CITY OF MONTCLAIR
CITY COUNCIL
SUCCESSOR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY,
MONTCLAIR HOUSING CORPORATION, MONTCLAIR
HOUSING AUTHORITY, AND MONTCLAIR COMMUNITY
FOUNDATION MEETINGS
AGENDA PACKET
Monday March 16, 2026
7:00 p.m.
Montclair City Council Chambers
5111 Benito Street
Montclair, CA 91763
Mayor
Javier “John” Dutrey
Mayor Pro Tem
Corysa Martinez
Council Members
Bill Ruh
Benjamin “Ben” Lopez
Xavier Mendez
City Manager
Edward C. Starr
City Attorney
Diane E. Robbins
City Clerk
Andrea M. Myrick
REGULAR JOINT MEETING OF THE
CITY COUNCIL, SUCCESSOR AGENCY, MONTCLAIR HOUSING CORPORATION,
MONTCLAIR HOUSING AUTHORITY, AND MONTCLAIR COMMUNITY FOUNDATION to be held in the Council Chambers
5111 Benito Street, Montclair, California
Monday, March 16, 2026
7:00 p.m.
If you want to provide spoken comments on an agenda item, including public hearing and closed session items, please complete a Speaker Card located in the Council Chambers. The Mayor/Chair (or the meeting’s Presiding Officer) will call on those who submitted requests to speak at the appropriate times during the meeting. Written comments (200–word limit per agenda item, and 200–word limit for all non– agenda items combined) may also be emailed to [email protected] or submitted at https://www.cityofmontclair.org/public– comment/ at least one hour before the meeting begins.
Watch Council meetings live on the City’s official YouTube Channel at https://www.youtube.com/cityofmontclair, or via Zoom using the following information: Zoom Link: https://zoom.us/j/93717150550 / Dial Number: 1 (669) 900–6833 / Meeting ID: 937–1715–0550.
Video recordings of Council meetings are available on the City’s website and can be accessed by the end of the business day following the meeting at https://www.cityofmontclair.org/council–meetings/.
AGENDA
I. CALL TO ORDER City Council [CC], Successor Agency Board [SA], Montclair Housing Corporation Board [MHC],
Montclair Housing Authority Commission [MHA],
Montclair Community Foundation Board [MCF]
II. INVOCATION
In keeping with our long–standing tradition of opening our Council meetings with an invocation, this meeting may include a nonsectarian invocation. Such invocations are not intended to proselytize or advance any faith or belief or to disparage any faith or belief. Neither the City nor the City Council endorses any particular religious belief or form of invocation.
III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
IV. ROLL CALL
V. PRESENTATIONS
A. Introduction of New Public Works Department Employee B. Proclamation Declaring April 2026 as “Child Abuse Prevention Month” in the City of Montclair
VI. PUBLIC COMMENT
During Public Comment, you may comment on any subject that does not appear on this agenda. Each speaker has up to five minutes. The meeting’s presiding officer may provide more or less time to accommodate speakers with special needs or a large number of speakers waiting in line. (Government Code Section 54954.3).
Under the provisions of the Brown Act, the meeting bodies are prohibited from participating in substantial discussion of or taking action on items not listed on the agenda.
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS — None
XXXXXXXXXXXXX
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 1 of 142 Page No.
VIII. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of Minutes
1. Regular Joint Meeting — February 2, 2026 [CC/SA/MHC/MHA/MCF] 138 B. Administrative Reports
1. Consider Receiving and Filing of Treasurer’s Report [CC] 5
2. Consider Approval and Ratification of Warrant Register & Payroll Documentation [CC] 6
3. Consider Receiving and Filing of Treasurer’s Report [SA] 7
4. Consider Approval of Warrant Register [SA] 8
5. Consider Receiving and Filing of Treasurer’s Report [MHC] 9
6. Consider Approval of Warrant Register [MHC] 10
7. Consider Receiving and Filing of Treasurer’s Report [MHA] 11
8. Consider Approval of Warrant Register [MHA] 12
9. Consider Approval of the Plans and Specifications and Authorizing Staff to Advertise for Bid Proposals for Construction of the Arrow Highway Improvement Rehabilitation and Traffic Signal Interconnect Project [CC] 13
10. Consider Declaring Used Washer–Extractor Systems as Surplus and Available for Donation to the Fire Department of Huatabampo, Sonora in Mexico [CC] 14
C. Agreements
1. Consider Approval of Agreement No. 26–14 with Montclair Station Apartments, LLC, an Operations and Management Regulatory Agreement Regarding the Clara Project Located at the Southwest Corner of Richton Street and Monte Vista Avenue, Subject to Any Revisions Deemed Necessary by the City Attorney [CC] 16
2. Consider Approval of Agreement No. 26–15, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 25–22 with Ontario–Montclair School District to Extend the Montclair After–School Summer Program to Include Session 2 in July 2026, Subject to Any Revisions Deemed Necessary by the City Attorney [CC] 19
3. Consider Approval of Agreement No. 26–16 with AGA Engineers, Inc. for Professional Engineering Design Services for the Central Avenue Smart Corridor Project, Subject to Any Revisions Deemed Necessary by the City Attorney [CC]
Consider Authorizing a $294,980 Allocation from the 2021 Lease Revenue Bond Fund for this Project [CC] 39
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 2 of 142 Page No.
D. Resolutions
1. Consider Adoption of Resolution No. 26–3509 Conditionally Approving the Transportation Expenditure Plan Attached as Exhibit “A” to San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) Ordinance No. 26– 01, the Latter Proposing Continuing Indefinitely, on and after April 1, 2040, Unless and Until Rescinded by Voters, the Measure “I” One–Half of One Percent Retail Transactions and Use Tax in San Bernardino County for Transportation Projects, Subject to Voter Approval of SBCTA Ordinance No. 26–01 at the November 3, 2026 General Election [CC] 66 IX. PULLED CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS
X. BUSINESS ITEM
A. Consider Adoption of Resolution No. 26–3511 Reaffirming the Provisions and Recitals of Resolution No. 22–3344 Including, but Not Limited to, the City Council’s Disapproval of Certain Conduct and Behavior by, and Censure of, Council Member Benjamin “Ben” Lopez, Re–Ratifying Protective Actions Taken by the City Manager, and Further Expanding the Censure by Directing that Certain Restrictions and Administrative/Economic Sanctions be Taken Against Council Member Ben Lopez [CC] 96
XI. COMMUNICATIONS
A. Department Reports
1. Human Services Department — Upcoming Events
B. City Attorney
1. Request to Meet in Closed Session Pursuant to GC §54956.9(d)(2) Regarding Potential Litigation (Two Potential Cases) [CC]
2. Request to Meet in Closed Session Pursuant to GC §54956.9(d)(4) Regarding Potential Litigation (Two Potential Cases) [CC]
3. Request to Meet in Closed Session Pursuant to GC §54956(d)(1) Regarding Pending Litigation [CC]
A. Ramirez v. Montclair
Fuentes/Garcia v. Lopez, City of Montclair
Ibanez v. Montclair
Kresback v. Montclair
Young, etc. v. Montclair
C. City Manager/Executive Director
D. Mayor/Chairperson
E. Council Members/Directors
F. Committee Meeting Minutes (for informational purposes only)
1. Public Works Committee Meeting — November 20, 2025 [CC] 132
2. Personnel Committee Meeting — March 2, 2026 [CC] 137 XII. CLOSED SESSION
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 3 of 142 Page No.
XIII. CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENTS
XIV. ADJOURNMENT
The next regular joint meeting of the City Council, Successor Agency Board, Montclair Housing Corporation Board, Montclair Housing Authority Commission, and Montclair Community Foundation Board will be held on Monday, April 6, 2026 at 7:00 p.m.
Reports, backup materials, and additional materials related to any item on this Agenda distributed to the meeting bodies after publication of the Agenda packet are available for public inspection in the Office of the City Clerk between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Thursday. Please call the City Clerk’s Office at (909) 625–9416 or send an e–mail to [email protected] to request documents via e–mail.
If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, call the City Clerk’s Office at (909) 625–9416 or e–mail [email protected]. Notification prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. (28 CFR 35.102–35.104 ADA Title II) I, Andrea M. Myrick, City Clerk, hereby certify that I posted, or caused to be posted, a copy of this Agenda not less than 72 hours prior to this meeting on the City’s website at https://www.cityofmontclair.org/agendas/ and on the bulletin board adjacent to the north door of Montclair City Hall at 5111 Benito Street, Montclair, CA 91763 on Thursday, March 5, 2026.
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 4 of 142
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: MARCH 16, 2026
SECTION: CONSENT - ADMIN. REPORTS
ITEM NO.: 1
FILE I.D.: FIN520
DEPT.: FINANCE
PREPARER: J. KULBECK
SUBJECT: CONSIDER RECEIVING AND FILING OF TREASURER'S REPORT REASON FOR CONSIDERATION: The City Council is requested to consider receiving and filing the City of Montclair Treasurer's Report for the month ending January 31, 2026.
BACKGROUND: Included in the City Council’s agenda packet is a copy of the Treasurer's Report for the period ending January 31, 2026.
FISCAL IMPACT: Routine—report of City's cash and investments.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council receive and file the Treasurer's Report for the month ending January 31, 2026.
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 5 of 142
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: MARCH 16, 2026
SECTION: CONSENT - ADMIN. REPORTS
ITEM NO.: 2
FILE I.D.: FIN540
DEPT.: FINANCE
PREPARER: A. VONG/V. FLORES
SUBJECT: CONSIDER APPROVAL AND RATIFICATION OF WARRANT REGISTER AND PAYROLL
DOCUMENTATION
REASON FOR CONSIDERATION: The City Council is requested to consider approval and ratification of the Warrant Register and Payroll Documentation.
BACKGROUND: Mayor Pro Tem Martinez examined the Warrant Register dated February 2, 2026; and the Payroll Documentation dated February 22, 2026, and recommends their approval.
FISCAL IMPACT: The City Manager authorized the Warrant Register dated February 2, 2026, totaling $1,016,042.56.
The Payroll Documentation dated February 22, 2026, totals $918,947.80 gross, with $632,560.28 net being the total cash disbursement.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council approve and ratify the above– referenced Warrant Register and Payroll Documentation.
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 6 of 142
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: MARCH 16, 2026
SECTION: CONSENT - ADMIN. REPORTS
ITEM NO.: 3
FILE I.D.: FIN510
DEPT.: SA
PREPARER: C. RAMIREZ
SUBJECT: CONSIDER RECEIVING AND FILING OF TREASURER'S REPORT REASON FOR CONSIDERATION: The City Council acting as Successor to the Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors (Successor Agency Board) is requested to consider receiving and filing the Successor to the Redevelopment Agency Treasurer's Report for the month ending January 31, 2026, pursuant to state law.
BACKGROUND: Included in the Successor Agency Board’s agenda packet is a copy of the Successor to the Redevelopment Agency Treasurer's Report for the period ending January 31, 2026.
FISCAL IMPACT: Routine—report of the Successor Agency's cash.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Successor Agency Board receive and file the Successor to the Redevelopment Agency Treasurer's Report for the month ending January 31, 2026.
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 7 of 142
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: MARCH 16, 2026
SECTION: CONSENT - ADMIN. REPORTS
ITEM NO.: 4
FILE I.D.: FIN530
DEPT.: SA
PREPARER: C. RAMIREZ
SUBJECT: CONSIDER APPROVAL OF WARRANT REGISTER
REASON FOR CONSIDERATION: The City Council acting as Successor to the Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors is requested to consider receiving and filing the Successor to the Redevelopment Agency Warrant Register for the month ending January 31, 2026, pursuant to state law.
BACKGROUND: Vice Chair Martinez has examined the Successor to the Redevelopment Agency Warrant Register dated 01.01.26-01.31.26 in the amounts of $6,820.56 for the Combined Operating Fund and $0.00 for the Redevelopment Obligation Retirement Funds, and finds it to be in order.
FISCAL IMPACT: Routine—report of Agency's obligations.
RECOMMENDATION: Vice Chair Martinez recommends the City Council as Successor to the Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors approve the Successor to the Redevelopment Agency Warrant Register for the period ending January 31, 2026.
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 8 of 142
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: MARCH 16, 2026
SECTION: CONSENT - ADMIN. REPORTS
ITEM NO.: 5
FILE I.D.: FIN525
DEPT.: MHC
PREPARER: C. RAMIREZ
SUBJECT: CONSIDER RECEIVING AND FILING OF TREASURER'S REPORT REASON FOR CONSIDERATION: The Montclair Housing Corporation Board of Directors is requested to receive and file the Montclair Housing Corporation Treasurer's Report for the month ending January 31, 2026, pursuant to state law.
BACKGROUND: Included in the Montclair Housing Corporation Board agenda packet is a copy of the Treasurer's Report for the period ending January 31, 2026.
FISCAL IMPACT: Routine—report of the Montclair Housing Corporation's cash and investments.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Montclair Housing Corporation Board of Directors receive and file the Treasurer's Report for the month ending January 31, 2026.
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 9 of 142
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: MARCH 16, 2026
SECTION: CONSENT - ADMIN. REPORTS
ITEM NO.: 6
FILE I.D.: FIN545
DEPT.: MHC
PREPARER: C. RAMIREZ
SUBJECT: CONSIDER APPROVAL OF WARRANT REGISTER
REASON FOR CONSIDERATION: The Montclair Housing Corporation Board of Directors is requested to consider receiving and filing the Warrant Register for the month ending January 31, 2026, pursuant to state law.
BACKGROUND: Vice Chair Martinez has examined the Warrant Register dated 01.01.26–
01.31.26 in the amount of $124,291.06 for the Montclair Housing Corporation and finds it to be in order.
FISCAL IMPACT: Routine—report of Montclair Housing Corporation's obligations.
RECOMMENDATION: Vice Chair Martinez recommends the Montclair Housing Corporation Board of Directors approve the Warrant Register for the period ending January 31, 2026.
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 10 of 142
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: MARCH 16, 2026
SECTION: CONSENT - ADMIN. REPORTS
ITEM NO.: 7
FILE I.D.: FIN525
DEPT.: MHA
PREPARER: C. RAMIREZ
SUBJECT: CONSIDER RECEIVING AND FILING OF TREASURER'S REPORT REASON FOR CONSIDERATION: The Montclair Housing Authority Commission is requested to receive and file the Montclair Housing Authority Treasurer's Report for the month ending January 31, 2026, pursuant to state law.
BACKGROUND: Included in the Montclair Housing Authority Commission’s agenda packet is a copy of the Treasurer's Report for the period ending January 31, 2026.
FISCAL IMPACT: Routine—report of Montclair Housing Authority's obligations.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Montclair Housing Authority Commission receive and file the Treasurer's Report for the month ending January 31, 2026.
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 11 of 142
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: MARCH 16, 2026
SECTION: CONSENT - ADMIN. REPORTS
ITEM NO.: 8
FILE I.D.: FIN545
DEPT.: MHA
PREPARER: C. RAMIREZ
SUBJECT: CONSIDER APPROVAL OF WARRANT REGISTER
REASON FOR CONSIDERATION: The Montclair Housing Authority Commission is requested to consider receiving and filing the Warrant Register for the month ending January 31, 2026, pursuant to state law.
BACKGROUND: Vice Chair Martinez has examined the Warrant Register dated 01.01.26–
01.31.26 in the amount of $0.00 for the Montclair Housing Authority and finds it to be in order.
FISCAL IMPACT: Routine—report of Montclair Housing Authority's obligations.
RECOMMENDATION: Vice Chair Martinez recommends the Montclair Housing Authority Commission approve the Warrant Register for the period ending January 31, 2026.
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 12 of 142
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: MARCH 16, 2026
SECTION: CONSENT - AGREEMENTS
ITEM NO.: 9
FILE I.D.: STA919C
DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS
PREPARER: M. HEREDIA
SUBJECT: CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING
STAFF TO ADVERTISE FOR BID PROPOSALS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE ARROW
HIGHWAY REHABILITATION AND TRAFFIC SIGNAL INTERCONNECT PROJECT REASON FOR CONSIDERATION: The City Council is requested to consider approval of the plans and specifications for the Arrow Highway Rehabilitation and Traffic Signal Interconnect Project (Project) and authorize staff to advertise for bid proposals for construction of the Project. Advertising for bid proposals for Public Works projects is subject to City Council approval.
BACKGROUND: The section of Arrow Highway in Montclair, located between Mills Avenue and Benson Avenue, is an important corridor within the City. The Arrow Highway Rehabilitation and Traffic Signal Interconnect Project involves enhancements to Arrow Highway from Central Avenue to the San Antonio Creek Channel, and includes sewer upgrades, roadway improvements, new signage and striping, landscaping, and traffic signal upgrades. The plans and specifications for the Project’s construction have been finalized and the project is now ready to be advertised for bid proposals. Staff expects construction to commence in late summer.
Planned and recently completed improvements to Arrow Highway and Fremont Avenue are essential to the City’s North Montclair revitalization initiative, which emphasizes complete streets principles and street beautification. To this end, the plan has been organized into three phases: Arrow Highway and Fremont Avenue intersection improvements adjacent to the Village Partners’ Project, Fremont Avenue improvements from Arrow Highway to Moreno Street, and the subject Arrow Highway improvements from Central Avenue to the San Antonio Creek Channel. This phased approach facilitates coordination with nearby development activities, such as the Village at Montclair mixed– use development project, anticipated utility upgrades, and available grant funding opportunities.
The Arrow Highway Rehabilitation and Traffic Signal Interconnect Project was included in the City’s 2024–2029 Five–Year Capital Improvement Plan, which was approved by the City Council on November 4, 2024, and last updated on December 15, 2025.
FISCAL IMPACT: The construction cost of the Project is estimated at $5,500,000. The Project will be funded by Redevelopment Project Area No. III Tax Allocation Bond and 2021 Lease Revenue Bond funds. The cost of advertising this project for bid proposals should not exceed $3,500.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the plans and specifications and authorize staff to advertise for bid proposals for construction of the Arrow Highway Rehabilitation and Traffic Signal Interconnect Project.
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 13 of 142
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: MARCH 16, 2026
SECTION: CONSENT - ADMIN. REPORTS
ITEM NO.: 10
FILE I.D.: EQS054
DEPT.: FIRE
PREPARER: R.DIERCK
SUBJECT: CONSIDER DECLARING USED WASHER–EXTRACTOR SYSTEMS AS SURPLUS AND
AVAILABLE FOR DONATION TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT OF HUATABAMPO, SONORA
IN MEXICO
REASON FOR CONSIDERATION: The City Council is requested to declare used washer– extractor systems as surplus so they may be made available for donation to the Fire Department of Huatabampo, Sonora in Mexico.
BACKGROUND: In February of 2011, the Montclair Fire Department received funding from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for the purchase of new washer–extractor systems for both fire stations. The purchase allowed the Fire Department to meet the guidelines for care and maintenance of protective apparel as outlined in National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1851. These washer–extractor systems have allowed the Department to properly clean soiled turnout gear to prevent Firefighters and those they serve from carcinogen, particulate, and biohazard exposure.
After being in service for over fourteen years these washer–extractor systems have reached their maximum lifespan and are no longer in use. The Montclair Fire Department was awarded grant funding in January of 2025 from the Leary Firefighters Foundation to purchase new washer–extractor systems for both fire stations to replace the outdated ones.
While the old washer–extractor systems do not meet the requisite standards of the Montclair Fire Department, they can still be used by an agency that does not possess the means to purchase new ones. Upon being declared as surplus by the City Council, a representative of the Fire Department of Huatabampo, Sonora in Mexico will pick up and transport the items to their agency. The items proposed to be donated include:
Weight Item Model # Serial #
20 lb. One free standing washer–extractor
and dryer combination unit
KFEG17NF 1007021192
20 lb. One free standing washer–extractor
and dryer combination unit
KFEG17NF 10011015528
40 lb. One hard–mount washer–extractor
unit and 6–inch base
EH020LA1024122 1436022F10
40 lb. One hard mount washer–extractor
unit and 6–inch base
EM040P11021110 1390693N10
The representative for the Huatabampo Fire Department has agreed to and acknowledged the restrictions of the donation of these washer–extractor systems from the City of Montclair’s Fire Department, and that the City of Montclair is not making any warranties or representations as to the condition of the items.
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 14 of 142 Prior to initiating disposal of the washer–extractor systems, the Fire Department contacted FEMA to ensure full compliance with all applicable grant requirements and federal regulations. After reviewing the matter, the assigned FEMA representative confirmed that the department is authorized to dispose of the equipment as described and this donation is approved.
FISCAL IMPACT: Donating the listed items would have no fiscal impact to the City’s General Fund.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council declare used washer–extractor systems as surplus and available for donation to the Fire Department of Huatabampo, Sonora in Mexico.
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 15 of 142
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: MARCH 16, 2026
SECTION: CONSENT - AGREEMENTS
ITEM NO.: 1
FILE I.D.: EDD100
DEPT.: ECONOMIC DEV.
PREPARER: M. FUENTES
SUBJECT: CONSIDER APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT NO. 26–14 WITH MONTCLAIR STATION
APARTMENTS, LLC, AN OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT REGULATORY AGREEMENT
REGARDING THE CLARA PROJECT LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
RICHTON STREET AND MONTE VISTA AVENUE, SUBJECT TO ANY REVISIONS DEEMED
NECESSARY BY THE CITY ATTORNEY
REASON FOR CONSIDERATION: Through the entitlement process and beginning with the Paseos at Montclair North project, the City Council has required all multifamily projects in the City of Montclair to record a covenant on the property in the form of an Operations and Management Regulatory Agreement to create a recorded document that outlines the responsibilities of multifamily property owners in the City of Montclair that is applicable to current and future property owners.
Proposed Agreement No. 26–14 with Montclair Station Apartments, LLC, an Operations and Management Regulatory Agreement, would become the required covenant for the Clara Project upon recordation. A copy of the proposed Agreement No. 26–14 is included in the City Council agenda packet for review and consideration.
BACKGROUND: During the 1980s and 1990s, the City’s Housing Improvement Task Force was charged with improving multifamily housing conditions within the community.
A major focus of the Housing Improvement Task Force became the education of property owners regarding the management and maintenance responsibilities of their investment properties. To that end, staff was directed to develop covenants for all new multifamily developments that outline maintenance and managerial responsibilities and to provide the City with a means to enforce such covenants.
The Clara Project, formerly known as the Marlowe Project, is located within the boundaries of the amended North Montclair Downtown Specific Plan (NMDSP). The proposed development is generally located at the southwest corner of Richton Street and Monte Vista Avenue. The NMDSP was originally adopted by the City Council on May 16, 2006, and was amended by the City Council on March 20, 2017.
The NMDSP encourages development following urban–style design patterns focused around travel nodes within proximity to commercial shopping opportunities and public transit. The Planning Commission and City Council approved the ten–acre project to include 302 permanent apartment units in an urban–styled community. The City Council approved the Clara Project on March 18, 2024. The project entitlements for the Clara Project are subject to compliance with several Conditions of Approval adopted by the Planning Commission and the City Council.
One of the Conditions of Approval included the following requirements:
The owner must consent, in writing, to record a covenant an Operations & Management Regulatory Agreement – the Clara (hereafter Regulatory Agreement) against the entire property providing for the perpetual maintenance of all buildings and improvements, including roadways, drainage facilities, and water and sewer systems. The Regulatory MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 16 of 142 Agreement shall be effective during the lifetime of the Project. Property shall thereafter be maintained following the property maintenance standards contained in the Montclair Municipal Code.
The Regulatory Agreement shall provide for the perpetual maintenance of all buildings and improvements for the subject multifamily residential project ("the Project") developed in the City for rental purposes. The Regulatory Agreement shall be recorded as a condition, covenant, and restriction on the property in perpetuity unless the City Council agrees to the removal of such covenant in the event of a change in land use. The Regulatory Agreement shall address the management, operations, and maintenance of the multifamily residential project and shall become a Covenant that will run with the land.
The Regulatory Agreement provides terms for compliance with the above–stated Condition of Approval. The more significant points of the Regulatory Agreement include the following conditions:
• The term of the Regulatory Agreement would commence upon recordation and continue in full force and effect in perpetuity until replaced with another regulatory document.
• The Regulatory Agreement contains exhibits related to Property Manager Job Description, Rules and Regulations, Residential Lease/Rental Agreement, Parking Management Plan, Parking Management Plan Tenant Acknowledgment, Master Refuse Removal Plan, Waste and Refuse Acknowledgment, and Periodic Improvement Plan.
• The developer/property owner would be required to manage the property through a property management company. The property management company retained by property owner would provide an on–site manager subject to the prior written approval of the Police Chief. In exercising approval rights, the Police Chief may require proof of ability and qualifications of the manager and Management Company. Upon 60 days of written notice from the City and showing reasonable cause, the property owner could be required to remove and replace the property manager and the property management company.
• The property management company retained by the property owner would have an employee on staff who is a California Certified Property Manager available to assist with project related management issues.
• Should the calls for police service of a serious nature in the project exceed a level reasonably considered normal and customary for this size of project as determined by the Police Chief for a consecutive two–month period, the property owner would be required to increase the amount and frequency of the courtesy patrols until such time as the Police Chief determines the calls have decreased to a normal service level.
• The property owner would direct the on–site manager to enforce all rules and regulations and apply appropriate tenant screening practices. Draft rules and regulations, a lease agreement, and rental criteria are included as exhibits to the Regulatory Agreement.
• The property owner has prepared a parking management plan. The plan shall require all residents to park in assigned garages or spaces and detail how MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 17 of 142 compliance with on–site parking regulations will be enforced. The property owner or manager may not amend the Parking Management Plan without the approval of the City Council.
• As a part of the rental application, each potential renter of a unit shall be given a written notice detailing the on–site and off–site parking conditions and requirements at the complex. All executed rental lease agreements are required to contain the entire Parking Management Plan as an exhibit including a signed acknowledgment form which records the resident’s agreement with the terms of the Parking Management Plan.
• The property owner would agree to keep the property in a well–maintained condition, would operate the property in a businesslike manner, would not commit or permit any waste or deterioration of the property, and would not abandon any portion of the property.
• To secure timely performance of the property owner's obligations in the Agreement, the property owner would create a lien in favor of the City against all portions of the property not dedicated to the City. If the property owner neglects, refuses or fails to fulfill to complete any obligation and the City determines the property owner to be in violation of the Regulatory Agreement, the City shall make a written demand upon the property owner. The property owner has 30 days to begin to remedy default of the Regulatory Agreement. If the work required by the City is not remedied by the property owner within the time frame established by the City, the City may cure the default at the expense of the property owner through a lien.
• The property owner agrees not to sell, transfer, or dispose of any building in the project unless the sale consists of a sale of the entire property to a purchaser or as part of a larger condominium sales effort where individual units are sold to individual purchasers on a building by building or unity by unit basis. • It is acknowledged that the Regulatory Agreement would be replaced with Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions in the event the project is converted to condominium ownership.
• The property owner shall supply the City with appropriate indemnification in connection with construction or performance under the terms of the Regulatory Agreement.
FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of Agreement No. 26–14 would have no fiscal impact on the City of Montclair. The purpose of Agreement No. 26–14 is to proactively deal with any future safety or maintenance issues that could arise as a consequence of this project in the future.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve Agreement No. 26–14 with Montclair and Montclair Station Apartments, LLC, an Operations & Management Regulatory Agreement regarding the Clara Project located at the southwest corner of Richton Street and Monte Vista Avenue, subject to any revisions deemed necessary by the City Attorney.
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 18 of 142
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: MARCH 16, 2026
SECTION: CONSENT - AGREEMENTS
ITEM NO.: 2
FILE I.D.: HSV030
DEPT.: HUMAN SVCS.
PREPARER: A. COLUNGA
SUBJECT: CONSIDER APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT NO. 26–15, AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT NO. 25–22 WITH ONTARIO–MONTCLAIR SCHOOL DISTRICT TO EXTEND THE MONTCLAIR AFTER–SCHOOL SUMMER PROGRAM TO INCLUDE SESSION 2 IN JULY 2026, SUBJECT TO ANY REVISIONS DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE CITY ATTORNEY REASON FOR CONSIDERATION: The City Council is requested to consider approval of Agreement No. 26–15, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 25–22 with Ontario– Montclair School District (OMSD) to extend the Montclair After–School Summer Program to include two sessions. A copy of proposed Agreement No. 26–1 is attached for City Council review and consideration.
BACKGROUND: The Human Services Department has delivered after–school programs within OMSD schools since 1999. Funding for this program originates from the California Department of Education, through grants made available to local education authorities, such as OMSD. The purpose of the funding is to provide communities with enhanced community–based after–school services in an effort to strengthen healthy child development.
In Spring 2025, OMSD began a competitive bidding process for their summer after– school programs. The City of Montclair submitted a proposal and was awarded contracts to provide summer programming at Kingsley and Lehigh Elementaries for fifteen days during Session 1 in June 2026. OMSD provided bidders with an estimated number of student attendance for each of the programs and the City provided OMSD with the per student daily rate if awarded, as seen in the table below.
Session 1: June 2026
School
ESTIMATED ENROLLMENT Per Student Daily Rate
Grades TK/K Grades 1–8 Grades TK/K Grades 1–8
Total
Estimated
Funding
Kingsley ES
(15 Days) 32 63 $17.90 $16.90 $ 24,562.50
Lehigh ES
(15 Days) 32 63 $17.90 $16.90 $ 24,562.50
Session 1 Grand Total: $ 49,125.00
OMSD has now requested the City provide additional Summer program services for fifteen days in July 2026 for Session 2, doubling the length of the originally proposed program.
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 19 of 142 FISCAL IMPACT: Should the City Council approve proposed Agreement No. 26–15, OMSD will provide funding for an additional 15 days of service, totaling 30 days of service during Sessions 1 and 2 of the Summer program in June and July 2026 at the following rates in the table below. Based on the estimated enrollment per program per session, the City can expect to receive an additional $49,125.00 for an estimated total of $98,250.00.
Session 1 and 2: June and July 2026
School
ESTIMATED ENROLLMENT Per Student Daily Rate
Grades TK/K Grades 1–8 Grades TK/K Grades 1–8
Total
Estimated
Funding
Kingsley ES
(30 Days) 32 63 $17.90 $16.90 $ 49,125.00
Lehigh ES
(30 Days) 32 63 $17.90 $16.90 $ 49,125.00
Sessions 1 & 2 Grand Total: $ 98,250.00
The term of proposed Agreement No. 26–15, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 25– 22 will remain the same, May 30, 2025 through July 25, 2026.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council approve Agreement No. 26–15, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 25–22 with Ontario–Montclair School District to extend the Montclair After–School Summer Program to include Session 2 in July 2026, subject to any revisions deemed necessary by the City Attorney.
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 20 of 142
ONTARIO-MONTCLAIR SCHOOL DISTRICT
Ontario, California
AMENDMENT TO CONSULTANT SERVICES
Contract #: ____________ Amendment: ___ Original Start Date _______________ Original End Date _________________ Contract __________________ is herewith amended between the Ontario-Montclair School District and _______________________________________as authorized by the Terms and Conditions of the original Agreement except for:
AMENDMENT TO TERM (only to be filled out if the original date of agreement is changing):
Start Date: __________________________ End Date: ___________________ AMENDMENT TO SERVICES:
_____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ AMENDMENT TO COMPENSATION:
DISTRICT agrees to compensate CONSULTANT in the following manner:
_____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ In witness whereof, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed on Date of Board Meeting:
DISTRICT CONSULTANT
Signature Signature
Phil Hillman
Printed Name Printed Name
Chief Business Official
Title Title
Ontario-Montclair School District
950 West D Street Ontario, CA 91762 Address
(909) 459-2500
Telephone Number
Approved by Board of Trustees:
Contract Number
Consultant Name
C M
REQUIRED IF EXTENDING TERM
OMSD A mendment to Consultant Services
Agreement No. 26-15
Amendment 1 to
Agreement No. 25-22
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 21 of 142 City of Montclair Agreement No. 25-22
OMSD Contract No: C-256-002C
AFTER-SCHOOL PROVIDER SERVICES SUMMER AGREEMENT
ONTARIO-MONTCLAIR SCHOOL DISTRICT
950 WEST "D" STREET • ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA 91762» (909) 459-2500 THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 22£ day of Mav. 2025 by and between the Ontario-Montclair School DISTRICT, hereinafter referred to as the "DISTRICT," and CITY OF MONTCLAIR, hereinafter referred to as the "PROVIDER" to provide summer school program services to DISTRICT pupils. The parties hereby agree to the following terms:
1- SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED BY PROVIDER
PROVIDER agrees to operate the summer school programs every day during the summer school dotes, in accordance with the policies and procedures by the DISTRICT, including the coordination of the academic assistance, homework support, and physical education and enrichment portions of the summer school program at each of the school sites ("Site"):
o SITE(S) (X)
■ Kingsley Elementary School
■ Lehigh Elementary School
2. TERM OF AGREEMENT
The term of this Agreement is from Mav 30. 2025 through July 25. 2026. unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of Section 9 of this Agreement. DISTRICT and PROVIDER may mutually agree in writing to extend the term of this Agreement provided, however, DISTRICT shall not be obligated to pay PROVIDER any additional consideration unless PROVIDER undertakes additional services, in which instance the consideration shall be increased as DISTRICT and PROVIDER shall agree in writing.
3. PROVIDER RESPONSIBILITIES
PROVIDER agrees to the following in support of the summer school Program:
• PROVIDER will work colloborotively with DISTRICT and Sites to design and operate the summer school Program. The summer school Program shall include the academic components to promote participating students' achievement and a range of services and programs to support the mental, physical, social and emotional development of participating students.
• PROVIDER shall designate a PROVIDER employee at each of the various schools to serve as liaison between the PROVIDER, the school Site, and the DISTRICT. For the purposes of this agreement, the individual liaison shall be deemed the "Site Coordinator".
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 22 of 142 o Site Coordinator shall maintain ongoing communication between PROVIDER staff and School Site staff regarding student needs and progress, including, but not limited to, attendance at school-day meetings and/or one-on-one meetings with teachers.
PROVIDER will maintain a waiting list of students to ensure that vacancies are filled as soon as they occur. Site Supervisors will ensure priority enrollment to Foster Youth and McKinney Vento (Homeless) students in agreement with Grant requirements.
PROVIDER will cooperate in the recruiting and retaining of students to achieve the number of budgeted students to be served.
PROVIDER, working with DISTRICT, shall ensure staffing sufficient to operate program and perform the requirements in accordance with the DISTRICT staffing ratios and the terms and conditions of the expanded learning opportunities program, relevant Education Code provisions, as applicable at each school throughout the 2025-2026 school year, including on days designated as "minimum" or "modified" days.
Staffing ratios must minimally meet the 1:20 ratio for the ELOP requirements for Average Daily Attendance (ADA).
PROVIDER shall submit to the DISTRICT a roster of PROVIDER'S staff at each Site to include contact information (work telephone, cellular phone, e-mail address). The initial roster is due to the DISTRICT prior to the start of the new school year and every first of the month thereafter.
PROVIDER shall provide each program staff with a PROVIDER name photo identification bodge and lanyard.
PROVIDER shall provide all necessary training and supervision of staff to meet all contractual obligations.
PROVIDER shall provide training to all agency staff in areas including but not limited to health and safety protocols from California Department of Education, California Department of Public Health, and the DISTRICT.
PROVIDER shall comply with the DISTRICT'S safety procedures, including but not limited to:
o PROVIDER shall develop and train PROVIDER'S staff and volunteers in emergency and disaster procedures aligned with the Site emergency disaster plan shall be provided by DISTRICT to PROVIDER upon execution of this MOU, including on evacuation and reunification plan for use during program hours.
o PROVIDER shall ensure that the disaster preparedness kit provided by the DISTRICT is maintained and stored in a locked cabinet.
o PROVIDER shall train staff and conduct the following emergency procedure drills per semester at each schools during program hours: fire, disaster, and lock down.
o PROVIDER shall complete the emergency preparedness drill log. PROVIDER shall report any injury or incident (i.e. on injury involving medical attention or involving police or social services, student leaving area for students under the direct supervision, student behaving inappropriately while participating in virtual activities) to the porent/guordion, school administrator, the Site's Teacher on Assignment/Expanded Learning Opportunity Program Coordinator ("Site ELOP Coordinator"), the DISTRICT'S ELOP Coordinator, MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 23 of 142 and the PROVIDER administrative office within 24 hours of the incident, utilizing the DISTRICT'S incident report form or the injury report form, o In addition to the injury report form, all head injuries must be reported to the parent/guardian on the DISTRICT'S head injury report form, o Any severe incident/injury must be reported to the parent/guardian, school administrator. Site ELOP Coordinator, DISTRICT ELOP Coordinator, if available, and DISTRICT immediately,
o PROVIDER shall report all minor accidents or injuries on the DISTRICT designated form with one copy provided to the parent/guardian and one copy placed in the student's file on campus.
All PROVIDER staff shall be trained in positive behavior management, instructional, academic and enrichment activities aligned with the DISTRICT standards.
PROVIDER shall submit current training plan to the contract prior to the start of the new school year.
PROVIDER shall ensure program staff conforms to appropriate professional conduct, which includes but is not limited to positive interaction with students, parent/guardians and school staff, use of personal cell phone and dress code.
PROVIDER certifies that all PROVIDER employees who work directly with pupils at the Site will have a TB test and live scan investigation, which consists of FBI and DOJ clearances, and at a minimum, meet the qualifications for an Instructional Aide (Ed Code 8483.4) prior to employment. PROVIDER shall provide verification to DISTRICT of such qualifications prior to assigning the employees to a Site.
PROVIDER assumes financial responsibility for PROVIDER staff taking or being placed on leave (i.e. sick leave, workers compensation, vacation, administrative leave).
The PROVIDER certifies its employees who work directly with pupils at the Site will be trained in First Aid and CPR, Child Abuse/Mandated Reporting, Classroom Management, Curriculum, etc. prior to placement at the Site.
The PROVIDER shall ensure that all staff members who work directly with the pupils at the Site will be trained on and comply with child abuse and missing children reporting obligations and procedures under California law, including but not limited to, California Education Code Section 49370 and California Penal Code section 111666, et seq. prior to placement at the Site. PROVIDER shall adopt a written child abuse reporting procedure and provide annual training to all its employees regarding mandated reporting of child abuse and missing children.
The PROVIDER shall provide verification to the DISTRICT that all employees have received annual training. The PROVIDER warrants that all staff members will timely abide by such laws.
The PROVIDER employees will work colloboratively with the Site in order to maximize program resources. This collaboration includes attending and supporting special events, program development, professional development and meetings.
PROVIDER to provide training and professional development to employees assigned to the Site and DISTRICT program staff, as stated in the professional development plan, afterhours or on weekends.
The PROVIDER acknowledges the DISTRICT'S right to institute a program audit with or without cause and agrees to provide best efforts in assisting in the DISTRICT'S completion of program audits.
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 24 of 142 The PROVIDER acknowledges the DISTRICT'S right to examine and audit all of PROVIDER books, records, documents, accounting procedures and practices and other evidence that reflect all costs claimed to hove been incurred or fees claimed to hove been earned under this Agreement.
PROVIDER will make available to DISTRICT all budgetary information including operating budgets submitted for the relevant contract period being audited.
PROVIDER will make such evidence and documents available at the DISTRICT office at all reasonable times and without charge within 5 days of a written request from DISTRICT.PROVIDER will, at no cost to DISTRICT, provide assistance for such examination or audit.
PROVIDER agrees to meet with each participating Site to determine their budget (based on NOT TO EXCEED amount in Exhibit A, modified by Site program staffing and costs), and will prepare and submit to the DISTRICT a detailed budget no later than May 30, 2025.
PROVIDER will submit a completed Professional Development Plan for all staff including DISTRICT staff no later than May 30, 2025.
PROVIDER shall exercise care when utilizing DISTRICT facilities or equipment. Any DISTRICT classroom or school equipment, which is established to have been damaged by the negligence or misconduct of PROVIDER'S staff, will be replaced or repaired at the expense of the PROVIDER. PROVIDER agrees to provide replacement for missing or damaged classroom materials and school equipment attributable to the negligence or misconduct of PROVIDER'S employees in classrooms and other areas utilized by PROVIDER. PROVIDER shall ensure facility space used by the program shall be clean and organized by program staff at each location.
PROVIDER shall assist the Site Coordinator on the content and calendar for a monthly parent newsletter and calendar of activities and events for each assigned school and submit a copy to the DISTRICT no later than the first day of each month.
PROVIDER shall conduct a minimum of two (2) family events annually at each school, which may be conducted during program hours. Such events may include student performances, or other celebratory themes. The goal of such events should be to build communication with parents/guardians and create stronger family involvement within the program. PROVIDER'S program staff shall work colloborotively with school staff to coordinate the events. PROVIDER shall submit a copy of the flyer detailing the event, prior to the event for distribution by Site staff.
PROVIDER shall not permit staff to be on School campuses prior to the start time of the Program unless otherwise agreed upon between Site Principal and Site Supervisor.
All Program services shall be completed by 5:30 p.m. and/or until the lost student is picked up by the student's designated parent and/or legal guardian.
Pupil discipline is the PROVIDER'S responsibility. PROVIDER will give written notice to the relevant School Principal of any pupil dismissed from the Program, and any incident involving physical injury to a pupil. PROVIDER shall not direct or discipline any pupil during compulsory school hours, except in exigent circumstances.
Work with the DISTRICT to implement a comprehensive annual program Evaluation Plan. As required, attend and participate in evaluation subcommittee meetings.
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 25 of 142 Evaluation Plan shall include, but not be limited to, attendance tracking, collection of teacher, parent and participating student surveys, and data entry of survey results. Evaluations will be completed by PROVIDER in accordance with CDE guidelines and due dates.
• Regularly attend and participate in governance and operations meetings. • Provide monthly attendance reports and quarterly expenditure reports to the DISTRICT by the 15th of the month for the previous month; including oil required documents and reports required by DISTRICT Food Services Department. a) Emergency Procedures. Program staff will hold quarterly Site emergency drills based on the complete Site emergency plan and related staff training at each of the Schools.
In the event on emergency occurs after any School office is closed, or during a period when the PROVIDER is hosting a special event. Site Supervisor will employ ogreed-upon emergency and/or evacuation procedures. Site Supervisors must hove student identification information, including emergency contact information, to be able to notify parents, police, medical support, and anyone else who might need to be contacted.
b) Staffing. PROVIDER shall, at PROVIDER'S own expense, employ such agents/assistants as PROVIDER deems necessary to perform the services required of PROVIDER by this Agreement. DISTRICT will not train, control, direct, or supervise PROVIDER'S assistants or employees in the performance of those services.
Each School's Principal reserves the right to review the performance of the Program staff and make recommendations for changes as he/she sees fit to the PROVIDER, who will communicate on a monthly basis with certain individuals, to include and not limited to: the Schools' Principals, City personnel and DISTRICT coordinator. All Program staff who directly supervises students must meet the minimum requirements for on instructional aide pursuant to the policies of the DISTRICT. Program staff must also meet the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) requirements of a highly qualified paraprofessional.
PROVIDER will recruit and train volunteers to lower the student/adult ratios, based on PROVIDER guidelines in the Program.
c) Independent Contrgctor. PROVIDER is, and shall at all times be deemed to be, on independent contractor and shall be responsible for determining the sequence, method, details and manner in which it performs those services required under the terms of this Agreement. Nothing herein contained shall be construed as creating a relationship of employer and employee, or principal and agent, between DISTRICT and PROVIDER or any of PROVIDER'S agents or employees. PROVIDER assumes exclusive responsibility for the acts of its employees or agents as they relate to services to be provided during the course and scope of their employment. PROVIDER, its agents and employees, shall not be entitled to any MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 26 of 142 rights and/or privileges of DISTRICT'S employees and shall not be considered in any manner to be DISTRICT'S employees.
d) Public Entity Employee. If PROVIDER is a regular employee of a public entity, all services which PROVIDER renders under this Agreement will be performed at times other than PROVIDER'S regular assigned work day for said entity or during periods of vocation or leave of absence from said entity, using PROVIDER'S own resources.
4. DiSTRiCT RESPONSiBILiTIES
DISTRICT agrees to the following in support of the summer school program:
• Provide access to on-site indoor and outdoor facilities for the school program appropriate to the number of participants and activities. • Promote and foster a positive environment for the development of a successful site Program.
• Coordinate collaborative meetings with PROVIDER staff to discuss program goals and effectiveness.
• Provide a site summer school teocher/DISTRICT liaison for a portion of the Program hours.
• DISTRICT agrees to comply with all reasonable requests by PROVIDER and to provide access to all documents reasonably necessary for the performance of PROVIDER'S duties under this Agreement.
• DISTRICT and/or site(s) will provide PROVIDER with student identification information including student ID numbers, to be able to notify parents, police, medical support, and anyone else who might need to be contacted. • DISTRICT and/or site(s) reserve the right to moke recommendations for appropriate placements for students and will work with Site Supervisors to coordinate services with other established programs, such as after-school academic interventions and other public agency programs/projects, and provide aligned services that meet the needs of the students and Grant requirements.
• Principals or their designees shall cooperate in the recruiting and retaining of students to achieve the number of budgeted students to be served. • DISTRICT and/or site(s) and PROVIDER will agree which facilities will be used for the Program. Facilities will include the MPR/cafeteria, classroom(s), computer lob, and other facilities the DISTRICT/site(s) and PROVIDER may agree are necessary.
Facilities may include the library and gym.
• DISTRICT and/or site(s) reserves the right to review the performance of the Program staff and make recommendations for changes as he/she sees fit and PROVIDER will communicate on a monthly basis with certain individuals, to include and not limited to: the Schools' Principals, City personnel and DISTRICT coordinator. • DISTRICT agrees to comply with all reasonable requests by PROVIDER and to provide access to all documents reasonably necessary for the performance of PROVIDER'S duties under this Agreement. PROVIDER will abide by applicable federal and state laws, rules and regulations concerning the rights of privacy and/or confidentiality of any information provided by DISTRICT, including both student and personnel records.
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 27 of 142 • The DISTRICT understands the difficulty staffing for this Program and may provide support to PROVIDER in addressing the necessary steps to meet the staffing expectations. The DISTRICT is not, however, taking on the responsibility of the PROVIDER to staff all Sites at appropriate staffing levels.
5. COMPENSATION
a) Compensation for Services. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, DISTRICT agrees to compensate PROVIDER for services rendered under this Agreement as detailed in Exhibit 'A'.
b) Travel Expenses. DISTRICT will pay no additional amount for travel or other expenses of PROVIDER under this Agreement unless specified below under section 2(c). Should travel or other expenses be specified below, PROVIDER shall be entitled to the lesser amount of
1. The not to exceed amount stated, or
2. The actual amount expended. Supporting documentation for the authorized travel or other expenses shall be attached to this Agreement. c) Summary of Compensation
Services:
Summer school program is for 6 hours, 8:00 cm - 2:00 pm for Session 1 ONLY (15 days between May 30,2025 and June 20, ^25 (minus June 19)) at:
• Kingsley (TK - 7th)
• Lehigh (TK-7th)
Total contract amount not to exceed: S49,125.
d) Retired STRS or PERS, If this Agreement is with an individual PROVIDER, PROVIDER shall notify the DISTRICT whether or not PROVIDER is a retired member of the California State Teacher's Retirement System (STRS) or the California Public Employees Retirement System (PERS). DISTRICT undertakes no responsibility to award contracts or hours in a way which protects PROVIDER'S retirement benefits. e) Income Tax. DISTRICT will not withhold any federal or state income tax for payment made pursuant to this Agreement but, if applicable, will provide PROVIDER with a statement of earnings at the end of each calendar year. PROVIDER is hereby advised that such statement of earnings shall, if required, be provided to the Internal Revenue Service and the State Franchise Tax Board. f) Documentation Required For Payment. Unless specified below, payment for services and travel shall be made by DISTRICT to PROVIDER after services/travel has been completed and PROVIDER submits documentation for payment (e.g.
PROVIDER invoice).
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 28 of 142
6. GENERAL OBLIGATIONS OF PROVIDER
a) Services Performed. During the term of this Agreement, PROVIDER agrees to diligently prosecute the work specified in the "Services to be Performed by PROVIDER" to completion. PROVIDER may represent, perform services for, and be employed by such additional clients, persons, or companies as PROVIDER, in PROVIDER'S sole discretion, sees fit.
b) Use of DISTRICT Space and Resources.
DISTRICT and/or site(s) and PROVIDER will confer on which facilities will be used for the Program. Facilities may include the MPR/cafeteria, classroom(s), computer lob, and other facilities the DISTRICT/site(s) and PROVIDER may agree are necessary. Facilities may include the library and gym. PROVIDER staff shall ensure that the facilities and work areas used for the Program are left clean and tidy at the end of each day the Program is operated.
c) Reaulatorv Compliance. PROVIDER shall comply with all federal, state and local laws and ordinances applicable to the work to be performed under this Agreement.
d) Fingerprinting. PROVIDER shall comply with the requirements of Education Code section 45125.1 and Business and Professions Code section 18975 with respect to fingerprinting of employees and regular volunteers who may have any interaction with the DISTRICT'S pupils (whether such interaction is in person or electronic, and whether the interaction is through writing, voice or video). If at any time during the term of this Agreement PROVIDER is either notified by the Department of Justice or otherwise becomes aware that any employee of PROVIDER, including PROVIDER, performing services under this Agreement has been arrested or convicted of a violent or serious felony as defined in California Education Code Section 45122.1, PROVIDER agrees immediately to notify the DISTRICT and remove said employee from performing services on this Agreement. PROVIDER shall certify in writing to the DISTRICT that neither the PROVIDER nor any of its employees who ore required by this section to submit or hove their fingerprints submitted to the Department of Justice and who may come in contact with pupils have been convicted of a felony as defined in Education Code section 45122.1 (Exhibit X). e) Indemnificgfion. PROVIDER shall indemnify, pay for the defense of, and hold harmless DISTRICT and its officers, agents and employees of and from any and all liabilities, claims, debts, damages, demands, suits, actions and causes of actions of whatsoever kind, nature or sort which may be incurred by reason of PROVIDER'S acts and/or omissions in rendering any services hereunder, including but not limited to the negligent or willful acts and/or omissions of PROVIDER'S employees and agents. PROVIDER shall assume full responsibility for payments of federal, state and local taxes or contributions imposed or required under the social security, workers' compensation or income tax law, or any disability or unemployment low, or retirement contribution of any sort whatever, concerning PROVIDER or any employee/agent of PROVIDER and shall further indemnify, pay MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 29 of 142 for the defense of, and hold harmless DISTRICT of and from any such payment or liability arising out of or in any manner connected with PROVIDER'S performance under this Agreement.
f) Insurance Requirements. During the entire term of this Agreement, PROVIDER shall procure, pay for and keep in full force and effect the following types of insurance:
1. General Liability insurance.
2. Commercial general liability insurance, covering bodily injury liability, property damage liability and personal injury liability of PROVIDER with respect to the services provided by, or on behalf of, PROVIDER under this Agreement. The policy limits shall not be less than Two Million dollars ($2,000,000) per occurrence with a general aggregate limit of not less than Four Million dollars ($4,000,000).
a. The DISTRICT requires the Certificate of Liability Insurance to show the DISTRICT as the "Certificate Holder' and "Additional Insured" on the PROVIDER'S general liability insurance policy. Requested wording in the "Description box" is as follows:
The Onfario-Monfclair School DISTRICT, Its departments, officers, agents, and employees are additional insureds with regard to liability and defense of suits arising from the operations and uses performed by or on behalf of the named "Insured."
3. Auto Llabllftv Insurance.
PROVIDER agrees that services in conjunction with this agreement will be conducted in PROVIDER'S office or at a DISTRICT school Site and PROVIDER will not drive Student in private or commercial vehicle to conduct assessments or conduct other business in conjunction with this agreement. Accordingly, commercial automobile insurance will not be required in conjunction with this agreement. Should PROVIDER need to provide services in conjunction with this agreement that do require Student transportation in a private or commercial vehicle, the DISTRICT and PROVIDER will mutually agree on services to be provided, and PROVIDER will provide insurance as follows:
Business auto liability insurance covering the use of "owned, non-owned and hired" autos by or on behalf of PROVIDER respect to the services to be performed under this Agreement. The policy limits shail not be less than One Million dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence. The Auto Liability Insurance policy shall include waiver of subrogation via separate endorsement.
4. Workers' Compensation Insurance. This coverage is required unless PROVIDER provides written verification it has no employees. Coverage must be at least as broad as that which is required by the State of California, with Statutory Limits. PROVIDER must also maintain Employer's Liability Insurance with limit of no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease. Workers' MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 30 of 142 compensation policy shall include waiver of subrogation via separate endorsement.
5. Sexual Molestation and/or Abuse. The general liability policy above may not contain an exclusion for coverage of claims arising from claims for sexual molestation or abuse. In the event that PROVIDER'S policy should hove an exclusion for sexual molestation or abuse claims, then PROVIDER shall be required to procure a supplemental policy providing such coverage of not less than $2,000,000 per occurrence with on aggregate of not less than $4,000,000 for damages because of bodily injury by reason of negligent hiring and supervision.
6. Cvber Security Llabilitv. Coverage for both electronic and non-electronic data breach of $1,000,000 per occurrence with on aggregate limit of not less than $2,000,000 and shall cover all of Company's employees, officials and agents. Coverage shall apply to any dishonest, fraudulent, malicious or criminal use of Company or District's computers or servers to affect, alter, copy, corrupt, delete, disrupt or destroy a computer system or to obtain financial benefit for any party; to steal, take or provide unauthorized access of electronic dote, including publicizing confidential electronic data or causing confidential electronic data to be accessible to unauthorized persons; transfer of computer virus, Trojan horse, worms or any other type of malicious or damaging code; and for Third-Party Liability encompassing judgments or settlement and defense costs arising out of litigation due to a data breach and data breach response costs for customer notification and credit monitoring service fees.
The policies of insurance described above shall be carried with responsible and solvent insurance companies authorized to do business in the State of California. True and correct copies of all certificates of insurance reflecting the coverage required in Paragraph (4g.l-3) shall be provided to DISTRICT prior to the commencement of services under this Agreement. PROVIDER agrees that it shall not cancel or change the coverage provided by the policies of insurance described in Paragraph (4g.l-3) above without first giving the DISTRICT'S Chief Business Official, thirty (30) days prior written notice. Should any such policy of insurance be canceled or changed, PROVIDER agrees to immediately provide DISTRICT true and correct copies of all new or revised certificates of insurance.
The PROVIDER shall not commence performing any portion of the services until all required insurance has been obtained and certificates indicating the required coverage's have been delivered in duplicate to DISTRICT. Certificates and insurance policies shall include the following:
• A clause stating: "This policy shall not be canceled or reduced in required limits of liability or amounts of insurance until notice has been mailed to DISTRICT, stating date of cancellation or reduction. Dote of cancellation or reduction shall not be less than thirty (30) days after date of mailing notice." MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 31 of 142 • Language stating in particular those insured, extent of insurance, location and operation to which insurance applies, expiration dote, to whom cancellation and reduction notice will be sent, and length of notice period. • An endorsement stating that DISTRICT and its agents, representatives, employees, trustees, officers, consultants, and volunteers ore named additional insureds under all policies except Workers' Compensation Insurance, Professional Liability, and Employers' Liability Insurance. An endorsement shall also state that PROVIDER'S insurance policies shall be primary to any insurance or self-insurance maintained by DISTRICT. • If the PROVIDER or PROVIDER'S subcontractor(s) maintains broader coverage and/or higher limits than the minimums shown above, DISTRICT requires and shall be entitled to the broader coverage and/or higher limits maintained by the PROVIDER. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to DISTRICT. • PROVIDER, or its subcontractors as the case may be, shall be responsible for payment of all deductibles on all insurances required to be furnished by DISTRICT or subcontractors.
• All policies shall be written on on occurrence form.
Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A: VII, unless otherwise acceptable to DISTRICT.
g) Written Consent. Neither this Agreement nor any duties or obligations under this Agreement may be assigned or transferred by PROVIDER without the prior written consent of DISTRICT.
7. CHILD ABUSE. MANDATED REPORTER. AND CPR REQUIREMENTS:
PROVIDER shall ensure that all staff members who work directly with students, ore trained on and comply with child abuse and missing children reporting obligations and procedures under California law, including but not limited to, California Education Code Section 49370 and California Penal Code section 11165.7, 11166, et seq. PROVIDER shall adopt a written child abuse reporting procedure and provide annual training to all its employees regarding mandated reporting of child abuse and missing children. The PROVIDER shall provide verification to the District that all employees hove received annual training. The PROVIDER warrants that all staff members will timely abide by such laws.
PROVIDER certifies its employees who work directly with pupils will be trained, including but not limited to, in First Aid, CPR, and Classroom Management... prior to placement at the Site.
8. CONFIDENTIALITY
PROVIDER and its subcontractors agree to comply with all applicable laws in the performance of its obligations under this Agreement, and in particular applicable federal and state regulations regarding student records, student privacy, and the commercial use of student information, including the Family Educational Rights and MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 32 of 142 Privacy Act (FERPA), Student Online Personal Information Protection Act (SOPlPA), AB 1584 (Ed. Code 49073.1) Pupil Data Privacy and ttie District (including but not limited to Administrative Regulation and Policy No. 5022 and 5125) to ttie end ttiot the rights and privacy of the students enrolled in the District and of their parents are not violated or invaded.
These provisions include, but ore not limited to, ensuring that:
A. No identification of students or their porent/guordions by persons other than representatives of PROVIDER is permitted.
B. The individual student data will be destroyed when no longer needed for the purpose(s) for which they were obtained.
C. No access to individual student data shall be granted by PROVIDER to any other person, persons, agency or organization without the written consent of the pupil's porent/guordion, except for sharing with other persons within the District or representatives of PROVIDER so long as those persons hove a legitimate interest in the information.
D. PROVIDER recognizes and agrees that such access will be extended in reliance on representations mode in this assurance, and that the District shall have the right to enforcement of this assurance, or revocation of such access (including return of all physical forms of such data and destruction of all such electronic data) immediately upon evidence of noncomplionce by PROVIDER. This assurance is binding PROVIDER on and such persons as may be employed by PROVIDER to assist in any phase of the contractual obligation to the District.
PROVIDER further represents and warrants that District's and District users' access to and use of the PROVIDER'S software or other services as described in this MOU will not infringe any third party copyright.
9. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT
a) Termination without Cause. Unless otherwise terminated as provided below, this Agreement shall continue in force during the term of the Agreement, or until the services provided for herein hove been fully and completely performed, whichever shall occur first, and shall thereupon terminate. b) Termination for Breacti.
Should PROVIDER default in the performance of this Agreement or breach any of its provisions, DISTRICT may terminate this Agreement by giving Thirty (30) Days' Notice in writing to PROVIDER to the address stated in this Agreement. If, within ten (10) calendar days prior to the expiration of the Thirty (30) Days' notice period, the PROVIDER provides evidence of a cure or corrects the default or breach, the DISTRICT may withdraw the Thirty (30) Days' notice.
c) Immediate Suspension/Termination bv DISTRICT. If at any time during the performance of this Agreement DISTRICT determines, at its sole discretion, to MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 33 of 142 suspend indefinitely or abandon the work under this Agreement, DISTRICT shall have the right to terminate the performance of PROVIDER'S services hereunder by giving written notification to PROVIDER of its intention to terminate. d) Effect of Termination. In the event that DISTRICT terminates this Agreement under paragraph (b) or (c) of this Section, PROVIDER shall only be paid for those services rendered and reimbursable expenses incurred up to the dote of termination. All cosh deposits mode by DISTRICT to PROVIDER, if any, shall be refundable to DISTRICT in full upon termination of this Agreement unless specified to the contrary below.
e) Budget Contingency
It is mutually agreed that if sufficient funds are not appropriated for the Program in the current year budget and/or subsequent years covered under this Agreement, then this Agreement shall be of no further force and effect. In this event, the DISTRICT shall have no liability to pay any funds to the PROVIDER or furnish any other considerations under this Agreement, and the PROVIDER shall not be obligated to perform any provisions of this Agreement.
10. GENERAL PROVISIONS
a) Notices. Any notices to be given hereunder by either party to the other may be effected either by personal delivery in writing or by moil, registered or certified, postage prepaid with return receipt requested. Notices shall be deemed given and served upon delivery personally, or three (3) days after depositing in the United States Mail. Mailed notices shall be addressed to the parties at the addresses set forth in this Agreement for DISTRICT and PROVIDER. The foregoing addresses may be changed by written notice to the other party as provided herein.
b) Vgliditv of Agreement. This Agreement supersedes any and all agreements either oral or written, between the parties hereto with respect to the rendering of services by PROVIDER and contains all of the covenants and agreements between the parties with respect to the rendering of such services in any manner whatsoever.
Each party to this Agreement acknowledges that no representations, inducements, promises, or agreements, orally or otherwise, hove been mode by any party or anyone acting on behalf of any party, which are not embodied herein, and that no other agreement, statement or promise not contained in this Agreement shall be valid or binding. Any modification of this Agreement will be effective only if it is in writing, signed by both parties, except DISTRICT may unilaterally amend the Agreement to accomplish the changes listed below:
(1) Increase dollar amounts; (2) Administrative changes; and (3) Changes as required by law.
c) Court Findings. If any provision of this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remaining provisions will nevertheless continue in full force without being impaired or invalidated in any MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 34 of 142 way. In the event any party to this Agreement shall commence any action against the other party relating to this Agreement or for the breach of any obligation contained in this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover such party's legal fees and other legal costs and expenses from the other party.
d) California Laws. This Agreement shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of California. Venue for any legal action shall be San Bernardino County, California. Each person executing this Agreement warrants that he or she has the authority to so execute this Agreement and that no further approval of any kind is necessary to bind the parties hereto. e) Audit. Pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of Government Code Section 8546.7 or any amendments thereto, all books, records and files of DISTRICT, PROVIDER, or any subcontractor connected with the performance of this Agreement involving the expenditure of public funds in excess of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000), including, but not limited to the administration thereof, shall be subject to the examination and audit of the State Auditor General of the State of California, at the request of the DISTRICT or as a part of any audit of DISTRICT, for a period of three (3) years after final payment is made under this Agreement.
PROVIDER shall preserve and cause to be preserved such books, records and files for the audit period.
f) Non-discrimination. Parties shall ensure that services and benefits are provided without regard to sex, sexual orientation, gender, ethnic group, race, ancestry, origin, immigration status, religion, color, mental disability, or physical disability, age, marital or parental status or any other unlawful consideration in accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, California Government Code, Section 503-504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Pub. L. 92-318).
g) Contractual/Equitable Remedies. PROVIDER agrees that the DISTRICT is the sole entity against whom the PROVIDER may seek either contractual or equitable remedies, and further agrees not to seek contractual or equitable remedies (including, but not limited to injunctive relief and quantum meruit) against DISTRICT employees or beneficiaries of the Agreement.
h) Board of Trustees Approval. PROVIDER warrants that he or she has the authority to so execute this Agreement and that no further approval of any kind is necessary to bind it hereto. This Agreement shall not become binding upon the DISTRICT until it has been duly approved or ratified by the Board of Trustees.
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 35 of 142 MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 36 of 142 MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 37 of 142 MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 38 of 142
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: MARCH 16, 2026
SECTION: CONSENT - AGREEMENTS
ITEM NO.: 3
FILE I.D.: GRT200/TRC820
DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS
PREPARER: M. HEREDIA
SUBJECT: CONSIDER APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT NO. 26–16 WITH AGA ENGINEERS, INC. FOR
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE CENTRAL AVENUE SMART
CORRIDOR PROJECT, SUBJECT TO ANY REVISIONS DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE CITY
ATTORNEY
CONSIDER AUTHORIZING A $294,980 ALLOCATION FROM THE 2021 LEASE
REVENUE BOND FUND FOR THIS PROJECT
REASON FOR CONSIDERATION: The City Council is requested to consider approval of Agreement No. 26–16 with AGA Engineers, Inc. (AGA) for professional engineering design services for the Central Avenue Smart Corridor Project, subject to any revisions deemed necessary by the City Attorney. A copy of Agreement No. 26–16 is attached for review and consideration by the City Council.
BACKGROUND: The City’s traffic engineering consulting firm, AGA Engineers, Inc. (AGA) prepared a grant application that was submitted to the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) for the Measure “I” Valley Traffic Management System (TMS) program funds for both the Holt and Mission Boulevard Smart Corridor Project, and the Central Avenue Smart Corridor Project. SBCTA approved funding for the Central Avenue project.
On August 18, 2025, the City Council approved Agreement No. 25–57 with SBCTA for funding of the Central Avenue Smart Corridor Project, with matching funds of $314,341 being required as part of the agreement for design and construction of the project.
Agreement No. 25–57 (SBCTA Contract No. 26–1003383) was fully executed on December 9, 2025.
The proposed project corridor encompasses intersections at Caltrans interchanges on Central Avenue, specifically at I–10 and SR–60. The project limits along Central Avenue extend from Richton Street in Montclair to Riverside Drive in Chino, incorporating 28 traffic signals. Improvements along Central Avenue will include the following for each agency and their contribution pertaining to this contract:
Staff requested a proposal from AGA to provide professional engineering design services for this Project. AGA’s extensive knowledge of the various agencies’ traffic signal systems along the project corridor will allow AGA to “hit the ground running” on this important project. AGA staff have developed excellent relationships with both Engineering and Information Technology staff at the various agencies plus they have an in–depth understanding of their communications systems and traffic signal central systems. The AGA Team will leverage the experience gained via previous projects in the project area.
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 39 of 142 Based on this wealth of experience and having worked in the City of Montclair for over two decades and completing similar projects, the AGA team has developed a unique project approach to streamline design and field implementation in the most efficient and cost–effective manner possible. The scope of work entails the following major tasks as outlined in their proposal:
• Task 1. Project Management
• Task 2. Traffic Signal Synchronization Timing and Field Review • Task 3. Preparation of Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E) • Task 4. System Integration and Construction Engineering Support FISCAL IMPACT: The cost for the services in Agreement No. 26–16 with AGA is $294,980, including bid process and construction support, which will be paid from 2021 Lease Revenue Bond funds. The cost share from the other agencies totals $106,000 for this phase of the Project, as shown below. AGA will coordinate the payment of contributions from the other agencies to reimburse the City, resulting in a final cost to the City of $188,980.
Agency Services Contribution
City of Montclair • New 2070LX Controller Units with Omni eX software • New Type 332 Cabinets
• Fiber Optic Cable in new Conduit
• Wireless Ethernet Radios
• Traffic Signal Timing (Local and Coordination)
$188,980
City of Chino • New CCTV Cameras
• Traffic Signal Timing (Local and Coordination)
$69,840
Caltrans • Traffic Signal Timing (Local and Coordination) $28,690 San Bernardino County • New 2070LX Controller Units with Omni eX software • Cell Phone Modem Communications
• Traffic Signal Timing (Local and Coordination)
$7,470
Total Contributions from Other Agencies: $106,000
Project Total: $294,980
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 40 of 142 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council take the following actions:
1. Approve Agreement No. 26–16 with AGA Engineers, Inc. for Professional Engineering Design Services for the Central Avenue Smart Corridor Project, subject to any revisions deemed necessary by the City Attorney, and
2. Authorize a $294,980 allocation from the 2021 Lease Revenue Bond Fund for this Project.
Agreement No. 26-16
CITY OF MONTCLAIR
AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT is made and effective as of March 16, 2026, between the City of Montclair, a municipal corporation ("City") and AGA Engineering, Inc., a California corporation/a partnership/a sole proprietor ("Consultant"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows:
1. TERM
This Agreement shall commence on March 16, 2026 and shall remain and continue in effect for a period of 36 months until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than March 16, 2029, 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, and competently 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. Consultant shall have the duty to prepare any design documents free from defects.
4. CITY MANAGEMENT
City’s City Manager shall represent City in all matters pertaining to the administration of this Agreement and shall be authorized to act on City’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
(a) City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and terms and the schedule of payment as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. This amount shall not exceed $294,980 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 City Manager. Consultant shall be compensated for any additional services in the amounts and in the manner as agreed to by City Manager and Consultant at the time City’s written authorization is given to Consultant for the performance of said services. The City Manager may approve additional work not to exceed ten percent (10%) of the amount of the Agreement, but in no event shall total compensation exceed Thirty Thousand Dollars ($30,000.00). Any additional work in excess of this amount shall be approved by the City Council. (c) Consultant will submit invoices monthly for actual services performed. Said invoices shall detail all costs, rates and hours for individual tasks. 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 City 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.
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 41 of 142 Agreement No. 26-16
(d) Consultant agrees that, in no event shall City be required to pay to Consultant any sum in excess of ninety-five percent (95%) of the maximum payable hereunder prior to receipt by City of all final documents, together with all supplemental technical documents, as described herein acceptable in form and content to City. Final payments shall be made no later than sixty (60) days after presentation of final documents and acceptance thereof by City.
6. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT WITHOUT CAUSE (a) City may at any time, for any reason, with or without cause, suspend or terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon Consultant at least ten (10) days prior written notice.
Upon receipt of said notice, Consultant shall immediately cease all work under this Agreement, unless the notice provides otherwise. If City 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, City shall pay to Consultant on a pro-rata basis the actual value of the work performed up to the time of termination, provided that the work performed is in compliance with this Agreement. Upon termination of the Agreement pursuant to this Section, Consultant will submit an invoice to City pursuant to Section 5(c).
7. DEFAULT OF CONSULTANT
(a) 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, City 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 Consultant. If such failure by Consultant to make progress in the performance of work hereunder arises out of causes beyond Consultant’s control, and to the extent the default is without fault or negligence of Consultant, it shall not be considered a default.
(b) If the City Manager or his/her delegate determines that 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 Consultant a written notice of the default. 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 Consultant fails to cure its default within such period of time, City shall have the right, notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, to terminate this Agreement without further notice and without prejudice to any other remedy to which it may be entitled at law, in equity or under this Agreement.
8. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS
(a) Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to billed time, sales, costs, expenses, receipts and other such information required by City 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 City or its designees at reasonable times to such books and records; shall give City the right to examine and audit said books and records; shall permit City 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 original documents, claims, applications, computer files, notes, and other documents prepared in the course of providing the services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of City and may be used, reused, or otherwise disposed of by City without the permission of Consultant. Any reuse or modification of the work product without the prior written consent of Consultant will be at the sole risk of City. With respect to computer files, Consultant shall make available to City, at Consultant’s office and upon reasonable written request by City, the necessary computer software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling, transferring and printing computer files.
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 42 of 142 Agreement No. 26-16
9. INDEMNIFICATION
(a) Defense, Indemnity and Hold Harmless. Consultant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless City, its present and former officers, directors, employees, agents, staff, volunteers, mayor, council, boards, committees, and representatives, as broadly interpreted (collectively, the “Indemnified Parties”), of and from all claims, suits, demands, obligations, losses, damages, sums, or any other matters threatened or presently asserted, including but not limited to all legal fees, costs of defense and litigation expenses (including legal fees, expert fees and any other costs or fees, including those of adverse parties imposed on or sought against the Indemnified Parties), arising directly or indirectly out of any liability or claim of loss or liability for personal injury, bodily injury to persons, contractual liability, errors or omissions, breach, failure to perform, damage to or loss of property, or any other loss, damage, injury or other claim of any kind or nature arising out of the work to be performed by Consultant herein, caused by or arising out of the negligent acts or omissions, or intentional misconduct of Consultant, including its subcontractors, subconsultants, employees, agents, and other persons or entities performing work for Consultant. (b) Contractual Indemnity. To the fullest extent permitted under California law, Consultant shall contractually indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Indemnified Parties from and against any liability (including liability for claims, suits, actions, arbitration proceedings, administrative proceedings, regulatory proceedings, losses, expenses, amounts for good faith settlement, or costs of any kind, whether actual, alleged or threatened, including attorney’s fees and costs, court costs, interest, defense costs, and expert witness fees and costs), arising out of or related to, in whole or in part, the performance of this Agreement by Consultant or by any individual or entity for which Consultant is legally liable, including but not limited to Consultant’s officers, agents, representative, employees, independent contractors, subcontractors, subconsultants, or affiliated or related entities and/or its or their employees, agents and representatives, caused by or arising out of all negligent acts or omissions, or intentional misconduct of Consultant, including its subcontractors, subconsultants, employees, agents and other persons or entities performing work for Consultant. Indemnification shall include any claim that Consultant, or Consultant’s employees or agents, are or may be considered and treated as employees of City or are entitled to any employee benefits from City including but not limited to those available under Public Employees Retirement Law. The obligation to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Indemnified Parties shall apply to all liability as defined above regardless of whether the Indemnified Parties were or are alleged to have been negligent, except that it shall not apply to claims arising from the sole negligence or willful intentional misconduct of the Indemnified Parties. Consultant’s obligation to defend the Indemnified Parties is not contingent upon there being an acknowledgement of or determination of the merit of any claims, liability, demands, causes of action, suits, losses, expenses, errors, omissions and/or costs. (c) Subcontractors/Subconsultants and Indemnification. Consultant agrees to and shall obtain executed indemnity agreements in favor of the Indemnified Parties with provisions identical to those set forth from each and every Subcontractor, Subconsultant, or other person or entity involved by, for, with, or on behalf of Consultant in the performance of any aspect of this Agreement. In the event Consultant fails to obtain such indemnity obligations, Consultant shall be fully responsible for each and every Subcontractor, Subconsultant or other person or entity in terms of defense, indemnity and hold harmless obligations in favor of the Indemnified Parties as set forth above. This obligation to indemnify and defend the Indemnified Parties is binding on the successors, assigns, or heirs of Consultant and shall survive the full performance or termination of this Agreement. These indemnification provisions are independent of and shall not in any way be limited or superseded by the insurance requirements and insurance-related provisions of this Agreement.
(d) City Lost or Damaged Property – Theft. Consultant further agrees to pay or cause to be paid to the Indemnified Parties’ benefit, any and all damages, fines, penalties, and loss or theft of property of City arising out of or related in any way to the negligent acts or omissions or intentional misconduct of Consultant or of Consultant’s officers, agents, representatives, employees, independent contractors, subcontractors/subconsultants or affiliated or related entities and/or its or their employees, agents and representatives, whether such actions, omissions to act, negligence or intentional conduct is or was authorized by this Agreement or not. City assumes no responsibility whatsoever for any property placed on the premises of City. Consultant further agrees to waive all rights of subrogation against the Indemnified Parties.
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 43 of 142 Agreement No. 26-16
(e) Non-Waiver and Non-Exhaustion of City’s Further Rights and Remedies. No aspect of this provision shall in any way limit or effect the rights of the Indemnified Parties against Consultant under the terms of this Agreement or otherwise. The indemnification provisions shall apply regardless of whether this Agreement is executed after Consultant begins the work and shall extend to claims arising after this Agreement is performed or terminated, including a dispute as to the termination of Consultant. The indemnity obligations of Consultant shall continue until it is determined by final judgment that the claim against City and any Indemnified Parties is determined by final judgment and after exhaustion of any rights of appeal. Further, no aspect of this provision shall impact City’s rights to contribution from Consultant, or for City to dispute Consultant’s refusal to defend and indemnify City. (f) Limitations on Scope of Indemnity. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Consultant shall not be responsible for indemnification for claims or losses caused by the sole negligence or intentional wrongdoing of Indemnified Parties. Further, the indemnity provided shall be interpreted as broadly as permitted under California law and as to agreements between parties and shall if required be reformed to be consistent with those laws to protect and save this provision for the protection of the Indemnified Parties. (g) The obligations of Consultant under this or any other provision of this Agreement shall not be limited by the provisions of any workers’ compensation act or similar act. Consultant expressly waives any statutory immunity under such statutes or laws as to the Indemnified Parties. Consultant’s indemnity obligation set forth in this Section 9 shall not be limited by the limits of any policies of insurance required or provided by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement.
(h) Consultant’s covenant under this Section 9 shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement.
10. INSURANCE
City reserves the right to modify these requirements, including limits, based on the nature of the risk, prior experience, insurer, coverage, or other special circumstances. (a) Types of Required Coverages
Without limiting the indemnity provisions of the Contract, Consultant shall procure and maintain in full force and effect during the term of the Contract, the following policies of insurance. If the existing policies do not meet the insurance requirements set forth herein, Consultant agrees to amend, supplement or endorse the policies to do so.
(1) Commercial General Liability: Commercial General Liability Insurance which affords coverage at least as broad as Insurance Services Office “occurrence” form CG 00 01, including products and completed operations, property damage, bodily injury, and personal & advertising injury with limits no less than $2,000,000 per occurrence, and $4,000,000 aggregate total bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage. (2) Automobile Liability Insurance: Automobile Liability Insurance with coverage at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Form CA 0001 covering “Any Auto” (Symbol 1), including owned, non-owned and hired autos, or the exact equivalent, with minimum limits of $2,000,000 for bodily injury and property damage, each accident.
If Consultant owns no vehicles, auto liability coverage may be provided by means of a non-owned and hired auto endorsement to the general liability policy. Automobile liability insurance and endorsements shall be kept in force at all times during the performance of this Agreement.
(3) Workers’ Compensation: Workers’ Compensation Insurance, as required by the State of California and Employer’s Liability Insurance with a limit of not less than $1,000,000 each accident for bodily injury and $1,000,000 each employee for bodily injury by disease.
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 44 of 142 Agreement No. 26-16
(4) Professional Liability: Professional Liability insurance with limit of not less than $3,000,000 each claim. Covered professional services shall specifically include all work to be performed under the Agreement and delete any exclusion that may potentially affect the work to be performed.
(b) Endorsements
Insurance policies shall not be in compliance if they include any limiting provision or endorsement.
The insurance policies shall contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
(1) Commercial General Liability
Additional Insured: City, its elected officials, officers, employees, volunteers, boards, agents and representatives shall be additional insureds with regard to liability and defense of suits or claims arising out of the work or operations performed by or on behalf of Consultant including materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations. Coverage for the additional insureds shall apply to the fullest extent permitted by law.
Additional Insured Endorsements shall not:
1. Be limited to “Ongoing Operations”
2. Exclude “Contractual Liability
3. Restrict coverage to the “Sole” liability of Consultant
4. Exclude “Third-Party-Over Actions”
5. Contain any other exclusion contrary to the Agreement Additional Insured Endorsements shall be at least as broad as ISO Forms CG 20 10 11 85; or CG 20 and 10 and CG 2037
Primary Insurance: This insurance shall be primary and any other insurance, whether primary, excess, umbrella or contingent insurance, including deductible, or self-insurance available to the insureds added by endorsement, shall be in excess of, and shall not contribute with, this insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as ISO CG 20 01 04
13. (2) Auto Liability
Additional Insured: City, its elected officials, officers, employees, volunteers, boards, agents, and representatives shall be additional insureds with regard to liability and defense of suits or claims arising out of the work or operations performed by or on behalf of Consultant.
Primary Insurance: This insurance shall be primary and any other insurance whether primary, excess, umbrella or contingent insurance, including deductible, or self-insurance available to the insureds added by endorsement shall be in excess of and shall not contribute with this insurance.
(3) Workers’ Compensation
Waiver of Subrogation: A waiver of subrogation stating that the insurer waives all rights of subrogation against the indemnified parties.
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 45 of 142 Agreement No. 26-16
(c) Notice of Cancellation
Required insurance policies shall not be cancelled or the coverage reduced until a thirty (30) day written notice of cancellation has been served upon City except ten (10) days shall be allowed for non-payment of premium.
(d) Waiver of Subrogation
Required insurance coverages shall not prohibit Consultant from waiving the right of subrogation prior to a loss. Consultant shall waive all rights of subrogation against the indemnified parties and policies shall contain or be endorsed to contain such a provision. This provision applies regardless of whether City has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer. (e) Evidence of Insurance
All policies, endorsements, certificates, and/or binders shall be subject to approval by City as to form and content. These requirements are subject to amendment or waiver only if so approved in writing by City. City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements required by these specifications, at any time.
The certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy shall be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the expiration of any such policy, evidence of insurance showing that such insurance coverage has been renewed or extended shall be filed with City. If such coverage is cancelled or reduced, Consultant shall, within ten (10) days after receipt of written notice of such cancellation or reduction of coverage, file with City evidence of insurance showing that the required insurance has been reinstated or has been provided through another insurance company or companies.
(f) Deductible or Self-Insured Retention
Any deductible or self-insured retention must be approved in writing by City and shall protect the indemnified parties in the same manner and to the same extent as they would have been protected had the policy or policies not contained a deductible or self-insured retention. City may require Consultant to purchase coverage with a lower retention or provide proof of ability to pay losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses within the retention. The policy language shall provide, or be endorsed to provide, that the self-insured retention may be satisfied by either Consultant or City.
(g) Contractual Liability/Insurance Obligations
The coverage provided shall apply to the obligations assumed by Consultant under the indemnity provisions of this Agreement. The insurance obligations under this Agreement shall be: (1) all the insurance coverage and/or limits carried by or available to Consultant; or (2) the minimum insurance coverage requirements and/or limits shown in this Agreement; whichever is greater. Any insurance proceeds in excess of or broader than the minimum required coverage and/or minimum required limits, which are applicable to a given loss, shall be available to City. No representation is made that the minimum insurance requirements of this Agreement are sufficient to cover the obligations of Consultant under this Agreement.
(h) Failure to Maintain Coverage
Consultant agrees to suspend and cease all operations hereunder during such period of time as the required insurance coverage is not in effect and evidence of insurance has not been furnished to City. City shall have the right to withhold any payment due Consultant until Consultant has fully complied with the insurance provisions of this Contract. In addition, City may either immediately terminate this Agreement or, if insurance is available at a reasonable cost, City may take out the necessary insurance and pay, at Consultant’s expense, the premium thereon.
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 46 of 142 Agreement No. 26-16
In the event that Consultant’s operations are suspended for failure to maintain required insurance coverage, Consultant shall not be entitled to an extension of time for completion of the Work because of production lost during suspension.
(i) Acceptability of Insurers
Each such policy shall be from a company or companies with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A:VII and authorized to do business in the State of California, or otherwise allowed to place insurance through surplus line brokers under applicable provisions of the California Insurance Code or any federal law. Any other rating must be approved in writing in accordance with City. (j) Claims Made Policies
If coverage is written on a claims-made basis, the retroactive date on such insurance and all subsequent insurance shall coincide or precede the effective date of the initial Consultant’s Agreement with City and continuous coverage shall be maintained or an extended reporting period shall be exercised for a period of at least five (5) years from termination or expiration of this Agreement. (k) Insurance for Subcontractors/Sunconsultants
Consultant shall be responsible for causing Subcontractors/ Subconsultants to purchase the same types and limits of insurance in compliance with the terms of this Agreement, including adding City as an Additional Insured, providing Primary and Non-Contributory coverage and Waiver of Subrogation to the Subcontractors’/Subconsultant’s policies. The Commercial General Liability Additional Insured Endorsement shall be on a form at least as board as CG 20 38 04 13.
11. INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT
(a) Consultant is and shall at all times remain as to City 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 and shall not be construed to be employees of City for any purpose, including eligibility under Public Employees Retirement Law. Neither City 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 City. Consultant shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation, or liability whatever against City, or bind City in any manner. Consultant shall be solely responsible and hold City harmless for all matters relating to the payment of Consultant’s employees, including compliance with Social Security withholdings and all other regulations governing such matters. (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 City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for performing services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder.
12. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES
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 services pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall at all times observe and comply with all such laws and regulations. City, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of Consultant to comply with this Section.
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 47 of 142 Agreement No. 26-16
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 City of Montclair 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 City of Montclair will receive compensation, directly or indirectly, from Consultant, or from any officer, employee or agent of Consultant, in connection with the award of this Agreement or any work to be conducted as a result of this Agreement. Violation of this Section shall be a material breach of this Agreement entitling 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 City, or their designees or agents, and no public official who exercises authority over or responsibilities with respect to the Project during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter, shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in any agreement or 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 City’s prior written authorization. Consultant, its officers, employees, agents, or subconsultants, shall not without written authorization from City Manager or unless requested by the City Attorney, voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, responses to interrogatories, or other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement or relating to any project or property located within the City of Montclair. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered "voluntary" provided Consultant gives City notice of such court order or subpoena.
(b) Consultant shall promptly notify City should Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subconsultants be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, requests 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 City of Montclair. City 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 City and to provide the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Consultant. However, City’s right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said response. (c) Consultant shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local Conflict of Interest laws, including the Political Reform Act (California Government Code, Section 81000, et. seq.) and California Government Code, Section 1090, et. seq. Consultant covenants that neither he/she nor any officer or principal of their firm have any interest in, or shall acquire any interest, directly or indirectly, which will conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of their services hereunder. Consultant further covenants that in the performance of this Agreement, no person having such interest shall be employed by them as an officer, employee, agent or subconsultant. Consultant further covenants that Consultant has not contracted with nor is performing any services, directly or indirectly, with any developer(s) and/or property owner(s) and/or firm(s) and/or partnership(s) owning property in the City of Montclair or the study area and further covenants and agrees that Consultant and/or its subconsultants shall provide no service or enter into any agreement or agreements with a/any developer(s) and/or property owner(s) and/or firm(s) and/or partnership(s) owning property in the City of Montclair or the study area prior to the completion of the work under this Agreement. Further, Consultant covenants not to give or receive any compensation, monetary or otherwise, to or from the ultimate vendor(s) of services to City as a result of the performance of this Agreement, or the services that may be procured by City as a result of the recommendations made by Consultant. Consultant’s covenant under this Section shall survive the termination of this Agreement.
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 48 of 142 Agreement No. 26-16
16. NOTICES
Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (i) personal service, (ii) delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal Express, which provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in the United States Mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the address of the party as set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by notice:
To City: City Engineer
City of Montclair
5111 Benito
Montclair, CA 91763
To Consultant: AGA Engineers, Inc.
211 Imperial Highway, Suite 208
Fullerton, CA 92835
17. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBCONTRACTING
Consultant shall not assign any of its rights or delegate any of its duties under this Agreement, either in whole or in part, nor any monies due hereunder, without prior written consent of City. City’s consent to an assignment of rights under this Agreement shall not release Consultant from any of its obligations or alter any of its obligations to be performed under this Agreement. Any attempt at assignment or delegation by Consultant in violation of this Section 17 shall be void and of no legal effect and shall constitute grounds to terminate this Agreement for cause. Consultant shall not subcontract any performance required under this Agreement without City’s prior written consent.
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, including a City of Montclair business license.
19. GOVERNING LAW
City 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 City of Montclair.
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. CONFIDENTIALITY
Information and materials obtained by Consultant from City during the performance of this Agreement shall be treated as strictly confidential and shall not be used by Consultant for any purpose other than the performance of this Agreement. Consultant’s covenant under this Section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement.
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 49 of 142 Agreement No. 26-16
22. DISCRIMINATION
Consultant agrees that no person shall be excluded from employment in the performance of this Agreement on grounds of race, creed, color, sex, age, marital status, or place of national origin. In this connection, Consultant agrees to comply with all County, State and Federal laws relating to equal employment opportunity rights.
23. EFFECT OF PARTIAL INVALIDITY
If any term or provision of this Agreement shall be held invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement and any application of the terms shall remain valid and enforceable under this Agreement or California law.
24. CLAIMS AGAINST CITY
Consultant must comply with the claim procedures set forth in Government Code sections 900, et. seq., and/or Montclair Municipal Code, Chapter 1.16, as applicable, prior to filing any lawsuit against City.
Such claims and any subsequent lawsuit based upon the claims shall be limited to those matters that remain unresolved after all procedures pertaining to extra work, disputed work, claims, and/or changed conditions have been followed by Consultant. If no such claim is submitted, or if any prerequisite contractual requirements are not otherwise satisfied as specified herein, Consultant shall be barred from bringing and maintaining a valid lawsuit against City.
25. 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 Consultant and has the authority to bind Consultant to the performance of its obligations hereunder.
26. NO THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES
This Agreement is made solely for the benefit of the Parties to this Agreement and their respective successors and assigns, and no other person or entity may have or acquire a right by virtue of this Agreement.
27. COST OF LITIGATION
If any legal action is necessary to enforce any provision of this Agreement or for damages by reason of an alleged breach of any provisions of this Agreement (whether in contract, tort or both), the prevailing Party shall be entitled to receive from the losing Party all attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses in such amount as the courts may determine to be reasonable. In awarding the cost of litigation, the court shall not be bound by any court fee schedule, but shall, if it is in the interest of justice to do so, award the full amount of costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees paid or incurred in good faith.
28. 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 Consultant and has the authority to bind Consultant to the performance of its obligations hereunder.
29. COUNTERPARTS
This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be the original, and all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 50 of 142 Agreement No. 26-16
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written.
CITY CONSULTANT
City of Montclair AGA Engineers, Inc.
By: By:
Javier “John” Dutrey, Mayor Name, Title:
Date: Date:
Attest:
By: By:
Andrea M. Myrick, City Clerk Name, Title:
Date: Date:
Approved as to Form:
By:
Diane E. Robbins, City Attorney
Date:
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 51 of 142 AGA Engineers, Inc.
211 Imperial Highway, Suite 208, Fullerton, CA 92835
(714) 992-4592 Email: [email protected]
January 16, 2026
Ms. Monica Heredia, P.E.
Public Works Director/City Engineer
City of Montclair
511 Benito Street
Montclair, California 91763
RE: Proposal to Provide Professional Engineering Design Services for the Central Avenue Smart Corridor
Dear Ms. Heredia:
AGA Engineers, Inc. (AGA) is pleased to present to the City of Montclair the following proposal to provide professional engineering design services to perform traffic signal improvements and traffic signal timing along the Central Avenue corridor between Richton Street and Riverside Drive. The corridor crosses through the City of Montclair, Caltrans, County of San Bernardino, and City of Chino.
The City of Montclair was recently awarded a grant from the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) for the Central Avenue Smart Corridor which includes funding for traffic signal controller technology and communication upgrades to improve traffic flow. Based on the grant application, improvements along the Central Avenue will include the following:
City of Montclair
- New 2070LX Controller Units with Omni eX software
- New Type 332 Cabinets
- Fiber Optic Cable in new Conduit
- Wireless Ethernet Radios
- Traffic Signal Timing (Local and Coordination)
Caltrans
- Traffic Signal Timing (Local and Coordination)
County of San Bernardino
- New 2070LX Controller Units with Omni eX software
- Cell Phone Modem Communications
- Traffic Signal Timing (Local and Coordination)
City of Chino
- New CCTV Cameras
- Traffic Signal Timing (Local and Coordination)
Exhibit A
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 52 of 142 Ms. Monica Heredia, P.E.
January 16, 2026
AGA’s extensive knowledge of the various agency’s traffic signal systems along the project corridor will allow AGA to “hit the ground running” on this important project.
AGA staff have developed excellent relationships with both Engineering and Information Technology staff at the various agencies plus we have an in-depth understanding of their communications systems and traffic signal central systems. The AGA Team will leverage the experience gained via previous projects in the project area and our personal relationships to complete this important project in a timely and efficient manner.
Based on this wealth of experience and having worked in the City of Montclair for over two decades and completing similar projects, the AGA Team has developed a unique project approach to streamline design and field implementation in the most efficient and cost-effective manner possible. Our goal is to provide the City with a smooth and seamless project experience from the initial project kick-off meeting through implementation and into the operations phase. Furthermore, any one of our key project team members can be on-site and accessible to City staff with a quick phone call.
Integration of these systems requires extensive knowledge and expertise of the systems. AGA staff have indepth knowledge and experience in integrating the proposed improvements into each of the project agency’s traffic signal systems.
AGA staff experience in integrating the central system hardware (computer servers, workstations, Ethernet switches, modems, port servers, CCTV cameras, and fiber optic equipment components) with field elements including interfacing with traffic signal system vendors, communication systems specialists and City’s Information Technology staff will be key to project success. Additionally, due to our on-going signal system monitoring projects in the City and with various agencies, AGA is fully knowledgeable of each of the systems’ complexities and key interrelationships of hardware, software, and people. The scope of work below has been identified for successful completion of the project.
Scope of Services
Task 1. Project Management
AGA staff have developed excellent working relationships with engineering staff at the various project agencies and understand each traffic signal central system and signal communication system. Additionally, we have worked extensively with Caltrans Traffic Operations personnel in charge of State signals in the San Bernardino area and have an excellent working relationship with them. We will leverage our experience and relationships with Caltrans, the County of San Bernardino, and the Cities of Montclair and Chino staff to successfully implement the project.
Based on AGA’s wealth of experience working in the City of Montclair and completing similar traffic signal improvement projects in the region, the AGA Team has developed a unique project approach to streamline design and field implementation in the most efficient and cost-effective manner possible. The AGA Team feels strongly that robust leadership is a key element of AGA’s management approach to fully leverage the expertise and experience of the Project Team. AGA’s Project Manager, Mr. Chalap Sadam, will ensure the timeliness, cost-effectiveness, and overall success of the project. Providing ample assistance will be Mr.
Dowling Tsai, who will oversee Quality Assurance/Quality Control. Both men have in-depth project administration experience in the implementation of numerous similar corridor synchronization projects.
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 53 of 142 Ms. Monica Heredia, P.E.
January 16, 2026
A. Meetings
Establishing good working relationships with City staff is of paramount importance for the successful and timely completion of the project. It is those good working relationships that can ultimately lead to reaching consensus on proposed project recommendations. While public agencies may have varying standards, needs, and desires, we have found by virtue of our extensive experience in completing multijurisdictional projects that having the right consultant that can not only lead the technical discussions and propose solutions but is also skilled at building consensus is important to keeping projects on-track to a successful outcome. Building a good project team relationship starts with the project Kick-Off Meeting to lay the groundwork for the project and understand the City’s perspective. At that meeting the AGA team will meet with key members of City staff to discuss project objectives, scope of work, project schedule, any required cooperative agreements, and various budget issues. As this meeting sets the stage for the entire project, our Project Manager (Chalap Sadam), Design and PS&E Task Manager (Ruben Perales), and Timing Plan Task Manager (Greg Wong) will all be in attendance.
AGA will also hold a series of subsequent project meetings to review agency comments regarding data collection, network modeling, implementation, design plans and the Final Report. If additional meetings with City staff are needed or requested, the AGA project team will make themselves available to address specific issues or concerns. It is anticipated that all such meetings will be held at Montclair City Hall or via online Zoom, Microsoft Teams etc. We at AGA are also very conscious of the demands on staff time and will make every attempt to maximize meeting efficiency and minimize the need for repeated discussions or additional meetings on topics that could be addressed directly. AGA will meet with each of the project agencies to understand specific needs, issues or concerns. Project status meetings will be held on as needed and additional email updates will be provided to the city.
Agendas and minutes will be prepared before/after all meetings and will be provided for all meeting attendees. Mr. Sadam’s extensive experience in conducting forums and in dealing with traffic engineering problems and political concerns, as viewed from both a consultant’s and a city’s perspective, will be invaluable in providing guidance for this project.
B. Progress Reports
Monthly progress reports will be provided to the city. AGA will provide monthly progress reports throughout the duration of the project. The reports will be written in such a manner that, at the discretion of the City’s project manager, they can be distributed to all concerned parties.
C. Tracking of Schedule
All project tasks including design and construction efforts, signal timing development and implementation efforts, maintenance and operations efforts, and Final Report documentation will be completed in a timely manner after receipt of the NTP. Our preliminary project schedule with tentative completion dates for each task is included in the Schedule section of the proposal.
The City’s Smart Corridors Grant Application identifies a timeline for all design and construction work along with signal timing development/implementation. Upon receipt of the NTP and prior to the Kick-Off Meeting, we MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 54 of 142 Ms. Monica Heredia, P.E.
January 16, 2026
will prepare a more detailed project schedule that includes firm task start dates, activity durations, product milestone completion dates, agency review times etc. We understand that all components of the project need to be completed by June 2027. Project manager and task leaders will coordinate with City staff on the project status and all milestones and deliverables. Below is AGA’s preliminary project schedule.
AGA will proactively manage the project to ensure completion of the project on schedule. An example of this would be to proceed with the implementation of the coordination timing using existing equipment by the scheduled date (or even earlier) if there is a delay in the construction of improvements. Understanding that the city currently has communications to the majority, if not all, of the traffic signals along the project corridors, AGA would implement the coordination timing either through the central system or if communication is not available, implement the signal timing manually in the controller. Any potential delays to a task will be communicated to the city and mitigation measures will be quickly implemented.
AGA will provide the city with project schedule updates as part of the monthly progress reports and bring to attention any previously unforeseen conflicts or matters which need to be resolved which may delay the project. AGA will ensure that any matters that may potentially delay the project will be brought to the City’s attention immediately. AGA is committed to meeting the project schedule and delivering the project on time and within budget.
D. Overall Administration of the Project
Monthly Invoicing
Our robust in-house project control system monitors and controls project costs – a tool critical for us and our clients and used as a system for in-house accounting and billing.
Incoming bills are independently processed and distributed to respective assigned project managers for review. Attachments to our invoices usually include a Progress/Status Report, and Monthly Billing Summary.
Project Management
AGA’s designated Project Manager will be responsible for the overall and the daily management of the project for AGA’s Project Team. Team meetings will be held beginning with a project KickOff meeting and additional project status update meetings. Additionally, AGA will conduct conference calls with the city as necessary to successfully complete all aspects of the project.
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 55 of 142 Ms. Monica Heredia, P.E.
January 16, 2026
Our Project Manager will arrange all formal meetings that are included as part of the project scope of work and make any desired presentations to the cities. He will be responsible for adherence to the project schedule and for maintaining quality control of all project work products.
Consensus Building and Cooperative Agreements
As part of the preliminary Project Management tasks, AGA will initiate efforts for project consensus among the member agencies. This effort culminates with development of the Cooperative Agreement (Co-op Agreement). Separate Co-op Agreements will be entered into with the corridor agencies on City and County maintained intersections.
Encroachment permit will be obtained from Caltrans for the State-maintained intersections.
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
AGA has a comprehensive Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) program to ensure accuracy and compliance with standards for all aspects of a project. Project oversight and QA/QC for all project work products are included.
The quality assurance and quality control staff assigned to the project will identify problems, recommend solutions, and verify implementation of corrective action. The Project Manager will ensure that quality is achieved and fully supports the verification efforts by independent personnel. The Project Manager will interface with the project staff members for resolution of matters related to quality. Client satisfaction is a key project goal. AGA emphasizes client satisfaction throughout all phases of work. AGA monitors client feedback and satisfaction as a corporate measure. The following minimum procedures are provided for every project:
o Document Control
o Records Control
o Corrective and Preventive Actions
AGA will assist the City’s Project Manager with a running record of project costs by participating agency, and also any scope changes and/or deviations from the final approved grant application. AGA will provide monthly schedule updates, progress reports and invoices. The project documents will be made available to any of the participating agencies. AGA will manage the project in conjunction with the city and have coordination meetings as necessary to ensure the project’s pace is maintained and is delivered on-time successfully.
This is discussed more fully at the end of the Project Understanding, Overview and Approach section above.
Deliverables:
• Meeting agendas, minutes, and presentation materials
• Monthly progress reports and invoices
• Regularly updated schedule
Task 2. Traffic Signal Synchronization Timing and Field Review The signal timing optimization and implementation for the Central Avenue study project corridor will include assessing the local signal timing parameters for each signalized intersection in the various project agencies MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 56 of 142 Ms. Monica Heredia, P.E.
January 16, 2026
along with the new traffic signal coordination timing plans. AGA will also provide this work for the Caltrans ramp signals at the I-10 and SR-60 interchanges.
New traffic counts and field reviews will be conducted. The AGA team will develop optimized signal timings to synchronize the City of Montclair, the City of Chino, San Bernardino County and Caltrans signals along the project corridor. As AGA has prepared the previous signal timings within the city, our team understands the traffic patterns in the area and recognizes the importance of synchronizing both the through traffic on the city arterials as well as the off-ramp traffic exiting the I-10 and SR-60 freeway with the nearby traffic signals.
The newly developed signal timings will be submitted to the respective agencies for their review and approval. After the signal timings are implemented, AGA will fine-tune the timings to ensure smooth flow of traffic.
Development and Implementation of Optimized Signal Synchronization Timing For all data collection tasks, AGA’s signal timing engineers will evaluate the below data elements and provide an assessment of prevailing traffic patterns and conditions. • Three day 24-hour ADT data (Thursday – Saturday) will be conducted and provided to the city for their review to help determine the appropriate time-of-day schedule for the traffic signal coordination timing plans and to determine if weekend signal coordination timing is necessary during certain times of the day.
• Peak period turning movement counts for the weekday (AM, midday, and PM) and weekend (midday) will be conducted. The weekday peak periods are typically two hours each and the weekend peak period is usually three hours. Additional counts will be collected at school areas where the school closing times may not coincide with typical peaks. Additionally, the number of pedestrian and bicycle users will also be collected at all locations. • All turning movement count data will be provided in Microsoft Excel spreadsheet (both electronic and hard copy) format.
AGA will review the signal timing parameters to ensure that at a minimum the final optimized signal timing is complaint with all CA MUTCD requirements.
City Requested Data
The project team will request copies of existing signal timing sheets for project signals; as-built roadway, speed data; and any available traffic counts. Information (including plans) on any construction activities on the project corridor and other streets in the immediate vicinity will also be requested.
Field Review of Existing Conditions
The AGA Team will collect field data in sufficient quantity to identify existing deficiencies, system capabilities, and operations. Using the data collected as a starting point, we will conduct extensive field reviews throughout the corridors to identify and assess all the components that affect signal coordination, including:
• Intersection lane geometrics including number, usage of each lane, length of left/right turning lanes, distance between signalized intersections, and corridor lane configurations and lane widths, as appropriate.
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 57 of 142 Ms. Monica Heredia, P.E.
January 16, 2026
• Existing signal operation characteristics, including signal phasing, cycle lengths, protected/permissive left-turn operation (including first car detection vs. queue detection), lead-lag phasing, right-turn overlap phasing, and U-turn restrictions. • Traffic signal controller and cabinet type, make, brand, software and version; interconnect equipment, telemetry, modems and switches; condition of traffic signal equipment including controllers, time referencing setup, and daily time clock drift. Photos of all equipment within the traffic signal controller will be provided. Detailed intersection sheets that show existing conditions and existing equipment (traffic signal and traffic signal communication) will be provided. • Special characteristics such as proximity to adjacent intersections and any senior centers; presence and location of bus stops (near-side vs. far-side); location of driveways; on-street parking, parking maneuvers, and parking restrictions; adequacy of left-turn and right-turn storage; intersections with high volumes of pedestrians and bicyclists; areas with high volumes of trucks and buses; high volumes at un-signalized intersections; and impact of freeway access points on the corridor and on cross streets in the immediate vicinity.
• Over-saturated intersections and measures used to improve operations such as uneven lane distribution, impact to saturation flow rate due to a lane drop within a few hundred feet of the intersection, unbalanced traffic distribution of a dual left-turn lane resulting in lower saturation flows, and observations for queuing and queue spillovers including potential lane blockages. • Traffic signal detection facilities – both stop bar detectors and advance detectors – their timings and maintenance status, pedestrian push buttons and condition, sensitivity and settings of video detection – particularly for false calls or even dropped calls, and any unusual recall phases and reasons thereof.
• Existing time source and configuration (T0) for the central system will also be verified. • Existing traffic signal communications infrastructure such as signal interconnect conduit, pull boxes, splice closures, communication switches, termination units, communication hubs, etc. • Existing traffic signal conduit where new CCTV cameras are being proposed.
For intersections that may require minor intersection geometric changes or signal modifications, AGA will conduct a detailed capacity, timing, and queuing analysis (based on the Highway Capacity Manual) to determine appropriate improvements. Additionally, to improve traffic operations along the project corridors, we will identify any observed traffic signal equipment or operational deficiencies, including minor lane striping or signal phasing modifications, removal of split phasing, on-street parking restrictions etc., and provide recommendations with simple low-cost solutions that can be quickly implemented.
Signal Timing Software
Various signal timing analysis and simulation software programs and/or combinations of programs will be used for this project. The most appropriate method depends upon various factors, including whether minimization of system delay or optimization of arterial progression is most important to the City.
Microsimulation analysis programs allow for evaluation of queue spill-over impacts, evaluation of unusually high turning movement volumes, use of lead-lag left turn phasing, etc. We will leverage the available existing Synchro network of the project area to provide more value to the City.
The Tru-Traffic program will be used to develop the overall time-space diagrams (large scale). The Tru-Traffic files will incorporate the proposed signal synchronization plans for the project corridor. SimTraffic, a MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 58 of 142 Ms. Monica Heredia, P.E.
January 16, 2026
powerful traffic simulation software, will be used at specific locations such as closely spaced intersections with blocking problems/lane change problems, or congested intersections with large turning movement volumes.
Cycle Length and Timing Analysis
Before developing any timing plans, AGA will analyze the complete network to determine the main system cycle length requirements and subsystem requirements. Every attempt will be made to minimize the number of subsystems required to maximize the benefits of coordination (reduced delays, stops, fuel usage, mobile source emissions, etc.). We will identify critical intersections area wide and perform detailed capacity/delay analyses using sophisticated delay optimization routines to help establish appropriate signal timings.
When system cycle lengths are arbitrarily selected rather than minimized and optimized, complaints from local side street traffic arise because of increased waiting time. AGA is familiar with many of the crossing arterials along the Central Avenue project corridor. We assess the signal timings for the project signals and also analyze how the corridor ties into the City’s synchronization system without disrupting the coordination along the crossing corridor. A concept of operations will be developed for the project signals based on an evaluation of traffic volumes, traffic conditions, and recommended coordination strategies and provided to the respective agency.
Timing Plan Deliverables
AGA will develop the signal coordination timings for the AM, midday and PM weekday traffic conditions, and typical weekend conditions. The weekend timing plans are especially important in shopping areas and near recreational areas. All these various timing plans will be stored in a database format. Time-of-day schedules (the appropriate start time for each plan) will be developed based on field observations and the 24-hour traffic counts.
Historically, while one timing plan was typically used for each time period, say one AM plan for 6:30am to 9:00am on a weekday, it should be recognized that traffic may not be constant throughout this period, but may peak for an hour; thus, the arterial speeds also concurrently vary with the traffic volumes. Because coordination offset is a function of arterial travel speeds, one timing plan with a set speed will not be Tru-Traffic Program – Sample Time-Space Diagram
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 59 of 142 Ms. Monica Heredia, P.E.
January 16, 2026
adequate. The changing speeds within a time period warrant different offsets so that a platoon of vehicles can progress without interruption.
After initial development of all signal timing plans, they will be submitted to the city for review and approval. For locations in the immediate vicinity of I-10 and SR-60 freeway interchange areas, will be submitted to Caltrans for review and approval. Plans will be revised as required, and any necessary new controller timing sheets developed. Such revisions are typically minimized because we will already have reviewed and manually optimized all timing plans. Time-space diagrams will be prepared for all timing plans, to aid in the review process and to graphically document the finalized timing parameters.
Implementation of Timing Plans
After construction of all new/modified signal system and communication system is implemented – including all required system integration tasks – the new coordination signal timing plans will be implemented.
Proposed new timings at complicated intersections or specialized signal timings will be bench tested in AGA’s traffic signal operation lab (see figure) using actual controllers prior to field implementation.
The new timing will be observed in the field and will be fine-tuned for a minimum of two weeks. Working in conjunction with Caltrans staff, adjustments to the timing to the I-10 and SR-60 freeway interchange areas will be made as necessary and revised timing plan data files will be prepared. Likewise, AGA will work with the cities of Montclair and Chino, and San Bernardino County and develop optimized signal timing plans.
Time-space diagrams will be prepared for all timing plans to aid in the review process and to graphically document the finalized timing parameters, including the utilization of the Tru-Traffic Program utilizing a mobile application to log the travel time runs (see figure). After final timing plans are approved, final TimeSpace Diagrams, Synchro data files will be provided for each time-of-day timing plan.
Deliverables:
Data Collection Report summarizing the data collected, including turning movement counts and 24-hour traffic
volumes. Synchro files of the project corridor will be
provided.
Signal timing plans for City, County and Caltrans
intersections.
“Before and “After” Study Analysis
AGA will conduct “Before” and “After” travel time and delay field studies for the AM and PM peak periods.
Measures of Effectiveness (MOE) parameters, which will provide a quantitative basis for determining coordination benefits, will include stops, delays, travel times, and average speeds. MOEs will be compiled using the Tru-Traffic software and field measurements using the floating-car technique. The floating-car runs will be conducted for each direction for the Central Avenue corridor, and the data will be gathered using mobile phone applications. Video will be used to compare actual conditions to anticipated conditions detected by time-space diagrams, and any anomalies will be corrected prior to the After study. The After Study will be conducted similar to the Before Study and contain the same MOE parameters, based on the Tru-Traffic program using a GPS
receiver
Traffic Signal Operations Lab
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 60 of 142 Ms. Monica Heredia, P.E.
January 16, 2026
Unplanned Eastbound Stop
Sample Monitoring Travel Time Run
same number of floating car runs conducted during the same time periods. AGA may use SBCTA’s ClearGuide application (if applicable) to evaluate improvements in efficiency of traffic flow. Additionally, the ClearGuide application may be utilized to assist with monitoring the project corridors. AGA will verify with SBCTA if the ClearGuide license is still available to the city.
The Before Study will be conducted prior to the construction of the various signal system and interconnect communication improvements. The After Study will be conducted after implementation and fine-tuning to signal timing plans. Tabular and graphical presentations of Before and After comparisons will be developed.
AGA will prepare a Final Report that will provide complete documentation of the project, including project objectives, scope and location, findings and recommendations, implementation schedule, improvements accomplished – including traffic signal equipment improvements and signal coordination timing improvements (“Before” and “After” analyses).
Deliverables:
“Before” and “After” Travel Time studies
AGA will provide ongoing monitoring for a period of three months after construction of system improvements and development/implementation of the coordination signal timing plans. This will be in addition to the regular monthly traffic signal monitoring as AGA will need to ensure the new traffic signal system, traffic signal communication and new signal timings are all working properly. Monitoring of the coordination signal timing will be constantly evaluated along with the traffic volumes, side street delay, and health of detection.
Based on our extensive expertise and experience in developing, implementing and fine-tuning coordination plans, we know that operational improvements along the corridor could potentially result in a shifting of traffic from alternate routes. After initial coordination signal timing implementation, AGA will further finetune the coordination timing plans to address any increase in traffic volumes that may have occurred along the project routes.
Test Runs: AGA staff will routinely drive
the corridor throughout to assess the
traffic conditions and timing plans.
Observations will be made continually to
ensure optimum system performance.
Adjustments will be conducted
immediately to correct any problems
identified. Because we are familiar with
traffic conditions throughout the area, we
know whether timing problems result
from hardware failures, temporary
construction impacts, or
development/land-use changes and we
can respond accordingly. If applicable,
AGA will also evaluate the corridors using the ClearGuide system and check if any significant changes to the travel times and/or speeds are found along the corridors.
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 61 of 142 Ms. Monica Heredia, P.E.
January 16, 2026
Reports on problems, corrections and general observations will be submitted regularly to the city. We use specific mobile applications (iOS and Android) to log the runs and to supplement runs using the Tru-Traffic program. The logs can quickly be imported into Tru-Traffic to view the runs. The adjacent figure shows an example of multiple runs along Imperial Highway using the mobile applications that were imported into the Tru-Traffic software.
Signal Timing Complaints:
We have helped many cities address complaints from residents, commuters, parents of students, police personnel, City officials and City Council members. Because of this extensive operational experience, we are well-versed with assisting cities in responding to complaints related to signal timing and phasing, especially when new plans are implemented. A key to responding to such complaints is to approach each situation with an open mind. The average driver is not a traffic engineer and doesn’t view signal operations in the same manner as a traffic engineer. It must be remembered that we work for the city, which means we work for many thousands of residents.
Interagency Coordination:
Because we have developed the coordination timing plans that are currently in place, we know that coordination with each agency is an important component of the project. We understand that we cannot arbitrarily make changes to the city’s signal timing without impacting the County or Caltrans signals. We will regularly coordinate signal operations with the cities of Montclair and Chino, County of San Bernardino, and Caltrans to ensure optimum timing and coordination.
Communications & Detection Support Timing
Regularly scheduled communication and detection support will be provided along the synchronization corridor and the intersections to ensure the necessary conditions for signal synchronization. The primary focus will be on the monitoring and reporting of communication and detection issues. As issues are identified, those issues will be reported to the City as appropriate and potential repairs will be identified.
Communications between the central system and signals will be monitored, maintained and repaired as necessary along the corridor across the City to ensure necessary conditions for signal synchronization. The project will use a variety of methods to monitor, maintain and repair both communications and detections for the project intersections.
Task 3. Preparation of Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E) AGA will develop plans, specifications, cost estimates, construction bid and contract documents for the installation of new and/or upgraded traffic signal control and communication equipment along the project corridors. Having completed several similar projects in the City of Montclair, the City of Chino, and the County of San Bernardino, we are very familiar with each agency’s PS&E requirements. It is important to note that AGA has provided traffic signal monitoring services to the City of Montclair for over 20 years and are intimately familiar with the City’s existing traffic signal system. In addition, AGA will leverage its previous preliminary plans prepared for the fiber optic communications on Central Avenue north of the I-10 freeway.
AGA is cognizant of the City of Montclair’s future improvements identified in the City’s North Montclair Downtown Specific Plan and design the improvements accordingly. The design will be prepared to install improvements at their ultimate locations to minimize any disruption during future work in the area. In general, traffic signal system related components on the project corridor include the following:
- Fiber optic cable in new/existing conduit - New Type 332 Cabinets - New ATC traffic signal controller units - Wireless Ethernet Radios MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 62 of 142 Ms. Monica Heredia, P.E.
January 16, 2026
- Ethernet fiber optic switches - CCTV Cameras
- #6E Pull Boxes and Splice Closures - Cell Modem Communication Equipment Before commencing the full design plans for the project corridor, the AGA team will discuss any potential cost savings opportunities. AGA will complete the following PS&E scope for this task:
• Attend a preliminary design meeting to discuss and review any specific construction requirements related to the proposed improvements. During this meeting, proposed improvements which may have already been constructed as part of other projects or which may no longer be required will be discussed to avoid completing any unnecessary design work. • Collect and review all documents provided by the city which are necessary to complete the work (traffic signal plans, traffic signal interconnect plans, utility plans, street improvement/roadway plans, etc.).
• Research and record all existing improvements.
• Submit an outline draft of the project specifications. Plan sheets will be prepared at either 1”=20’ or 1” = 40’ (or other scale when deemed appropriate). All plans will be prepared and submitted in AutoCAD format. The plan set will include a title sheet, traffic signal and communication plan sheets, a communication network plan sheet, and a fiber assignments plan sheet (as needed). Detailed illustrations will be utilized for the communication network plan sheet. Specifications and Technical Provisions will be based on pro-forma specifications provided by the City, revised, and supplemented as needed.
• Prepare and submit preliminary construction plans (60% completion level) and construction cost estimates. All cost estimates will include copies of all back-up calculations of quantities. • Prepare second submittal plans (90% completion level) and final plans (100% completion level) incorporating comments from the city, and utility companies, specifications, and engineer’s estimate of probable construction costs.
• All plans and/or documents will be submitted for City review.
Upon the city’s approval of the plans and specifications, we will provide final construction drawings in digital format and one set of mylars. All drawings will be prepared on 24”x 36” mylar sheets, signed and sealed by an AGA California licensed Civil and Traffic Engineer. We will submit an electronic PDF copy and two hard copies to the City Traffic Engineering / Public Works Department. Copies of design calculations and pertinent correspondence, including responses from utilities, will be provided as needed.
Advertising and Bidding Assistance
As lead agency, the City of Montclair will be responsible for advertising and awarding the construction contract for the various new/upgraded traffic signal control and communication system equipment included as part of the overall project. AGA will assist the City in preparing bid packages and will provide any required assistance during the advertising and bidding phases of the project, including attending a pre-bid meeting (if one is held), answering questions from potential bidders, and attending the pre-construction meeting. In addition, AGA will attend the bid opening and assist the city with developing a bid summary of all accepted construction bids.
Deliverables:
Preliminary and Final PS&E for recommended improvements.
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 63 of 142 Ms. Monica Heredia, P.E.
January 16, 2026
Task 4. System Integration and Construction Engineering Support System Integration
The AGA team will provide overall system integration which includes coordination with the construction contractor responsible for installing new signal controllers, communication hardware (fiber switches, wireless Ethernet radios), etc. We will work hand-in-hand with the contractor in configuring all Internet Protocol (IP) devices installed as part of the project. Connectivity from the TMC/TOC to all IP devices in the field will be verified and documented. It should be noted that AGA developed the traffic signal system network scheme for the City of Montclair. We have worked with the City of Montclair on previous projects and are very familiar with the city’s system and requirements. As such, we are prepared to coordinate with the Contractor to provide the necessary network configurations for all new IP devices.
We will also be present at the time of controller change-outs to verify all controller programming and intersection operations. If any changes are made to network parameters (VLANS, IP addressing), they will be documented in the as-built plans.
Construction Engineering Support
Services described below will be completed to ensure successful and timely completion of the project. It is understood that the city will provide their own construction management and inspection services. AGA will assist City staff with technical aspects, such as fiber optic communication, Ethernet systems and detection systems. These services will be completed to ensure successful and timely completion of the project. • Attend preconstruction conference and provide clarification of contract documents, as necessary, during the construction phase. • Support the construction management team in drafting responses to contractor inquiries and RFIs as requested.
• Visit the job site as necessary to resolve issues or answer RFIs. • Provide engineering assistance related to Change Order work initiated by the city. Change Orders must be approved in writing by City before any change order work can begin. • Subsequent to completion of construction, draft all corrections to project drawings and revise compatible AutoCAD files using Contractor’s or the City’s redlines. The project drawings and electronic files will then become Project Record Drawings and will be labeled as such. AGA will transmit original Mylar Record Drawings and electronic files to the City.
Deliverables:
System Integration and Construction Engineering Support Services Cost Proposal
AGA’s total fees for completing the scope of services is $294,980. The table on the following page includes a breakdown of the estimated hours for each individual for each project task, as well as the billing rates for each staff member. Our rates are all inclusive of services rendered. All direct and indirect costs (i.e., mileage, equipment, materials, reproduction and printing, etc.) are included in our fees.
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 64 of 142 MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 65 of 142
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: MARCH 16, 2026
SECTION: CONSENT - RESOLUTIONS
ITEM NO.: 1
FILE I.D.: TRN221/TRN510
DEPT.: CITY MGR.
PREPARER: E. STARR
SUBJECT: CONSIDER ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 26–3509 CONDITIONALLY APPROVING THE TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURE PLAN ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT “A” TO SAN
BERNARDINO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (SBCTA) ORDINANCE NO. 26–01, THE LATTER PROPOSING CONTINUING INDEFINITELY, ON AND AFTER APRIL 1, 2040, UNLESS AND UNTIL RESCINDED BY VOTERS, THE MEASURE “I” ONE–
HALF OF ONE PERCENT RETAIL TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX IN SAN BERNARDINO
COUNTY FOR TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS, SUBJECT TO VOTER APPROVAL OF SBCTA ORDINANCE NO. 26–01 AT THE NOVEMBER 3, 2026 GENERAL ELECTION REASON FOR CONSIDERATION: The San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA), a joint powers authority composed of representatives from the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors and one representative from each of the 24 cities and towns in San Bernardino County, is requesting City Council approval of its Transportation Expenditure Plan, attached as Exhibit “A” to SBCTA Ordinance No. 26–01 (Measure “I”).
Measure “I” establishes SBCTA’s one–half of one percent transactions and use tax, which is used to fund transportation projects in San Bernardino County.
The City Council is requested to consider adoption of Resolution No. 26–3509 conditionally approving SBCTA Ordinance No. 26–01’s Transportation Expenditure Plan.
For informational purposes only, attached as Exhibit 1 to this agenda report is a copy SBCTA Ordinance No. 26–01, along with the proposed Transportation Expenditure Plan for Measure “I,” which is included as Exhibit “A” to the ordinance. The City Council is not, however, requested nor required to consider or take action on SBCTA Ordinance No. 26–01.
Proposed Resolution No. 26–3509 conditionally approving SBCTA Ordinance No. 26–01’s Transportation Expenditure Plan is attached for City Council review and consideration.
BACKGROUND: The San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) plans to place a question on the November 3, 2026 General Election ballot asking voters to approve SBCTA Ordinance No. 26–01 (Measure “I”), continuing indefinitely on and after April 1, 2040, unless and until rescinded by voters, the Measure “I” one–half percent retail transactions and use tax in San Bernardino County for transportation projects. The Measure “I” tax was first approved by San Bernardino County voters on November 7,1989, under SBCTA Ordinance No. 89–01. On November 2, 2004, San Bernardino County voters extended Measure “I” to March 31, 2040, when they approved SBCTA Ordinance No. 04–01.
Why is the Montclair City Council asked to consider approval of Resolution No. 26–3509 in support of SBCTA’s Measure “I”?
SBCTA is responsible for administering the Measure “I” one–half percent transactions and use tax to fund transportation improvements in San Bernardino County. However, in order to move forward with SBCTA Ordinance No. 26–01 and place it on the November 3, 2026 General Election ballot, SBCTA must first comply with Public Utilities Code (PUC) MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 66 of 142 §180206(b), which states, “A county transportation expenditure plan shall not be adopted until it has received the approval of the board of supervisors and of the city councils representing both a majority of the cities in the county and a majority of the population residing in the incorporated areas of the county.” Further, PUC §180206(c) provides that, “The [expenditure] plan shall be adopted prior to the call of the election provided for in Section 180201.” SBCTA is, therefore, asking the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors and each of the 24 cities and towns in San Bernardino County to approve SBCTA Ordinance No. 26–01’s Transportation Expenditure Plan.
What is the Transportation Expenditure Plan?
A Transportation Expenditure Plan is a planning document prepared for the expenditure of revenues expected to be derived from a tax imposed for transportation– and transit– related purposes, together with other federal, state and local funds expected to be available for transportation improvements. Listed expenditures are typically part of a broader budget plan and are designed to support the development and maintenance of transportation infrastructure.
The Transportation Expenditure Plan attached to SBCTA Ordinance No. 26–01 ensures that funds are reinvested locally through a “return–to–source” policy, meaning that each region or subarea in San Bernardino County benefits directly from the revenues it generates. Under the Transportation Expenditure Plan attached to SBCTA Ordinance No. 26–01 as Exhibit A, there are two defined regions, with subareas:
1. The San Bernardino Valley Region, which includes the cities of Chino, Chino Hills, Colton, Fontana, Grand Terrace, Highland, Loma Linda, Montclair, Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga, Redlands, Rialto, San Bernardino, Upland, and Yucaipa, and unincorporated areas in the east and west portions of the San Bernardino valley urbanized area.
2. The Mountain /Desert Region, which is comprised of five subareas:
a. The North Desert Subarea, which includes the City of Barstow and surrounding unincorporated areas;
b. The Colorado River Subarea, which includes the City of Needles and the surrounding unincorporated areas of the East Desert;
c. The Morongo Basin Subarea, which includes the City of Twentynine Palms, the Town of Yucca Valley, and surrounding unincorporated areas; d. The Mountain Subarea, which includes the City of Big Bear Lake and surrounding unincorporated areas of the San Bernardino Mountains; and e. The Victor Valley Subarea, which includes the Cities of Adelanto, Hesperia and Victorville, the Town of Apple Valley, and surrounding unincorporated areas including Wrightwood.
What projects are supported under proposed SBCTA Ordinance No. 26–01 and its Transportation Expenditure Plan?
Revenues derived from Measure “I” support a wide range of projects, including freeway expansions, public transit enhancements, and road repairs. Transparency and accountability are reportedly assured through an independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee.
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 67 of 142 However, unlike SBCTA Ordinance No. 04–01, proposed SBCTA Ordinance No. 26–01’s Transportation Expenditure Plan does not include specific designated projects for each of the regions and subareas. The Transportation Expenditure Plan under SBCTA Ordinance No. 04–01, for example, specifically identified the Gold Line Extension to Montclair as a qualifying project under the Transportation Expenditure Plan eligible for Measure “I” funds, together with designated state and federal funds.
The lack of specific projects in SBCTA Ordinance No. 26–01’s Transportation Expenditure Plan raises concerns, in part because polling demonstrates that without the demonstration of projects that benefit each community, reauthorization of Measure “I” is likely to receive a lower level of voter support; and, in the face of opposition messaging, could potentially face an uncertain path for passage. Instead, SBCTA Ordinance No. 26–01’s Transportation Expenditure Plan lists general categories only, including local mobility, regional mobility and operations, and effectively gives decision– making on eligible projects, and how funds are to be expended, to the SBCTA Board of Directors—though input is provided through agency representation on the Board.
SBCTA representatives have indicated that, following passage of SBCTA Ordinance No. 26–01, SBCTA would use the promise of new tax revenue without a sunset to secure bonds to finance projects. While there are no strict requirements to identify specific projects in relation to a tax measure, investors looking to invest in municipal bonds typically want to consider the specific projects that bonds are earmarked for, because it helps them to understand the purpose of the bonds and whether they align with their investment goals.
Are specific transportation projects listed in other materials prepared by SBCTA related to its upcoming request for voters to extend the Measure “I” tax? Despite the lack of specific projects in the Transportation Expenditure Plan attached to SBCTA Ordinance No. 26–01, specific projects of immediate and long–term interest to member agencies are listed in voter educational materials for SBCTA Ordinance No. 26–01, including the following:
1. The SBCTA Measure “I” Strategic Plan, which identifies specific Measure “I”–related projects already accomplished, and to be accomplished, in San Bernardino County and each of the cities and towns in San Bernardino County; and
2. The jointly–produced [SBCTA and City of Montclair] City of Montclair Measure “I” Projects Fact Sheet, which was uploaded to, posted on, and made publicly available via the SBCTA website in August of 2025, and which lists Measure “I” projects specific to the City of Montclair.
It should be noted that, without advising the City of Montclair, SBCTA recently (February of 2026) changed the language in the City of Montclair Measure “I” Projects Fact Sheet by adding the following language after the “Gold Line Extension from Pomona to Montclair TransCenter” listed on Page 2 under Future Projects:
“(* In response to rising project costs and other concerns, in September of 2025, the SBCTA Board voted not to move forward with the Gold Line Extension and instead explore more affordable transit alternatives, to better serve the City of Montclair.)”
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 68 of 142 One of SBCTA’s proposed “transit alternatives” is a Metrolink enhancement project that would purportedly run shuttle trains every thirty minutes between the Montclair Transportation Center and the Rancho Cucamonga Metrolink Station.
SBCTA reports that the estimated cost of the enhancement is $150 million, versus an estimated $145 million to $235 million to build the Gold Line Extension to the Montclair Transportation Center. However, a preliminary review of the SBCTA Metrolink Enhancement project, which is intended to link the shuttle trains to the Pomona North Station for connectivity to the Gold Line (now known as the A Line) would, because of required infrastructure improvements, likely cost in excess of $800 million.
Montclair City staff is also of the opinion that if this enhanced Metrolink service is limited to just Montclair, Upland, and Rancho Cucamonga, its cost would still exceed $300 million because of the requirement for bridges, track relocation, right–of–way acquisition, the cost of new train cars, and other infrastructure improvements. The enhanced Metrolink service would also require approval from LA Metro and Metrolink, as it would involve integration with existing Metrolink service, which may require a number of upgrades to accommodate extra train cars with shorter headways including additional personnel and enhancements to the overall logistics coordination system related to train schedules and collision avoidance. Without grade separations (bridges), impacted cities would realize more frequent shutdowns of north–south traffic on major road arteries every twelve minutes to accommodate the new 15–minute Metrolink shuttle train headways.
3. As of the time of this report, the Gold Line Extension to Montclair continues to be listed as a project on page 14 of the SBCTA Measure I Strategic Plan, which was uploaded to the SBCTA website in October 2025, as one of the “Regional Priorities within the San Bernardino Valley Area.”
Furthermore, the Measure “I” Reauthorization Campaign PowerPoint presentation made to the Montclair City Council on August 18, 2025, also identified specific Measure “I”– related projects to be accomplished in the City of Montclair, which included the Gold Line Extension to Montclair.
Each of the above 2026 Measure “I” campaign–related documents list projects completed and/or to be accomplished in Montclair with funding, in part, from Measure “I” funds, and with additional monies coming from federal and state sources. Specific Montclair– related projects in the Measure “I” Strategic Plan, City of Montclair Measure “I” Projects Fact Sheet, and the Measure “I” Reauthorization Campaign PowerPoint include the following:
• Gold Line extension from Pomona to the Montclair Transportation Center; • Metrolink–Metro Gold Line Rail Corridor Pedestrian and Bicycle Overpass [part of the San Antonio Creek Linear Park Project];
• Richton Street Improvements [part of the proposed redevelopment of the Montclair Transportation Center];
• Citywide Street Rehabilitation, Median Improvements and Active Transportation Planning and Improvements [integration of pedestrians, bicycle paths and vehicles in a safe streetscape environment];
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 69 of 142 • Central Avenue Bridge Widening at Union Pacific Railroad Tracks; • Monte Vista Avenue Street Improvements and Widening from Holt Boulevard to the I–10 Interstate Freeway;
• Holt Boulevard and Mission Boulevard Street Improvements; • Central Avenue and Monte Vista Avenue Street Improvements. • I–10 Freeway Tunnel Underpass Improvements; and
• San Antonio Channel Corridor improvements from the Pacific Electric Trail to Holt Boulevard [the San Antonio Creek Linear Park Project].
What is the status of the Gold Line Extension to Montclair? Despite the fact that the Gold Line Extension Project to Montclair (the “Project” or “Gold Line Project”) is listed in SBCTA Ordinance No. 04–01’s Transportation Expenditure Plan and the various 2026 Measure “I” campaign–related documents for SBCTA Ordinance No. 26–01, the SBCTA Board of Directors, on September 3, 2025, by a vote of 15–11, defunded the Gold Line Project, which Montclair alleges was done in violation of the process outlined in SBCTA Ordinance No. 04–01 for revising its Transportation Expenditure Plan; furthermore, on February 4, 2026, the SBCTA Board of Directors, by a vote of 23–0–1, reallocated the funding that was previously dedicated to the Project to other purposes, and will be required to surrender $41 million in Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program funds that were secured in 2018 from the state for the Project.
As a result of the SBCTA Board’s actions, the City of Montclair, on December 16, 2025, filed a Demand to Cure, citing the SBCTA Board’s alleged violation of provisions in Measure “I” related to amending the Expenditure Plan [defunding the Gold Line Project], and demanding that the Board correct its violations and fund and build the Gold Line Project. SBCTA Ordinance No. 04–01 details a specific process the SBCTA Board must follow in relation to amending (adding, revising, or removing projects) SBCTA Ordinance No. 04–01’s Transportation Expenditure Plan. The SBCTA Board failed to follow the voter–approved process contained in SBCTA Ordinance No. 04–01.
The SBCTA Board failed to respond to Montclair’s Demand to Cure, initiating further action by Montclair, including two claims, the first filed on February 6, 2026, and the second on February 19, 2026, with claims alleging, among other things, the following:
1. That the SBCTA Board violated the electorates’ and Measure “I”’s purpose and intent;
2. That the SBCTA Board’s actions disparately impacted members of protected classes;
3. That SBCTA’s actions represent discrimination on the basis of, without limitation, race, national origin, and disability;
4. That the SBCTA Board failed to comply with voter approval of SBCTA Ordinance No. 04–01 and its Transportation Expenditure Plan, thereby violating the electorate’s and the Measure’s purpose and intent;
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 70 of 142
6. That the SBCTA Board prioritized other projects that were not included in the Expenditure Plan at the expense of the Gold Line Project, directing SBCTA staff to dedicate funds committed to the Gold Line Project to other regional projects, funneling funds to more affluent areas with lower minority populations and negatively impacting low–income “priority” populations;
7. That the SBCTA Board, in violating SBCTA Ordinance No. 04–01’s Transportation Expenditure Plan, neglected its obligation to prioritize disadvantaged communities as required by local and regional transportation plans and related law and policy; and
8. That the SBCTA Board unlawfully retaliated against the City of Montclair for asserting its claims against SBCTA, including its claim of discrimination on the basis of income, race, national origin, disability, and membership in other protected classes—protected classes that constitute a greater percentage of Montclair’s population compared to other SBCTA member agencies.
In the event the SBCTA Board rejects one or both of the City’s claims, or otherwise fails to respond to them, Montclair’s remaining recourse is litigation.
What is meant by “conditional” approval of SBCTA Ordinance No. 26–01’s Transportation Expenditure Plan? For the reasons cited above, the Montclair City Council, through Resolution No. 26–3509, offers “conditional” approval of SBCTA Ordinance No. 26–01’s Transportation Expenditure Plan, provided the SBCTA Board, “prior to the call of election,” as provided for in PUC §§180201 and 180206(c), comply with the following:
1. The SBCTA Board shall reverse its decision of September 3, 2025, to defund the Gold Line Project;
2. The SBCTA Board shall fully restore the Gold Line Project as a Transportation Expenditure Plan Project, as provided for in SBCTA Ordinance No. 04–01 and its Transportation Expenditure Plan; as approved by more than 80 percent of the electorate at the November 2, 2004 General Election; and as promised over the past 21–plus years through the collective promises and commitment by the SBCTA Board of Directors and SBCTA staff to fund and build the Gold Line Project;
3. The SBCTA Board shall fully recommit to funding and building the Gold Line Project, and engage with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Agency (Metro) and the Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority (the “Interagency Partners”) and/or other entities as may be specified by law, for the purpose of extending the Gold Line to Montclair;
4. SBCTA shall seek to work with its Interagency Partners to secure the necessary funding from available funding sources, including the State of California, for the purpose of designing and building the Gold Line Project, together with the current procurement to build the Gold Line from Pomona to Claremont, or later procurement if participation by SBCTA is outside the current design and/or construction phase for the Gold Line Extension Project from Pomona to Claremont; and
5. The SBCTA Board shall commit to funding ongoing maintenance and operation of the Gold Line Extension in San Bernardino County following completion of construction.
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 71 of 142 The SBCTA Board’s failure to act on each of the above conditions as specified, or pursue other remedies mutually agreeable to the City of Montclair and SBCTA, shall enjoin SBCTA from using the Montclair City Council’s “conditional” approval of Resolution No. 26–3509 in obtaining compliance with the requirements of PUC §§180201 and 180206(b) and (c); i.e., “approval of the city councils representing . . . a majority of the cities in the county.”
The Montclair City Council’s consideration of and any action on Resolution No. 26–3509 does not change the status of Montclair’s current claims against SBCTA under SBCTA Ordinance No. 04–01, or otherwise affect future litigation related to Montclair’s outstanding claims against SBCTA.
What are the main features of SBCTA Ordinance No. 26–01’s Transportation Expenditure Plan?
Notwithstanding the SBCTA Board’s actions related to the Gold Line Project, revenues generated by Measure “I”, and its reauthorization under proposed SBCTA Ordinance No. 26–01, are necessary and vital for other transportation projects in Montclair and all communities in San Bernardino County. If SBCTA Ordinance No. 26–01 is approved by two–thirds majority vote of those voting on continuation of Measure “I” at the November 3, 2026 General Election, the continuation of Measure “I” is projected to generate approximately $7.5 billion [based on 2026 value of money] in its first 30 years following the operative date of April 1, 2040.
The main features of SBCTA’s Transportation Expenditure Plan for the San Bernardino Valley Subarea include the following:
1. Return to Source: Revenues generated from each specified Region/Subarea within San Bernardino County will be returned to that Region/Subarea.
2. Three percent of total revenue generated across all of San Bernardino County will be reserved in an account for the Interregional Mobility Expenditure Plan to provide resources for the planning and implementation of projects and programs that provide critical infrastructure to communities impacted by regional motorist [travel], tourism, interregional travel, and goods movement.
3. San Bernardino Valley Subarea (“Valley Subarea”) Project categories shall be established as follows:
a. State and Federal Transportation Funds. A proportional share of projected state and federal transportation funds shall be reserved for use solely in the Valley Subarea.
b. Local Mobility 25 Percent. Local priorities that focus on local roadway, bikeway, and sidewalk construction, repair, and maintenance for improved localized movement. Local Mobility Projects are defined as local streets and road construction, repair and maintenance, and other eligible local transportation priorities.
i. Includes passthroughs for local priorities include street widening and rehabilitation, potholes, grade separations, sidewalks, bike lanes, streetlights and quiet zones.
ii. Allocations are made on a per–capita basis.
iii. Expenditures shall be based on a Five–Year Plan adopted annually by the local governing body. Local Mobility funds shall be disbursed MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 72 of 142 upon receipt by SBCTA of the annually adopted Five–Year Plan. iv. Each local jurisdiction shall reserve five percent in a special account for active transportation projects; i.e., bicycle and pedestrian projects, including studies and plans.
c. Regional Mobility 50 Percent. Regional priorities that focus on goods movement, transit, managed lanes, congestion management, and emerging transportation technologies to enhance regional movement; e.g., highway improvements, bus and passenger rail (capital and rehabilitation) corridors, interchanges, environmental mitigation, traffic management systems, quiet zones, planning and project development, and emerging transportation technology.
i. Regional Mobility projects are defined as congestion relief and safety improvements to corridors that connect communities, serve major destinations, and provide freeway access.
ii. Decisions on how funds are expended are made by the SBCTA Board of Directors.
d. Operations 25 Percent. Operational costs for providing mobility services via rail, transit, senior and specialized services, first/last mile connections, ridesharing, and safety support functions.
i. Decisions on how Operations funds are expended will be made by the SBCTA Board of Directors.
4. Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee (ITOC) is retained to ensure all Measure “I” funds are expended in accordance with provisions of the Transportation Expenditure Plan and SBCTA Ordinance No. 26–01. The five uncompensated members of the ITOC will serve staggered, four–year terms, and membership will be comprised of the following:
a. One professional in the field of municipal audit, finance or budgeting. b. One licensed civil engineer or transportation planner. c. Three public members with skills helpful to the work of the ITOC.
A bi–annual fiscal and compliance audit shall review SBCTA financial statements.
5. Ballot Question:
Measure “I” Local Transportation Improvement Program
San Bernardino County Road Repair/Traffic Relief Extension Without raising tax rates, shall an ordinance to fund repairing potholes; keeping local roads in good condition; completing freeway/highway projects to improve traffic flow/safety, reduce traffic bottlenecks; upgrading aging bridges/ overpasses; creating local jobs; keeping student/senior/disabled/veteran transit fares low be adopted, extending the ½¢ voter–approved transportation sales tax, providing approximately $250,000,000 annually until ended by voters, requiring audits, oversight, spending disclosure, local control?
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 73 of 142 FISCAL IMPACT: Adoption of Resolution No. 26–3509 imposes no direct fiscal impact on the General Fund; however, adoption of SBCTA Ordinance No. 26–01 by the electorate voting on the proposed extension of Measure “I” at the November 3, 2026 General Election would, on and after April 1, 2040, continue indefinitely and until rescinded by voters, the one–half percent transactions and use tax provided for in Measure “I”. The City of Montclair receives its proportionate share of Measure “I” funds for local transportation projects.
Failure by the SBCTA Board of Directors to restore the Gold Line Extension to Montclair as a funded Transportation Expenditure Plan Project that will be completed as planned is projected to result in serious harm to development in North Montclair and, further, will harm the City’s development and maintenance of its tax base. Specifically, the Board’s decision is likely to produce serious harm to Montclair’s efforts to develop transit–related housing development that would promote transit ridership and help achieve reduced congestion on the roads, highways and freeways in one of the nation’s heaviest travelled commuter corridors, which, in turn, would help to achieve reductions to air pollution caused by greenhouse gas emissions, also in an area with some of the nation’s most polluted air. The City of Montclair’s planning for North Montclair projects an estimated $5 billion to $9 billion in additional development in Montclair’s Transit– Oriented District in and around the Montclair Transportation Center and its Arrow Highway Mixed Use Development District.
The SBCTA Board’s decision also runs counter to the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors’ vision to improve the educational base and incomes of residents in San Bernadino County, in part by attracting higher–paid wage earners to live in San Bernardino County, which will in turn achieve the following for San Bernardino County:
1. Attract higher–paying jobs and greater opportunities for educational advancement;
2. Promote new opportunities for housing, commercial, and industrial development;
3. Promote diversity within the region’s job markets, thereby reducing reliance on logistics and warehousing as the singular economic backbone of San Bernardino County;
4. Promote health, cultural, and recreational opportunities; and
5. Promote significant strides in reducing air pollution and congestion on roads, highways, and freeways in some of the nation’s heaviest travelled commuter corridors.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council adopt Resolution No. 26–3509 conditionally approving the Transportation Expenditure Plan attached as Exhibit “A” to SBCTA Ordinance No. 26–01, the latter proposing continuing indefinitely, on and after April 1, 2040, unless and until rescinded by the voters, the Measure “I” one–half of one percent retail transactions and use tax in San Bernardino County for Transportation Projects, subject to voter approval at the November 3, 2026 General Election.
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 74 of 142
REFERENCE
COPY
MEASURE “I”
ORDINANCE NO. 26-1
AN ORDINANCE OF THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY,
AND THE PEOPLE OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA ESTABLISHING A
TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX (SALES TAX) AT THE RATE OF ONE-HALF PERCENT (1/2%) TO FUND COUNTYWIDE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS AND ADOPTING
AN EXPENDITURE PLAN DIRECTING THE SPENDING OF REVENUES GENERATED
FROM SAID TAX MEASURE
WHEREAS, the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (“Authority”) is authorized to levy a retail transactions and use tax/sales tax (“TUT”) in the incorporated and unincorporated territory of San Bernardino County for transportation improvements and projects pursuant to California Constitution Article XIIIC §2(d), California Public Utilities Code §§180000 et. seq. and Revenue and Taxation Code §§7251 et. seq., subject to adoption of an ordinance/measure imposing the tax and adopting an Expenditure Plan (defined herein) by two-thirds (2/3) of the Authority Board of Directors and subsequent approval of the ordinance/measure by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the San Bernardino County electors voting on it at a special election called for that purpose; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to voter approval of Measure “I” in 2004, the Authority, as the successor agency of the San Bernardino County Transportation Commission, currently levies a TUT of one-half percent (½%) on the sale and/or use of all tangible personal property sold at retail in the incorporated and unincorporated territory of San Bernardino County, as more specifically set forth in current Commission/Authority Ordinance No. 04-01; and
WHEREAS, the current TUT has a sunset of March 31, 2040, which is 30 years from the operative date of the tax; and
WHEREAS, by its adoption of this Ordinance/Measure (hereinafter referred to as the “Measure”), the Authority intends to propose to voters continuing the current TUT, imposed by Measure “I” in 2004, at the rate of one-half percent (1/2%) on the sale and/or use of all tangible personal property sold at retail in the incorporated and unincorporated territory of San Bernardino County until repealed by the votersin order to fund Countywide transportation improvements, programs, and services described in the Transportation Expenditure Plan; subject to subsequent approval of the Measure by two-thirds (2/3) of San Bernardino County electors voting on it at a special election called for that purpose; and WHEREAS, Public Utilities Code §§180201 and 180206 require that a TUT ordinance contain an adopted Expenditure Plan “for the expenditure of the revenues expected to be derived from the tax imposed pursuant to this chapter, together with other federal, state, and local funds expected to be available for transportation improvements, for the period during which the tax is to be imposed”; and WHEREAS, this Ordinance includes a Transportation Expenditure Plan that meets the requirements of Public Utilities Code §§180201 and 180206 and which is hereby incorporated by this reference; and
WHEREAS, the Authority, the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors, and all of the City/Town Councils representing both a majority of the cities/towns in San Bernardino County and a majority of the population residing in the incorporated areas of San Bernardino County adopted the Expenditure Plan in accordance with Public Utilities Code §180206; and W HEREAS, this Measure and the Transportation Expenditure Plan include provisions that dedicate revenues from this tax for transportation planning, design, construction, operation, and maintenance only to the benefit of San Bernardino County and cannot be used for other governmental Exhibit 1 to Agenda Item D-1
SBCTA Ordinance No. 26-1
1 of 15 MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 75 of 142
REFERENCE
COPY
purposes or programs, and provide that funding from this tax is used in accordance with the specified voterapproved Transportation Expenditure Plan. These provisions include:
• The specific projects and programs included in the Transportation Expenditure Plan will be funded by revenue raised by the TUT. The Transportation Expenditure Plan can be changed only after the TUT has been in effect for 10 years (2050) and thereafter in accordance with state law. • An Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee was originally created under Measure “I” and will continue to provide for citizen review to verify that all Measure funds are spent in accordance with provisions of the Expenditure Plan and Measure.
• San Bernardino County’s ½% TUT is for transportation programs only and is not intended to replace traditional revenues generated through locally adopted development fees and assessment districts.
• The Authority will continue to seek maximum funding for transportation improvements through State and federal programs. The Authority will not provide TUT revenue to any city or to the County unless all federal, state, and local revenues currently used by that agency for transportation purposes continue to be used for transportation purposes; and WHEREAS, by separate resolution, the Authority intends to submit the Measure to the voters at a Special Election to be consolidated with the November 3, 2026 Statewide General Election.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY AND THE PEOPLE OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
ARTICLE I. INCORPORATION OF RECITALS. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated and made an operative part of this Ordinance.
ARTICLE II. AUTHORITY ADOPTION OF A TRANSPORTATION RETAIL TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX (TUT) AND TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURE PLAN.
By a two-thirds (2/3) vote, the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority and the People of San Bernardino County hereby adopt the following Measure:
SECTION 1. PURPOSE. This Measure authorizes the Authority to continue levying a TUT at the rate of one-half percent (1/2%) in the incorporated and unincorporated territory of San Bernardino County for transportation improvements and programs pursuant to California Public Utilities Code §§18000 et. seq. Pursuant to Public Utilities Code §180250, this Measure also authorizes the Authority to issue bonds secured by said tax revenues, and by Measure I revenues to the extent projects funded by the bonds are in both the Expenditure Plan and the Measure I Expenditure Plan, provides for the collection and administration of the tax by the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (“CDTFA”), and adopts a Transportation Expenditure Plan allocating tax revenues to transportation improvements, programs, and services to the benefit of San Bernardino County.
SECTION 2. DEFINITIONS. The following definitions shall apply in this Measure:
A. “Authority” means the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority.
The Legislature created the Authority, effective January 1, 2017 (Public Utilities Code Sections 130800 et seq.), consolidating the San Bernardino County Transportation Commission and other transportation-related entities into one agency, which shall be known as the Authority. In 1989, the San Bernardino County Transportation Commission was designated by the San Bernardino County Board of Exhibit 1 to Agenda Item D-1
SBCTA Ordinance No. 26-1
2 of 15 MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 76 of 142
REFERENCE
COPY
Supervisors to serve as the Local Transportation Authority pursuant to the provisions of Public Utilities Code §§ 180050 et seq.
B. “Bonds” means bonds, notes, contracts or other forms of indebtedness issued or entered into in accordance with this Measure.
C. “Committee” means the Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee established herein.
D. “County” means San Bernardino County.
E. “Existing Tax” means the current ½% TUT levied by the Authority, as the successor agency to the San Bernardino County Transportation Commission, pursuant to Ordinance No. 89-01, Ordinance No. 90-01, and Ordinance No. 04-01.
F. "Expenditure Plan” or "Transportation Expenditure Plan” means the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority Transportation Expenditure Plan (attached as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference) outlining transportation improvements, programs and services for which tax revenues may be expended, which is hereby expressly adopted as part of this Measure pursuant to California Public Utilities Code section 180206, including any future amendments thereto which are authorized by law.
G. “Local Jurisdiction” means a city or town in the County or the County.
H. “Measure” or “Ordinance” means this ordinance/ballot measure presented to voters seeking authorization to levy the tax and the approval of the Expenditure Plan.
SECTION 3. CONTINUED LEVY OF ONE-HALF PERCENT (1/2%) RETAIL TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX (TUT). Upon approval of two-thirds (2/3) of the local voters casting votes on this Measure, the Authority shall continue to levy, in the incorporated and unincorporated territory of San Bernardino County, a retail transactions and use tax (TUT) at the rate of one-half percent (1/2%). The tax shall be collected until it is repealed by a subsequent ballot measure approved by County voters and until all debt is satisfied and committed contracts are fulfilled. The tax shall be imposed by the Authority in accordance with Section 180201 of the Public Utilities Code and Part 1.6 (commencing with Section 7251) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. The provisions of Revenue and Taxation Code Sections 7261 and 7262 are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth herein. This tax shall be in addition to any other taxes authorized by law, including any existing or future State or local sales tax or transactions and use tax.
SECTION 4. RETURN TO SOURCE. After deduction of required California Department of Tax and Fee Administration fees and authorized administrative costs, revenues generated from each specified Subarea within San Bernardino County as outlined in the Expenditure Plan will be expended on projects with direct benefit to that Subarea, except as set forth herein. Revenues will be accounted for separately for each Subarea and then allocated to specified project categories in each Subarea. Decisions on how revenues are expended within the Subareas for certain project categories, as defined in the Expenditure Plan, will be made by the Authority Board of Directors, based upon recommendations of local representatives. Other than the projects identified in the Interregional Mobility Expenditure Plan, revenues generated within a Subarea shall not be expended on projects without direct benefit to that Subarea except with approval of two-thirds (2/3) of the jurisdictions within the affected Subarea. Notwithstanding the foregoing, revenues shall be available as required to pay debt service on bonds regardless of the subarea in which the revenue was collected.
Exhibit 1 to Agenda Item D-1
SBCTA Ordinance No. 26-1
3 of 15 MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 77 of 142
REFERENCE
COPY
SECTION 5. TRANSPORTATION PURPOSES/EXPENDITURE PLAN.
A. Pursuant to Public Utilities Code §§180205 and 180206, revenues from this tax shall be used for transportation purposes only and may include, but are not limited to, administration of the tax and its revenues, including legal actions related thereto and costs of the initial preparation of this Ordinance and the election thereon; the construction, maintenance, improvements, and operation of local streets, roads, and highways, state highways and freeways; the construction, maintenance, improvements, and operation of public transit systems including rail and bus facilities and service; transportation technologies; and related purposes. These purposes include expenditures for planning, environmental reviews, engineering and design costs, and related right-of-way acquisition. Expenditures also include, but are not limited to, debt service on bonds and expenses in connection with the issuance of bonds. The Authority shall allocate revenues from this tax in accordance with the Expenditure Plan adopted herein and for any other purposes authorized by law.
B. Commencing in 2050 and at least every ten years thereafter, the Authority shall review and, where necessary, propose revisions to the Expenditure Plan. Such proposed revisions shall be submitted for approval according to the procedures set forth in this Subsection. Until approved, the then existing Expenditure Plan shall remain in full force and effect.
1. Such review shall consider recommendations from local jurisdictions, transportation agencies and interest groups, and the general public.
2. The Authority shall notify all local jurisdictions and the Board of Supervisors in writing of the proposed revision, reciting reasons and findings for the revision.
3. The revision(s) to the Expenditure Plan shall become effective 45 days after the notice referenced in 2, above, is given.
4. The boundaries of Subareas shall be revised only by unanimous approval of all local jurisdictions in the Subareas whose boundaries would be revised.
SECTION 6. BONDING AUTHORITY. The Authority shall have the power to sell or issue, from time to time, on or before the collection of taxes, Bonds, notes, contracts, or other evidence of indebtedness, including, but not limited to, capital appreciation bonds, in the aggregate principal amount at any one time outstanding of not to exceed the estimated proceeds of the tax, as determined by the Expenditure Plan, and to secure such indebtedness solely by way of future collection of taxes, for capital outlay expenditures for the purposes set forth in Section 5 above, including the carrying out of transportation projects described in the Expenditure Plan. To the extent Bond proceeds are to be spent on projects identified in both the Measure I Expenditure Plan and the Expenditure Plan, the Authority shall have the power to issue bonds secured by the Existing Tax revenues and the Measure’s tax revenues. The Authority shall have a debt policy that will identify debt affordability limits, which are the maximum amounts that can be used to pay debt service.
SECTION 7. MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT. The Authority, by enactment of this Ordinance, intends that the additional funds provided to local jurisdictions and transit agencies pursuant to this Measure shall supplement existing federal, state, and local revenues used for street, highway, and public transit purposes as of Fiscal Year 2038-39. Transactions and use tax revenue shall not be used to replace requirements for new development to provide for its own transportation facilities. Under this Measure, funding priorities should be given to addressing road and transit needs, easing congestion, improving roadway safety, increasing mobility services, and implementing active transportation solutions where feasible. Local jurisdictions and transit operators shall maintain their existing commitment of transportation funds for street, highway, and Exhibit 1 to Agenda Item D-1
SBCTA Ordinance No. 26-1
4 of 15 MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 78 of 142
REFERENCE
COPY
public transit purposes pursuant to this Measure, and the Authority shall enforce this Section by appropriate actions including fiscal audits of the local jurisdictions and adoption of implementing policies.
SECTION 8. CONTRIBUTIONS FROM NEW DEVELOPMENT. No revenue from the Local Mobility categories shall be used to replace the fair share contributions required from new development. The methodology to determine the local fair share contributions shall be established by the Authority Board of Directors.
SECTION 9. INDEPENDENT TAXPAYER OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE. The extant Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee (“Committee”) shall continue in place up to and after April 1, 2040, to provide citizen review and to ensure that all funds generated by this tax are spent in accordance with the Expenditure Plan and this Ordinance as specified in Exhibit B of this Ordinance, which contains the specific terms and conditions for an Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee and its review of periodic independent financial audits.
SECTION 10. LIMITATION ON EXPENDITURE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS AND OTHER PURPOSES. The Authority shall establish an Administration fund, and one percent (1%) of the annual net amount of revenue raised by the tax shall be credited to this fund. Pursuant to Public Utilities Code §180109, the salary and benefits of staff required to administer the TUT shall not exceed the revenues in the Administration fund.
SECTION 11. ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT. Pursuant to Article XIIIB §4 of the California Constitution and Public Utilities Code §180202, the appropriations limit for the Authority will be increased by the maximum projected aggregate collection authorized by the levy of this tax, as indicated in Section 3, in each of the years covered by this Measure plus the amount, if any, by which the appropriation limit is decreased by law as a result of the levy of the tax set forth in this Measure. The appropriations limit has and shall be subject to adjustment as provided by law.
SECTION 12. ADOPTION DATE OF MEASURE AND OPERATIVE DATE OF TAX. This Measure shall take effect at the close of the polls on the day of election at which this Measure is adopted by a vote of the electorate. Collection of the tax under this Measure shall commence on April 1, 2040.
SECTION 13. DURATION/TERM OF TAX. The tax enacted by this Measure shall continue to be levied until this Measure is repealed by the voters; provided that the tax shall continue to be collected while Bonds are outstanding and until committed contracts are fulfilled.
SECTION 14. TECHNICAL PROVISIONS FOR COLLECTION AND
ADMINISTRA-TION OF TAX. By their adoption of this Ordinance, the Authority and the voters of San Bernardino County hereby expressly incorporate the technical provisions for the collection and administration of this tax by the CDTFA, which are required by State law and are specifically set forth in Ordinance No. 26-1, which was adopted by the Authority on , 2026.
SECTION 15. CONFLICT BETWEEN ORDINANCE AND EXPENDITURE PLAN.
In the event of any conflict between the terms of this Ordinance and the terms of the Expenditure Plan, the terms of this Ordinance shall control.
SECTION 16. THE EXISTING TAX. Nothing in the Ordinance is intended to modify, repeal, alter, or increase the Existing Tax. The provisions of this Ordinance shall apply solely to the retail transactions and use tax adopted herein and not to the collection or administration of the Existing Tax.
Exhibit 1 to Agenda Item D-1
SBCTA Ordinance No. 26-1
5 of 15 MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 79 of 142
REFERENCE
COPY
ARTICLE III. CEQA COMPLIANCE. The Authority finds that the approval of this Ordinance is not a “project” and, alternatively, is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).
The Ordinance is intended to provide a funding mechanism for potential future projects and programs related to the Authority’s provision of transportation services. The Ordinance does not commit the Authority to any particular project, program, or capital improvement. Accordingly, the Authority finds that, under CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4), adoption of this Ordinance is not a project subject to the requirements of CEQA because the Ordinance is merely “[t]he creation of [a] government funding mechanism[] or other government fiscal activit[y], which do[es] not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15378, subd. (b)(4); see also Sustainable Transportation Advocates of Santa Barbara v. Santa Barbara County Association of Governments, 179 Cal.App.4th 113, 123.) Additionally, the timing, design, and approval of individual projects to be funded by the Ordinance are dependent on future funding availability, need, feasibility, CEQA review, future Expenditure Plan review and amendments, and numerous other factors. Thus, the timing and design of future projects, which may not be brought forward for many years, are unknown, and insufficient information is available to enable meaningful environmental review. (CEQA Guidelines § 15004.) Further, because the Ordinance does not approve the construction of any projects that may result in any direct or indirect physical change in the environment, and because future voter approval is required as set forth in PUC Section 130350, approving the Ordinance is not an approval that commits the Authority to a definite course of action. (CEQA Guidelines § 15352.) Thus, it can also be seen with certainty that the Ordinance has no potential for causing a significant effect on the environment and is exempt from any further review under CEQA. (CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3).)
ARTICLE IV. SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this Ordinance/Measure or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, that holding shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining provisions, and the Authority and the People of San Bernardino County declare that they would have passed each part of this Ordinance irrespective of the validity of any other part.
ARTICLE V. CERTIFICATION. The Clerk of the Board shall certify the adoption of this Measure as an ordinance and shall record it in the official records of the Authority.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority this day of , 2026 by the following vote of the Authority Board and approved by a two-thirds vote of San Bernardino County voters at a Special Election consolidated with the Statewide General Election held on November 3, 2026:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Chairman
ATTEST:
Clerk of the Board
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
General Counsel
Exhibit 1 to Agenda Item D-1
SBCTA Ordinance No. 26-1
6 of 15 MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 80 of 142
REFERENCE
COPY
Exhibit “A”
Transportation Expenditure Plan
Revenue Estimates and Distribution. Allocation of revenue authorized by Ordinance No. 26-1 is established within this Expenditure Plan. Funds shall be allocated by percentage of the actual revenue received. An estimate of revenues for allocation among categories for the first 30 years is $7.5 billion.
The estimated revenue is based upon 2026 value of money and is not binding or controlling.
Return to Source. After deduction of required CDTFA fees, funds dedicated for the Interregional Mobility Expenditure Plan and authorized administrative costs, revenues generated from each specified Subarea within San Bernardino County will be expended on projects of direct benefit to that Subarea.
Revenues will be accounted for separately for each Subarea and then allocated to specified project categories. Decisions on how revenues for certain project categories are expended within the Subareas will be made by the Authority Board of Directors, based upon recommendation of local representatives.
Subarea Identification. The San Bernardino Valley Subarea will include the cities of Chino, Chino Hills, Colton, Fontana, Grand Terrace, Highland, Loma Linda, Montclair, Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga, Redlands, Rialto, San Bernardino, Upland, and Yucaipa and unincorporated areas in the east and west portions of the San Bernardino valley urbanized area. The Mountain/Desert area will include the following subareas: (1) the North Desert Subarea, which includesthe City of Barstow and surrounding unincorporated areas; (2) the Colorado River Subarea, which includes the City of Needles and the surrounding unincorporated areas of the East Desert; (3) t he Morongo Basin Subarea, which includes the City of Twentynine Palms, Town of Yucca Valley, and surrounding unincorporated areas; (4) the Mountain Subarea, which includes the City of Big Bear Lake and surrounding unincorporated areas of the San Bernardino Mountains; and (5) the Victor Valley Subarea, which includes the Cities of Adelanto, Hesperia, and Victorville; the Town of Apple Valley; and surrounding unincorporated areas including Wrightwood.
Contribution from New Development. No revenue generated from the tax shall be used to replace the fair share contributions required from new development as further described in Section 8 of the Ordinance.
Requirement for Annual Financial and Compliance Audits of Measure Funds. The San Bernardino County Transportation Authority shall undergo a biennial financial audit, and each local jurisdiction receiving an allocation of Measure revenue authorized in this Expenditure Plan shall undergo an annual financial audit, with all audits to be performed in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and government auditing standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States.
Compliance audits also shall be conducted to ensure that each agency is expending funds in accordance with the provisions and guidelines established for Measure revenue, including compliance with Maintenance of Effort provisions.
The Interregional Mobility Expenditure Plan. Upon initial collection of revenue, 3% of the revenue generated across all San Bernardino County subareas will be reserved in advance of other allocations specified in this plan in an account for the Interregional Mobility Expenditure Plan. The Interregional Mobility Expenditure Plan will provide resources for the planning and implementation of projects and programs that provide critical infrastructure to communities impacted by regional motorist, tourism, interregional travel, and goods movement. This program will help plan and deliver critical infrastructure improvements, such as enhancements in the Cajon Pass and other key corridors, that address congestion, enhance mobility, improve safety, and strengthen resilience. It will also support evacuation planning, bolster emergency response capabilities, improve primary evacuation routes, and fund transit-related evacuation needs. In addition, the program will be available to address unexpected infrastructure damage resulting from natural or human-caused disasters, ensuring rapid recovery and the restoration of essential interregional mobility.
Exhibit 1 to Agenda Item D-1
SBCTA Ordinance No. 26-1
7 of 15 MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 81 of 142
REFERENCE
COPY
San Bernardino Valley Subarea Expenditure Plan. In that area described as the San Bernardino Valley Subarea, and referred to herein as the Valley Subarea, project categories shall be established as specified below. The San Bernardino Valley Subarea Expenditure Plan is illustrated in Figure A.
A. State and Federal Transportation Funds. A proportional share of projected state and federal transportation funds shall be reserved for use solely within the Valley Subarea.
B. Local Mobility 25%. Local priorities that focus on local roadway, bikeway, and sidewalk construction, repair, and maintenance for improved localized movement. Includes pass-through for local priorities such as: local street widening and rehabilitation, potholes, grade separations, sidewalks, bike lanes, streetlights, and railroad quiet zones. Allocations to local jurisdictions shall be on a per capita basis using the most recent State Department of Finance population estimates for January 1, with the County's portion based upon unincorporated population in the Valley Subarea.
Estimates of unincorporated population within the Valley Subarea shall be determined by the County Planning Department, reconciled with the State Department of Finance population estimate for January 1 of each year.
Upon initial collection of revenue, each local jurisdiction shall reserve 5% of allocated revenue in a special account to be expended on active transportation projects. Eligible active transportation projects may include, at the discretion of the local jurisdiction, but are not limited to, bicycle and pedestrian projects and costs for associated studies or plans. If, after at least ten years of revenue collection, the local jurisdiction’s governing body makes a finding that the reserve for active transportation projects is no longer necessary, and the Authority Board of Directors subsequently approves the finding, then all Local Mobility funds allocated to the local jurisdiction may be used for any eligible purpose.
Local Mobility projects are defined as local street and road construction, repair, and maintenance and other eligible local transportation priorities. Except as set forth herein, Local Mobility funds can be used flexibly for any eligible transportation purpose determined to be a local priority, including local streets, major highways, state highway improvements, transit, including but not limited to, fare subsidies and service enhancements for seniors and persons with disabilities, and other improvements/programs to maximize use of transportation facilities. Expenditure of Local Mobility funds shall be based upon a Five-Year Plan adopted annually by the governing body of each local jurisdiction after being made available for public review and comment. Local Mobility funds shall be disbursed to local jurisdictions upon receipt of the annually adopted Five-Year Plan.
The locally adopted Five-Year Plan shall be consistent with local, regional, and state transportation plans.
C. Regional Mobility 50%. Regional priorities that focus on goods movement, transit, managed lanes, congestion management, and emerging transportation technologies to enhance regional movement and include: highway improvements, bus and passenger rail (capital and rehabilitation), corridors, interchanges, environmental mitigation, traffic management systems (freeway service patrol and air quality strategies), railroad quiet zones, planning and project development, and emerging transportation technology.
Regional Mobility projects are defined as congestion relief and safety improvements to corridors that connect communities, serve major destinations, and provide freeway access. Decisions on how Regional Mobility funds are expended will be made by the Authority Board of Directors, based upon recommendation of local jurisdiction representatives. Funding priorities shall be given to improving roadway safety, relieving congestion, and street improvements at rail crossings and shall take into account equitable geographic distribution over the life of the program. Eligible projects also include, but are not limited to, signal synchronization, systems to improve traffic flow, commuter assistance programs, freeway service patrol, and projects that contribute to environmental enhancement associated with transportation facilities.
Exhibit 1 to Agenda Item D-1
SBCTA Ordinance No. 26-1
8 of 15 MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 82 of 142
REFERENCE
COPY
D. Operations 25%. Resourcing the operational costs for providing mobility services via rail, transit, senior and specialized services, first/last mile connections, ridesharing, and safety support functions.
Decisions on how Operations funds are expended will be made by the Authority Board of Directors, based upon recommendations of local jurisdiction representatives. Funding priorities shall be given to maintaining core services across all modes of mobility.
Mountain/Desert Expenditure Plan. In that area described as the Mountain/Desert area, the following Expenditure Plan requirements shall apply. The Mountain/Desert Expenditure Plan is illustrated in Figure B.
A. State and Federal Transportation Funds. A proportional share of projected state and federal transportation funds shall be reserved for use solely within the Mountain/Desert Subareas.
B. Local Mobility 70%. Local priorities that focus on local roadway, bikeway, and sidewalk construction, repair, and maintenance for improved localized movement. Includes pass-through for local priorities such as: local street widening & rehabilitation, potholes, grade separations, sidewalks, bike lanes, and streetlights. Allocations to local jurisdictions shall be based upon population (50 percent) and tax generation (50 percent). Population calculations shall be based upon the most current State Department of Finance estimates for January 1 of each year. Estimates of unincorporated population within each Subarea shall be determined by the County Planning Department, reconciled with the State Department of Finance population estimate. Tax generation calculations shall be based upon CDTFA data.
Upon initial collection of revenue, each local jurisdiction shall reserve 5% of allocated revenue in a special account to be expended on active transportation projects. Eligible active transportation projects may include, at the discretion of the local jurisdiction, but are not limited to, bicycle and pedestrian projects and costs for associated studies or plans. If, after at least ten years of revenue collection, the local jurisdiction’s governing body makes a finding that the reserve for active transportation projects is no longer necessary, and the Authority Board of Directors subsequently approves the finding, then all Local Mobility funds allocated to the jurisdiction may be used for any eligible purpose.
Local Mobility projects are defined as local street and road construction, repair, and maintenance and other eligible local transportation priorities. Except as set forth herein, Local Mobility funds can be used flexibly for any eligible transportation purpose determined to be a local priority, including local roads, major streets, state highway improvements, transit, including but not limited to, fare subsidies and service enhancements for seniors and persons with disabilities, and other improvements/programs to maximize use of transportation facilities. Expenditure of Local Mobility funds shall be based upon a Five-Year Plan adopted annually by the governing body of each local jurisdiction after being made available for public review and comment. Local Mobility funds shall be disbursed to local jurisdictions upon receipt of the annually adopted FiveYear Plan. The locally adopted Five-Year Plans shall be consistent with other local, regional, and state transportation plans.
C. Regional Mobility 20%. Regional priorities that focus on goods movement, transit, managed lanes, congestion management, and emerging transportation technologies to enhance regional movement and include: highway improvements, bus and passenger rail (capital and rehabilitation), corridors, interchanges, environmental mitigation, traffic management systems (freeway service patrol and air quality strategies), planning and project development, and emerging transportation technology.
Revenue collected within each Subarea shall be reserved in a special account to be expended on Regional Mobility projects of benefit to the Subarea. Regional Mobility projects are defined as major streets and highways serving as primary routes of travel within the Subarea, which may Exhibit 1 to Agenda Item D-1
SBCTA Ordinance No. 26-1
9 of 15 MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 83 of 142
REFERENCE
COPY
include State highways and freeways, where appropriate. Regional Mobility funds can be used to leverage state and federal funds for transportation projects and to perform advance planning/project reports. Expenditure of Regional Mobility funds shall be approved by the Authority Board of Directors, based upon a recommendation of Subarea representatives and the Mountain/Desert Policy Committee. If, after five years of revenue collection and every five years thereafter, the local representatives and the Mountain/Desert Policy Committee make a finding that Regional Mobility funds are not required for improvements of benefit to the Subarea, then revenue in the Regional Mobility category may be returned to local jurisdictions within the Subarea. Such return shall be allocated and expended based upon the formula and requirements established in the Local Mobility category.
D. Operations 10%. Resourcing the operational costs for providing mobility services via rail, transit, senior and specialized services, first/last mile connections, ridesharing, and safety support functions. Decisions on how Operations funds are expended will be made by the Authority Board of Directors, based upon recommendation of Subarea representatives and the Mountain/Desert Policy Committee and/or Transit Committee. Funding priorities shall be given to maintaining core services across all modes of mobility services.
The Authority Board of Directors, based upon recommendation of Subarea representatives and the Mountain/Desert Policy Committee, may provide additional funding beyond 10% upon a finding that such increase is required to address unmet transit needs of the Subarea. All increases above the 10% initial revenue collected for the Operations category shall come from the Local Mobility category of the Subarea.
E. Mountain/Desert Policy Committee. The Mountain/Desert Policy Committee of the Authority shall remain in effect and provide oversight of the implementation of the Mountain/Desert Expenditure Plan.
Exhibit 1 to Agenda Item D-1
SBCTA Ordinance No. 26-1
10 of 15 MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 84 of 142
REFERENCE
COPY
Measure “I”
Transportation Expenditure Plan
FIGURE A
SanBernardino Valley SubareaExpenditure Plan
Exhibit 1 to Agenda Item D-1
SBCTA Ordinance No. 26-1
11 of 15 MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 85 of 142
REFERENCE
COPY
Measure “I”
Transportation Expenditure Plan
FIGURE B
Mountain/Desert Expenditure Plan
Exhibit 1 to Agenda Item D-1
SBCTA Ordinance No. 26-1
12 of 15 MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 86 of 142
REFERENCE
COPY
Exhibit “B”
Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee (ITOC)
ITOC Goal and Function. Voter approval of this Measure shall result in the continuation of the existing Independent Taxpayer and Oversight Committee (ITOC) as follows:
The ITOC shall provide citizen review to ensure that all Measure funds are spent by the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (hereby referred to as the Authority) in accordance with provisions of the Expenditure Plan and Ordinance No. 26-1, Measure I and the Measure I Expenditure Plan.
Audit Requirement. The Authority shall undergo a biennial financial audit, and each local jurisdiction receiving an allocation of Measure revenue authorized in the Expenditure Plan shall undergo an annual financial audit, with all audits to be performed in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. The audit shall review the basic financial statements of the Authority as defined by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board and the financial and compliance audits of the member jurisdictions.
Role of Financial and Compliance Audit and the ITOC. The ITOC shall review the annual audits of the Authority and local jurisdictions; report findings based on the audits to the Authority; and recommend any additional audits for consideration that the ITOC believes may improve the financial operation and integrity of program implementation.
The Authority shall hold a publicly noticed meeting, which may or may not be included on the agenda of a regularly scheduled Authority Board of Directors meeting, with the participation of the ITOC to consider the findings and recommendations of the audits.
Membership and Selection Process. The Authority shall have an open process to select five committee members, which shall include solicitation of trade and other organizations to suggest potential nominees to the committee. The committee members shall possess one of the following credentials:
• Professional in the field of municipal audit, finance, and/or budgeting with a minimum of five years in a relevant and senior decision-making position in the public or private sector. • Licensed civil engineer or trained transportation planner with at least five years of demonstrated experience in the fields of transportation and/or urban design in government and/or the private sector. No member shall be a recipient or sub-recipient of Measure funding. • Three public members who possess knowledge and skills that will be helpful to the work of the ITOC.
The President and the Executive Director of the Authority shall serve as ex-officio members of the ITOC.
Terms and Conditions for Committee. Committee members shall serve staggered four-year terms.
In no case shall any voting committee member serve more than twelve years on the ITOC. • Committee members shall serve without compensation, except they shall be reimbursed for authorized travel and other expenses directly related to the work of the ITOC. • Committee members cannot be a current local elected official in the County or a full-time staff member of any city/town, the County government, local transit operator, or state transportation agency.
• Non-voting ex-officio committee members shall serve only as long as they remain incumbents in their respective positions and shall be automatically replaced by their successors in those positions.
Exhibit 1 to Agenda Item D-1
SBCTA Ordinance No. 26-1
13 of 15 MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 87 of 142
REFERENCE
COPY
• If vacancies on the ITOC occur, for any reason, Authority staff will collaborate with Authority Board members to find an appropriate replacement within 90 days of the vacancy or as soon thereafter as possible, to fill the remainder of the term. • When more than one application is received for a vacancy, the General Policy Committee will make a recommendation to the Authority Board of Directors to appoint an applicant to the ITOC. • When only one application is received, the Board President will recommend to the Board the applicant’s appointment to the ITOC.
ITOC Operation Protocols.
• The ITOC shall continue as long as Measure revenues are collected. • Authority Board of Directors and staff shall fully cooperate with and provide necessary support to ensure the ITOC successfully carries out its duties and obligations.
Conflict of Interest. ITOC voting members shall have no legal action pending against the Authority and are prohibited from acting in any commercial activity directly or indirectly involving the Authority, such as being a consultant during their tenure on the ITOC. ITOC voting members shall not have direct commercial interest or employment with any public or private entity that receives the transportation tax funds authorized by the voters in this Ordinance.
Exhibit 1 to Agenda Item D-1
SBCTA Ordinance No. 26-1
14 of 15 MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 88 of 142
REFERENCE
COPY
Exhibit “C”
Ballot Question
Measure “I” Local Transportation Improvement Program San Bernardino County Road Repair/Traffic Relief Extension
Without raising tax rates, shall an ordinance to fund repairing potholes; keeping local roads in good condition; completing freeway/highway projects to improve traffic flow/safety, reduce traffic bottlenecks; upgrading aging bridges/overpasses; creating local jobs; keeping student/senior/disabled/veteran transit fares low be adopted, extending the ½¢ voter-approved transportation sales tax, providing approximately
$250,000,000 annually until ended by voters, requiring audits, oversight, spending disclosure, local control?
Exhibit 1 to Agenda Item D-1
SBCTA Ordinance No. 26-1
15 of 15 MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 89 of 142 Resolution No. 26–3509 Page 1 of 6
RESOLUTION NO. 26–3509
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTCLAIR,
CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING THE TRANSPORTATION
EXPENDITURE PLAN ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT “A” TO THE SAN
BERNARDINO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY ORDINANCE
NO. 26–1 [MEASURE “I”], THE LATTER PROPOSING CONTINUING INDEFINITELY, ON AND AFTER APRIL 1, 2040, UNLESS AND UNTIL RESCINDED BY VOTERS, THE MEASURE “I” ONE–HALF OF ONE PERCENT
RETAIL TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX IN SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
FOR TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS, SUBJECT TO VOTER APPROVAL OF SBCTA ORDINANCE NO. 26–1 AT THE NOVEMBER 3, 2026, GENERAL
ELECTION
WHEREAS, Measure “I” is the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority’s one–half of one percent retail transactions and use tax dedicated to transportation improvements throughout the County, with funds reinvested locally through a “return to source” policy, meaning each region, or subarea, in San Bernardino County benefits directly from the revenue it generates; and
WHEREAS, the voters of San Bernardino County first approved Measure “I” (SBCTA Ordinance No. 89–1) in November 1989 and, in November 2004, extended Measure “I” (SBCTA Ordinance No. 04–01) through March 31, 2040; and WHEREAS, the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) [then, the “San Bernardino Associated Governments,” hereafter referred to as the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority] Board of Directors revised Measure “I” in January 1990 (SBCTA Ordinance No. 90–1) amending Section IV to clarify procedures for collection and administration of the Measure “I” retail transactions and use tax, and adding Sections XIV through XXII to establish applicability, limitations, permitting requirements, exemptions and exclusions, and legal remedies related to the Measure “I” retail transactions and use tax; and
WHEREAS, Measure “I” has supported a wide range of transportation infrastructure projects in unincorporated areas of San Bernardino County and across each of San Bernardino County’s 24 cities and towns including, but not limited to, freeway expansions and interchange upgrades, improvements to local and major streets and roads, traffic signal upgrades and synchronization/coordination, Metrolink commuter rail maintenance and operations and improvements, and Omnitrans bus operations and upgrades; and
WHEREAS, because the operational period of SBCTA Ordinance No. 04–01’s current retail transaction and use tax is due to expire effective April 1, 2040, and the continuation of Measure “I”’s one–half of one percent retail transactions and use tax on and after that date is essential to SBCTA’s ability to continue with a program of transportation and transit infrastructure improvements and projects throughout San Bernardino County, and in each of the County’s cities and towns; an WHEREAS, SBCTA, after engagement with private sector stakeholders and representatives from San Bernardino County and each of the County’s cities and towns, has prepared a Transportation Expenditure Plan for the revenues projected to be derived from SBCTA Ordinance No. 26–1’s proposed extension of Measure “I”’s retail transactions and use tax on and after April 1, 2040, until rescinded by voters; and WHEREAS, SBCTA Ordinance No. 26–1 and the proposed Transportation Expenditure Plan, attached to SBCTA Ordinance No. 26–1 as Exhibit A, are, by reference, incorporated herein and attached as Exhibit 1; and
WHEREAS, San Bernardino County voters will be asked to consider approval of SBCTA Ordinance No. 26–1 at the November 3, 2026, General Election; and WHEREAS, if SBCTA Ordinance No. 26–1 is approved by two–thirds majority vote of those voting on continuation of Measure “I” at the November 3, 2026, General Election, the continuation of Measure “I” would extend collection of Measure “I”’s one–half of one percent retail transactions and use tax on and after April 1, 2040, unless and until rescinded by the voters and, further, SBCTA Ordinance No. 26–1 is projected to generate approximately $7.5 billion in its first 30–years following the operative date of the tax on and after April 1, 2040; and
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 90 of 142 Resolution No. 26–3509 Page 2 of 6
WHEREAS, if approved by voters, SBCTA Ordinance No. 26–1 would not implement a new tax; rather, SBCTA Ordinance No. 26–1 would continue the existing one–half of one percent retail transactions and use tax already approved by voters under SBCTA’s SBCTA Ordinance No. 89–1 and Ordinance 04–01; and WHEREAS, retail transactions and use tax revenues generated under SBCTA Ordinance No. 26–1 would remain in San Bernardino County, and can only be spent on transportation projects; further, Measure “I” revenues cannot be seized or be allocated by the state or federal governments; and
WHEREAS, in addition to raising funds committed to transportation infrastructure improvements in San Bernardino County, SBCTA Ordinance No. 26–1 would also promote San Bernardino County’s economy by creating employment opportunities in various sectors including, but not limited to, construction, manufacturing and engineering; and WHEREAS, other direct benefits related to transportation improvements in San Bernardino County include reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, reductions in traffic congestion, and creation of an effective transportation system to meet the needs of residents, visitors and the business community; and
WHEREAS, the City of Montclair receives its proportionate share of Measure “I” funds for local transportation infrastructure projects; and WHEREAS, Public Utilities Code Sections 180200 through 180207 provide for a process for governmental agencies to follow related to placing a transactions and use tax for transportation projects before voters; and
WHEREAS, Section 180206(b) of the Public Utilities Code specifically provides that, “A county transportation expenditure plan shall not be adopted until it has received the approval of the board of supervisors and of the city councils representing both a majority of the cities in the county and a majority of the population residing in the incorporated areas of the county.” Further, §180206(c) provides that, “The [expenditure] plan shall be adopted prior to the call of the election provided for in Section180201.” Accordingly, SBCTA is asking for approval of SBCTA Ordinance No. 26–1’s Transportation Expenditure Plan by the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors and each of the 24 cities and towns in San Bernardino County so that it may be submitted to the electorate for consideration at the November 3, 2026, General Election; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Montclair declares its conditional approval of Ordinance 26–1’s Transportation Expenditure Plan, attached to Measure “I” as Exhibit A, for the following reasons:
1. The Transportation Expenditure Plan, attached to SBCTA Ordinance No. 04–01 as Exhibit A (together, alternatively, “Measure “I””), identified a number of specific transportation projects to be completed by the SBCTA, including projects within the San Bernardino Valley Subarea Expenditure Plan; and
2. Within the San Bernardino Valley Subarea Expenditure Plan in Schedule D5 of SBCTA Ordinance No. 04–01’s Transportation Expenditure Plan, the Gold Line Extension Project is specifically listed as one of three “Metrolink/Rail Service” projects, together with designated Measure “I” and State and Federal funds to be contributed toward completion of the Projects; and
3. Pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 180206(b), Ordinance No 04–01’s Transportation Expenditure Plan received approval of the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors and the City Councils representing a majority of the cities in San Bernardino County; and
4. Pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 180206(b), SBCTA Ordinance No. 04– 01 and its Transportation Expenditure Plan were approved by more than 80 percent of the voters voting on Measure “I” at the November 2, 2004, General Election, and such approval by the voters included the San Bernardino Valley Subarea Expenditure Plan, Schedule D5, and the three “Metrolink/Rail Service” projects, including the Gold Line Extension Project, together with designated Measure “I” and State and Federal funds contributed toward completion of the Projects; and
5. The Transportation Expenditure Plan contained in SBCTA Ordinance No. 04– 01 was approved not only by more than 80 percent of the voters voting on Measure “I” at the November 2, 2004, General Election, it was also consistently supported by more than 21–years of promises and commitment by the SBCTA MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 91 of 142 Resolution No. 26–3509 Page 3 of 6
Board of Directors and its executive officers that the Gold Line Extension Project would be built to the Montclair Transportation Center; and
6. The California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA), together with the Los Angeles County Transportation Authority (METRO) and the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (SGVCOG), collectively, contributed an estimated $4 billion [approximately $1.1 billion from CalSTA, approximately $2.774 billion from METRO, and approximately $126 million from the SGVCOG] to build the Gold Line from Union Station in Los Angeles to Claremont, where it would then be extended by SBCTA to Montclair; and
7. Based on voter approval of SBCTA Ordinance No. 04–01 and the more than 21–years of collective promises and commitments by the SBCTA Board and its executive officers to fund and build the Gold Line Extension to the Montclair Transportation Center, the Montclair City Council directed the expenditure of tens of millions of dollars in local funds to plan for, and build, the necessary infrastructure and other improvements in anticipation of arrival of the Gold Line light rail system at the Montclair Transportation Center on or around 2030–32; and
8. Based on voter approval of SBCTA Ordinance No. 04–01 and the more than 21–years of collective promises and commitments by the SBCTA Board of Directors and its executive officers to fund and build the Gold Line Extension to the Montclair Transportation Center, developers working with the City of Montclair completed an estimated $1.5 billion in improvements in Montclair’s Transit–Oriented District in and around Montclair’s Transportation Center in anticipation of arrival of the Gold Line light rail system at the Montclair Transportation Center on or around 2030–32; and
9. Based on voter approval of SBCTA Ordinance No. 04–01 and the more than 21–years of collective promises and commitments by the SBCTA Board of Directors and its executive officers to fund and build the Gold Line Extension to the Montclair Transportation Center, the City of Montclair’s planning for North Montclair projects an estimated $5 billion to $9 billion in additional development in Montclair’s Transit–Oriented District in and around the Montclair Transportation Center and its Arrow Highway Mixed Use Development District; and
10.Based on voter approval of SBCTA Ordinance No. 04–01 and the more than 21–years of collective promises and commitments by the SBCTA Board of Directors and its executive officers to fund and build the Gold Line Extension to the Montclair Transportation Center, people made the decision to move to, and live in and around Montclair’s Transit–Oriented District in anticipation that light rail transit would be available in the foreseeable future for low–cost, pollution–free and stress–free transportation to places of destination including for, but not limited to, work, health, education, entertainment and culture; and
11.Based on voter approval of SBCTA Ordinance No. 04–01 and the more than 21–years of collective promises and commitments by the SBCTA Board of Directors and its executive officers to fund and build the Gold Line Extension to the Montclair Transportation Center, businesses and residents congregated in and around Montclair’s Transit–Oriented District invested in the positive outcomes promised by arrival of the Gold Line to Montclair; and
12.On September 3, 2025, less than one year after METRO received $798 million in state funding to build the Gold Line Project from Pomona to Claremont, where SBCTA would then build the Project to Montclair, the SBCTA Board voted to end Measure “I” and other source funding, including $41 million from CalSTA, that had been earmarked to build the Gold Line Extension Project to Montclair; and
13.The SBCTA Board’s decision on September 3, 2025, to defund the Gold Line Project to Montclair is, Montclair alleges, in violation of SBCTA Ordinance No. 04–01’s and Exhibit A’s (Transportation Expenditure Plan) proscribed amendment process as required by law; and
14.On December 16, 2025, the City of Montclair provided the SBCTA Board and SBCTA legal counsel with a Demand to Cure letter to cure the Board’s violation of SBCTA Ordinance No. 04–01’s amendment process, as required by law; and MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 92 of 142 Resolution No. 26–3509 Page 4 of 6
15.The SBCTA Board failed to respond to Montclair’s Demand to Cure, initiating further action by Montclair, including two claims, the first filed on February 6, 2026, and the second on February 19, 2026, with claims alleging, among other things, the following:
a. That the SBCTA Board violated the electorates’ and Measure “I”’s purpose and intent;
b. That the SBCTA Board’s actions disparately impacted members of protected classes;
c. That SBCTA and its Board’s actions represents discrimination on the basis of, without limitation, race, national origin, and disability; d. That the SBCTA Board failed to comply with voter approval of SBCTA Ordinance No. 04–01 and its Transportation Expenditure Plan, thereby violating the electorate’s and Measure “I”’s purpose and intent; e. That the SBCTA Board prioritized other projects at the expense of the Gold Line Extension to Montclair, directing SBCTA staff to dedicate funds committed to the Gold Line Extension to Montclair to other regional projects, funneling funds to more affluent areas with lower minority populations and negatively impacting low income “priority” populations;
f. That the SBCTA Board, in violating SBCTA Ordinance No. 04–01’s Transportation Expenditure Plan, violated the Board’s obligation to prioritize disadvantaged communities as required by local and regional transportation plans and related law and policy; and
g. That the SBCTA Board unlawfully retaliated against the City of Montclair for asserting its claims against SBCTA, including its claim of discrimination on the basis of income, race, national origin, disability and membership in other protected classes—protected classes that constitute a greater percentage of Montclair’s population compared to other SBCTA member agencies.
16.The SBCTA Board pursued the above course in relation to the Gold Line Extension to Montclair despite the fact that the Measure–I–Strategic Plan for SBCTA Ordinance No. 26–1, the proposed successor ordinance to SBCTA Ordinance No. 04–01, identifies specific Measure “I”–related projects already accomplished, and to be accomplished, in San Bernardino County and each of the cities and towns in San Bernardino County including the City of Montclair, with the Gold line Extension to Montclair listed as a project to be completed under SBCTA Ordinance No. 26–1; and
17.The Measure–I–Strategic Plan, the City of Montclair Measure “I” projects fact sheet, and the Measure “I” Reauthorization Campaign PowerPoint presentation made to the Montclair City Council on August 18, 2025, by the SBCTA Deputy Director, collectively, list the following projects to be accomplished in the City of Montclair by use, in part, with Measure “I” funds, including the Gold Line Extension to Montclair:
• Gold Line extension from Pomona to the Montclair Transportation Center;
• Metrolink–Metro Gold Line Rail Corridor Pedestrian and Bicycle Overpass;
• Richton Street Improvements;
• Citywide Street Rehabilitation, Median Improvements and Bicycle Lanes;
• Central Avenue Bridge Widening at Union Pacific Railroad Tracks; • Monte Vista Avenue Street Widening from Holt Boulevard to the I–10 Interstate Freeway;
• Holt Boulevard and Mission Boulevard Street Improvements; • Central Avenue and Monte Vista Avenue Street Improvements.
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 93 of 142 Resolution No. 26–3509 Page 5 of 6
• I–10 Freeway Tunnel Underpass Improvements;
• San Antonio Channel Corridor improvements from the Pacific Electric Trail to Holt Boulevard.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, for the reasons cited herein above, the Montclair City Council, through Resolution No. 26–3509, offers “conditional” approval of SBCTA Ordinance No. 26–1’s Transportation Expenditure Plan, including (i) continuation of the one–half of one percent retail transactions and use tax as provided for under SBCTA Ordinance No. 26–1, and (ii) the Transportation Expenditure Plan developed by the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority Board of Directors, attached to SBCTA Ordinance No. 26–1 as Exhibit A, provided the SBCTA Board, “prior to the call of election,” as provided for in Public Utilities Code Sections 180201 and 180206(c), comply with the following:
1. The SBCTA Board shall reverse its decision of September 3, 2025, to defund extension of the Gold Line Project to the Montclair Transportation Center;
2. The SBCTA Board shall fully restore the Gold Line Extension to Montclair as a Transportation Expenditure Plan Project as provided for in SBCTA Ordinance No. 04–01 and its Transportation Expenditure Plan, and as approved by more than 80 percent of the electorate at the November 2, 2004, General Election, and as promised over the past 21–plus years through the collective promises and commitments by the SBCTA Board of Directors and its executive officers to fund and build the Gold Line Extension to the Montclair Transportation Center;
3. The SBCTA Board fully recommit to funding and building the Gold Line Extension to the Montclair Transportation Center, and engage with METRO and the Gold Line Construction Authority (the “Interagency Partners”) and/or other entities as may be specified by law, for the purpose of extending the Gold Line to Montclair;
4. That SBCTA commit to work with its Interagency Partners to secure the necessary funding from available funding sources, including the State of California, for the purpose of designing and building the Gold Line Extension to Montclair, together with the current procurement to build the Gold Line from Pomona to Claremont, or later procurement if participation by SBCTA is outside the current design and/or construction phase for the Gold Line Extension Project from Pomona to Claremont; and
5. The SBCTA Board commit to funding ongoing maintenance and operation of the Gold Line Extension in San Bernardino County following completion of construction.
The SBCTA Board’s failure to act on each of the above as specified, or other remedy mutually agreed to by the City of Montclair and SBCTA, shall enjoin SBCTA from using the Montclair City Council’s “conditional” approval of Resolution No. 26–3509 in obtaining compliance with the requirements of Public Utilities Code Sections 180201 and 180206(b) and (c); i.e., “approval of the city councils representing . . . a majority of the cities in the county.”
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the SBCTA Board’s failure to act on each of the above as specified shall enjoin SBCTA from using the Montclair City Council’s “conditional” approval of Resolution No. 26–3509 in obtaining compliance with the requirements of Public Utilities Code Sections 180201 and 180206(b) and (c); i.e., “approval of the city councils representing . . . a majority of the cities in the county.” BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Montclair City Council’s consideration or conditional approval of Resolution No. 26–3509 does not change, diminish, alter or otherwise affect the status of Montclair’s current claims against SBCTA under SBCTA Ordinance No. 04–01 as those claims relate to:
1. The SBCTA Board of Directors’ decision on September 3, 2025, to defund the Gold Line Extension Project to the Montclair Transportation Center; or
2. The SBCTA Board of Director’s decision on February 4, 2026, to reallocate funds previously committed to the Gold Line Extension to Montclair for other purposes; or
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 94 of 142 Resolution No. 26–3509 Page 6 of 6
3. The decision by SBCTA executive staff to allegedly retaliate against Montclair by denying Montclair a letter of support for a U.S. Department of Transportation Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) grant application to acquire Caltrans–owned property at the Montclair Transportation Center “if the need for the acquisition is framed around the Gold Line or anticipated Gold Line operations . . . .”; or
4. Any future litigation related to Montclair’s outstanding claims against SBCTA.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this XX day of XX, 2026.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
I, Andrea M. Myrick, City Clerk of the City of Montclair, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that Resolution No. 26–3509 was duly adopted by the City Council of said city and was approved by the Mayor of said city at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the XX day of XX, 2026, and that it was adopted by the following vote, to–wit:
AYES: XX
NOES: XX
ABSTAIN: XX
ABSENT: XX
Andrea M. Myrick
City Clerk
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 95 of 142
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: MARCH 16, 2026
SECTION: BUSINESS ITEMS
ITEM NO.: A
FILE I.D.: PER775/CYC145
DEPT.: CITY MGR.
PREPARER: E. STARR
SUBJECT: CONSIDER ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 26–3511 REAFFIRMING THE PROVISIONS AND RECITALS OF RESOLUTION NO. 22–3344 INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE CITY COUNCIL’S DISAPPROVAL OF CERTAIN CONDUCT AND BEHAVIOR BY, AND CENSURE OF, COUNCIL MEMBER BENJAMIN “BEN” LOPEZ, RE–RATIFYING PROTECTIVE
ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE CITY MANAGER, AND FURTHER EXPANDING THE CENSURE
BY DIRECTING THAT CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE/ECONOMIC
SANCTIONS BE TAKEN AGAINST COUNCIL MEMBER BEN LOPEZ
REASON FOR CONSIDERATION: At its April 4, 2022 meeting, the Montclair City Council adopted Resolution No. 22–3344 censuring Council Member Benjamin “Ben” Isaac Lopez for certain conduct and behavior, and ratifying certain actions taken by the City Manager.
The censure action was taken after two employees of the City (the “Plaintiffs”) reported to City management allegations of what they believed to be inappropriate actions by Council Member Benjamin Lopez. The City Manager determined there was an immediate need to request the hiring of an independent workplace investigator, followed by implementation of several workplace measures to protect City of Montclair employees from potential or further inappropriate behavior by Council Member Lopez. Protective measures gained greater relevance and urgency after the independent workplace investigator presented findings that sustained the allegations made by both employees.
On December 5, 2025, in the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, Rancho Cucamonga District, in Case Number CIVSB2133471, Judge Kory Mathewson (“Judge Mathewson”) issued his oral Tentative Decision in favor of both Plaintiffs and the City of Montclair against Defendant, Council Member Ben Lopez (“Defendant Lopez”).
On January 5, 2026, Judge Mathewson issued his Proposed Statement of Decision (which became the Statement of Decision without objection within the statutory period), finding in favor of the Plaintiffs on each of their respective causes of action for Unlawful Sexual Harassment. The court further found in favor of the Plaintiffs on each of their respective claims for punitive damages against Defendant Lopez. The court also found in favor of the Cross–Complainant/Defendant City of Montclair, awarding equitable relief.
Based on Judge Mathewson’s decision in Case Number CIVSB2133471, the City Council of the City of Montclair, in Closed Session on February 17, 2026, directed introduction and consideration of Resolution No. 26–3511—a Resolution reaffirming the recitals and actions of Resolution No. 22–3344, including the disapproval and censuring of certain conduct and behavior of Council Member Lopez, and re–ratifying protective actions taken by the City Manager. Further, the City Council directed that additional restrictions and administrative/economic sanctions against Council Member Lopez be incorporated into Resolution No. 26–3511, and be implemented.
A copy of proposed Resolution No. 26–3511 is attached for City Council review and consideration.
BACKGROUND: At its April 4, 2022 meeting, the Montclair City Council adopted MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 96 of 142 Resolution No. 22–3344 disapproving and censuring certain conduct and behavior of Council Member Lopez and ratifying certain actions taken by the City Manager.
What is Resolution No. 22–3344 and why was it adopted by the City Council? In June and July 2021, certain employees of the City of Montclair brought forth to the City Manager’s attention two complaints against Council Member Benjamin Lopez, alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation and unlawful sexual harassment.
Based on the nature of the allegations and the status of the alleged offender as a member of the City Council, the City Manager determined that an independent examination of the complaints by an outside investigator was warranted.
At its meeting of August 2, 2021, the City Council approved Agreement No. 21–47 with EXTTI, Inc. (or “EXTTI”) for professional workplace services in expert testimony, training, and investigations to conduct an independent investigation into allegations made by certain employees of the City concerning alleged inappropriate interactions by Council Member Benjamin Lopez.
At a March 1, 2022, special meeting that adjourned to closed session, the EXTTI independent investigator provided the City Council with an oral presentation of the investigation, including the findings reached by the investigator sustaining the following:
1. That Council Member Benjamin Lopez, as a private individual and outside the course and scope of his duties, responsibilities, and performance as a member of the City Council, did:
a) Conduct an extended and unwanted conversation with one employee about his sexual orientation; and
b) Intentionally hid his identity from another employee when they communicated on social media dating sites, and that their communications included sharing sexually explicit content and photographs; and
On March 1, 2022, the Montclair City Council was made aware of two verified complaints in lawsuits filed by the same two Montclair employees against both Council Member Benjamin Lopez and the City of Montclair, the complaints containing allegations that Council Member Benjamin Lopez engaged in discrimination based on sexual orientation and unlawful sexual harassment.
At its March 1, 2022, regularly scheduled meeting, the City Council duly considered the information and evidence received through the oral presentation of the independently conducted workplace investigation sustaining the allegations against Council Member Lopez.
On March 3, 2022, the City Manager provided Council Member Lopez, via email and home delivery, a documented set of “Restrictions on Access to City Facilities and Prohibition Against Contact with City Employees.”
At the March 21, 2022 meeting of the City Council, discussion occurred to consider censuring Council Member Lopez for certain conduct and behavior, and the City Council’s discussion on censure included (i) the filing of complaints by certain employees; (ii) information regarding the hiring of a workplace investigator; (iii) actions taken by the City Manager to protect employees of the City of Montclair, including restrictions imposed on Council Member Lopez; (iv) other prohibitions the City Council MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 97 of 142 may consider imposing on Council Member Lopez; and (v) a discussion of the censure process.
At the March 21, 2022 meeting, the City Council adopted a motion that a Resolution of Censure of Council Member Lopez be prepared for City Council consideration at the April 4, 2022 City Council meeting.
On April 4, 2022, Resolution No. 22–3344 was presented for City Council consideration and, based on the nature of the allegations and findings reached by EXTTI sustaining the allegations, together with the filing of two verified complaints in lawsuits by the same two employees—complaints containing allegations against Council Member Lopez of discrimination based on sexual orientation and unlawful sexual harassment—the City Council found that the interactions that Council Member Lopez had with certain employees was “reprehensible, inappropriate, abusive, and disrespectful and brought disrepute to the City of Montclair and the Montclair City Council, and that such conduct was not to be tolerated and shall be prevented from being repeated,” and the City Council then adopted Resolution No. 22–3344.
In its adoption of Resolution No. 22–3344, the City Council stated that it did not condone or approve of the type of conduct and behavior exhibited by Council Member Lopez and found it necessary and prudent to declare its strong disapproval of such conduct and behavior.
The City Council further declared and found that an employer has a duty and obligation to prevent workplace conditions of harassment, discrimination, bullying and retaliation, and that the City of Montclair has a zero–tolerance policy against such behavior in the workplace and, further, when such behavior in the workplace occurs an employee would be properly disciplined, up to and including termination of employment; however, when such behavior reportedly originates with an elected member of a local legislative board, state law provides a limited, circumscribed process for the removal of a locally elected official, and no comprehensive set of guidelines for the discipline of a locally elected official.
What is Censure?
To aid in the understanding and discussion of the censure process, the following information is presented:
1. What is a Censure? Censure is an official condemnation or reprimand of a public official—an authoritative expression of disapproval or blame, taken in open session, which is used to formally recognize and express disapproval of an incumbent’s actions. There is no state or federal statute defining the censure process; nor does state or federal law define a specific process or procedure for disciplining a locally elected official. Legislatures have not, however, left the discipline arena void, as there are statues and codes related to disciplining state or federal legislators, and statues and procedures related to removing local officials from office. Furthermore, in recent decades, California laws and court cases have begun the process of redefining locally elected officials as “supervisors,” “members of the workforce,” and “employees” under their respective, common definitions, making locally elected officials potentially subject to a range of sanctions and other employee–related–actions.
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 98 of 142
2. Purpose of Censure. Censure is typically used to demonstrate that the City Council does not condone or endorse an incumbent’s behavior or conduct, and that the City Council is taking steps to prevent the conduct from continuing. Censure serves as a statement to the public that certain behavior is unacceptable to the other Council Members. Censure is a form of self– policing for elected officials, and adoption of a resolution of censure is within the authority of the City Council.
3. Reason for Censure. Examples of conduct commonly used as the basis for censure include the following:
a) Breach of fiduciary duties.
b) Improper or offensive behavior or conduct toward other elected officers, employees, citizens or others.
c) Failure to disclose conflicts of interest.
d) Disruption of City Council meetings (e.g., overt hostility, profanity, intimidation, etc.).
e) Violations of law.
4. Adoption of a Resolution of Censure. A Resolution of Censure is adopted by majority approval of the City Council at a special or regular meeting at which a quorum of the governing board is present. The City Council may adopt a Resolution of Censure if there is substantial evidence in the record to support a City Council decision to censure a City Council incumbent. The Resolution of Censure should state the reasons for the Censure.
5. Impact of Censure on an incumbent’s powers & authority. Censure is a serious action. However, censure does not serve to remove an incumbent from office nor restrict the incumbent’s statutory powers and authority he/she has as a City Council member. A formal censure serves as a collective act of public reprimand, rebuke or disapproval, rendering the subject behavior unacceptable.
6. Due process. A City Council incumbent subject to censure is entitled to due process and an opportunity to be heard on, and respond to, the proposed Resolution of Censure. In relation to Resolution No. 22–3344, the City Attorney then provided Council Member Lopez advanced notice that the City Council would consider adoption of a Resolution of Censure at the April 4, 2022, City Council meeting.
At a meeting on February 16, 2026, with the City Manager present, Mayor Dutrey did advise Council Member Lopez that the City Council would be considering Resolution No. 26–3511 reaffirming Resolution No. 22–3344, and that the City Council would consider additional sanctions against Council Member Lopez.
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 99 of 142 What protective actions were taken by the City Manager prior to adoption of Resolution No. 22–3344?
Pursuant to Chapter 2.08 of the Montclair Municipal Code, the City Manager is officially charged with supervising the employees of the organization. Conversely, City Council members have no such charge and should not become involved with individual employees. Any direct involvement in personnel–related matters is only to be contemplated by the whole of the City Council, and even then, as a matter of consideration related to employees over whom the City Council has appointing authority, including the City Manager and City Attorney.
The City Manager, in his leadership role for all employees of the organization, implements procedures and programs in compliance with state and federal laws designed to protect employees from harassment and discriminatory treatment.
When allegations of harassment, discrimination, bullying or retaliation allegedly originate with a member of the City Council, the City Manager enacts decisions designed to protect employees from a repeat of such behavior, while remaining respectful of free speech, legislative prerogatives and the incumbent’s continued exercise of Council authority.
On March 3, 2022, pursuant to his duty and responsibility to the City’s employees to protect them from harassment, discrimination, bullying or retaliation, whether it is from a member of the public, another employee of the City, or from a member of the City Council the City Manager provided Council Member Lopez, via email and home delivery, a documented set of “Restrictions on Access to City Facilities and Prohibition Against Contact with City Employees” and, by reference, those documented set of restrictions were incorporated into Resolution No. 22–3344.
The City Manager’s actions, while respectful of free speech, legislative prerogatives, and the weighty duties and responsibilities of incumbent city council members, were designed and intended to protect employees of the organization from harassment, discrimination, bullying and retaliation.
At the March 21, 2022 meeting of the City Council, the City Manager enumerated the protective measures implemented against Council Member Lopez, such measures designed to prevent inappropriate interactions between Council Member Lopez and employees of the City and, by reference, those protective measures were incorporated into Resolution No. 22–3344 and, to this day, remain in place.
The City Manager’s protective actions, as stated in Resolution No. 22–3344, include the following:
Actions Taken by the City Manager to Protect Employees from Harassment, Discrimination, Bullying and Retaliation
1. When certain employees (complainants) respectively brought their complaints regarding inappropriate interactions with Council Member Lopez to the City Manager’s attention, each complaint was treated with due seriousness, employees were offered organizational support, and referrals were made available through a third–party counseling service provided by the City.
2. Each employee was directed to preserve any evidence in his or her possession.
3. Each employee was advised of the following:
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 100 of 142 a) Through their respective labor group agreements, complaint and grievance processes have been established.
b) Employees have the right to file a complaint with the City. c) Employee complaints are to be processed and treated with fairness and respect.
d) Employee class status based on sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, marital status, political affiliation and other classes are protected under Federal and State law.
e) Any complaint, grievance or claim filed shall not be construed as a workplace violation or an egregious act against the City or any employee, officer or agent of the City.
f) Respective complaints would be handled discreetly, and with as much confidentiality as possible.
g) An independent workplace investigator would be hired to conduct an investigation into respective allegations, and no effort would be made by the City to conduct the investigation in–house or otherwise influence the outcome of the independent investigation. h) If a written investigation report were produced, and unless the document is otherwise determined to be a public document, the City would seek to keep the completed report confidential and redact employee identities where possible in the event the report is subject to disclosure through subpoena, discovery, a California Public Records Act request, or other judicial disclosure order. i) The Montclair organization seeks to prevent, and takes seriously, any form of harassment, discrimination, bullying or retaliation against any employee by any other employee, officer or agent of the City. Steps taken by the City Manager are intended to protect employees from discrimination, harassment, bullying or retaliation within the organization. Furthermore, any form of harassment, discrimination, bullying or retaliation shall be dealt with through appropriate levels of training, direction, and discipline.
j) Complainants would not be subject to any adverse employment action related to the filing of their respective complaints or their cooperation in an investigation into their respective allegations, including the following adverse employment actions:
a. Termination:
i. Retaliation;
ii. Discipline;
iii. Reduction in pay;
iv. Demotion;
v. Change in shift or work hours;
vi. Change in job responsibilities not associated with
advancement;
vii. Isolation or ostracism;
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 101 of 142 viii. Exclusion from meetings or functions;
ix. Or any threat of the above.
4. Each employee was directed to separately meet with the Administrative Services/ Human Resources Director regarding the filing and processing of their respective complaints.
5. Each complainant is permitted to conduct his or her daily assignments without restriction and in a manner which, to the greatest degree possible, minimizes contact with Council Member Lopez. In furtherance of this latter objective, each complainant was provided discretionary latitude regarding the performance of any duty that may place the employee in a position where personal contact with Council Member Lopez may be unavoidable.
Options for discretionary latitude include the following:
a) Excused attendance from meetings and other City activities; b) Temporary reassignment;
c) Meeting attendance through Zoom or telephonically, rather than in– person;
d) Telecommuting or work–at–home, when feasible; and
e) Other proposed options.
The above discretionary measures are intended to avoid adverse employment actions that may hinder a complainant’s performance of duties.
What restrictive actions or prohibitions were taken by the City Manager against Council Member Lopez following the independent investigation sustaining employee allegations?
Upon the City Council’s receipt of the oral report presented by the independent workplace investigator sustaining certain allegations against Council Member Lopez, access restrictions to City facilities and other prohibitions were imposed. These restrictions were communicated to Council Member Lopez on March 3, 2022, via email and home delivery. Restrictions, which remain active, include the following measures:
1. Access to all City–owned and operated facilities is restricted. This restriction includes removal of all entry authorizations related to external and internal electric doors at all City facilities.
2. To conducting City Council business, access is permitted to the following areas at City facilities during regular operating hours only:
a) Public areas of City facilities;
b) City Council Chambers and City Manager’s Conference Room, or other designated locations controlled and operated by the City for scheduled meetings of the City Council; and
c) Other City meeting rooms and offices as required for the purpose and benefit of the City and by direct invite by the City Manager, or at Council Member Lopez’ request and upon approval by the City Manager.
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 102 of 142
3. Prohibition against one–on–one contact with employees of the City of Montclair, including participation in ride–along events provided through the City’s Code Enforcement, Public Works, Human Services, Police and Fire Departments.
4. Prohibition against overnight stays in public safety crew sleeping quarters.
5. Prohibition against the use of any locker room or exercise facilities owned and operated by the City and available to, or designated for use by, employees of the City.
6. In the proximity of complainants, Council Member Lopez bears the burden and responsibility to avoid physical interaction and visual or spatial contact with the complainant(s).
a) Employees shall be excused from performing their official duties if doing so brings them into contact with Council Member Lopez, or employees shall be provided with other accommodation(s) as necessary to protect them.
7. Prohibition against any continued or future form of harassment, bullying, discrimination or retaliation, including as it relates to each complainant’s protected status or his or her respective decision to file a complaint or civil action.
8. Removal of access to the City’s Universal Shared Drive, where documents, photographs, and communications between employees are shared. a) Any specific City–related document requiring Council Member Lopez’ attention will be forwarded to him by the City Manager, City Attorney or City Clerk under separate communication. The City Clerk will arrange for the delivery of City Council agendas, mail and other relevant documents requiring Council Member Lopez’ attention to his home, by email, or otherwise arrange for their pickup by Council Member Lopez or his representative in a public area at City Hall.
9. All intra–agency email and text communications from Council Member Lopez shall be directed only to City Council colleagues, the City Attorney or the City Manager, and to the City Clerk for inquires related to City Council agendas and elections only.
10. Except as otherwise provided, Council Member Lopez is prohibited from communicating in an official or personal capacity with any employee of the City of Montclair via electronic communications, social media, written correspondence, and/or other media.
a) The City of Montclair has provided to Council Member Lopez a City– owned and controlled laptop with Wi–Fi access for home use to conduct City business only. Upon request, a City–issued cell phone will also be provided to conduct City business only. Council Member Lopez was advised in writing that all information, texts, emails and actions conducted on City–provided equipment, including attorney– MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 103 of 142 client communications, are discoverable by the City and its agents, and he is required to sign a disclosure form acknowledging the City’s rights in this regard. Failure to not sign or return the disclosure form does not abrogate the City’s legal right to discovery. Council Member Lopez was also advised in writing that any City–related work and communications conducted on personal electronic equipment are also discoverable by the City regardless of acknowledgement of the City’s rights in this regard. Further, it is required that all City–provided equipment shall be returned to the City, upon demand, for inspection, discovery, upgrade or other service.
What prohibitions did the City Council impose against Council Member Lopez upon adoption of Resolution No. 22–3344?
In addition to the City Manager's protective measures outlined above and incorporated by reference into Resolution No. 22–3344, the City Council directed that the following measures be specifically incorporated into Resolution No. 22–3344, some of which are referenced above under “restrictive actions or prohibitions [that] were taken by the City Manager . . . following the independent investigation sustaining employee allegations”:
1. That Council Member Lopez is removed from all appointed City Council Committees; subcommittees of the City Council; City–sponsored committees including, but not limited to, social, event, recreation, and community– oriented committees; and inter–agency committees and boards involving City of Montclair representation.
2. That Council Member Lopez is prohibited from speaking on behalf of the City Council or representing the City in any capacity other than as authorized in the Montclair Municipal Code.
3. That Council Member Lopez shall refrain from one–on–one contact, either on a personal or professional level, with employees of the City of Montclair and shall be prohibited from participating in public safety ride–along events provided through the City’s Code Enforcement, Police, Human Services and Fire Departments.
4. That Council Member Lopez is prohibited from overnight stays in public safety crew sleeping quarters.
5. That Council Member Lopez is prohibited from the use of any locker room or exercise facilities owned and operated by the City and available to, or designated for use by, employees of the City.
6. That Council Member Lopez’ access to the City’s universal Z–Drive where documents, photographs and communications between employees of the City are shared is removed. Any specific City–related document requiring Council Member Lopez’ attention will be forwarded to him by the City Manager, City Attorney or City Clerk under separate communication. The City Clerk is directed to arrange for the delivery of City Council agendas and other City– related documents requiring Council Member Lopez’ attention to his home, by email, or otherwise arrange for their pickup by Council Member Lopez or his representative in a public area at City Hall.
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 104 of 142
7. All interagency email and text communications from Council Member Lopez shall be directed only to City Council colleagues, the City Attorney or the City Manager, and to the City Clerk for purposes of City Council agendas and elections. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any communication concerning this matter and the two lawsuits filed by the two employees shall be between Council Member Lopez’ legal counsel and the City’s defense counsel.
8. Except as otherwise provided herein, Council Member Lopez is prohibited from engaging in communications in an official or personal capacity with any employee of the City of Montclair via electronic communications, social media, and written correspondence or other media.
9. That Council Member Lopez is prohibited from City–paid/non–paid travel to conferences, meetings, training and/or other events where representation of the City is involved; and non–paid or paid travel provided through other public or private entities where representation of the City of Montclair is involved.
10. That Council Member Lopez is required to attend City–approved sexual harassment prevention training, and other training as may be required by the City Manager. Training should occur within thirty (30) calendar days following adoption of this Resolution of Censure. Furthermore, such training shall be repeated annually, subject to scheduling by the City Manager.
11. Other actions as may be considered and implemented, from time–to–time, as necessary to protect the employees of the City from harassment, discrimination, bullying, and/or retaliation.
12. All ratified actions to remain in place until otherwise rescinded by the appropriate authority.
Since Council Member Lopez has already been censured, why is Resolution No. 26– 3511 now under consideration by the City Council?
Since adoption of Resolution No. 22–3344 on April 4, 2022, Council Member Lopez has failed to comply with certain activities associated with resolving matters related to the reasons for, and purpose of, adoption of Resolution No. 22–3344, including the following:
1. Council Member Lopez failed to participate in, or respond timely to, a City Council–mandated sexual harassment training class, first scheduled for May 30, 2022, and then on June 1, 2022. The specialized class was designed to address specific issues related to matters contained in Resolution No. 22– 3344, the preparation for which cost the City of Montclair approximately $4,500 in City staff time, class materials preparation fees, and scheduled instructor time.
2. Council Member Benajmin Lopez failed to participate in, or respond to, a global mediation settlement meeting between the Parties [the City of Montclair and its special legal counsel, Council Member Lopez and his legal counsel, and the two City of Montclair employee complainants and their legal counsel], scheduled for October 6, 2022, said mediation to include a mediator selected by the Parties.
Due to Council Member Lopez’ failure to participate in the global mediation settlement meeting scheduled for October 6, 2022, the City of Montclair did MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 105 of 142 separately and without prejudice, agree to fully fund the cost of mediation between the Participating Parties [the City of Montclair and its special legal counsel and the two City of Montclair employee complainants and their legal counsel], and resolve outstanding litigation and economic matters between the Participating Parties through a settlement agreement with a combined settlement payment made to the City of Montclair employee complainants and their legal counsel; provided, however, due to Council Member Lopez’ failure to participate in the global mediation settlement meeting between the Parties, or contribute toward settlement–related costs, the settlement agreement between the Participating Parties did not include or otherwise represent settlement between the two City of Montclair employee complainants and their legal counsel and Council Member Lopez; and, further, the City did then join with the two City of Montclair employee complainants (the “Plaintiffs”) in a cross–complaint against Council Member Lopez (also the “Defendant”, or “Defendant Lopez”, or “Cross–Defendant Lopez”), such cross–complaint arising out of Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant Lopez [See California Code of Civil Procedure § 428.10].
3. On December 5, 2025, in the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, Rancho Cucamonga District, Case Number CIVSB2133471, Judge Kory Mathewson (or “Judge Mathewson”) issued his oral Tentative Decision in favor of both Plaintiffs and the City of Montclair (or “Cross–Complainant City of Montclair” or “Cross Complainant/Defendant City of Montclair”) against Defendant and Cross–Defendant Lopez. Judge Mathewson awarded each Plaintiff $350,000 in past damages and $50,000 in future damages for a total of $800,000 ($400,000 per Plaintiff) plus punitive damages to be determined, and Cross–complainant City of Montclair was awarded indemnity in the amount of 100 percent ($550,000 in settlement costs) plus attorneys’ fees and costs, with court to resume on December 12, 2025, to consider punitive damages.
4. On December 12, 2025, in the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, Rancho Cucamonga District, Case Number CIVSB2133471, Judge Mathewson imposed against Defendant Lopez $176,000 in punitive damages, or $88,000 per Plaintiff, calculating the punitive damages award as equivalent to the earnings Defendant Lopez is set to receive as a City Council Member over his two four–year terms in office. Cross–Complainant City of Montclair did not seek punitive damages.
5. On January 5, 2026, in the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, Rancho Cucamonga District, Case Number CIVSB2133471, Judge Mathewson issued his Proposed Statement of Decision (which became the Statement of Decision without objection within the statutory period) and, after assessing “the demeanor of all the parties and witnesses”, considering the “testimony and credibility of all of the parties and witnesses”, and considering “all of the evidence that was received”, the court found as follows:
a) In favor of the Plaintiffs on each of their respective causes of action for Unlawful Sexual Harassment in violation of Government Code § 12940(j) in violation of the Fair Employment Housing Act (FEHA) and against Defendant Lopez, said conduct by Defendant Lopez amounting to malice, oppression, and/or fraud justifying a punitive MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 106 of 142 damage award, and that Plaintiffs are the prevailing party in Case Number CIVSB2133471; and
b) The court further found in favor of the Plaintiffs on each of their respective claims for punitive damages against Defendant Lopez, and, accordingly, judgement was entered in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendant Lopez in the aggregate amount of $488,000 for each Plaintiff for past and future emotional distress and punitive damages; and.
c) The court also found in favor of Cross–Complainant/Defendant City of Montclair on its cause of action for indemnity against Defendant Lopez and, as the prevailing party, Cross–Complainant/Defendant City of Montclair was awarded equitable relief and should be indemnified by attorneys’ fees and costs and $550,000 in past settlement payments made to Plaintiffs; and
a) To date, the City of Montclair has expended more than $747,000 in attorneys’ fees, costs and settlement payments, and the City of Montclair’s final attorneys’ fees and costs have yet to be determined; and
d) The court found that “Defendant Lopez is liable as an employee of the City of Montclair [Emphasis added] because, as a member of the City Council, Lopez is an employee of the City [Emphasis added]. Lopez is also a supervisor [Emphasis added] within the meaning of Govt Code Section 12926(t):”
““Supervisor” means any individual having the authority, in the interest of the employer, to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other employees, or the responsibility to direct them, or to adjust their grievances, or effectively to recommend that action, if, in connection with the foregoing, the exercise of that authority is not of a merely routine or clerical nature, but requires the use of independent judgment.”
e) The Court further found that “Defendant Lopez may be held personally liable pursuant to Government Code section 12940(j)(3), which states:”
“An employee of an entity subject to this subdivision is personally liable for any harassment prohibited by this section that is perpetrated by the employee [Emphasis added], regardless of whether the employer or covered entity knows or should have known of the conduct and fails to take immediate and
appropriate corrective action.”
Is a City Council Member a “Supervisor,” “Member of the Workforce,” or “Employee” subject to Sanctions?
The State of California, under various laws, including the following, defines locally elected officials as “supervisors” or infers that they are “members of the workforce”:
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 107 of 142
1. Assembly Bill 1661, codified at California Government Code Section 53237.1, requires “local agency officials” to attend two hours of sexual harassment prevention training every two years, which must include “information and practical guidance regarding the federal and state statutory provisions concerning the prohibition against, and the prevention and correction of, sexual harassment and the remedies available to victims of sexual harassment in employment. The training shall also include practical examples aimed at instructing the local agency official in the prevention of sexual harassment, discrimination and retaliation ….” Additionally, AB 1661 provides that local agencies may have non–elected employees satisfy their training requirement under Government Code section 53237.1, rather than under Section 12950.1 (see below discussion on AB 1825). In other words, AB 1661 infers that local agency officials [city council members] are supervisors under AB 1661 and are, collectively with non–elected members, part of an agency’s workforce where, together, they may attend the same training [as they sometimes do] and learn about the common set of workplace responsibilities that belong equally to both groups.
2. Assembly Bill 1825, codified at California Government Code section 12950.1 requires that “training and education regarding sexual harassment [shall be provided] to all supervisory employees [which includes locally elected leaders] and at least one hour of classroom or other effective interactive training and education regarding sexual harassment to all nonsupervisory employees . . . .” The training requirement for elected officials benefits not only the trainees, but also the city or public agency, which is almost always named as a co– defendant in workplace harassment lawsuits involving the misconduct of governing members.
3. Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (the "FEHA") (California Government Code Sections 12900–12951 & 12927–12928 & 12955–12956.1 & 12960–12976), employers are liable for harassment against their employees as follows:
a) Employers are strictly liable for the acts of agents and supervisors. b) Employers are responsible for the acts of a non–supervisory employee if the employer, or one of its agents or supervisors, knows or should have known of the conduct and fails to take immediate corrective action.
c) Employers are responsible for the acts of non–employees if the employer, or one of its agents or supervisors, knows or should have known of the conduct and fails to take immediate corrective action. d) Under the FEHA, elected officials are supervisors. A supervisor is defined as “any individual having the authority, in the interest of the employer, to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other employees, or the responsibility to direct them, or to adjust their grievances, or effectively to recommend that action, if, in connection with the foregoing, the exercise of that authority … requires the use of independent judgment.” Because a city council generally has the authority to hire, fire, and issue direction to, at minimum, the city manager and city attorney, councilmembers fit within the definition MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 108 of 142 of “supervisor” and, as such, are subject to the FEHA’s protections and responsibilities, which include preventing and correcting harassment, discrimination and retaliation in the workplace.
4. The Judicial Council of California Advisory Committee on Civil Jury Instructions (pages 1606–1608) (Nov. 2024) clarifies that the FEHA’s definition of “supervisor” expressly refers to authority and responsibility over “other employees.” (Gov. Code, § 12926(t)) as follows:2525. Harassment – “Supervisor” Defined (Gov. Code, § 12926(t)).
[Name of alleged harasser] was a supervisor of [name of defendant] if [he/she/nonbinary pronoun] had any of the following:
a. The authority to hire, transfer, promote, assign, reward, discipline, [or] discharge [or] [insert other employment action] other employees [or effectively to recommend any of these actions];
b. The responsibility to act on other employees’ grievances [or effectively to recommend action on grievances]; or
c. The responsibility to direct other employees’ daily work activities.
The FEHA’s definition of “supervisor” refers to the “authority” for factor “a.” and the “responsibility” for factors “b.” and “c”. The difference, if any, between “authority” and “responsibility” as used in the statute is not clear. The FEHA’s definition of “supervisor” also expressly refers to authority and responsibility over “other employees.” (Gov. Code, § 12926(t)). The statute further requires that “the exercise of that authority is not of a merely routine or clerical nature, but requires the use of independent judgment.” (See Gov. Code, § 12926(t)). At least one court has found the independent–judgment requirement to be applicable to the responsibility for factor “c”. (Chapman v. Enos (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 920, 930−931 [10 Cal.Rptr.3d 852]). Therefore, the last sentence of the instruction refers to “authority or responsibility.” “Unlike discrimination in hiring, the ultimate responsibility for which rests with the employer, sexual or other harassment perpetrated by a supervisor with the power to hire, fire and control the victimized employee’s working conditions is a particularly personal form of the type of discrimination which the Legislature sought to proscribe when it enacted the FEHA.” Matthews v. Superior Court (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 598, 605–606 [40 Cal.Rptr.2d 350].)
“This section has been interpreted to mean that the employer is strictly liable for the harassing actions of its supervisors and agents, but that the employer is only liable for harassment by a coworker if the employer knew or should have known of the conduct and failed to take immediate corrective action. Thus, characterizing the employment status of the harasser is very significant.” (Doe v. Capital Cities (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1038, 1046 [58 Cal.Rptr.2d 122])
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 109 of 142 “The case and statutory authority set forth three clear rules. First, . . . a supervisor who personally engages in sexually harassing conduct is personally liable under the FEHA. Second, . . . if the supervisor participates in the sexual harassment or substantially assists or encourages continued harassment, the supervisor is personally liable under the FEHA as an aider and abettor of the harasser. Third, under the FEHA, the employer is vicariously and strictly liable for sexual harassment by a supervisor.” (Fiol v. Doellstedt (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1318, 1327 [58 Cal.Rptr.2d 308].)
“The FEHA does not define ‘agent.’ Therefore, it is appropriate to consider general principles of agency law. An agent is one who represents a principal in dealings with third persons. An agent is a person authorized by the principal to conduct one or more transactions with one or more third persons and to exercise a degree of discretion in effecting the purpose of the principal. A supervising employee is an agent of the employer.” (Cal.App.4th at p. 1328).
City council members exercise agency on behalf of a city to carry out transactions. When a city takes a particular action, it is, most likely, because the city council—its agent—decided to do so.
“While full accountability and responsibility are certainly indicia of supervisory power, they are not required elements of . . . the FEHA definition of supervisor. Indeed, many supervisors with responsibility to direct others using their independent judgment, and whose supervision of employees is not merely routine or clerical, would not meet these additional criteria though they would otherwise be within the ambit of the FEHA supervisor definition.” (Chapman, supra, 116 Cal.App.4th at p. 930, footnote omitted.)
Under the FEHA, elected officials can expose a city to liability in a FEHA lawsuit because the city is responsible for harassment against its employees even if carried out by a nonemployee, if the city knew or should have known about the harassment and failed to take corrective action. An elected official’s conduct toward city employees can and does expose a city to liability; therefore, the city council and city manager have a duty and responsibility to take corrective action within the limits and abilities of both. As a supervisor/member of the workforce/employee, a city council member in California is subject to specific legal, administrative and procedural requirements; and such actions may include censure, removal from committees, or other sanctions conducted in accordance with City policies and practices, state laws and the Fair Political Practices Commission Public Official and Employee Rules and Code of Ethics, and, further, the public has a right to know the basis for any sanction(s) taken against an elected member.
5. Under various provisions of the California Government Code, the State Legislature has provided for the removal of locally elected officials that are separate from recall efforts by members of the electorate. These disciplinary provisions include the following:
a) California Government Code Sections 3060 through 3075 outline a process for presenting to a grand jury an accusation against a public MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 110 of 142 official (defendant) for willful or corrupt misconduct in office. Upon conviction, the grand jury shall pronounce judgement that the defendant shall be removed from office.
b) California Government Code Section 1770 provides, among other provisions, that an office becomes vacant on the happening of the following before expiration of the term:
a. 1770(h) – “His or her conviction of a felony or of any offense involving a violation of his or her official duties. An officer shall be deemed to have been convicted . . . when trial court judgment is entered . . . sentencing the officer or otherwise upholding and implementing the plea, verdict or finding.” Based on the above discussion, it is evident that city council members are “supervisors,” “members of the workforce,” and “employees” under their respective, common definitions and are, therefore, subject to a range of sanctions.
Does Resolution No. 26–3511 Impose Sanctions Against Council Member Lopez, and Under What Authority?
Various California Government Code Sections and Attorney General legal opinions provide that compensation and/or benefits for City Council Members is/are not mandatory or is/are otherwise limited by conditions affecting agency employees, for example, see the following:
1. California Government Code Section 53235 provides that, “If [Emphasis added] a local agency provides any type of compensation, salary, or stipend to a member of a legislative body, or provides reimbursement for actual and necessary expenses incurred by a member of a legislative body in the performance of official duties, then all local agency officials shall receive training in ethics pursuant to this article.”
2. California Government Code Section 36516 provides that. “A city council may [Emphasis added] enact an ordinance providing that each member of the city council shall receive a salary based on the population of the city as set forth [therein].”
3. Senate Bill 329 (2023–2024) was adopted to provide cities with the option to adjust council member compensation beyond specified maximums to account for inflation and support diversity.
4. California Government Code Section 53208 provides that, “any member of a legislative body may [Emphasis added] participate in any plan of health and welfare benefits . . .”
5. California Government Code section 53201 provides that, “The legislative body of a local agency, subject to conditions as may be established by it, may [Emphasis added] provide for any health and welfare benefits for the benefit of its officers, employees, retired employees, and retired members of the legislative body, as provided in subdivision (b), who elect to accept the benefits [Emphasis added] and who authorize the local agency to deduct the premiums, dues, or other charges from their compensation, to the extent that the charges are not covered by payments from funds under the jurisdiction of the local agency as permitted by Section 53205.”
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 111 of 142
6. California Government Code Section 53205 provides that, “From funds under its jurisdiction, the legislative body may authorize [Emphasis added] payment of all, or such portion as it may elect [Emphasis added], of the premiums, dues, or other charges for health and welfare benefits of officers, employees, retired employees, former elective members specified in subdivision (b) of Section 53201, and retired members of the legislative body subject to its jurisdiction.”
7. California Government Code Section 53208.5 provides that it is “the intent of the Legislature to provide a uniform limit on the health and welfare benefits for members of the legislative bodies of all political subdivisions of the state [. . . .] In the case of agencies with different benefit structures, the benefits of members of the legislative body shall not be greater than the most generous schedule of benefits being received by any category of non–safety employees.”
8. California Attorney General Opinion No. 08–405 provides that, “A city may provide a vehicle allowance [Emphasis added] to its city council members in lieu of reimbursing actual vehicle expenses after such expenses are incurred.”
9. Other actions courts have determined fall within the prerogative of the governing body majority to restrict, prohibit, limit, admonish, regulate, or otherwise sanction an elected colleague.
At its March 21, 2022 meeting, the City Council determined that, under their authority as the governing body of the City of Montclair, and to address concerns related to the sustained allegations of inappropriate behavior by Council Member Lopez, certain restrictions shall be imposed and were imposed on Council Member Lopez—restrictions determined appropriate and within the capacity of the City Council to hold elected members responsible and accountable to employees, the organization, the public and the spirit of laws governing the avoidance and prevention of hostile work environments, harassment, discrimination and retaliation in the workplace.
Further, and in addition to the above, the Montclair City Council, through its foundational legislative prerogative, the “power of the purse”, has the authority to impose economic sanctions against an employee or, in this case, a City Council colleague adjudicated to be in violation of their duty to office. “Power of the Purse” is the ability of a legislative body or other designated authority to allocate, control, regulate and restrict the use of funds for a variety of initiatives including, but not limited to, activities, services, infrastructure, maintenance and operations, fiscal and operational accountability, labor and other personnel–related matters—either positively or negatively—the latter, for example, which may include withholding, controlling, limiting, constraining, reducing or restricting available forms of compensation or reimbursement for an employee or, in the case of a city council colleague, found liable for violations of his or her official duties.
Forms of compensation subject to sanctions may include, but not be limited to, travel, meals, lodging and other forms of non–mandatory compensation and/or reimbursement.
In addition to the above, the City Council predicates its authority, in part, on the following:
1. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 1360, each public officer, including an elected city council member, before entering upon the duties of his or her office, shall take and subscribe the oath or affirmation set forth in Article XX § 3 of the California Constitution, and the oath consists of a commitment to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 112 of 142 the Constitution of the State of California, and that the person taking the oath promises to take the obligation freely and to faithfully perform the duties of their position.
2. The Fair Political Practices Commission's code of ethics for locally elected officials emphasizes the importance of maintaining high standards of integrity, honesty and conduct in all activities, and requires officials to be impartial, responsible and accountable to the public. Further, the Code mandates that all city council members conduct their duties in accordance with the processes and rules of order established by each governing board, and such conduct should ensure their actions are above reproach and free from impropriety.
3. By their oath of office, city council members are not only duly–sworn to uphold the Federal and State Constitutions but also the vast network of national, state and local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations and procedures, including those that govern the workplace and interrelationships between elected officials, managers, supervisors and employees.
4. The Montclair City Council has a duty to the residents and employees of the City of Montclair to ensure that the laws of the United States and State of California are followed, and the rules, regulations, policies and ordinances of the City are complied with, and that this duty is primary in employer/employee relations.
5. It is essential for the effective governance of the City of Montclair for the public to have confidence in the integrity, dignity, competence, professionalism, decorum and behavior of its locally elected and appointed leaders, and their fair, respectful, courteous and dignified treatment and regard for employees of the City of Montclair and members of the public.
6. It is essential that members of the City Council demonstrate the highest level of professionalism and respect while in office and not behave or perform in a manner that is detrimental to the City or adverse to the City’s interests.
Based on the above laws, legal opinions, factors, legislative prerogatives including the “power of the purse”, court cases, Government Code Sections, duly–sworn promises, Code of Ethics, and the entirety of this discussion, the Montclair City Council, in its consideration and adoption of Resolution No. 26–3511, does, in addition to the censure and those sanctions, restrictions and protective actions enumerated in, and imposed under, Resolution No. 22–3344 and supportive documentation, and reaffirmed in Resolution No. 26–3511, make the following findings and impose the following sanctions against Council Member Lopez:
1. The Montclair City Council finds that, by the scope of laws designed to subject locally elected officials to certain legal, procedural and administrative actions, up to and including removal from office, the California State Legislature did intend to, and does provide to local legislative bodies, including city councils, authority to subject locally elected officials to certain legal, administrative and procedural actions and/or sanctions administered by the local legislative body, and that such actions and/or sanctions may include, but not be limited to, the following: (i) censure; (ii) removal from committee assignments; (iii) restrictions on travel, meals and lodging, including the elimination of funding MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 113 of 142 related thereto; (iv) restrictions on access to facilities maintained and operated by the local governing body; (v) legal representation including, but not limited to, alleged or actual violations of FEHA; (vi) prohibitions related to interactions with employees administered by the local governing body; (vii) restrictions on the provision of, or access to, local–agency provided equipment, supplies and telephone, internet and media accounts; (vii) removal and/or reductions to non–mandatory forms of compensation; (viii) sanctions administered in accordance with the Fair Political Practices Commission Public Official and Employee Rules and Code of Ethics and/or City policies; and other actions and/or sanctions as determined by the Montclair City Council. Further, City Council has determined that the public has a right to know the basis for any actions taken against a locally elected official.
2. The Montclair City Council finds that Council Member Lopez is a “supervisor” within the meaning of the Fair Employment and Housing Act, and a member of the “workforce” as indicated in AB 1661 and AB 1825, and an “employee” as declared by Judge Kory Mathewson in his Statement of Decision, Case Number CIVSB2133471, where Judge Mathewson stated “Defendant Lopez is liable as an employee of the City of Montclair because, as a member of the City Council, Lopez is an employee of the City. Lopez is also a supervisor within the meaning of Govt Code Section 12926(t),” and is, therefore subject to certain administrative actions and/or sanctions, including economic sanctions as may be taken against a supervisor, member of the workforce, and/or employee of the City of Montclair.
3. The Montclair City Council finds that, because Council Member Lopez’ acts, behavior and violations of state law, as referenced herein, were conducted “outside the scope of Ben Lopez’s [sic] employment as a City Council member (CACI 3720)” [Statement of Decision, Case No. CIVSB2133471, Superior Court of the State of California, January 5, 2026], he lacks legislative immunity with regard to actions he took toward City of Montclair employees, in part because Benjamin Lopez acted unilaterally and outside the sphere of legitimate legislative activity.
4. The Montclair City Council finds that, on January 21, 2026, the Executive Committee of the California Insurance Pool Authority (CIPA) made a determination, effective immediately, to indefinitely deny professional liability insurance coverage for Council Member Lopez due the determination of the court in Case No. CIVSB2133471, Superior Court of the State of California; therefore, the City Council of the City of Montclair does declare that the City of Montclair shall (i) not use the financial assets of the City of Montclair to defend, represent, provide indemnification for, or otherwise include Council Member Lopez under any defense strategy used by the City in relation to any and all claims, complaints, grievances, lawsuits, or civil or criminal charges brought against the City of Montclair, the Montclair City Council, or Council Member Lopez as an individual, for whatever reason; (ii) nor shall the City of Montclair use any City–acquired liability insurance policy coverage to defend, represent, provide indemnification for, or otherwise include Council Member Lopez under any defense strategy used by the City in relation to any and all claims, complaints, grievances, lawsuits, or civil or criminal charges brought against the City of Montclair, the Montclair City Council, or Council Member Lopez as an individual, for whatever reason; further, the City of Montclair shall MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 114 of 142 not seek alternative professional liability insurance coverage for the purpose of defending, representing, providing indemnification for, or otherwise including Council Member Lopez under any defense strategy used by the City in relation to any and all claims, complaints, grievances, lawsuits, or civil or criminal charges brought against the City of Montclair, the Montclair City Council, or Council Member Lopez as an individual, for whatever reason.
5. The Montclair City Council, in addition to those restrictions, sanctions and measures enumerated in Resolution No. 22–3344, includes in Resolution No. 26–3511 the following administrative actions and sanctions:
a. Council Member Lopez shall indefinitely remain removed from, and shall not be appointed by the Mayor or City Council of the City of Montclair to, the following seats, boards, committees and/or commissions:
i. Mayor Pro Tem position;
ii. City Council Committees and subcommittees;
iii. liaison positions including, but not limited to, the Montclair Planning Commission and Community Activities Commission; iv. local, regional or state bodies;
v. City–sponsored committees or boards including, but not limited to, legislative–, business–, financial, personnel– community affairs–, social–, event–, recreation–, and community–oriented– committees;
vi. private or non–profit committees/boards either receiving funding from the City of Montclair, or where City Council representation is desired, where either the City Council or the committee/board appoints a Montclair City Council member to a seat on the committee/board; and
vii. inter–agency committees and/or boards that require or desire City of Montclair representation.
b. Council Member Lopez shall, outside of meetings of the City Council, limit his communications with City personnel to members of the City Council, City Manager and City Clerk, and that all communications directed to City staff, other than inquiries regarding City Council agenda reports, elections processes and/or minor matters of organizational operations that require performance, research and/or report production be first referred to the City Council in regular session, and the City Council, by majority vote, shall determine whether or not the City Manager shall satisfy, or otherwise direct production of documentation necessary to satisfy the request for information.
c. Council Member Lopez shall remain prohibited from speaking on behalf of the City Council or representing the City in any capacity other than as authorized in the Montclair Municipal Code for the purpose of constituent representation at regularly scheduled, special, and/or closed session meetings of the City Council.
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 115 of 142 d. Council Member Lopez shall remain prohibited from attending City– paid/non–paid travel to conferences, meetings, training and/or other events where representation of or by the City is involved; and paid or non–paid travel provided through other public or private entities where representation of or by the City of Montclair is involved.
Further, effective the first day of the first full month after adoption of Resolution No. 26–3511, the City Council hereby orders that Council Member Lopez shall be ineligible to receive, nor shall he receive, a City–paid automobile/travel allowance or otherwise be eligible to use any City–owned or City–provided vehicle for purposes of travel; provided, however, nothing herein prohibits Council Member Benajamin Lopez from submitting for reimbursement for actual and necessary expenses in the performance of his official duties, including for mileage reimbursement pursuant to provisions in the City’s Travel Policy for use of a personal vehicle for travel to City–mandated events as directed by the City Manager, such mileage reimbursement not to include attendance at regularly scheduled, special and/or closed session meetings of the City Council, or mileage that would otherwise be excluded by the City’s Travel Policy or other relevant policies of the City of Montclair and/or relevant state and federal policies related to travel by elected officials.
e. The City Manager shall submit for City Council consideration revisions to Section 2.12.050 of Chapter 2.12, of the Montclair Municipal Code related to City Council Compensation, and that such revisions shall (i) comply with state law; (ii) take into consideration any civil tort rulings in which a court of competent jurisdiction may have ruled that a member of the Montclair City Council, as a private individual and acting outside the course and scope of his duties, responsibilities and performance as a member of the City Council of the City of Montclair did act in violation of his or her official duties, including for willful or corrupt misconduct in office or other violation of California law, including under the Fair Employment and Housing Act. Revisions to Section 2.12.050 of Chapter 2.12 of the Montclair Municipal Code shall incorporate differing rates of monthly pay for City Council Members, and such differing rates of pay shall demonstrate a normal rate of pay represented by the higher end of the pay schedule, and a lower rate of pay to be assigned to a member of the City Council Member found to be not in good standing due to being found liable for adjudicated violations as described in “(ii)” of this paragraph, such lower rate of pay to be set at the minimum rate of pay as proscribed by state law. Further, if such payrate policy change for Montclair City Council Members is adopted by ordinance of the City Council, such payrate change shall apply to current Montclair City Council incumbents and future Montclair City Council incumbents, unless otherwise changed by ordinance; provided, however, if an increase is applied to the normal rate of pay for City Council Member, a change in compensation for the normal rate of pay and/or lower rate of pay shall not apply to a Council Member during the Council Member’s current term of office, but shall apply when one or more members of the City Council begins a new term of office.
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 116 of 142 f. The City shall continue to contribute the authorized monthly premium toward City Council Member Lopez’ health benefit fund and life insurance policy; however, any monthly City–contribution paid toward a City–provided deferred compensation program on behalf of Council Member Lopez shall terminate effective the first day of the first full month following adoption of this Resolution No. 26–3511. Nothing herein, however, shall affect the City’s required payroll–related contributions toward the California Public Employee Retirement System for the normal service rate.
g. Other actions and/or sanctions as may be considered, from time–to– time, by the City Council as necessary to protect the employees of the City of Montclair from harassment, discrimination, bullying and/or retaliation, subject to applicable legal and procedural requirements, and provided such actions or sanctions are conducted in accordance with state laws, City policies, ordinances or resolutions, and/or the Fair Political Practices Commission Public Official and Employee Rules and Code of Ethics.
h. All ratified actions and sanctions contained in Resolution No. 22–3344 and Resolution No. 26–3511 shall remain in place until otherwise rescinded by the appropriate authority.
Does Resolution No. 26–3511 Impose Sanctions for Violations of its Provisions? Resolution No. 26–3511 declares, demands and requires that Council Member Lopez shall comply with all actions, sanctions, restrictions and measures imposed and as enumerated and ratified by the City Council, and to be enforced by the City Manager.
The City Manager is directed to immediately notify the City Council if Council Member Lopez violates any approved action, sanction or restriction enumerated in Resolution No. 26–3511, or otherwise engages in future conduct that is/are in violation of local ordinance, state law, his oath of office, or otherwise proscribed by Resolution No. 26– 3511.
Finally, it is the intent of the Montclair City Council, in the event of future improper and unprofessional conduct by Council Member Lopez in violation of his oath of office, federal or state law, or the terms or provisions of Resolution No. 26–3511, to pursue all legal remedies available by force of law to stop, terminate, prevent and/or otherwise prohibit such conduct.
FISCAL IMPACT: Adoption of Resolution No. 26–3511 imposes no direct fiscal impact on the City’s General Fund; however, implementation of certain economic sanctions provided for in Resolution No. 26–3511 would produce minor reductions in General Fund expenditures.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff advises it is the prerogative of the City Council to adopt of Resolution No. 26–3511 reaffirming the provisions and recitals of Resolution No. 22– 3344 including, but not limited to, the City Council’s disapproval of certain conduct and behavior by, and censure of, Council Member Benjamin “Ben” Lopez, re–ratifying protective actions taken by the City Manager, and further expanding the censure by directing that certain restrictions and administrative/economic sanctions be taken against Council Member Ben Lopez.
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 117 of 142 Resolution No. 26–3511 Page 1 of 14
RESOLUTION NO. 26–3511
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MONTCLAIR, CALIFORNIA, REAFFIRMING THE PROVISIONS
AND RECITALS OF RESOLUTION NO. 22–3344 INCLUDING, BUT
NOT LIMITED TO, THE MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL’S
DISAPPROVAL AND CENSURING OF CERTAIN CONDUCT AND
BEHAVIOR BY COUNCIL MEMBER BENJAMIN ISAAC LOPEZ AND
RE–RATIFYING THE PROTECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE
CITY MANAGER, AND, FURTHER, EXPANDING ON RESOLUTION
NO. 22–3344 BY DIRECTING THAT CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS
AND ADMINISTRATIVE/ECONOMIC SANCTIONS BE TAKEN
AGAINST COUNCIL MEMBER BENJAMIN LOPEZ
WHEREAS, at its April 4, 2022 meeting, the Montclair City Council (also referred to indirectly as, “local legislative board” or “governing board”) adopted Resolution No. 22–3344, disapproving and censuring certain conduct and behavior of Montclair City Council Member Benjamin Lopez (also, “Lopez,” or “Defendant Lopez,” or Cross– Complainant/Defendant Lopez”) and ratifying certain actions taken by the City Manager; and
WHEREAS, the Montclair City Council adopted Resolution No. 22–3344 for the following reasons:
1. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 1360, each public officer, including a city council member, before entering upon the duties of his or her office, shall take and subscribe the oath or affirmation set forth in Article XX § 3 of the California Constitution, and the oath consists of a commitment to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California, and that the person taking the oath promises to take the obligation freely and to faithfully perform the duties of their position; and
2. The Fair Political Practices Commission's code of ethics for locally elected officials emphasizes the importance of maintaining high standards of integrity, honesty and conduct in all activities, and requires officials to be impartial, responsible and accountable to the public. Further, the Code mandates that all city council members conduct their duties in accordance with the processes and rules of order established by each governing board, and such conduct should ensure their actions are above reproach and free from impropriety; and
3. By their oath of office, city council members are not only duly–sworn to uphold the Federal and State Constitutions but also the vast network of national, state and local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations and procedures, including those that govern the workplace and interrelationships between elected officials, managers, supervisors and employees; and
4. The Montclair City Council and each of its member has a duty to the residents and employees of the City of Montclair (also, “Montclair” or “City”) to ensure that the laws of the United States and State of California (also, “State” or “California”) are followed, the rules, regulations, policies and ordinances of the City are complied with, and that this duty is primary in employer/employee relations; and
5. It is essential for the effective governance of the City of Montclair for the public to have confidence in the integrity, dignity, competence, professionalism and behavior of its elected (inclusive of City Council Members) and appointed leaders and their fair, respectful, courteous and dignified treatment and regard for employees of the City of Montclair and members of the public; and
6. It is essential that members of the City Council demonstrate the highest level of professionalism and respect while in office, and not behave or perform in a manner that is detrimental to the City or adverse to the City’s interests; and
7. In June and July 2021, certain employees of the City of Montclair brought forth to the City Manager’s attention two complaints against Council Member Benjamin Lopez, alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation and unlawful sexual harassment; and
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 118 of 142 Resolution No. 26–3511 Page 2 of 14
8. At its meeting of August 2, 2021, the City Council approved Agreement No. 21–47 with EXTTI, Inc. (or “EXTTI”) for professional workplace services in expert testimony, training and investigations to conduct an independent investigation into allegations made by certain employees of the City concerning alleged inappropriate interactions by Council Member Benjamin Lopez, as referenced herein, and as ultimately enumerated in the EXTTI investigative report; and
9. At a March 1, 2022, special meeting that adjourned to closed session, the EXTTI independent investigator provided the City Council with an oral presentation of the investigation, including the findings reached by the investigator sustaining the following:
a. That Council Member Benjamin Lopez, as a private individual and outside the course and scope of his duties, responsibilities and performance as a member of the City Council, did:
i. Conduct an extended and unwanted conversation with one employee about his sexual orientation; and
ii. Intentionally hide his identity from another employee when they communicated on social media dating sites, and that their communications included sharing sexually explicit content and photographs; and
10. On March 1, 2022, the Montclair City Council was made aware of two verified complaints in lawsuits filed by the same two Montclair employees against both Council Member Benjamin Lopez and the City of Montclair, the complaints containing allegations that Council Member Benjamin Lopez engaged in discrimination based on sexual orientation and unlawful sexual harassment; and
11. At its March 1, 2022, regularly scheduled meeting, the City Council duly considered the information and evidence received through the oral presentation of the independently conducted workplace investigation; and
12. On March 3, 2022, the City Manager provided Council Member Benjamin Lopez, via email and home delivery, a documented set of “Restrictions on Access to City Facilities and Prohibition Against Contact with City Employees” and, by reference, those documented set of restrictions were incorporated into Resolution No. 22–3344 and are now incorporated into this Resolution No. 26–3511; and
13. At the March 21, 2022, meeting of the City Council, discussion occurred to consider censuring Council Member Benjamin Lopez for certain conduct and behavior, and the City Council’s discussion on censure included (i) the filing of complaints by certain employees; (ii) information regarding the hiring of a workplace investigator; (iii) actions taken by the City Manager to protect employees of the City of Montclair, including restrictions imposed on Council Member Lopez; (iv) other prohibitions the City Council may consider imposing on Council Member Lopez; and (v) a discussion of the censure process; and
14. At the March 21, 2022, meeting, the City Council did adopt a motion that a Resolution of Censure of City Council Member Benjamin Lopez be prepared for City Council consideration at the April 4, 2022, City Council meeting; and
15. On April 4, 2022, Resolution No. 22–3344 was presented for City Council consideration and, based on the nature of the allegations and findings reached by the EXTTI investigator sustaining the allegations, together with the filing of two verified complaints in lawsuits by the same two employees— complaints containing allegations against Council Member Benjamin Lopez of discrimination based on sexual orientation and unlawful sexual harassment—the City Council did then find that the interactions that Council Member Benjamin Lopez had with certain employees was reprehensible, inappropriate, abusive, and disrespectful and brought disrepute to the City of Montclair and the Montclair City Council, and that such conduct was not to be tolerated and shall be prevented from being repeated, and the City Council then did adopt Resolution No. 22–3344; and
16. In its adoption of Resolution No. 22–3344, the City Council did state that it did not condone or approve of the type of conduct and behavior exhibited MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 119 of 142 Resolution No. 26–3511 Page 3 of 14
by Council Member Benjamin Lopez, and found it necessary and prudent to declare its strong disapproval of such conduct and behavior; and
17. The City Council did further declare and find that an employer has a duty and obligation to prevent workplace conditions of harassment, discrimination, bullying and retaliation, and the City of Montclair has a zero– tolerance policy against such behavior in the workplace and, further, when such behavior in the workplace occurs an employee would be properly disciplined, up to and including termination of employment; however, when such behavior reportedly originates with an elected member of a local legislative board, state law provides a limited, circumscribed process for the removal of a locally elected official, and offers no comprehensive set of guidelines for the discipline of a locally elected official. It is, however, the prerogative of a City Council majority to pursue the following actions and sanctions:
a. Censure actions; and
b. Restrictions on access to City–operated facilities where interactions with employees may occur, to wit:
i. On March 3, 2022, pursuant to his duty and responsibility to the City’s employees to protect them from harassment,
discrimination, bullying or retaliation, whether it is from a member of the public, another employee of the City, or from a member of the City Council the City Manager provided Council Member Benjamin Lopez, via email and home delivery, a
documented set of “Restrictions on Access to City Facilities and Prohibition Against Contact with City Employees” and, by reference, those documented set of restrictions were
incorporated into Resolution No. 22–3344 and are hereby incorporated into this Resolution No. 26–3511; and
ii. The City Manager’s actions, while respectful of free speech, legislative prerogatives, and the weighty duties and
responsibilities of incumbent city council members, were designed and intended to protect employees of the
organization from harassment, discrimination, bullying and retaliation; and
iii. At the March 21, 2022, meeting of the City Council, the City Manager did enumerate the protective measures implemented against Council Member Benjamin Lopez, such measures
designed to prevent inappropriate interactions between
Council Member Benjamin Lopez and employees of the City and, by reference, those protective measures were
incorporated into Resolution No. 22–3344 and, to this day, remain in effect; and
c. Restricted privileges including, but not limited to, access to, or the privilege to use, City–provided equipment, including electronic equipment and media platforms; and
d. Prohibitions on representation at City–related, –sponsored, –supported, and –funded events and functions; and
e. Restrictions on travel, lodging, meals, and use of City–provided vehicles; and
f. Limitations, reductions or restrictions imposed by the governing body majority through its foundational legislative prerogative, the “power of the purse”; i.e., the ability of a legislative body or other designated authority to allocate, control, regulate and restrict the use of funds for a variety of initiatives including, but not limited to, activities, services, infrastructure, maintenance and operations, fiscal and operational accountability, labor and other personnel–related matters—either positively or negatively—the latter, for example, which may include withholding, controlling, limiting, constraining, reducing or restricting available forms of compensation or reimbursement for a city council member found liable for violations of his or her official duties, such forms of compensation may include, but are not limited to, travel, MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 120 of 142 Resolution No. 26–3511 Page 4 of 14
meals, lodging and other forms of non–mandatory compensation and/or reimbursement; and, further, various California Government Code Sections and Attorney General legal opinions provide that compensation and/or benefits for City Council Members is/are not mandatory or is/are otherwise limited by conditions affecting agency employees, for example, see the following:
i. California Government Code Section 53235provides that, “If [Emphasis added] a local agency provides any type of
compensation, salary, or stipend to a member of a legislative body, or provides reimbursement for actual and necessary expenses incurred by a member of a legislative body in the performance of official duties, then all local agency officials shall receive training in ethics pursuant to this article.” ii. California Government Code Section 36516 provides that. “A city council may [Emphasis added] enact an ordinance
providing that each member of the city council shall receive a salary based on the population of the city as set forth [therein].” iii. Senate Bill 329 (2023–2024) was adopted to provide cities with the option [Emphasis added] to adjust council member
compensation beyond specified maximums to account for
inflation and support diversity.
iv. California Government Code Section 53208 provides that, “any member of a legislative body may [Emphasis added] participate in any plan of health and welfare benefits . . .”
v. California Government Code Section 53201 provides that, “The legislative body of a local agency, subject to conditions as may be established by it, may [Emphasis added] provide for any health and welfare benefits for the benefit of its officers, employees, retired employees, and retired members of the legislative body, as provided in subdivision (b), who elect to accept the benefits [Emphasis added] and who authorize the local agency to deduct the premiums, dues, or other charges from their compensation, to the extent that the charges are not covered by payments from funds under the jurisdiction of the local agency as permitted by Section 53205.”
vi. California Government Code Section 53205 provides that, “From funds under its jurisdiction, the legislative body may authorize [Emphasis added] payment of all, or such portion as it may elect [Emphasis added], of the premiums, dues, or other charges for health and welfare benefits of officers, employees, retired employees, former elective members specified in subdivision (b) of Section 53201, and retired members of the legislative body subject to its jurisdiction.”
vii. California Government Code Section 53208.5 provides that it is “the intent of the Legislature to provide a uniform limit on the health and welfare benefits for members of the legislative bodies of all political subdivisions of the state [. . . .] In the case of agencies with different benefit structures, the benefits of members of the legislative body shall not be greater [Emphasis added] than the most generous schedule of benefits being received by any category of nonsafety employees.”
viii. California Attorney General Opinion No. 08–405 provides that, “A city may provide a vehicle allowance [Emphasis added] to its city council members in lieu of reimbursing actual vehicle expenses after such expenses are incurred.”
g. Other actions courts have determined fall within the prerogative of the governing body majority to restrict, prohibit, limit, admonish, regulate, or otherwise sanction an elected colleague; and
18. At its March 21, 2022, meeting, the City Council determined that, under their authority as the governing body of the City of Montclair, and to address concerns related to the sustained allegations of inappropriate behavior by MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 121 of 142 Resolution No. 26–3511 Page 5 of 14
Council Member Lopez as outlined herein, certain restrictions shall be imposed and were imposed on Council Member Benjamin Lopez— restrictions determined appropriate and within the capacity of the City Council to hold elected members responsible and accountable to employees, the organization, the public and the spirit of laws governing the avoidance and prevention of hostile work environments, harassment, discrimination and retaliation in the workplace; and
WHEREAS, since adoption of Resolution No. 22–3344 on April 4, 2022, the City Council has determined that Council Member Benjamin Lopez has failed to comply with certain activities associated with resolving matters related to the reasons for, and purpose of, adoption of Resolution No. 22–3344, including the following:
1. Council Member Benjamin Lopez failed to participate in, or respond to, a City Council–mandated sexual harassment training class, first scheduled for May 30, 2022, and then June 1, 2022, designed to address specific issues related to matters contained in Resolution No. 22–3344, the preparation for which cost the City of Montclair approximately $4,500 in City staff time, class materials preparation fees, and scheduled instructor time; and
2. Council Member Benajmin Lopez failed to participate in, or respond to, a global mediation settlement meeting between the Parties [the City of Montclair and its special legal counsel, Council Member Benjamin Lopez and his legal counsel, and the two City of Montclair employee complainants and their legal counsel], scheduled for October 6, 2022, said mediation to include a mediator selected by the Parties; and
3. Due to Council Member Benjamin Lopez’ failure to participate in the global mediation settlement meeting scheduled for October 6, 2022, the City of Montclair did separately and with prejudice as it relates to the Participating Parties [the City of Montclair and its special legal counsel and the two City of Montclair employee complainants and their legal counsel], agree to fully fund the cost of mediation between the Participating Parties, and resolve outstanding litigation and economic matters between the Participating Parties through a settlement agreement with a combined settlement payment for the City of Montclair employee complainants; provided, however, due to Council Member Benjamin Lopez’ failure to participate in the “global” mediation settlement meeting between the Parties, or contribute toward mediation or settlement–related costs, the settlement agreement between the Participating Parties did not include or otherwise represent settlement between the two City of Montclair employee complainants and Council Member Benjamin Lopez, or between the City of Montclair and Council Member Benjamin Lopez as the latter relates to Council Member Benjamin Lopez indemnifying or otherwise reimbursing Montclair for its costs including, but not limited to, settlement costs, mediation costs, court costs, City staff time costs or attorneys’ fees. Thereafter, the City did then join with the two City of Montclair employee complainants (hereafter, the “Plaintiffs”), with Montclair filing a cross–complaint against Council Member Benjamin Lopez (hereafter, the “Defendant”, or “Defendant Lopez”, or “Cross–Defendant Lopez”), such cross–complaint arising out of Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant Lopez [See California Code of Civil Procedure § 428.10]; and
4. On December 5, 2025, in the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, Rancho Cucamonga District, Case Number CIVSB2133471, Judge Kory Mathewson (hereafter, “Judge Mathewson”) issued his oral Tentative Decision in favor of both Plaintiffs and City of Montclair (hereafter, “Cross– Complainant City of Montclair” or “Cross Complainant/Defendant City of Montclair”) against Defendant and Cross–Defendant Lopez. Judge Mathewson awarded each Plaintiff $350,000 in past damages and $50,000 in future damages for a total of $800,000 ($400,000 per Plaintiff) plus punitive damages to be determined, and Cross–Complainant City of Montclair was awarded indemnity in the amount of 100 percent of its settlement costs ($550,000) plus attorneys’ fees and costs, with court to resume on December 12, 2025, to consider punitive damages; and
5. On December 12, 2025, in the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, Rancho Cucamonga District, Case Number CIVSB2133471, Judge Mathewson imposed against Defendant Lopez $176,000 in punitive damages, or $88,000 per Plaintiff, calculating the punitive damages award as equivalent to the earnings Defendant Lopez is set to receive as a City MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 122 of 142 Resolution No. 26–3511 Page 6 of 14
Council Member over his two four–year terms in office—Cross–Complainant City of Montclair did not seek punitive damages; and
6. On January 5, 2026, in the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, Rancho Cucamonga District, Case Number CIVSB2133471, Judge Mathewson issued his Proposed Statement of Decision (which became the Statement of Decision without objection within the statutory period) and, after assessing “the demeanor of all the parties and witnesses”, considering the “testimony and credibility of all of the parties and witnesses”, and considering “all of the evidence that was received”, the court found as follows:
a. In favor of the Plaintiffs as the prevailing parties on each of their respective causes of action for Unlawful Sexual Harassment in violation of Government Code § 12940(j) in violation of the Fair Employment Housing Act (FEHA) and against Defendant Lopez, such conduct by Defendant Lopez amounting to malice, oppression, and/or fraud justifying a punitive damage award in Case Number CIVSB2133471; and b. The court further found in favor of the Plaintiffs as the prevailing parties on each of their respective claims for punitive damages against Defendant Lopez, and, accordingly, judgement was entered in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendant Lopez in the aggregate amount of $488,000 for each Plaintiff for past and future emotional distress and punitive damages; and.
c. The court also found in favor of Cross–Complainant/Defendant City of Montclair on its cause of action for indemnity against Defendant Lopez and, as the prevailing party, Cross–Complainant/Defendant City of Montclair was awarded equitable relief and should be indemnified by Defendant Lopez for attorneys’ fees and costs (including, but not limited to, mediation and court costs) and $550,000 in past settlement payments made to Plaintiffs; and
i. To date, the City of Montclair has expended more than $747,000 in attorneys’ fees, costs and settlement payments, and the City of Montclair’s final attorneys’ fees, and settlement payments and a full accounting of all costs incurred by Montclair have yet to be determined; and
d. The court found that “Defendant Lopez is liable as an employee of the City of Montclair [Emphasis added] because, as a member of the City Council, Lopez is an employee of the City [Emphasis added]. Lopez is also a supervisor [Emphasis added] within the meaning of Govt Code Section 12926(t):”
““Supervisor” means any individual having the authority, in the interest of the employer, to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other employees, or the responsibility to direct them, or to adjust their grievances, or effectively to recommend that action, if, in connection with the foregoing, the exercise of that authority is not of a merely routine or clerical nature, but requires the use of independent judgment.”
e. The Court further found that “Defendant Lopez may be held personally liable pursuant to Government Code Section 12940(j)(3), which states:” “An employee of an entity subject to this subdivision is personally liable for any harassment prohibited by this section that is perpetrated by the employee [Emphasis added], regardless of whether the employer or covered entity knows or should have known of the conduct and fails to take immediate and
appropriate corrective action.”
f. The State of California, under various laws, either define locally elected officials as “supervisors” or state or infer that they are “members of the workforce,” including the following laws:
i. Assembly Bill 1661, codified at California Government Code Section 53237.1, requires “local agency officials” to attend two hours of sexual harassment prevention training every two years, MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 123 of 142 Resolution No. 26–3511 Page 7 of 14
which must include “information and practical guidance
regarding the federal and state statutory provisions concerning the prohibition against, and the prevention and correction of, sexual harassment and the remedies available to victims of sexual harassment in employment. The training shall also include practical examples aimed at instructing the local agency official in the prevention of sexual harassment, discrimination and retaliation ….” Additionally, AB 1661 provides that local agencies may have non–elected employees satisfy their training requirement under Government Code section 53237.1, rather than under Section 12950.1 (see below discussion on AB 1825). ii. Assembly Bill 1825, codified at California Government Code section 12950.1 requires that “training and education regarding sexual harassment [shall be provided] to all supervisory employees [Emphasis added] and at least one hour of classroom or other effective interactive training and education regarding sexual harassment to all nonsupervisory employees . . . .” City council members, as “supervisors,” are required to attend AB 1825 training. The training requirement for elected officials benefits not only the trainees, but also the city or public agency, which is almost always named as a co–defendant in workplace harassment lawsuits involving the misconduct of governing members.
iii. AB 1234 (2005), codified at California Government Code Chapter 700 and SB 827 (2025), codified at California Government Code Chapter 661 require that local elected officials, department heads and similar administrators of local agencies complete an ethics training course within six months of hiring and every two years thereafter. Additionally, as of January 1, 2026 (SB 827) a new fiscal and financial training requirement mandates all local agency officials involved in financial oversight, with “local agency official” to include “a member of a local agency legislative body . . . who receives any type of compensation, salary, or stipend or reimbursement for actual and necessary expenses incurred in the performance of official duties . . . a department head or other similar administrative officer”, receive at least two hours of training every two years covering budgeting, debt management, auditing, revenue mechanisms, investments, and ethical
stewardship. Certain officials like county auditors and treasurers who already comply with fiscal training requirements are exempt from this requirement.
Together, under AB 1661, AB 1825, AB 1234 and SB 827 local agency officials [city council members] are “supervisors” and are, collectively, with department heads and other non–elected members, part of an agency’s workforce where, together, they may attend the same training [as they sometimes do], learn about the common set of workplace responsibilities that belong equally to both elected and non–elected members and are tasked to receive training related to organizational operations and ethical stewardship and comply with laws that govern the behavior and interaction of members within the workforce. iv. Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (the "FEHA") (California Government Code Sections 12900–12951 & 12927–12928 & 12955–12956.1 & 12960–12976), employers
are liable for harassment against their employees as follows:
1. Employers are strictly liable for the acts of agents and supervisors.
2. Employers are responsible for the acts of a non–
supervisory employee if the employer, or one of its agents or supervisors, knows or should have known of the
conduct and fails to take immediate corrective action.
3. Employers are responsible for the acts of non–employees if the employer, or one of its agents or supervisors, knows or should have known of the conduct and fails to take
immediate corrective action.
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 124 of 142 Resolution No. 26–3511 Page 8 of 14
4. Under the FEHA, elected officials are supervisors. A supervisor is defined as “any individual having the
authority, in the interest of the employer, to hire,
transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other employees, or the
responsibility to direct them, or to adjust their grievances, or effectively to recommend that action, if, in connection with the foregoing, the exercise of that authority …
requires the use of independent judgment.” Because a city council generally has the authority to hire, fire, and issue direction to, at minimum, the city manager and city
attorney, councilmembers fit within the definition of
“supervisor” and, as such, are subject to the FEHA’s
protections and responsibilities, which include preventing and correcting harassment, discrimination and retaliation in the workplace.
5. The Judicial Council of California Advisory Committee on Civil Jury Instructions (pages 1606–1608) (Nov. 2024)
clarifies that the FEHA’s definition of “supervisor”
expressly refers to authority and responsibility over “other employees.” (Government Code, § 12926(t)) as follows:
2525. Harassment – “Supervisor” Defined (Gov. Code, §
12926(t)).
[Name of alleged harasser] was a supervisor of [name of defendant] if [he/she/nonbinary pronoun] had any of the following:
a. The authority to hire, transfer, promote, assign,
reward, discipline, [or] discharge [or] [insert other
employment action] other employees [or effectively
to recommend any of these actions];
b. The responsibility to act on other employees’
grievances [or effectively to recommend action on
grievances]; or
c. The responsibility to direct other employees’ daily
work activities.
The FEHA’s definition of “supervisor” refers to the
“authority” for factor “a”, above, and the “responsibility” for factors “b” and “c”, above. The difference, if any, between “authority” and “responsibility” as used in the statute is not clear. The FEHA’s definition of “supervisor” also expressly refers to authority and responsibility over “other employees.” (Government Code, § 12926(t)). The
statute further requires that “the exercise of that authority is not of a merely routine or clerical nature, but requires the use of independent judgment.” (See Gov. Code, §
12926(t)). At least one court has found the independent– judgment requirement to be applicable to the
responsibility for factor “c”. (Chapman v. Enos (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 920, 930−931 [10 Cal.Rptr.3d 852]).
Therefore, the last sentence of the instruction refers to “authority or responsibility.”
“Unlike discrimination in hiring, the ultimate
responsibility for which rests with the employer, sexual or other harassment perpetrated by a supervisor with the
power to hire, fire and control the victimized employee’s working conditions is a particularly personal form of the type of discrimination which the Legislature sought to
proscribe when it enacted the FEHA.” Matthews v. Superior Court (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 598, 605–606 [40
Cal.Rptr.2d 350].)
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 125 of 142 Resolution No. 26–3511 Page 9 of 14
“This section has been interpreted to mean that the
employer is strictly liable for the harassing actions of its supervisors and agents, but that the employer is only
liable for harassment by a coworker if the employer knew or should have known of the conduct and failed to take
immediate corrective action. Thus, characterizing the
employment status of the harasser is very significant.” (Doe v. Capital Cities (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1038, 1046 [58 Cal.Rptr.2d 122])
“The case and statutory authority set forth three clear rules. First, . . . a supervisor who personally engages in sexually harassing conduct is personally liable under the FEHA. Second, . . . if the supervisor participates in the sexual harassment or substantially assists or encourages continued harassment, the supervisor is personally liable under the FEHA as an aider and abettor of the harasser.
Third, under the FEHA, the employer is vicariously and
strictly liable for sexual harassment by a supervisor.” (Fiol v. Doellstedt (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1318, 1327 [58
Cal.Rptr.2d 308].)
“The FEHA does not define ‘agent.’ Therefore, it is
appropriate to consider general principles of agency law.
An agent is one who represents a principal in dealings
with third persons. An agent is a person authorized by the principal to conduct one or more transactions with one or more third persons and to exercise a degree of discretion in effecting the purpose of the principal. A supervising employee is an agent of the employer.” (Cal.App.4th at p. 1328).
City council members exercise agency on behalf of a city to carry out transactions. When a city takes a particular action, it is, most likely, because the city council—its agent—decided to do so.
“While full accountability and responsibility are certainly indicia of supervisory power, they are not required
elements of . . . the FEHA definition of supervisor. Indeed, many supervisors with responsibility to direct others
using their independent judgment, and whose supervision of employees is not merely routine or clerical, would not meet these additional criteria though they would
otherwise be within the ambit of the FEHA supervisor
definition.” (Chapman, supra, 116 Cal.App.4th at p. 930, footnote omitted.)
Under the FEHA, elected officials can expose a city to liability in a FEHA lawsuit because the city is responsible for harassment against its employees even if carried out by a nonemployee, if the city knew or should have known about the harassment and failed to take corrective action. An elected official’s conduct toward city employees can and does expose a city to liability; therefore, the city council and city manager have a duty and responsibility to take corrective action within the limits and abilities of both. As a supervisor/member of the workforce/employee, a city council member in California is subject to specific legal, administrative and procedural requirements; and such actions may include censure, removal from committees, or other sanctions conducted in accordance with City policies and practices, state laws and the Fair Political Practices Commission Public Official and Employee Rules and Code of Ethics, and, further, the public has a right to know the basis for any sanction(s) taken against an elected member.
g. Under various provisions of the California Government Code, the State Legislature has provided for the removal of locally elected officials that MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 126 of 142 Resolution No. 26–3511 Page 10 of 14
are separate from recall efforts by members of the electorate. These disciplinary provisions include, but are not limited to, the following:
i. California Government Code Sections 3060 through 3075 outline a process for presenting to a grand jury an accusation against a public official (defendant) for willful or corrupt misconduct in office. Upon conviction, the grand jury shall pronounce judgement that the defendant shall be removed from office; and ii. California Government Code Section 1770 provides, among other provisions, that an office becomes vacant on the
happening of the following before expiration of the term:
1. 1770(h) – “His or her conviction of a felony or of any offense involving a violation of his or her official duties.
An officer shall be deemed to have been convicted . . . when trial court judgment is entered . . . sentencing the officer or otherwise upholding and implementing the plea, verdict or finding”; and
WHEREAS, the City of Montclair is a member of the California Insurance Pool Authority (CIPA), established in 1978 as a Joint Powers Authority for the purpose of reducing insurance costs, with member agencies (i) operating within the guidelines of the Joint Powers Agreement approved by each member agency’s governing board, and (ii) sharing financial and operating responsibilities through a system of active committees, consultants and effective management practices; and
1. CIPA provides a variety of group purchased insurance coverages including General Liability, Errors and Omissions/Professional Liability, Excess Workers’ Compensation, Property, Boiler & Machinery, Cyber Liability, Pollution Liability and Crime/Bond insurance coverages, as well as other services designed to assist member agencies with the effective administration of their risk management programs; and
2. Errors and Omissions (E&0)/Professional Liability Insurance provides coverage from lawsuits claiming negligence, errors in provided services, omissions, misrepresentation, violations of good faith and fair dealing, inaccurate advice, personal injury and defense costs; and
3. On January 21, 2026, the Executive Committee of CIPA made a determination, effective immediately, to deny liability/errors and omissions coverage for Council Member Benjamin Lopez due to matters addressed herein, thereby potentially exposing the City, and more directly, Council Member Benjamin Lopez personally, to extraordinary legal and settlement costs for any claims and causes of action against the City and/or City Council that would otherwise be covered under Professional Liability Insurance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Montclair, California, as follows:
SECTION 1. The Montclair City Council finds that the Recitals set forth above are true and correct.
SECTION 2. The Montclair City Council finds and reaffirms that Council Member Benjamin Lopez did engage in inappropriate interactions with certain employees of the City of Montclair.
SECTION 3. The Montclair City Council finds and reaffirms that Council Member Benjamin Lopez (“Defendant Lopez”), as a private individual and acting outside the course and scope of his duties, responsibilities and performance as a member of the City Council of the City of Montclair did, as demonstrated by the EXTTI investigation and the court ruling in Case Number CIVSB2133471 issued by the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, Rancho Cucamonga District, engage in interactions and conduct with certain employees of the City of Montclair which were inappropriate, offensive, abusive, disrespectful; and, further, such conduct has been deemed by the Superior Court to be Unlawful Sexual Harassment in violation of Government Code § 12940(j) in violation of the Fair Employment Housing Act (FEHA), thereby amounting to malice, oppression and/or fraud and justifying that the two City of Montclair employees (“Plaintiffs”) and the City of Montclair be declared the prevailing parties in Case Number CIVSB2133471, with the Plaintiffs each awarded $350,000 in past damages, $50,000 in future damages and $88,000 in punitive damages, and that the City of Montclair be awarded indemnity in the amount of 100 percent of its settlement costs with the MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 127 of 142 Resolution No. 26–3511 Page 11 of 14
Plaintiffs ($550,000) plus attorneys’ fees and costs, with such costs presently in excess of $747,000; and, thus Defendant Lopez’ conduct and behavior did bring disrepute to the City of Montclair and to the Montclair City Council.
SECTION 4. The Montclair City Council finds and reaffirms that the behavior and conduct by Council Member Benjamin Lopez, in addition to being illegal, improper, unprofessional, unacceptable and detrimental to the City of Montclair and harmful, disrespectful, inappropriate, offensive and abusive to the Plaintiffs and to City employees generally, was and remains in the majority belief of the City Council to be reprehensible and that Council Member Benjamin Lopez did then act solely as an individual without any authorization or ratification of his actions or behavior by the City Council in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (the FEHA), and that such behavior was and is contrary to the legitimate interests of the City of Montclair and the Montclair community and is in violation of his Oath of Office, the Fair Political Practices Commission Public Official and Employee Rules and Code of Ethics, and his duly–sworn duty and obligation to uphold the Federal and State Constitutions and the vast network of national, state and local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations and procedures, including the Fair Employment Housing Act and others that govern the workplace and interrelationships between elected officials, managers, supervisors and employees.
SECTION 5. The Montclair City Council hereby reaffirms, ratifies and reauthorizes indefinitely the protective actions implemented and taken by the City Manager and the City Council as those protective actions are enumerated in Resolution No. 22–3344 and supportive documentation, and by their reference are incorporated herein; and
SECTION 6. The Montclair City Council hereby reaffirms its censure of Council Member Benjamin Lopez for the violations, behavior and conduct described herein and in Resolution No. 22–3344, and expresses the strongest possible disapproval and disavowal thereof.
SECTION 7. The Montclair City Council finds that Council Member Benjamin Lopez is a “supervisor” within the meaning of Government Code Section 12926(t) (the Fair Employment Housing Act), and a member of the “workforce” as indicated in AB 1661, AB 1825, AB 1234, SB 827, and an “employee” as declared by Judge Kory Mathewson in his Statement of Decision, Case Number CIVSB2133471, where Judge Mathewson stated “Defendant Lopez is liable as an employee of the City of Montclair because, as a member of the City Council, Lopez is an employee of the City.
SECTION 8. The Montclair City Council finds that, because Council Member Benjamin Lopez’ acts, behavior and violations of state law, as referenced herein, were conducted “outside the scope of Ben Lopez’s [sic] employment as a City Council member (CACI 3720)” [Statement of Decision, Case No. CIVSB2133471, Superior Court of the State of California, January 5, 2026], he lacks legislative immunity with regard to actions he took toward City of Montclair employees, in part because Defendant Lopez acted unilaterally and outside the sphere of legitimate legislative activity.
SECTION 9. The Montclair City Council finds that, on January 21, 2026, the Executive Committee of the California Insurance Pool Authority (CIPA) made a determination, effectively immediately, to indefinitely deny professional liability insurance coverage for Council Member Benjamin Lopez; therefore, the City Council of the City of Montclair does hereby declare and let it be known that, henceforth, the City of Montclair shall (i) not use the financial assets of the City of Montclair to defend, represent, provide indemnification for, or otherwise include Council Member Benjamin Lopez under any defense or other legal strategy used by the City in relation to any and all claims, complaints, grievances, lawsuits, or civil or criminal charges brought against the City of Montclair, the Montclair City Council or Council Member Benjamin Lopez as an individual, for whatever reason; (ii) nor shall the City of Montclair use any City– acquired liability insurance policy coverage to defend, represent, provide indemnification for, or otherwise include Council Member Benjamin Lopez under any defense or other legal strategy used by the City in relation to any and all claims, complaints, grievances, lawsuits, or civil or criminal charges brought against the City of Montclair, the Montclair City Council or Council Member Benjamin Lopez as an individual, for whatever reason; further, the City of Montclair shall not seek alternative professional liability insurance coverage for the purpose of defending, representing, providing indemnification for, or otherwise including Council Member Benjamin Lopez under any defense or other legal strategy used by the City in relation to any and all claims, complaints, grievances, lawsuits, or civil or criminal charges brought against the City of Montclair, the Montclair City Council or Council Member Benjamin Lopez as an individual, for whatever reason.
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 128 of 142 Resolution No. 26–3511 Page 12 of 14
SECTION 10. The Montclair City Council finds that, by the scope of laws designed to subject locally elected officials to certain legal, procedural and administrative actions, up to and including removal from office, the California State Legislature did intend to, and does provide to local legislative bodies, including city councils, authority to subject locally elected officials to certain legal, administrative and procedural actions and/or sanctions administered by the local legislative body, and that such actions and/or sanctions may include, but not be limited to, the following: (i) censure; (ii) removal from committee assignments; (iii) restrictions on travel, meals and lodging, and the elimination of funding related thereto; (iv) restrictions on access to facilities maintained and operated by the local governing body; (v) legal representation, including, but not limited to, alleged or actual violations of FEHA; (vi) prohibitions related to interactions with employees administered by the local governing body; (vii) restrictions on the provision of, or access to, local–agency provided equipment, supplies and telephone, internet and media accounts; (vii) non–mandatory forms of compensation including, but not limited to, salary, stipend, or other benefits provided for, or in relation to, service as a local elected official; (viii) sanctions administered in accordance with the Fair Political Practices Commission Public Official and Employee Rules and Code of Ethics and/or City policies; and other actions and/or sanctions as determined by the Montclair City Council; and further, the public has a right to know the basis for any actions taken against a locally elected official.
SECTION 11. The Montclair City Council finds that Council Member Benjamin Lopez is subject to certain administrative actions and/or sanctions as may be taken against a supervisor, member of the workforce, and/or employee of the City of Montclair.
SECTION 12 The Montclair City Council, in addition to those restrictions, sanctions and measures enumerated in Resolution No. 22–3344 and herein, hereby orders implementation of the following additional restrictions, sanctions and measures:
a) That Council Member Benjamin Lopez shall indefinitely remain removed from, and shall not be appointed by the Mayor or City Council of the City of Montclair to the following: (i) City Council Mayor Pro Tem position; seats on City Council Committees and subcommittees; liaison seats including, but not limited to, the Montclair Planning Commission and Community Activities Commission; seats on local, regional or state bodies; seats on City– sponsored committees or boards including, but not limited to, legislative–, business–, financial–, personnel– community affairs–, social–, event–, recreation–, and community–oriented committees, including private or non– profit committees receiving funding from the City of Montclair where the City Council is the appointing body; and inter–agency committees and/or boards that require or desire City of Montclair representation. b) That Council Member Benjamin Lopez shall, outside of meetings of the City Council, limit his communications with City personnel to members of the City Council, City Manager and City Clerk, and that all communications directed to City staff, other than inquiries regarding City Council agenda reports, elections processes and/or minor matters of organizational operations or complaints, that require performance, research and/or report production, be first referred to the City Council in regular session, and the City Council, by majority vote, shall determine whether or not the City Manager shall satisfy, or otherwise direct production of documentation necessary to satisfy the request for information.
c) That Council Member Benjamin Lopez shall remain prohibited from speaking on behalf of the City Council or representing the City in any capacity other than as authorized in the Montclair Municipal Code for the purpose of constituent representation at regularly scheduled, special, and/or closed session meetings of the City Council.
d) That Council Member Benjamin Lopez shall remain prohibited from attending City–paid/non–paid travel to conferences, meetings, training and/or other events where representation of or by the City is involved; and paid or non–paid travel provided through other public or private entities where representation of or by the City of Montclair is involved. Further, effective the first day of the first full month after adoption of Resolution No. 26–3511, the City Council hereby orders that Council Member Benjamin Lopez shall be ineligible to receive, nor shall he receive, a City–paid automobile/travel allowance or otherwise be eligible to use any City–owned or City–provided vehicle for purposes of travel; provided, however, nothing herein prohibits Council Member Benajamin Lopez from submitting for MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 129 of 142 Resolution No. 26–3511 Page 13 of 14
reimbursement for actual and necessary expenses in the performance of his official duties, including for mileage reimbursement pursuant to provisions in the City’s Travel Policy for use of a personal vehicle for travel to City– mandated events as directed by the City Manager, such mileage reimbursement not to include attendance at regularly scheduled, special and/or closed session meetings of the City Council, or mileage that would otherwise be excluded by the City’s Travel Policy or other relevant policies of the City of Montclair and/or relevant state and federal policies related to travel by elected officials.
e) That the City Manager shall submit for City Council consideration revisions to Section 2.12.050 of Chapter 2.12, of the Montclair Municipal Code related to City Council Compensation, and that such revisions shall (i) comply with state law; (ii) take into consideration any civil tort rulings in which a court of competent jurisdiction may have ruled that a member of the Montclair City Council, as a private individual and acting outside the course and scope of his duties, responsibilities and performance as a member of the City Council of the City of Montclair, did act in violation of his or her official duties, including for willful or corrupt misconduct in office or other violation of California law, including under the Fair Employment Housing Act. Revisions to Section 2.12.050 of Chapter 2.12 of the Montclair Municipal Code shall incorporate differing rates of monthly pay for City Council Members, and such differing rates of pay shall demonstrate a normal rate of pay represented by the higher end of the pay schedule, and a lower rate of pay to be assigned to a member of the City Council found to be not in good standing due to having been found liable for adjudicated violations as described in “(ii)” of this paragraph, such lower rate of pay to be set at the minimum rate of pay as proscribed by state law. Further, if such payrate policy change for Montclair City Council Members is adopted by ordinance of the City Council, such payrate change shall apply to current Montclair City Council incumbents and future Montclair City Council incumbents, unless otherwise changed by ordinance of the City of Montclair; such ordinance to otherwise comply with applicable provisions of state law. f) The City Manager and City Attorney are directed to pursue any legal or equitable procedure, such as a court–ordered judgement, for garnishment of Council Member Benjamin Lopez’ monthly wages, the pursuit of such garnishment to be in compliance with applicable provisions of the Consumer Credit Protection Act (CCPA) or other applicable law or court order; provided, however, in the event of multiple wage garnishments against Council Member Benjamin Lopez, inclusive of wage garnishments representing court–ordered wage garnishments on behalf of Plaintiffs, any court–ordered judgement in favor of the City shall be in subordinate position to court– ordered wage garnishments on behalf of Plaintiffs.
g) The Montclair City Council hereby caps, but shall continue, the current authorized monthly premium, as determined by the City Manager, toward City Council Member Benjamin Lopez’ health benefit fund and life insurance policy; provided, however, any monthly City–contribution paid toward a City– provided deferred compensation program on behalf of Council Member Benjamin Lopez shall terminate effective the first day of the first full month following adoption of this Resolution No. 26–3511. Nothing herein, however, shall affect the City’s required payroll–related contributions toward the California Public Employee Retirement System for the normal service rate. h) Other actions and/or sanctions as may be considered, referred, pursued and implemented by the City Council, from time–to–time, as necessary to protect the employees of the City of Montclair from harassment, discrimination, bullying and/or retaliation, subject to applicable legal and procedural requirements, provided such actions or other sanctions are conducted in accordance with state laws, City policies, ordinances or resolutions, and/or the Fair Political Practices Commission Public Official and Employee Rules and Code of Ethics.
i) All ratified actions and sanctions contained in Resolution No. 22–3344 and Resolution and Resolution No. 26–3511 shall remain in place until otherwise rescinded by the appropriate authority; provided, however, in the event of any conflict(s) between Resolution No. 22–3344 and Resolution No. 26– 3511, the provisions of Resolution No. 26–3511 shall prevail unless and until MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 130 of 142 Resolution No. 26–3511 Page 14 of 14
such time the Montclair City Council issues a Resolution correcting or resolving any such conflict(s).
SECTION 13. The Montclair City Council determines that adoption of Resolution of No. 26–3511 is necessary to affirm that such inappropriate behavior and conduct as addressed herein shall not be tolerated and that Council Member Benjamin Lopez has been and remains censured for such conduct and behavior, and such behavior and conduct shall be prevented from being repeated.
SECTION 14. The City Council regards Council Member Benjamin Lopez’ behavior and conduct to be outside the course and scope of his performance as a member of the City Council.
SECTION 15. The City Council declares, demands and requires that Council Member Benjamin Lopez shall comply with all actions, sanctions, restrictions and measures imposed as enumerated herein, as ratified and ordered by the City Council by its adoption of Resolution No. 26–3511, and to be enforced by the City Manager.
SECTION 16. The City Manager is hereby directed to immediately notify the City Council if Council Member Benjamin Lopez violates any approved action, sanction or restriction enumerated herein, or otherwise engages in future conduct that is in violation of local ordinance(s), federal or state law(s), his oath of office, or the terms or provisioins of Resolution No. 26–3511.
SECTION 17. It is the intent of the Montclair City Council, in the event of future improper and unprofessional behavior and/or conduct by Council Member Benjamin Lopez in violation of local ordinance(s), federal or state law(s), his oath of office, or the terms or provisions of Resolution No. 26–3511, to pursue all legal remedies available by law to stop, terminate, prevent and/or otherwise prohibit such behavior and/or conduct.
SECTION 18. This Resolution No. 26–3511 reaffirms the provisions and recitals of Resolution No. 22–3344, including the City Council’s disapproval and censuring of certain conduct and behavior by Council Member Benjamin Lopez, re–ratifies protective actions taken by the City Manager, and expands on Resolution No. 22–3344 by directing that certain restrictions and administrative/economic sanctions as specified herein be taken against Council Member Benjamin Lopez. Further, this Resolution No. 26–3511 shall take effect immediately upon its adoption, and certain administrative actions and sanctions, as discussed herein, shall take effect as specified, or, in the case of the need to consider revisions to City ordinances, may be subject to further consideration by the Montclair City Council.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this XX day of XX, 2026.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
I, Andrea M. Myrick, City Clerk of the City of Montclair, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that Resolution No. 26–3511 was duly adopted by the City Council of said city and was approved by the Mayor of said city at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the XX day of XX, 2026, and that it was adopted by the following vote, to–wit:
AYES: XX
NOES: XX
ABSTAIN: XX
ABSENT: XX
Andrea M. Myrick
City Clerk
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 131 of 142 Public Works Committee Meeting Minutes – November 20, 2025 Page 1 of 5
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PUBLIC WORKS
COMMITTEE HELD ON THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2025, AT 4 P.M. IN THE THEATER CONFERENCE ROOM, 9955 FREMONT AVENUE,
MONTCLAIR, CALIFORNIA
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Martinez called the meeting to order at 4:13 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Martinez; Vice Chair Dutrey; Director of Public Works/City Engineer Heredia; City Manager Starr; Executive Director of Engineering/Major Projects Manager Hoerning (via Zoom); Director of Community Development Diaz; Director of Economic Development Agency Fuentes
Absent: Chief of Police Reed; Associate Engineer Stevenson III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Committee approved the minutes for the meeting held on July 17, 2025 pending the titles of Vice Chair Dutrey and Chair Martinez were corrected.
IV. PUBLIC COMMENT — None
V. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT UPDATES/ITEMS
A. OPERATIONS
1. MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES
The Operations Activity Report for the months of July, August, September, and October was included with the agenda. There were no issues with the reports.
Director of Public Works/City Engineer Heredia gave a detailed update about various service requests the Operations Division completed and answered questions from the Chair. Staff posted signs recognizing veterans and announcing the Independence Day holiday. Director Heredia shared and discussed maintenance data regarding the upkeep of the Metrolink Trans center with Vice Chair Dutrey. She gave a status update on state of inoperable flashing stop signs around the City and reported that they will receive new parts. Moreno Elementary reached out to the City of Montclair to request a demonstration of the street sweeping equipment for their Community Helpers Week event. On October 7, 2025, Public Works Street Sweeper Operators gave a presentation about their work for the City and issued informational pamphlets. The two-man crew then gave a demonstration of the equipment in action to school children.
2. ADDITIONAL ITEMS — None
B. FACILITIES
1. MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES
The Facilities Activity Report for the months of July, August, September, and October was included with the agenda. Director of Public Works/City MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 132 of 142 Public Works Committee Meeting Minutes – November 20, 2025 Page 2 of 5 Engineer Heredia gave a detailed update about various service requests the Operations Division completed and answered questions from the Vice Chair. There were no issues with the report.
2. ADDITIONAL ITEMS — None
C. ENGINEERING DIVISION
1. Sewer System Management Plan Update
Director of Public Works/City Engineer Heredia reported that the Sewer System Management Plan update is now posted on the website and answered questions from Vice Chair Dutrey regarding the frequency of updates.
2. IEUA Regional Sewer Contract Audit
Director of Public Works/City Engineer Heredia announced that the audit of the City’s sewer systems have already began meetings have occurred with IEUA since October 2025. Director Heredia clarified that the auditing is focused on financial document processing.
3. Restricted Parking for 3rd Street
Director of Public Works/City Engineer Heredia reported that the City Council approved restricted parking on 3rd Street near the 3rd Street & Silicon Improvement Project. The new segment on Mission Boulevard and Ramona Avenue will have signs posted soon. Additional signs will be posted when 3rd Street is opened.
4. Water Board Response to Follow-Up Questions & Information Director of Public Works/City Engineer Heredia informed the committee that the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) is auditing the City’s financial and billing procedures. The City is cooperating with officials and answering questions.
5. Moreno Street Bridge Repair
The City was able to acquire a contractor to repair the bridge railing after multiple attempts.
VI. POLICE DEPARTMENT UPDATE/ITEMS
City Manager Starr reported that the Police Department is interested in purchasing Drone as First Responder units (or DFRs). He went on to explain the advanced sophistication of the equipment and the various ways that officers can safely use it when responding to calls. City Manager Starr outlined challenges DFRs face with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations declaring that drones must be in line of sight of officers which limits law enforcement’s ability to send them into homes and buildings. City Manager Starr mentioned that the drones have the ability to identify stolen vehicles or vehicles that may have been involved in criminal activity using Flock Systems technology. A discussion proceeded between City Manager Starr, Director of Community Development Diaz, and Vice Chair Dutrey regarding the multiuse capabilities across the City departments and not exclusively used by the Police.
It was mentioned that Public Works, Code Enforcement, and the Fire Department MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 133 of 142 Public Works Committee Meeting Minutes – November 20, 2025 Page 3 of 5 would have access to the drones for inspections and address issues in hard-to-reach areas that would otherwise require a contracted service to investigate.
VII. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PROJECT UPDATES/ITEMS Director of Community Development Diaz gave a status update about the plumbing installation with the Ramona/Mission Project and the state of the building’s ownership. He mentioned that the Kendry II project has been completed and the Marlow Project is still underway. He announced that The Village Partner’s project is nearing completion and a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued.
Director of Community Development Diaz went on to report that both he and Director of Public Works/City Engineer Heredia communicated with Dutch Bros. who are continuing to follow through with the process to erect a new location in the parking lot on Benito Street and Central Avenue. He mentioned that there were delays to the construction of a Sprouts supermarket, which is planned to be located next door to the Dutch Bros. site, due to internal matters on the property owner’s end.
Vice Chair Dutrey requested information about the destroyed property at 9645 Central Avenue. Director of Community Development Diaz stated that the owners have placed the property on the real estate market and Code Enforcement is working with them to clean up the site.
VIII. CAPITAL PROJECT UPDATES
A. LOCAL PROJECTS
1. Reeder Ranch Park
Director of Public Works/City Engineer Heredia gave an update about the installation of utilities to provide power to the site which heavily depends on if construction continues through the City’s holiday closure period.
2. Alleyway Improvements in CDBG Areas
Director of Public Works/City Engineer Heredia announced that the City received approval from the Grant Manager to proceed with creating an agenda report to submit to the City Council.
3. Library Remodel
Director of Public Works/City Engineer Heredia gave a status update regarding the design plans of the Library Remodel, however noted that the project is not as high of a priority as other current ongoing projects.
4. Fremont Avenue Street Improvements
Director of Public Works/City Engineer Heredia reported that the design is 90% complete and she expects construction to begin in 2026.
5. Silicon Avenue and Third Street
Director of Public Works/City Engineer Heredia reports that designs for the project are 90% complete and staff will be putting packets together for bids.
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 134 of 142 Public Works Committee Meeting Minutes – November 20, 2025 Page 4 of 5
6. Safe Routes to School
Director of Public Works/City Engineer Heredia reports that TKE Engineering is designing the project and it is ongoing. The project is made up of different parts to address traffic control issues around Montclair school, e.g. Montclair High School, Montera Elementary, and Monte Vista Elementary. Staff is working with CalTrans to request funds for construction allocation around mid-year in 2026. TKE Engineering anticipates finishing the design by the end of 2025. The City has a deadline to start construction by the end of 2026. The Director noted that there is a separate project planned to make improvements around Orchard Elementary with TKE Engineering.
7. Howard and Romona Roundabout
Director of Public Works/City Engineer Heredia informed the Committee that bidding will begin on Monday. After the bidding period is over, staff will request additional funding from Caltrans.
8. Saratoga Park
Director of Public Works/City Engineer Heredia reported that the Public Works Department and the IT Department are working together to enhance security of the park. Design plans are 90% completed. Staff is pursuing more grant funding sources.
9. Benson Avenue Street Improvements
Director of Public Works/City Engineer Heredia reported that striping plans are complete, however the design for the new traffic signal is still in progress. Staff is in communication with Caltrans to secure funding.
10. Mills Avenue Rehabilitation
Director of Public Works/City Engineer Heredia reported that landscaping improvement plans are complete and she answered questions from the Vice Chair.
11. Fire Station 151 Landscaping
Director of Public Works/City Engineer Heredia gave a status update on recent adjustments made to the landscaping around the fire station to prepare for improvements.
B. REGIONAL PROJECTS
1. West Valley Connector Project
Director of Public Works/City Engineer Heredia gave a status update about the progress of construction.
IX. COMMITTEE AND CITY MANAGER ITEMS
A. Gold Line Extension to Montclair
Vice Chair Dutrey announced that he will be in a meeting on Monday with the San Bernardino County Transit Authority to determine if they will commit to funding and constructing the project.
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 135 of 142 Public Works Committee Meeting Minutes – November 20, 2025 Page 5 of 5 B. Navigation Center
City Manager Starr reports that the San Bernardino County insists that every City within the coalition must contribute a minimum of $200K to provide beds for unhoused residents in need of transitional assistance. Costs will vary by population between 250K to as much as $600K annually. The City of Montclair would be paying an estimated $250K for seven beds.
C. ARC (Animal Resource Center of the Inland Empire)
The City transitioned from using Inland Valley Humane Society to using animal control services from the Animal Resource Center as of June 18th. City Manager Starr explained that the City has more control over the cost. Vice Chair Dutrey mentioned the “no kill” policy that is mandated by the State. ARC will present an update at a future City Council Meeting.
D. Additional Items
City Manager Starr reported that an audit was completed to determine the amount of revenue received from impact fees for providing Fire Protection Services and the findings showed less than $12 in profit. There will be a proposal brought before the City Council by the City Manager to conduct another audit to calculate sales and property taxes over the past few years to determine where the rest of the revenue was allocated.
Vice Chair Dutrey requested a status update about the Monte Vista Avenue, Holt Boulevard and Benson Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation Project. Executive Director of Engineering/Major Projects Manager Hoerning reported that the projects are still under design. She cited space constraints on San Bernardino Street and Benito Street requiring widening of the right-of-way.
Vice Chair Dutrey suggested adding mulch to the median on Moreno Street temporarily until a future rehabilitation project gets underway.
X. ADJOURNMENT
At 5:16 p.m., Chair Martinez adjourned the meeting of the Public Works Committee.
The next meeting of the Public Works Committee is scheduled to be held at 4:00 p.m. on Thursday, August 21, 2025.
Submitted for Public Works Committee
approval,
Uhura Mckenzie
Transcribing Secretary
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 136 of 142 Personnel Committee Minutes – March 2, 2026 Page 1 of 1
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE MONTCLAIR
PERSONNEL COMMITTEE HELD ON MONDAY,
MARCH 2, 2026, AT 5:02 P.M. IN THE CITY
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES, 5111 BENITO STREET,
MONTCLAIR, CALIFORNIA
I. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Pro Tem Martinez called the meeting to order at 5:02 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Pro Tem Martinez, City Manager Starr, and Assistant City Manager/Director of Human Services
Richter
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Minutes of the Regular Personnel Committee Meeting of February 17, 2026.
Moved by City Manager Starr, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Martinez, and carried unanimously to approve the minutes of the Personnel Committee meeting on February 17, 2026.
IV. PUBLIC COMMENT – None
V. CLOSED SESSION
At 5:03 p.m., the Personnel Committee went into Closed Session regarding personnel matters related to appointments, resignations/ terminations, and evaluations of employee performance.
At 5:18 p.m., the Personnel Committee returned from Closed Session.
Mayor Pro Tem Martinez stated that no announcements would be made at this time.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
At 5:18 p.m., Mayor Pro Tem Martinez adjourned the Personnel Committee.
Submitted for Personnel Committee approval,
Edward C. Starr
City Manager
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 137 of 142
PENDING
APPROVAL
Joint City Council/Successor Agency Board/Montclair Housing Corporation Board/Montclair Housing Authority Commission/ Montclair Community Foundation Board Meeting Minutes – February 2, 2026 Page 1 of 5
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR JOINT MEETING OF THE MONTCLAIR
CITY COUNCIL, SUCCESSOR AGENCY AND MONTCLAIR HOUSING
CORPORATION BOARDS, MONTCLAIR HOUSING AUTHORITY
COMMISSION, AND MONTCLAIR COMMUNITY FOUNDATION
BOARD HELD ON MONDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2026, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 5111 BENITO STREET,
MONTCLAIR, CALIFORNIA
I. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor/Chair Dutrey called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
II. INVOCATION
Montclair Police Chaplain/Pastor Josh Matlock, Bethany of Montclair, gave the invocation.
III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Council Member/Director Mendez led meeting participants in the Pledge.
IV. ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor/Chair Dutrey; Mayor Pro Tem/Vice Chair Martinez; Council Member/Director Mendez
City Manager/Executive Director Starr; Assistant City Manager/ Director of Human Services Richter; Director of Finance Kulbeck; Director of Public Works/City Engineer Heredia; Fire Chief Dierck; City Attorney Robbins; City Clerk Myrick
Absent: Council Members/Directors Ruh and Lopez (both excused) V. PRESENTATIONS
A. Introduction of New Police Department Employee and Promotee Police Chief Reed introduced recently hired Police Officer Angel Lara and announced the recent promotion of Police Sergeant Brandie Diaz.
B. Introduction of New Community Development Department Employee Director of Community Development Diaz introduced Building Official Louis Vasquez, who was hired on December 8, 2025.
VI. PUBLIC COMMENT
• Ruby Long, Senior Field Representative, Office of San Bernardino County Fourth District Supervisor Curt Hagman, announced that applications are being accepted for the County’s Behavioral Health Commission. She noted applicants must reside in the fourth supervisorial district, which includes the cities of Chino, Chino Hills, Montclair, Ontario, and a portion of Upland.
• Sue Boyer, Feral Cat Friends of Chino, shared information about the growing problem of feral cat overpopulation and euthanasia in animal shelters. She emphasized the need for affordable and accessible spay and neuter programs, community cat management initiatives, and local volunteer mobilization.
• Alejandro Ibara, District Representative, Office of State Senator Susan Rubio, announced Senator Rubio’s appointment as Assistant Majority Whip for the Senate Democratic Caucus, noting she will soon assume the role of Chair of the Governmental Organization Committee which oversees state agencies, contracts, state lands, fish and game, and alcohol regulations. He also noted that nominations for Senator Rubio’s “Women of the Year” awards are open through February 6, 2026, with nomination forms available online on the Senator’s website.
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 138 of 142
PENDING
APPROVAL
Joint City Council/Successor Agency Board/Montclair Housing Corporation Board/Montclair Housing Authority Commission/ Montclair Community Foundation Board Meeting Minutes – February 2, 2026 Page 2 of 5 • Paul Kielsmeier advised Assembly Bill 2085 limits local authority over the location of healthcare facilities, noting Fontana was forced to approve construction of a Planned Parenthood facility despite City Council opposition to the project, including concerns about the property owner and lease arrangements.
• Bruce Culp, resident, expressed appreciation for City staff, thanking employees across departments for their service to residents. He stated he feels that Montclair is a well–run city with forward–thinking leadership, making it a desirable place to live.
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Reconsider Approval of Projects and Prioritization of Funding for the Fiscal Year 2026–27 Community Development Block Grant Program
Mayor Dutrey announced this as the time and place set for a public hearing on the above matter, opened the public hearing, and invited comments from the public. Seeing no one in the audience wishing to speak, Mayor Dutrey closed the public hearing and returned the matter to the City Council for consideration.
Director of Community Development Diaz advised that the City Council is required to revisit this matter, which it previously considered on December 15, 2025, noting the County received and forwarded an application from a Montclair community organization, Foothill Family Shetler, requesting a $50,000 allocation from the City’s CDBG Program funding, following the City Council’s prior action. He noted staff’s recommendation remains unchanged from the December 15, 2025 meeting.
ACTION – Public Hearings – Item A
ACTING: City Council
MOTION: Approve the following projects and prioritization of funding for the Fiscal Year 2026–27 Community
Development Block Grant Program:
Code Enforcement Program $ 50,000
Renovations to Reeder Ranch 150,000
Graffiti Abatement 29,000
Senior Transportation Services
(Golden Express Transportation) 8,269
TOTAL $237,629
MADE BY:
SECOND BY:
Council Member Mendez
Mayor Pro Tem Martinez
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Mendez, Martinez, Dutrey
None
None
Ruh, Lopez
RESULT: Motion carried 3–0–2 (Ruh and Lopez absent).
B. Second Reading — Consider Adoption of Ordinance No. 25–1014 Amending the Zoning Code and Repealing and Replacing Chapter
11.23 of the Montclair Municipal Code Relating to Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units in Residential Zones
Mayor Dutrey announced this as the time and place set for a public hearing on the above matter, opened the public hearing, and invited comments from the public. Seeing no one in the audience wishing to speak, Mayor Dutrey closed the public hearing and returned the matter to the City Council for consideration.
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 139 of 142
PENDING
APPROVAL
Joint City Council/Successor Agency Board/Montclair Housing Corporation Board/Montclair Housing Authority Commission/ Montclair Community Foundation Board Meeting Minutes – February 2, 2026 Page 3 of 5 ACTION – Public Hearings – Item B
ACTING: City Council
MOTION: Conduct the Second Reading and Approve Ordinance No. 25–1014 amending the Zoning Code and repealing
and replacing Chapter 11.23 of the Montclair Municipal
Code relating to Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior
Accessory Dwelling Units in residential zones.
MADE BY:
SECOND BY:
Mayor Pro Tem Martinez
Council Member Mendez
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Mendez, Martinez, Dutrey
None
None
Ruh, Lopez
RESULT: Motion carried 3–0–2 (Ruh and Lopez absent).
VIII. CONSENT CALENDAR
ACTION – Consent Calendar
ACTING: City Council
Successor Agency Board
Montclair Housing Corporation Board
Montclair Housing Authority Commissioners
Montclair Community Foundation Board
MOTION: Approve the Consent Calendar as presented.
MADE BY:
SECOND BY:
Council Member/Director Mendez
Mayor Pro Tem/Vice Chair Martinez
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Mendez, Martinez, Dutrey
None
None
Ruh, Lopez
RESULT: Motion carried 3–0–2 (Ruh and Lopez absent).
A. Approval of Minutes
1. Regular Joint Meeting — December 15, 2025
ACTION – Consent Calendar – Item A–1
ACTING: City Council
Successor Agency Board
Montclair Housing Corporation Board
Montclair Housing Authority Commissioners
Montclair Community Foundation Board
RESULT: Approved on Consent Calendar; Motion carried 3–0–2 (Ruh and Lopez absent).
B. Administrative Reports
1. Consider Approval and Ratification of Warrant Register and Payroll Documentation
ACTION – Consent Calendar – Item B–1
ACTING: City Council
RESULT: Approved on Consent Calendar; Motion carried 3–0–2 (Ruh and Lopez absent).
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 140 of 142
PENDING
APPROVAL
Joint City Council/Successor Agency Board/Montclair Housing Corporation Board/Montclair Housing Authority Commission/ Montclair Community Foundation Board Meeting Minutes – February 2, 2026 Page 4 of 5
2. Consider Approval of the Purchase of Items for the 2026 Montclair to College Graduation Celebration at Main Event in Montclair Place
ACTION – Consent Calendar – Item B–2
ACTING: Montclair Community Foundation Board
RESULT: Approved on Consent Calendar; Motion carried 3–0–2 (Ruh and Lopez absent).
C. Agreements
1. Consider Approval of Agreement No. 26–08 with the San Bernardino County Office of Emergency Services Authorizing the Receipt of $20,052 from the FY 2024 Homeland Security Grant Program
Consider Authorizing City Manager Edward C. Starr to Sign Said Agreement
Consider Authorizing a $20,052 Appropriation from the
Public Safety Grant Fund to Purchase Radio Control Heads and Batteries for Handheld Radios for the Police Department Consider Authorizing a $1,050 Appropriation from the
Federal Asset Forfeiture Fund to Cover the Difference
ACTION – Consent Calendar – Item C–1
ACTING: City Council
RESULT: Approved on Consent Calendar; Motion carried 3–0–2 (Ruh and Lopez absent).
2. Consider Approval of Agreement No. 26–09 with Ontario– Montclair School District for Use of Ball Field and Restroom Facilities at Essex Park, Subject to Any Revisions Deemed Necessary by the City Attorney
ACTION – Consent Calendar – Item C–2
ACTING: City Council
RESULT: Approved on Consent Calendar; Motion carried 3–0–2 (Ruh and Lopez absent).
D. Resolutions
1. Consider Adoption of Resolution No. 26–3506 Authorizing Placement of Liens on Certain Properties for Delinquent Sewer and Trash Charges
ACTION – Consent Calendar – Item D–1
ACTING: City Council
RESULT: Approved on Consent Calendar; Motion carried 3–0–2 (Ruh and Lopez absent).
IX. PULLED CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS — None
X. COMMUNICATIONS
A. Department Reports — None
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 141 of 142
PENDING
APPROVAL
Joint City Council/Successor Agency Board/Montclair Housing Corporation Board/Montclair Housing Authority Commission/ Montclair Community Foundation Board Meeting Minutes – February 2, 2026 Page 5 of 5 B. City Attorney
City Attorney Robbin requested the City Council meet in closed session to discuss the following matters as listed on the agenda:
1. Pursuant to Gov. Code §54956.9(d)(2) Regarding Potential Litigation (One Potential Case)
2. Pursuant to Gov. Code §54956.9(d)(4) Regarding Potential Litigation (One Potential Case)
3. Pursuant to Gov. Code §54956(d)(1) Regarding Pending Litigation
Fuentes/Garcia v. City of Montclair
Ibanez v. Montclair
C. City Manager/Executive Director — None
D. Mayor/Chair
Mayor Dutrey announced a City Council special meeting for the Midyear Budget Review to be held on Monday, March 2, 2026, at 5:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
Mayor/Chair Dutrey recognized celebrations in February, reported attending a awards ceremony at which the City was recognized for Sunset Park renovations; reported attending the funeral of former Montclair Fire Chief Troy Ament; shared an update about Baqba Mexican Grill, a fast–casual restaurant opening soon in Montclair; and wished the Montclair High School boys’ soccer team good luck on the upcoming CIF play–offs.
E. Council Members/Directors
1. Council Member/Director Mendez commented on the popularity of the Mr. You Chinese Food restaurant in Montclair.
2. Mayor Pro Tem/Vice Chair Martinez shared information regarding upcoming community celebrations for Lunar New Year, including a free festival in Pomona on February 8, 2026.
F. Committee Meeting Minutes
The following committee minutes were received and filed for informational purposes:
1. Public Works Committee Meeting — July 17, 2025
2. Personnel Committee Meeting — January 20, 2026
XI. CLOSED SESSION
At 7:32 p.m., the City Council went into closed session to discuss potential and pending litigation.
XII. CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENTS
At 9:45 p.m., Mayor Dutrey announced the City Council met in closed session; discussed potential and pending litigation; information was received; and no further announcements would be made at this time.
XIII. ADJOURNMENT
At 9:45 p.m., the City Council, Successor Agency Board, Montclair Housing Corporation Board, Montclair Housing Authority Commission, and Montclair Community Foundation Board were adjourned.
Submitted for City Council/Successor Agency Board/Montclair Housing Corporation Board/Montclair Housing Authority
Commission/Montclair Community Foundation Board approval, Andrea Myrick,
City Clerk
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 03/16/2026 Page 142 of 142