A pamphlet from the Seaside Chamber of Commerce proudly read “It will beautify and make more attractive the City of Seaside and the entrance to the Monterey Peninsula. It should, from this standpoint, be of interest to every Peninsula community and individual.” In 1968, the cities of Monterey and Seaside formed the Laguna Grande Agency to study the area. They developed the “Laguna Grande Plan” prepared by D’Amico and Associates and Charles R. Haugh. Shortly after, in 1975, the City of Seaside contracted Richard Murray and Associates to develop the “Laguna Grande Redevelopment General Conceptual Plan”.

Many new developments began for LGRP in 1976. The cities of Monterey and Seaside and the Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District formed the Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Source: Laguna Grande Regional Park Master Plan and EIR Addendum September 11, 1978 Packet Page 336
2 | LAGUNA GRANDE TRAIL AND VEGETATION MAINTENANCE STRATEGY Powers Agency (JPA) in February. That same year the Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District purchased the Laguna Grande site. The JPA adopted Seaside’s 1975 conceptual plan as its’ first step in preparation of a master plan. In 1978, the “Laguna Grande Regional Park Master Plan and EIR Addendum” was completed by J.P. Manachek, A.I.A, and consulting landscape architect Charles R. Haugh.

The master plan’s main objective was to “preserve and enhance Laguna Grande through a wateroriented park facility.” The plan proposed to dredge a portion of the southern marsh lands and add an additional 5 acres to the lake to provide more opportunities for fishing, fly-casting, and non-power boating. The lost waterfowl habitat would be relocated to Roberts Lake, while also retaining a portion of the southern marsh as a natural preserve with boardwalk paths throughout.

The lake at the time was significantly polluted. The plan proposed the addition of an aeration system, silting basin, and the removal of tule growth along the edges to help decrease nitrogen levels in the water.

In 1981 the “Land Use Plan for the Laguna Grande/Roberts Lake Local Coastal Program”, was completed by the cities of Monterey and Seaside to come under compliance with the Regional Coastal Commission. It was not until 1982 that the Park was opened to the public. The master plan for the Park was never fully implemented. The northern end of the park was built out with playgrounds, fields and park facilities. The south end of the park, meant to become an extension of the lake, was not completed due to lack of funds. As droughts became more frequent in California and with the slow buildup of sediments, the marshy, low wetlands to the south began to dry and more mature vegetation developed, forming a low dense woodland of willows and brambles that exist today.

REFERENCES
Schmalz, David. “Despite a persistent problem of encampments at Laguna Grande Park, the years go by, and nothing seems to change.” Monterey County Weekly 07 Mar 2019. Web. 20 Oct 2021 Laguna Grande Regional Park Master Plan and EIR Addendum. J.P. Manacheck, A.I.A., and Charles R Haugh. 1978
Land Use Plan for the Laguna Grande/Roberts Lake Local Coastal Program. Duncan and Jones. 1981
Packet Page 337
Existing Conditions | 3
EXISTING CONDITIONS 02
The following section is a summary of information compiled from several field studies conducted by the consultant, interviews with staff from the City of Monterey, City of Seaside and Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District, and review of maps and plans prepared previously for Laguna Grande Regional Park. The field studies focused on vegetation and sensitive habitat, park physical features, review of park conditions for accessibility and observations of park uses by the public.

Many of the studies confirmed the Park is a rich resource for wildlife, vegetation and provides the community with a diverse range of programmed uses. There are several areas of the park which are used for illegal camping and this has resulted in park safety concerns and a substantial amount of trash and debris collecting in sensitive habitat areas. Interviews with maintenance staff, fire officials and other officials has confirmed the Consultant team findings.

In order to provide a clear understanding of the park and its specific areas, below is a map highlighting key features and the areas that will be discussed throughout this plan.

NORTH
EAST
SOUTH
Riparian
Woodland
BBQ / Picnic Area Riparian
Woodland
Maintenance
Yard
Traditional
Park
Soccer
Field
Stage
Laguna Grande
Lake
Virgin Ave.

English Ave.

Cassanova Ave. Grant Ave.

Montecito Ave.

Branner Ave.

Sequoia Ave.

Kolb Ave.

Laguna Grande Ct.

Charles Ave.

Williams Ave.

Francis Ave.

Marin St.

Hilby Ave.

Canyon Del Rey Blvd.

Fremont Blvd.

Del Monte Blvd.

Harcourt Ave.

Sonoma Ave.

Encina Ave.

English Ave.

Traditional
Park
St. Seraphim’s
Church
Chili’s
Embassy Suites
by Hilton
Holiday Inn
Express
In-N-Out
Burger
WEST
Packet Page 338
4 | LAGUNA GRANDE TRAIL AND VEGETATION MAINTENANCE STRATEGY

AESTHETICS
Laguna Grande Regional Park is a unique
aquatic landscape situated between
Monterey and Seaside. There are clear views
into the park from Canyon Del Rey Boulevard
to the east and from the surrounding
neighborhoods to the west. Interior views
include: the lake, native aquatic bird species,
low woodlands, and rolling grassy hills. The
south end of the Park has elevated hillsides,
that provide views toward the Bay.

ACCESS AND CIRCULATION
The Park provides multiple pedestrian and vehicular access points with the exception of the southern end. The southern end of the park has no accessible pedestrian or vehicular access connecting to Fremont Boulevard. An existing set of stairs leads down into the park near Canyon Del Rey Boulevard.

There are no sidewalk connections to the stairs from Canyon Del Rey Boulevard or Fremont Boulevard.

Parking around the lake is facilitated with three public parking lots, two on the east and one on the west, as well as street parking on the west. Pedestrian connections to park trails are accessible from multiple points, two off of Del Monte Boulevard, four off of Canyon Del Rey Boulevard, and four off of Virgin Avenue. Trails connect to a central loop that runs along the perimeter of the lake. There is a wide path that leads to the south end of the park and dead ends with stairs which lead up to Fremont Boulevard. Secondary paths on the east and west sides of the park connect to the main loop around the lake. See Circulation Map Figure 01.

TRAIL SURFACE/MATERIAL CONDITIONS
The Park has a number of trail materials including: asphalt, concrete, gravel, decomposed granite (DG), boardwalks, and mulch. The general trail conditions are good due to weekly maintenance and repairs from the cities. All trails have been kept clear of vegetation allowing easy access. See Trail Conditions Map Figure 02.

The majority of park trails are asphalt and conditions vary. There are two areas that have been heavily impacted by root growth and become areas of concern for accessibility and safety that need replacement. Along the asphalt trails there are many areas where the edge of the path, particularly on the lake side, is deteriorating. Some areas impacted by erosion and root damage have been clearly demarcated by maintenance staff for public safety.

Packet Page 339
Existing Conditions | 5
Asphalt Trail Root Impacts Asphalt Trail in Poor Condition The use of concrete throughout the park has been limited to restroom facilities and at bridge abutments on the north end of the park. The concrete throughout the park is in good condition, however, in some locations where the trail transitions from concrete to DG, rutting has occurred.

Gravel has only been used for the trail that runs to the south end of the park. This portion of the trail has been well maintained is in good condition.

DG has been used on the northwest side of the park running from the end of the traditional park on the west side up to the In-N-Out Burger to the north. The DG path has been well maintained and is in good condition with no root impacts or erosion.

Gravel Trail DG Trail Mulch Trail
Packet Page 340
6 | LAGUNA GRANDE TRAIL AND VEGETATION MAINTENANCE STRATEGY Wood decking is limited to the two bridges and five piers around the lake. These appear to be in good condition. Accessibility to these bridges and piers varies greatly. Many of the piers are inaccessible to wheelchairs due to grade change, as well as connections to the main trail that are too steep or narrow. The bridge at the north end of the park is not considered accessible by code.

The mulch trails are seasonal and
have been limited to the riparian
woodland along the northwest
edge of the lake. These trails
vary in width and condition,
with some portions of the trail
subsiding into wet soil. The
application of new mulch has
kept much of the trail in good
condition.

Bridge Boardwalk

ADJACENT ACTIVITIES / SURROUNDING LAND USE
The main trail loop is surrounded by a diverse set of land uses and activities. The north end of the park is adjacent to privately owned hotels, fast food and drive-in restaurants.

On the east side adjacent to Canyon Del Rey Boulevard there is a traditional neighborhood park with an event lawn and stage, restroom facility, and playground. There is also is a private parcel with St.

Seraphim’s Russian Orthodox church, which is accessed through the park.

Seaside Playground
Image Credit: https://filmmonterey.org
St. Seraphim’s Church
Packet Page 341
Existing Conditions | 7
The southern portion of the park consists
predominately of a riparian woodland and creek
that are largely inaccessible to the public. South
of the church are grassy slopes with BBQ / picnic
areas and strolling paths. At the very southern
tip of the park, adjacent to Fremont Boulevard,
is a maintenance and storage yard for the city of
Seaside.

Seaside BBQ/Picnic Area
The western edge of the park also has traditional park programming with a synthetic turf soccer field, restroom facility, playground, synthetic turf volleyball court, BBQ and picnic areas. There is also a riparian woodland with seasonal mulch trails.

Monterey Volleyball Court Monterey Soccer Field

TOPOGRAPHY
The property rises from 12-feet above sea level at the lake water level to 50-feet above sea level at the southern end along Fremont Boulevard and Laguna Grande Court. The southern end of the park functions like a valley between two 30-foot slopes to the east, south and west. The slopes level out as they move north towards the lake. The majority of the site sits 6-feet to 8-feet above the lake water level and is relatively flat and accessible.

VEGETATION
The Park, with its unique aquatic features, hosts a wide variety of vegetation. Much of this vegetation is native to the region and provides habitat for various wildlife but has been impacted by the spread of invasive species. See appendix A and B. Vegetation is maintained by the cities on a weekly basis with a focus on the traditional park areas. Special maintenance activities, such as tree limbing and trail clearing, are performed a few times throughout the year. Dense vegetation throughout the park obstructs sight lines along the trail and to the docks and is a safety concern.

Packet Page 342
8 | LAGUNA GRANDE TRAIL AND VEGETATION MAINTENANCE STRATEGY Invasive Giant Reed and French Broom Native Lavatera assurgentiflora - Island Mallow Refer to Appendix A – Laguna Grande Focused Plant Survey (EMC) Refer to Appendix B – Invasive Plant Control (EMC and BRG)

WILDLIFE AND SENSITIVE SPECIES
Refer to Appendix C – Wildlife Analysis (EMC)

GENERAL MAINTENANCE
The Park is generally visited daily to clean restrooms and provide a quick visual check of park conditions. Operations improvements are scheduled weekly or monthly depending on the season.