Monte Sereno City Council
September 15, 2026

AGENDA
City of Monte Sereno
Tuesday, September 15, 2026
City Council
6:00 PM
Monte Sereno City Council Chambers - 18041 Saratoga -
Los Gatos Road, Monte Sereno, Ca 95030

MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC MAY ATTEND IN-PERSON

OR UTILIZE THE VIRTUAL OPTION
How to Participate
To maximize public safety while still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can access and participate in the meeting as follows: To listen (only) by telephone dial US: +1 669 444 9171 or +1 720 707 2699 or +1 253 205 0468 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 719 359 4580 or +1 646 931 3860 or +1 689 278 1000 or +1 301 715 8592 or +1 305 224 1968 or +1 309 205 3325 or +1 312 626 6799 or +1 360 209 5623 or +1 386 347 5053 or +1 507 473 4847 or +1 564 217 2000 or +1 646 558 8656 When prompted by the system enter participation Webinar ID:
844 9972 2448
and Password: 134498.

To attend the meeting webinar with a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone or Android device: Please click this URL to join

https://us06web.zoom.us/j/84499722448?pwd=9Ap9FgKLisWgMbFOXqbb7eeyIjB6AF.1 Passcode: 134498
Or iPhone one-tap (telephone connection) : US:
+16694449171,,85485055071#,,,,*400386# US
+17207072699,,85485055071#,,,,*400386# US
Passcode: 134498.

You will be prompted to install the webinar client appropriate for your device. Attendees are encouraged to install the needed software in advance at the following locations depending on the device being used. If you are unable to participate in real-time, you may email to the City Clerk at [email protected] with the subject line "Public Comment Item #__ " (insert the item number relevant to your comment) or "Oral Communications - Non Agenda Item."
Any member of the public who needs accommodations should email or call the City Manager who will use their best efforts to provide reasonable accommodations to provide as much accessibility as possible while also maintaining public safety in accordance with the City procedure for resolving reasonable accommodation requests. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Manager at 408-498-5285 or [email protected]. If requested of the City Manager, agendas and documents in the agenda packet can be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability.

Page

CALL TO ORDER

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

ROLL CALL

ORDERS OF THE DAY
The Mayor, or a majority of the Council by vote, may change the order of business, except for public hearings on the agenda for a set time.

PRESENTATIONS

ANNOUNCEMENTS

JPA/COMMITTEE/COMMISSION REPORTS
This time is set aside to allow Councilmembers serving on Council committees or appointed by the City to serve on the boards, commissions or committees of other agencies to present a verbal report on the activities of the respective boards, commissions or committees on which they serve. No discussion or action may be taken other than to place the matter on a future agenda.

WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Copies of communications have been provided to Council for review prior to this meeting. Council Members desiring to read or discuss any written communication may do so at this time. No action may be taken except to place a particular item on a future agenda for Council consideration.

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Persons wishing to address the City Council on any matter of City business not listed on the agenda may do so at this time. The Council generally may not discuss or take action on matters raised during this portion of the meeting, but may direct staff to follow up. This portion of the agenda is limited to 30 minutes to ensure that all agenda items are heard. Each speaker is allowed up to three minutes, unless additional time is authorized by the Mayor. If additional speakers are unable to speak during the initial Oral Communications period, the Mayor may open an additional Oral Communications period prior to adjournment.

CONSENT CALENDAR
It is recommended that all items listed below be acted on simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is required by a Councilmember. One public comment period will be provided, although speakers speaking on more than one item may be allocated additional time by the Mayor or a majority of the Council.

1. Approve the Minutes of the September 1, 2026 Special and Regular City Council Meeting
Staff recommends approval of the Minutes of the September 1, 2026 Special and Regular City Council Meeting.

Staff Report - SR-26-158 - Pdf
5 - 12

2. Approve Warrant List Dated September 15, 2026 in the Amount of $61,956.08
Staff recommends the City Council approve the Warrant List.

Staff Report - SR-26-156 - Pdf
13 - 21

3. Receive the Treasurer’s Report for the month ending July 2026 Review and accept the Treasurer’s Report for the month ending July 22 - 26

2026.

Staff Report - SR-26-157 - Pdf

4. Adoption of Ordinance No. NS-251 An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Monte Sereno Amending Title 4 of the Monte Sereno Municipal Code to Repeal Chapter 4.16 (Social Gatherings) and Replace It with a New Chapter 4.16 (Social Host Ordinance) Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the draft ordinance.

Staff Report - SR-26-159 - Pdf
27 - 35

PUBLIC HEARINGS

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

NEW BUSINESS

5. Consideration of a Letter of Support for the Los Gatos Monte Sereno Police Department to be sent to the City of Saratoga Mayor and City Council
Staff recommends that the City Council consider whether a letter of support for the Los Gatos Monte Sereno Police Department should be sent to the City of Saratoga Mayor and City Council.

Staff Report - SR-26-160 - Pdf
36 - 39

6. Youth Commission – Presentation of 2026–2027 Goals and Priorities Staff recommends that the City Council receive the Youth Commission’s presentation regarding its proposed goals and priorities for the 2026– 2027 program year and provide feedback to the Youth Commission regarding its proposed activities and areas of focus.

Staff Report - SR-26-161 - Pdf
40 7. Consideration of a Letter to the California Public Utility Commission Regarding San Jose Water Company’s Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Rate Application (26-04-010)
Staff recommends that the City Council consider whether a letter to the California Public Utility Commission Regarding San Jose Water Company’s Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Rate Application (26-04-010) be sent.

Staff Report - SR-26-162 - Pdf
41 - 85

COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS
This time is set aside to allow Councilmembers to make brief announcements or reports on the Councilmember’s own activities. No discussion or action may be taken other than to place the matter on a future agenda.

CITY MANAGER’S REPORT

COMPLETION OF ORAL COMMUNICATION FROM THE PUBLIC

FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
This time is set aside to allow Councilmembers to make a specific request for an item

to be placed on a future agenda. No discussion or other action may be taken.

8. Council Tentative Council Meeting Calendar 86 - 93

ADJOURN
* All items on the agenda are subject to action/or change by the City Council In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk (408) 354-7635. If requested of the City Clerk, agendas and documents in the agenda packet can be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability.

Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. [28CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II]

STAFF REPORT
Meeting: City Council - Sep 15 2026
Agenda Heading: CONSENT CALENDAR
Staff Contact: Gloisy Gonzalez-Langarica, City Clerk
Department: City Clerk
Title: Approve the Minutes of the September 1, 2026 Special and Regular City Council Meeting
Recommendation(s):

Staff recommends approval of the Minutes of the September 1, 2026 Special and Regular City Council Meeting.

Fiscal Impact:

There are no unbudgeted fiscal impacts with this agenda item.

Public Noticing:

The City Council’s agenda was posted at City Hall and the agenda and this report appear on the City’s website.

Attachments:
09-01-26 Special Meeting Minutes DRAFT
09-01-26 Regular Meeting Minutes DRAFT

MONTE SERENO CITY COUNCIL

MEETING MINUTES

SPECIAL MEETING
5:00 p.m.

September 1, 2026

MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
At 5:05 p.m., Mayor Allan called the meeting to order.

ROLL CALL
Present – Chambers: Councilmember Toren, Councilmember Mekechuk, Councilmember Craig, Vice Mayor Shannon and Mayor Allan Present – Remote: None

Absent: None
Staff: City Clerk Gonzalez-Langarica, City Attorney Powell, City Manager Perkins
Staff – Remote: None

PUBLIC COMMUNICATION REGARDING CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
Mayor Allan opened the item for Public Comment. With no one wishing to speak, Public Comment was closed. The City Council adjourned to Closed Session at approximately 5:06 p.m.

RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION

1. Existing Litigation Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9(d)(1): Leonardis v. City of Monte Sereno
Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 26CV498584
Staff present- City Attorney Powell and City Manager Perkins

RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION
The City Council reconvened to Open Session at approximately 5:52 p.m. with Mayor Allan, Vice Mayor Shannon, Councilmember Mekechuk, Councilmember Craig and Councilmember Toren.

CLOSED SESSION REPORT
Mayor Allan stated that there were no reportable actions.

ADJOURN

The meeting of the Special City Council Meeting adjourned at approximately 5:53 p.m.

Lionel M. Allan, Mayor
ATTEST:

Gloisy Gonzalez-Langarica, City Clerk

MONTE SERENO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES

REGULAR MEETING
7:00 p.m.

September 1, 2026

MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
At approximately 6:01 p.m., Mayor Allan called the meeting to order.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Council lead the Pledge of Allegiance.

ROLL CALL
Present – Chambers: Councilmember Toren, Councilmember Craig, Councilmember Mekechuk, Vice Mayor Shannon and Mayor Allan
Present – Remote: None

Absent: None
Staff: City Clerk Gonzalez-Langarica, City Attorney Powell, City Manager Perkins
Staff – Remote: None

ORDERS OF THE DAY
Councilmember Mekechuk requested that Item 9, consideration of a letter in support of AB 1761, be moved forward on the agenda to accommodate the presenter. The Council agreed.

NEW BUSINESS

9. Consideration of a Letter of Support for AB 1761 (Rogers). Electricity: calculation methodology:
nonbypassable charges: data disclosure.

Councilmember Mekechuk provided an introduction on the item.

Bena Chang, Director of Government Affairs for Silicon Valley Clean Energy, presented information regarding AB 1761.

Discussion ensued.

Mayor Allan opened the Item for Public Comment. With no one wishing to speak, Mayor Allan

closed Public Comment.

MOTION: Motion by Councilmember Mekechuk to authorize the Mayor to send the draft letter of support for AB 1761 (Rogers) to the Governor. Seconded by Councilmember Craig.

VOTE: Motion passed. (5-0-0)

8. Consideration of a Letter of Support for SB 922 (Laird). Vehicles: local agency charges: use of streets or highways.

City Manager Perkins reported that Item 8, consideration of support for SB 922, would not be considered because the legislation had been signed by the Governor after publication of the agenda.

PRESENTATIONS

1. Monte Sereno Police Services Presentation Report January - June 2026 Los Gatos-Monte Sereno Police Captain Rebecca Albin provided the Los Gatos-Monte Sereno Police Services Presentation Report January through June 2026.

ANNOUNCEMENTS
The Council also recognized the success of the City's Annual Picnic and expressed appreciation to City staff for their work organizing the event.

JPA/COMMITTEE/COMMISSION REPORTS
Councilmember Toren reported that Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority is scheduled to meet on September 23, 2026. Mayor Allan will be attending in his place, as he will be attending the League of California Cities Conference during that week. Cities Association Board of Directors and Legislative Action Committee are scheduled to meet September 10, 2026, as well as Valley Transportation Authority Policy Advisory Committee.

Vice Mayor Shannon reported attending the Valley Water meeting the prior week. The meeting was canceled due to a lack of quorum; however, the scheduled tour proceeded, with three stops in Morgan Hill and San Martin, highlighting Valley Water projects and ongoing work.

Mayor Allan reported attending the monthly Mayors and Managers meeting. The meeting focused on homelessness and potential collaborative approaches among the five cities. Mayor Allan noted that even though homelessness has not been an issue in Monte Sereno. The group will develop recommendations for addressing the issue regionally, and Mayor Allan will provide updates to the City Council as recommendations become available.

Councilmember Burton reported attending the Library JPA Finance Committee meeting and stated that the JPA’s finances are in good condition. The new library annex is nearing completion; however, final inspection identified several items requiring correction before the building can open. The annex is expected to open in the near future.

Councilmember Mekechuk reported that Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE) was present at the City's Annual Picnic. He noted that Bena Chang, Director of Government Affairs for Silicon Valley Clean Energy, was present tonight. Councilmember Mekechuk shared that alternate director Terry McCarthy had been appointed to the Audit Committee. He also reported attending the Executive Committee meeting, with the next meeting scheduled for September 18, 2026. The Finance

Committee met on August 21, 2026, with the next meeting scheduled for later in September.

Councilmember Mekechuk reported attending the Recycling and Waste Reduction Commission meeting on August 29, 2026, at San José City Hall and being elected Chair for the upcoming year.

The next meeting for West Valley Stormwater Authority is scheduled for September 3, 2026, in the Monte Sereno Council Chambers. The next West Valley Solid Waste Management Authority Board meeting is scheduled for September 3, 2026, following the West Valley Stormwater Authority meeting. Lastly, Councilmember Mekechuk reported attending the Air District meeting the prior evening, which was attended by approximately 60–75 elected officials. Discussion included regional air quality issues and natural gas appliances, with an emphasis on providing accurate information to the public.

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.

WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.

CONSENT CALENDAR (TO BE ACTED UPON BY A SINGLE MOTION)

2. Approve the Minutes of the August 18, 2026 Regular City Council Meeting

3. Approve Warrant List Dated September 1, 2026 in the Amount of $36,603.46

4. Approve Response to 2025-2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, "Pothole Damage:

Improving claims processes within Santa Clara County"

5. Approve Response to 2025-2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, "VTA’s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II"

6. Consideration of a Resolution to Support to Remove Eucalyptus Trees in the Highway 9 Right-ofWay Due to Potential Fire Hazard Councilmember Mekechuk requested that Item 6 be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered separately later in the meeting.

Mayor Allan opened the Consent Calendar for Public Comment. With no one wishing to speak, Mayor Allan closed Public Comment.

MOTION: Motion by Vice Mayor Shannon to approve Items #2 through Item #5 on the Consent Calendar. Seconded by Councilmember Toren.

VOTE: Motion passed. (5-0-0)

PUBLIC HEARING
None.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.

NEW BUSINESS

7. Introduction and Waiver of First Reading of Ordinance No. NS-### An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Monte Sereno Amending Title 4 of the Monte Sereno Municipal Code to Repeal Chapter 4.16 (Social Gatherings) and Replace It with a New Chapter 4.16 (Social Host

Ordinance)
City Manager Perkins introduced the item.

Representatives of the Los Gatos-Saratoga Union High School District, including Superintendent Heath Rocha, Los Gatos High School Principal David Poetzinger, and Public Information and Engagement Officer Tanya De La Cruz, presented information regarding the prevalence of binge drinking among local youth and the District's prevention efforts.

Discussion ensued.

Mayor Allan opened the Item for Public Comment. With no one wishing to speak, Mayor Allan closed Public Comment.

MOTION: Motion by Councilmember Toren to introduce and waive the first reading of Ordinance No. NS ### an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Monte Sereno Amending Title 4 of the Monte Sereno Municipal Code to Repeal Chapter 4.16 (Social Gatherings) and Replace it With a New Chapter

4.16 (Social Host Ordinance). Seconded by Mayor Allan.

VOTE: Motion passed. (4-1-0 Noes: Shannon)

CONSENT CALENDAR

6. Consideration of a Resolution to Support to Remove Eucalyptus Trees in the Highway 9 Right-ofWay Due to Potential Fire Hazard Mayor Allan opened the Consent Calendar for Public Comment. With no one wishing to speak, Mayor Allan closed Public Comment.

MOTION: Motion by Councilmember Mekechuk to approve Item #6 on the Consent Calendar. Seconded by Councilmember Toren.

VOTE: Motion passed. (5-0-0)

10. Consider Membership in the Government AI Coalition
City Manager Perkins presented information regarding the Government AI Coalition, an organization established to promote responsible and purposeful use of artificial intelligence in the public sector.

Discussion ensued.

Mayor Allan opened the Item for Public Comment. With no one wishing to speak, Mayor Allan closed Public Comment.

MOTION: Motion by Councilmember Craig for the City of Monte Sereno to join the Government AI Coalition and appoint Councilmember Bryan Mekechuk as the City's representative. Seconded by Councilmember Mekechuk.

VOTE: Motion passed. (5-0-0)

COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS
Councilmember Mekechuk commented on the importance of the earlier discussion regarding public safety and youth-related issues and expressed support for continuing efforts to enhance public safety in the community.

Councilmember Craig followed up on the prior discussion regarding civic engagement. He noted that the Saratoga Library previously had a Friends of the Library-type board that included a Monte Sereno resident representative. He recalled that the City had previously solicited residents to serve in that capacity but was ultimately unable to fill the position, resulting in the bylaws being amended to remove the residency requirement. He emphasized the importance of actively seeking residents to participate in regional boards and commissions, so that opportunities for Monte Sereno representation are not lost.

Councilmembers discussed the importance of personally reaching out to potential volunteers to encourage participation in civic opportunities.

Vice Mayor Shannon expressed appreciation to City staff for the successful Annual City Picnic and recognized the participation of staff and their families.

Councilmember Toren noted another potential civic engagement opportunity involving representation on a regional parks commission and suggested that the matter could be considered as a future agenda item.

CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
City Manager Perkins reported on the success of the Annual City Picnic and recognized the work involved in organizing the event. She noted that photographs taken at the picnic would be shared through the City's social media and included in a future newsletter.

COMPLETION OF ORAL COMMUNICATION FROM THE PUBLIC
None.

FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

11. Council Tentative Council Meeting Calendar 2026
The Council directed that the creation of a related task force be placed on a future agenda.

Discussion included having one Councilmember and one Youth Commission representative participate in the task force.

ADJOURN
Mayor Allan adjourned the meeting at approximately 8:30 p.m.

Lionel M. Allan, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Gloisy Gonzalez-Langarica, City Clerk

STAFF REPORT
Meeting: City Council - Sep 15 2026
Agenda Heading: CONSENT CALENDAR
Staff Contact: Diana Perkins, City Manager
Department: City Manager
Title: Approve Warrant List Dated September 15, 2026 in the Amount of $61,956.08
Recommendation(s):

Staff recommends the City Council approve the Warrant List.

Analysis:

The Warrant List includes payments to be made to vendors for goods and services procured by the City. The attached report lists each payment to be made by vendor, amount, and by accounting fund. Also, attached to the Warrant List is a listing the automatic payments made through electronic bank transfers as well as a detailed break down of the charges to the City’s credit card.

California Environmental Quality Act:

The action being considered does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4) in that it is a fiscal activity that does not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potential significant impact on the environment.

Public Noticing:

The City of Monte Sereno's Council meeting agenda was posted on the bulletin board outside of Monte Sereno's City Hall and the agenda with this staff report can be accessed on the City of Monte Sereno's website located at www.montesereno.org.

Attachments:

1. Warrant List September 15, 2026

9/9/2026 3:36:33 PM ***The payables contained in this report are in an open packet, and have not posted to the General Ledger*** Page 1 of 3 Warrant List 9/15/2026 - Invoices
City of Monte Sereno, CA By Vendor Name
APPKT00071;APPKT00135
Vendor Name Description (Payable) Post Date Account Name Account Number Amount Vendor: ABAG Power Purchasing Pool
Natural Gas 07/09/26- 09/01/2026 Utilities, Natural Gas 94.11 08/07/26
ABAG Power Purchasing Pool 100-800-6620
Vendor ABAG Power Purchasing Pool Total: 94.11
Vendor: Alana Consulting, LLC
Building Consultant 08/24/26- 09/14/2026 Professional Services 9,545.00 09/20/26
Alana Consulting, LLC 100-510-6200
Vendor Alana Consulting, LLC Total: 9,545.00
Vendor: County of Santa Clara/HHW Program
Disperse Household Hazardous 9,450.00
Waste Fees
HHW City Augmentation - 50% 09/02/2026
of FY27
County of Santa Clara/HHW
Program
100-600-6540
Vendor County of Santa Clara/HHW Program Total: 9,450.00 Vendor: County of Santa Clara/Weed Abatement Division
Santa Clara County Weed 1,710.00
Abatement Services
FY26 Weed Abatement 06/30/2026
Shortfall
County of Santa Clara/Weed
Abatement Division
100-000-6543
Vendor County of Santa Clara/Weed Abatement Division Total: 1,710.00 Vendor: Dicar Networks, Inc.

Monthly IT Services and 09/01/2026 IT Managed Services 1,050.00 Software
Dicar Networks, Inc. 100-230-6300
Monthly IT Services and 09/01/2026 IT Managed Services 2,150.00 Software
Dicar Networks, Inc. 100-230-6300
Monthly IT Services and 09/01/2026 Network Cybersecurity -255.00 Software
Dicar Networks, Inc. 100-230-6310
Monthly IT Services and 09/01/2026 Network Cybersecurity 140.00 Software
Dicar Networks, Inc. 100-230-6310
Monthly IT Services and 09/01/2026 Network Cybersecurity 641.00 Software
Dicar Networks, Inc. 100-230-6310
SBITA – Variable Payments 50.00
Expense
Monthly IT Services and 09/01/2026
Software
Dicar Networks, Inc. 100-230-6370
SBITA – Variable Payments 210.00
Expense
Monthly IT Services and 09/01/2026
Software
Dicar Networks, Inc. 100-230-6370
Vendor Dicar Networks, Inc. Total: 3,986.00
Vendor: Donald C. Wimberly
Engineering Consultant 08/30/2026 Supplemental Services 2,350.00 08/03/26-08/30/26
Donald C. Wimberly 100-600-6270
Vendor Donald C. Wimberly Total: 2,350.00
Vendor: Heidi's Commercial Cleaning
Weekly Cleaning Service & 09/01/2026 Cleaning Services 750.00 Supplies - Septembe 2026
Heidi's Commercial Cleaning 100-800-6405
Vendor Heidi's Commercial Cleaning Total: 750.00
Vendor: Ricoh USA, Inc.

Printer and Copier 20.01
Expenditures
Ricoh USA, Inc. Late Charge 06/18/2026 100-230-6016
Vendor Ricoh USA, Inc. Total: 20.01
Vendor: Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority
10/01/26-12/31/26 2nd Qtr 09/01/2026 Animal Control Expenses 8,688.25 FY26-27
Silicon Valley Animal Control
Authority
100-710-6725
Vendor Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority Total: 8,688.25 Vendor: Town of Los Gatos Finance Department
Town of Los Gatos Finance Evacuation Route Planning 08/21/2026 Evacuation Plan 6,467.88 Department
100-200-6206
Vendor Town of Los Gatos Finance Department Total: 6,467.88

Warrant List 9/15/2026 - Invoices Packet: APPKT00071;APPKT00135 9/9/2026 3:36:33 PM ***The payables contained in this report are in an open packet, and have not posted to the General Ledger*** Page 2 of 3 Vendor Name Description (Payable) Post Date Account Name Account Number Amount Vendor: US BANK
Credit Card Statement 08/25/2026 US Bank Credit Card Liability 18,894.83 08/25/2026
US BANK 950-000-2020
Vendor US BANK Total: 18,894.83
Grand Total: 61,956.08

Warrant List 9/15/2026 - Invoices Packet: APPKT00071;APPKT00135 9/9/2026 3:36:33 PM ***The payables contained in this report are in an open packet, and have not posted to the General Ledger*** Page 3 of 3 Report Summary
Fund Summary
Fund Expense Amount
100 - General Fund 43,061.25
950 - Pooled Cash Fund 18,894.83
Grand Total: 61,956.08
Account Summary
Account Number Account Name Expense Amount
100-000-6543 Santa Clara County Wee… 1,710.00
100-200-6206 Evacuation Plan 6,467.88
100-230-6016 Printer and Copier Expe… 20.01
100-230-6300 IT Managed Services 3,200.00
100-230-6310 Network Cybersecurity 526.00
100-230-6370 SBITA – Variable Paymen… 260.00
100-510-6200 Professional Services 9,545.00
100-600-6270 Supplemental Services 2,350.00
100-600-6540 Disperse Household Haz… 9,450.00
100-710-6725 Animal Control Expenses 8,688.25
100-800-6405 Cleaning Services 750.00
100-800-6620 Utilities, Natural Gas 94.11
950-000-2020 US Bank Credit Card Liabi… 18,894.83
Grand Total: 61,956.08
Project Account Summary
Project Account Key Expense Amount
**None** 61,956.08
Grand Total: 61,956.08

9/9/2026 2:20:31 PM ***The payables contained in this report are in an open packet, and have not posted to the General Ledger*** Page 1 of 3 Warrant List 8/25/2026 - Credit Card Charges
City of Monte Sereno, CA By Vendor Name
APPKT00128
Vendor Name Description (Payable) Post Date Account Name Account Number Amount Vendor: Adobe Creative Cloud
Adobe Creative Cloud Annual 08/16/2026 Computer Software 779.88 Fee
Adobe Creative Cloud 100-230-6315
Vendor Adobe Creative Cloud Total: 779.88
Vendor: Amazon
Amazon Office Supplies 08/10/2026 Office Supplies 100-800-6060 45.34 Amazon Supplies for City Picnic 08/12/2026 Annual City Picnic 100-100-6730 152.27 Amazon Office Supplies 08/14/2026 Office Supplies 100-800-6060 203.33 Amazon Supplies 08/05/2026 Annual City Picnic 100-100-6730 68.38 Amazon Supplies 08/05/2026 Refreshments 100-800-6040 35.99 Amazon Supplies 08/05/2026 Office Supplies 100-800-6060 58.06 Vendor Amazon Total: 563.37
Vendor: American Planning Association
American Planning Association APA 2026 Conference 08/14/2026 Training and Development 100-200-6105 800.00 Vendor American Planning Association Total: 800.00
Vendor: Brooks San Jose
City Hall Maintenance and 69.00
Repairs
Brooks San Jose Pest Control 08/01/2026 100-800-6400
Vendor Brooks San Jose Total: 69.00
Vendor: Classic Car Wash
Classic Car Wash Car Wash for City Truck 07/28/2026 City Vehicles – Operating Costs 100-800-6580 22.99 Vendor Classic Car Wash Total: 22.99
Vendor: Constant Contact
Constant Contact Service 07/29/2026 Communications 119.00 6/29/26-7/29/26
Constant Contact 100-000-6350
Vendor Constant Contact Total: 119.00
Vendor: Costco
New chairs for counsel 08/20/2026 Office General Expense 2,820.39 chamber members
Costco 100-000-6005
Costco Drinks for Picnic 08/20/2026 Annual City Picnic 100-100-6730 397.31 Vendor Costco Total: 3,217.70
Vendor: Crystal Springs Water
City Hall Bottled Water - July 08/03/2026 Refreshments 71.28 2026
Crystal Springs Water 100-800-6040
Vendor Crystal Springs Water Total: 71.28
Vendor: Digium Cloud Services
Digium Cloud Services Digium Cloud Monthly Services 08/18/2026 Utilities, Telecommunications 100-800-6650 319.53 Vendor Digium Cloud Services Total: 319.53
Vendor: FedEx
FedEx Postage for parcel map mailing 08/11/2026 Postage, Delivery and Shipping 100-800-6020 41.24 Vendor FedEx Total: 41.24
Vendor: Lands End Bus Outfitters
Lands End Bus Outfitters Shirts and embroidery 08/11/2026 City Logo Wear 100-800-6065 1,022.47 Vendor Lands End Bus Outfitters Total: 1,022.47
Vendor: Liquid Web
Liquid Web Web Hosting Monthly Services 08/11/2026 Web Site Hosting 100-230-6320 356.24 Vendor Liquid Web Total: 356.24
Vendor: Pizza My Heart
Pizza My Heart Staff Lunch 08/13/2026 Refreshments 100-800-6040 170.52 Vendor Pizza My Heart Total: 170.52

Warrant List 8/25/2026 - Credit Card Charges Packet: APPKT00128 9/9/2026 2:20:31 PM ***The payables contained in this report are in an open packet, and have not posted to the General Ledger*** Page 2 of 3 Vendor Name Description (Payable) Post Date Account Name Account Number Amount Vendor: Safeway
City Hall Maintenance and 14.88
Repairs
Safeway Cleaning Products for City Hall 08/13/2026 100-800-6400 Safeway Ice for Annual City Picnic 08/23/2026 Annual City Picnic 100-100-6730 79.01 Vendor Safeway Total: 93.89
Vendor: Santa Clara County Environmental Health
Health Department Fee for City 08/10/2026 Annual City Picnic 854.00 Picnic
Santa Clara County
Environmental Health
100-100-6730
Vendor Santa Clara County Environmental Health Total: 854.00 Vendor: Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation
Santa Clara County Parks and Vasona Park Permit for Picnic 08/11/2026 Annual City Picnic 1,238.00 Recreation
100-100-6730
Vendor Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Total: 1,238.00 Vendor: South Winchester Barbeque
South Winchester Barbeque Picnic food vendor 08/24/2026 Annual City Picnic 100-100-6730 9,056.25 Vendor South Winchester Barbeque Total: 9,056.25
Vendor: Zoom Communications
Zoom Subscription 7/27/26- 07/27/2026 Communications 98.97 8/26/26
Zoom Communications 100-000-6350
Vendor Zoom Communications Total: 98.97
Grand Total: 18,894.33

Warrant List 8/25/2026 - Credit Card Charges Packet: APPKT00128 9/9/2026 2:20:31 PM ***The payables contained in this report are in an open packet, and have not posted to the General Ledger*** Page 3 of 3 Report Summary
Fund Summary
Fund Expense Amount
100 - General Fund 18,894.33
Grand Total: 18,894.33
Account Summary
Account Number Account Name Expense Amount
100-000-6005 Office General Expense 2,820.39
100-000-6350 Communications 217.97
100-100-6730 Annual City Picnic 11,845.22
100-200-6105 Training and Developme… 800.00
100-230-6315 Computer Software 779.88
100-230-6320 Web Site Hosting 356.24
100-800-6020 Postage, Delivery and Sh… 41.24
100-800-6040 Refreshments 277.79
100-800-6060 Office Supplies 306.73
100-800-6065 City Logo Wear 1,022.47
100-800-6400 City Hall Maintenance a… 83.88
100-800-6580 City Vehicles – Operating… 22.99
100-800-6650 Utilities, Telecommunica… 319.53
Grand Total: 18,894.33
Project Account Summary
Project Account Key Expense Amount
**None** 18,894.33
Grand Total: 18,894.33

9/9/2026 2:22:05 PM ***The payables contained in this report are in an open packet, and have not posted to the General Ledger*** Page 1 of 2 Warrant List 9/15/2026 - Auto Payments
City of Monte Sereno, CA By Vendor Name
APPKT00130
Vendor Name Description (Payable) Post Date Account Name Account Number Amount Vendor: CalPERS
CalPERS Contributions 8/15/26 08/19/2026 PEPRA - Employee W/H 3,279.55 Payroll
CalPERS 100-000-2326
CalPERS Contributions 8/15/26 08/19/2026 PEPRA - Employer Payable 3,355.72 Payroll
CalPERS 100-000-2356
Unfunded Accrued Liability - 08/19/2026 PEPRA Retirement - Employer 4,828.67 August 2026
CalPERS 100-000-5320
CalPERS Health Insurance - 09/01/2026 Medical Insurance Payable 1,877.74 September 2026
CalPERS 100-000-2370
CalPERS Health Insurance - 09/01/2026 Health Insurance Premium 10,437.04 September 2026
CalPERS 100-000-5510
Health Insurance Premium - 4,057.27
Retirees
CalPERS Health Insurance - 09/01/2026
September 2026
CalPERS 100-000-5512
Vendor CalPERS Total: 27,835.99
Vendor: Delta Dental of California
Employee Dental Insurance - 09/01/2026 Dental Insurance Premium 363.03 September 2026
Delta Dental of California 100-000-5520
Vendor Delta Dental of California Total: 363.03
Vendor: Frontier Communications
City Hall Phone 08/19/26- 08/19/2026 Utilities, Telecommunications 84.24 09/18/26
Frontier Communications 100-800-6650
Vendor Frontier Communications Total: 84.24
Vendor: Pacific Gas & Electric
City Hall Electricity 07/08/26- 08/13/2026 Utilities, Electricity 887.56 08/06/26
Pacific Gas & Electric 100-800-6610
City Hall Electricity 07/08/26- 08/13/2026 Utilities, Electricity 27.91 08/06/26
Pacific Gas & Electric 100-800-6610
City Hall Electricity 07/15/26- 08/19/2026 Utilities, Electricity 209.16 08/13/26
Pacific Gas & Electric 100-710-6610
Rose Andrews Lighting Dist 08/19/2026 Utilities, Electricity 50.65 07/15/26-08/13/26
Pacific Gas & Electric 205-710-6610
Loma Serena Lighting Dist 08/20/2026 Utilities, Electricity 192.53 07/15/26-08/13/26
Pacific Gas & Electric 230-710-6610
Vendor Pacific Gas & Electric Total: 1,367.81
Vendor: Vision Service Plan (CA)
Vision Insurance - September 08/18/2026 Vision Care Insurance Premium 52.86 2026
Vision Service Plan (CA) 100-000-5530
Vendor Vision Service Plan (CA) Total: 52.86
Grand Total: 29,703.93

Warrant List 9/15/2026 - Auto Payments Packet: APPKT00130 9/9/2026 2:22:05 PM ***The payables contained in this report are in an open packet, and have not posted to the General Ledger*** Page 2 of 2 Report Summary
Fund Summary
Fund Expense Amount
100 - General Fund 29,460.75
205 - Public Safety 50.65
230 - Loma Serena Street Lighting Fund 192.53
Grand Total: 29,703.93
Account Summary
Account Number Account Name Expense Amount
100-000-2326 PEPRA - Employee W/H 3,279.55
100-000-2356 PEPRA - Employer Payab… 3,355.72
100-000-2370 Medical Insurance Payab… 1,877.74
100-000-5320 PEPRA Retirement - Emp… 4,828.67
100-000-5510 Health Insurance Premi… 10,437.04
100-000-5512 Health Insurance Premi… 4,057.27
100-000-5520 Dental Insurance Premi… 363.03
100-000-5530 Vision Care Insurance Pr… 52.86
100-710-6610 Utilities, Electricity 209.16
100-800-6610 Utilities, Electricity 915.47
100-800-6650 Utilities, Telecommunica… 84.24
205-710-6610 Utilities, Electricity 50.65
230-710-6610 Utilities, Electricity 192.53
Grand Total: 29,703.93
Project Account Summary
Project Account Key Expense Amount
**None** 29,703.93
Grand Total: 29,703.93

STAFF REPORT
Meeting: City Council - Sep 15 2026
Agenda Heading: CONSENT CALENDAR
Staff Contact: Diana Perkins, City Manager
Department: City Manager
Title: Receive the Treasurer’s Report for the month ending July 2026 Recommendation(s):

Review and accept the Treasurer’s Report for the month ending July 2026.

Background Information:

The California Government Code requires the City Treasurer to submit to the City Clerk and the legislative body a monthly written report addressing the accounting of all receipts, disbursements and fund balances, and a monthly investment transaction report. In addition, the Code recommends other financial and investment reports to provide the City Council with full disclosure of financial matters. The Municipal Code of the City of Monte Sereno designates the City Manager as the City Treasurer. This report is prepared to fulfill these requirements.

The Treasurer’s Report is being updated to provide these required and recommended reports to the Council. The July 2026 report includes a monthly investment transaction report as required under California Government Code Section 53607, and a cash and investment report as recommended under California Government Code Section 53646 (b)(3). Also included are monthly receipts, disbursements and fund balances for each of the City’s governmental funds to comply with Code Section 41004.

These reports are prepared in accordance with Governmental Accounting Standards and are presented on a modified accrual basis of accounting.

Analysis:

Attachment 1: Fund Balance Report (California Government Code Section 41001) provides a monthly accounting of all receipts, disbursements and fund balances. Total city receipts and disbursements are reflected for this month. The July 2026 beginning fund balances are preliminary and may be adjusted as part of the FY 2025-26 year-end closing process.

Attachment 2: Investment Transaction Report (California Government Code Section 53607) provides a monthly accounting of all activity in the City’s Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF), the California Asset Management Program (CAMP), and all other self-directed

investment activity (investments purchased, sold, called, and matured). During the month of July 2026, the City received $21,955 in interest income.

Attachment 3: Cash and Investment Report (California Government Code Section 53646) provides details of the City’s cash and investment balances, including average duration, maturity dates and yield. Cash and investments decreased by $450,628.50 during July 2026 primarily due to two payments totaling $243,053.16 to the Town of Los Gatos, $60,500 to Flock Group Inc, as well as payroll related expenditures of $119,028.68.

California Environmental Quality Act:

This is not a “project” under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) in that it is a governmental organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect changes in the environment (CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(5)).

Fiscal Impact:

There is no direct fiscal impact for receiving the July 2026 Treasurer’s Report.

Public Noticing:

The City of Monte Sereno's Council meeting agenda was posted on the bulletin board outside of Monte Sereno's City Hall and the agenda with this staff report can be accessed on the City of Monte Sereno's website located at www.montesereno.org.

Attachments:

1. Treasurer’s Report - July 2026

City of Monte Sereno Attachment A
Fund Balance Report
California Code Section 41004
July 31, 2026

Beginning Transfers Ending
Fund Balance Receipts Disbursements In/(Out) Balance

General Fund 6,677,842.71 105,848.21 (357,254.55) (1,594,600) 4,831,836.37 Law Enforcement Fund (100,334.36) - (60,500) 1,345,700 1,184,865.64 Public Safety Fund (29,458.30) 400 (50.68) 129,300 100,191.02 Roadway and Street Fund 779,525.02 19,158.38 - - 798,683.40 Loma Serena Street Lighting
Fund (58,818.17) - (192.52) 69,600 10,589.31
Rose Andrews Street Lighting
Fund - - - -
Storm Drainage Fund (9,762) - - 50,000 40,238
Total 7,258,994.90 125,406.59 (417,997.75) - 6,966,403.74

City of Monte Sereno Attachment B
Investment Transaction Report
California Government Code 53607
July 31, 2026

Investment Beginning Monthly Ending
Accounts Date Balance Activity Balance

Liquid:

Local Agency Investment Fund $2,107.38
> Interest earned 07/31/26 $20.57 $2,127.95

California Asset Management
Program Pool $6,828,317.21
> Interest earned 07/31/26 $21,934.43 $6,850,251.64

City of Monte Sereno Attachment C
Treasurers Report
July 31, 2026
Cash and Maturity Original Market Maturity Avg Avg
Investments Date Cost Value Value Maturity Yield
Cash Accounts:

Wells Fargo Checking n/a $119,670.26 $119,670.26 $119,670.26 n/a 0.00% Wells Fargo Savings n/a 337,054.55 337,054.55 337,054.55 n/a 0.00% 456,724.81 456,724.81 456,724.81
Investment Accounts (Liquid):

Local Agency Investment Fund
(LAIF) n/a 2,127.95 2,127.95 2,127.95 269 3.82%
California Asset Management
Program (CAMP) Pool n/a 6,850,251.64 6,850,251.64 6,850,251.64 7 3.78% Total Cash and Investments $7,309,104.40 $7,309,104.40 $7,309,104.40 The above report is recommended by California Government Code Section 53646 and represents all cash and investments held by the City as of July 31, 2026. The portfolio is compliant with the City’s Investment policy, provides sufficient cash flow to meet City expenditure requirements for the next six months, and is managed solely by the City. ______________________________________
Diana Perkins, City Manager/Treasurer

STAFF REPORT
Meeting: City Council - Sep 15 2026
Agenda Heading: CONSENT CALENDAR
Staff Contact: Diana Perkins, City Manager
Department: City Manager
Title: Adoption of Ordinance No. NS-251 An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Monte Sereno Amending Title 4 of the Monte Sereno Municipal Code to Repeal Chapter 4.16 (Social Gatherings) and Replace It with a New Chapter 4.16 (Social Host Ordinance)
Recommendation(s):

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the draft ordinance.

Background Information:

The attached Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on September 1, 2026 which includes repealing the current Chapter 4.16 Social Gatherings and replacing it with a new Chapter 4.16 Social Host Ordinance. The introduction of the ordinance was passed with a 4-1 vote with Vice Mayor Shannon dissenting.

California Environmental Quality Act:

The action being considered does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4) in that it is a fiscal activity that does not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potential significant impact on the environment.

Fiscal Impact:

No fiscal impact is anticipated with the adoption of the updated ordinance, although any fines imposed would provide a modest revenue increase.

Public Noticing:

Notice of the scheduled adoption of this ordinance was placed in the San Jose Mercury News on September 5, 2026. This meeting agenda was posted on the bulletin board outside of Monte Sereno City Hall and the agenda with this staff report can be accessed on the City of Monte Sereno's website located at www.montesereno.org.

Attachments:

1. Draft Ordinance NS-251

1 of 7
ORDINANCE NO. NS-251

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTE SERENO AMENDING TITLE 4 OF THE MONTE SERENO MUNICIPAL CODE TO REPEAL CHAPTER 4.16 (SOCIAL GATHERINGS) AND REPLACE IT WITH A NEW CHAPTER 4.16 (SOCIAL HOST ORDINANCE) WHEREAS, the City of Monte Sereno desires to amend its social gatherings requirements; and
WHEREAS, the occurrence of underage social gatherings, defined in this ordinance as a gathering of two or more underage persons on private or public property where intoxicants are consumed by underage persons, is harmful to such persons and a threat to public welfare, health, and safety. The Surgeon General's Call to Action (2007) is hereby incorporated by reference, to further establish the health, safety and public welfare concerns that exist with underage drinking or cannabis use; and
WHEREAS, reliable research indicates that underage consumption of intoxicants is a contributing factor in the three leading causes of teenage deaths: 1) unintentional injury, 2) homicide and 3) suicide. Underage drinking is associated with alcohol abuse and a negative impact on the developing brain of youth. Likewise, consumption of intoxicants is associated with violent crimes including sexual offenses, DUI, and alcohol-related traffic deaths. Underage drinking is a common factor in public disturbances, vandalism, and physical altercations, all of which may require intervention by local law enforcement; and WHEREAS, research has identified easy access to intoxicants and permissive attitudes as two key factors that contribute to underage drinking, cannabis, or other drug use; and WHEREAS, Local, state and national studies have established that underage youth most commonly procure intoxicants from social sources (parties, friends, homes) and others who purchase it for them; and
WHEREAS, underage social gatherings frequently occur on private or public property where adults who own or control the property have failed to ensure that alcoholic beverages, cannabis, or other intoxicating products are neither served to, nor consumed by underage persons. Furthermore, there are times when parents or other adults are present at the social gathering who condone the underage drinking, cannabis, or controlled substance use and provide the alcohol, cannabis, or controlled substance products; and WHEREAS, problems associated with underage social gatherings on private or public property are difficult to prevent and deter unless the Los Gatos Monte Sereno Police Department has the legal authority to direct the social host to disperse the gathering and to cite the social host; and
WHEREAS, law enforcement personnel have in the past been required to respond to underage social gatherings on private and public property where intoxicants are provided to and consumed by underage persons. Such calls for service can result in a disproportionate expenditure of public safety resources and delay official responses to other calls; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Monte Sereno, pursuant to the City's police powers under Article XI, sections 3 and 5 of the California Constitution, has the authority to enact

2 of 7
and enforce laws that promote the public health, safety and general welfare of its residents; and WHEREAS, an ordinance that imposes liability with penalties on social hosts is necessary to deter and prevent such gatherings. Social hosts or anyone who organizes, supervises, aids, conducts, permits, or controls the underage social gathering need not be present at such gathering to incur liability under this ordinance.

NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTE SERENO DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The City Council, therefore, finds that underage social gatherings held on private or public property are a threat to the public peace, health, safety and general welfare, and a public nuisance as they affect the entire Monte Sereno community as well as the neighborhoods in which they occur.

SECTION 2. The purposes of this ordinance are to:

1. protect the public health, safety, and welfare by deterring the service to and consumption of alcoholic beverages or cannabis products by underage persons; and

2. reduce the cost to the public of providing police response services. These purposes are achieved by issuing a criminal citation which requires the social host to pay a fine and fees for the actual costs incurred by the Los Gatos Monte Sereno Police Department; and SECTION 3. The recitals to this Ordinance are hereby incorporated and are expressly made a part hereof.

SECTION 4. Chapter 4.16 of Title 4 of the Monte Sereno Municipal Code is repealed and replaced to read in its entirety as follows:
“CHAPTER 4.16 SOCIAL HOST ORDINANCE

4.16.015 Definitions

4.16.020 Duty of the Social Host

4.16.025 Prohibition of Underage Gatherings on Private and Public Property

4.16.030 Hosting by Juvenile

4.16.035 Exemption

4.16.040 Penalties for Violations

4.16.045 Recovery of Response Costs

4.16.050 No Mandatory Duty of Care

4.16.015 Definitions.

For the purposes of this chapter, the following definitions apply:
(a) "Alcohol." The definition of "alcohol" in Section 23003 of the California Business & Professions Code, as amended from time to time, shall apply to this chapter. As of the introduction of this chapter, section 23003 defines "alcohol" to mean "ethyl alcohol, hydrated oxide of ethyl, or

3 of 7
spirits of wine, from whatever source or by whatever process produced." (b) "Alcoholic beverage." The definition of "alcoholic beverage" in Section 23004 of the California Business & Professions Code, as amended from time to time, shall apply to this chapter.

As of the introduction of this chapter, section 23004 defines "alcoholic beverage" to mean alcohol, spirits, liquor, wine, beer that contains one-half of one percent or more alcohol by volume and that is fit for beverage purposes either alone or when diluted, mixed or combined with other substances."
(c) "Cannabis" means all parts of the plant Cannabis Sativa Linnaeus, Cannabis Indica, or Cannabis Ruderalis, or any other strain or varietal of the genus Cannabis that may exist or hereafter be discovered or developed that has psychoactive or medicinal purposes. "Cannabis" also means marijuana as defined by section 11018 of the Health and Safety Code, and amended by the California Control, Regulate, and Tax Adult use of Marijuana Initiative, and as defined by other applicable state laws. "Cannabis" does not mean "industrial hemp" as defined by section 11018.S of the Health and Safety Code. Cannabis is classified as an agricultural product separately from other agricultural crops.
(d) "Cannabis Product" means cannabis or a cannabis product, respectfully, intended to be sold for either medical or adult use.
(e) "City" means the City of Monte Sereno.
(f) "Controlled Substance" means a drug or substance whose possession and use are regulated under the California Controlled Substances Act (Health & Safety Code Section 11000 et seq.). Such term does not include any drug or substance for which the individual found to have consumed or possessed such substance has a valid prescription issued by a licensed medical practitioner authorized to issue such a prescription, or in the case of medical cannabis, a recommendation for medical marijuana from an approved provider, or a State of California medical identification card.
(g) "lntoxicants" means alcohol, controlled substances and/or cannabis as defined herein. (h) "Juvenile" means any person under eighteen years of age. (i) "Private or public property" means any location such as a residence and adjoining property, an apartment, condominium, hotel or motel room, or other dwelling unit, or a hall or meeting room, park, or any other place of assembly, public or private, whether occupied on a temporary or permanent basis, whether occupied as a dwelling or specifically for a party or other

4 of 7
social function or used with or without permission or compensation. (j) "Response costs" means the costs associated with responses by law enforcement to underage social gatherings including, but not limited to:
(1) salaries and benefits of law enforcement personnel for the amount of time spent responding to, remaining at, or otherwise dealing with unruly or underage gatherings; (2) the cost of any medical treatment to or for any law enforcement personnel injured responding to, remaining at or leaving the scene of an underage social gathering; (3) the cost of repairing any Los Gatos Monte Sereno Police Department equipment or property damage, and the cost of the use of any such equipment, in responding to, remaining at or leaving the scene of an underage social gathering; and (4) any costs recoverable in accordance with California Civil Code section 1714.9. (k) "Social Host" means any person or persons with a right of possession of private or public property at which an underage social gathering occurs, including, but not limited to, the following:
(1) the owner of record as of the time of the underage social gathering or tenant or lessee of the property;
(2) any person who exercises control over the private or public property at the time of the underage social gathering;
(3) anyone who organizes, supervises, officiates, aids, conducts, allows, permits or controls the underage social gathering.

A social host need not be present at such gathering to incur liability under this ordinance. (l) "Underage social gathering" means a party or gathering of two or more persons held on private or public property in the City where intoxicants are consumed by any underage person. (m) "Underage person" means any person under twenty-one years of age.

4.16.020 Duty of Social Host.

It is the duty of the Social Host to take reasonable steps to prevent underage access to intoxicants on private and public property. Such steps include, but are not limited to, controlling the quantity of intoxicants, verifying the age of persons attending the gathering by inspecting drivers' licenses or other government-issued identification cards to ensure that underage persons do not consume intoxicants while at the gathering, and supervising the activities of underage persons at the gathering.

4.16.025 Prohibition of Underage Social Gatherings on Private and Public Property.

It is unlawful and a public nuisance for any person to knowingly host an underage social gathering on private or public property in the City. For purposes of this chapter, a person knowingly hosts an underage social gathering whenever the social host is aware that an underage person has consumed intoxicants or reasonably should have been aware had the social host taken reasonable steps to prevent consumption of intoxicants by underage persons in accordance with Chapter

5 of 7

4.16.030. Hosting by Juvenile.

In the event that a juvenile hosts an underage social gathering on private or public property in the City in violation of this chapter, the parents or guardians of that juvenile may be jointly and severally liable for any penalties and response costs imposed pursuant to this chapter.

4.16.035 Exemption.

This chapter does not apply to conduct involving the use of alcoholic beverages that is protected by Article I, Section 4 of the California Constitution.

4.16.040 Penalties for Violations.
(a) The Code Enforcement Officer and/or City Police, at their discretion, may immediately issue a citation for violation of this Chapter upon evidence of the violation. There is no requirement of a first warning in order for the enforcement officer to issue this citation. (b) Administrative Fine: A first violation of this chapter shall result in a citation with a $1,500 fine. A second violation and subsequent violations shall result in a citation with a $3,000 fine. (c) The Code Enforcement Officer and/or City Police shall give notice of a violation of this chapter by issuing a citation to any and all responsible persons identified by the chapter within 10 days of the violation. The citation shall also give notice of the right to request an administrative hearing to challenge the validity of the citation and the time for requesting that hearing. (d) The administrative fine prescribed in this section is in addition to any cost recovery fee for public safety responses that may be assessed pursuant to section 4.16.045.

4.16.045 Recovery of Response Costs.

When the City Police make an initial response to an underage social gathering on private or public property in the City and the Code Enforcement Officer and/or a police officer issues a citation for violation of this chapter, the officer shall, in writing, inform any responsible person(s) at the property or location that:
(a) An underage social gathering exists; and
(b) The social host(s) will be charged for any response costs incurred for subsequent responses to the property for hosting an underage social gathering within a 12-month period. (c) This warning will be given to all social hosts at the time of the first response to an underage social gathering where a citation is issued for violation of this chapter. (d) Within 30 calendar days of the initial citation, a written warning will be delivered via certified mail to the owner of record of the involved property. (e) When a police officer responds to an underage social gathering at a residence or other private or public property within the City within 12 months of a citation and warning given to social hosts at the same property, and such officer issues a second or subsequent citation pursuant to this chapter, all responsible persons shall be jointly and severally liable for the City's response costs concerning such second or subsequent underage social gathering, but only to the extent that the identified social host(s) concerning the first citation at such property remain the social host(s) for the second or subsequent citation at such property.

6 of 7
(f) The requirement of a first warning does not limit the ability of public safety personnel to issue a civil citation for the imposition of civil penalties for cost recovery on the same day that the warning is given if the warning does not end the serving, consumption of or possession of intoxicants by underage person(s) at any gathering. The cost recovery for public safety responses shall be separate and distinct from a citation and administrative fine for a violation described in section 4.16.040.

4.16.050 No Mandatory Duty of Care.

This chapter is not intended to impose and shall not be construed or given effect in a manner that imposes upon the City, or any officer, employee, agent, or representative of the City, a mandatory duty of care toward persons or property within or without the City limits, so as to provide a basis of civil liability for damages, except as may otherwise be imposed by law.” SECTION 5. Environmental Review.

The adoption of this ordinance is not a “project” as defined by the CEQA guidelines Section 15378: “Adoption of the ordinance does not have the potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Further projects subject to the ordinance will require a discretionary permit and CEQA review and will be analyzed at the appropriate time in accordance with CEQA.” Therefore, no environmental assessment is required or necessary.

SECTION 6. Effective Date.

This ordinance shall be in full force and effect 30 days after its adoption.

SECTION 7. Severability.

If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision of such Ordinance and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof.

SECTION 8. Certification.

The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be posted and/or published in the manner required by law.

This Ordinance was introduced at the meeting of the City Council on the 1st day of September 2026, and was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 15th day of September 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

Lionel M. Allan, Mayor

7 of 7
Attest: ___________________________
Gloisy Gonzalez-Langarica, City Clerk

Approved as to form:

___________________________________
Kirsten Powell, City Attorney

STAFF REPORT
Meeting: City Council - Sep 15 2026
Agenda Heading: NEW BUSINESS
Staff Contact: Diana Perkins, City Manager
Department: City Manager
Title: Consideration of a Letter of Support for the Los Gatos Monte Sereno Police Department to be sent to the City of Saratoga Mayor and City Council
Recommendation(s):

Staff recommends that the City Council consider whether a letter of support for the Los Gatos Monte Sereno Police Department should be sent to the City of Saratoga Mayor and City Council.

Background Information:

Cities throughout California continue to face constrained budgets while attempting to maintain core municipal services. Law enforcement is one of the largest service responsibilities for many cities and is affected by rising personnel costs, retirement and benefit costs, insurance and risk costs, technology and equipment requirements, dispatch and communications costs, emergency preparedness needs, and evolving legal and operational mandates.

As costs increase, many local agencies are evaluating shared service models, regional partnerships, joint use of specialized resources, and intergovernmental agreements to preserve service quality while improving affordability.

The City’s existing relationship with Los Gatos is an example of this approach. The City of Monte Sereno has contracted with the Town of Los Gatos to provide law enforcement services since 1995. This demonstrates that a neighboring jurisdiction can receive comprehensive municipal law enforcement services through a contract relationship while sharing fixed operational costs, strengthens regional coordination, and supports a broader service base.

Expanding this relationship to include Saratoga would further these shared services and likely be financially beneficial to each jurisdiction.

City of Saratoga Law Enforcement Services
The City of Saratoga has contracted with the Santa Clara County Sheriff for law enforcement services for 70 years with the recent 10-year agreement expiring in June 2026. The Sheriff proposed a new agreement effective in Fiscal Year 2026/2027 which would have resulted in an increase of approximately $2.6 million, or 29%, from the previous fiscal year for the same

service level. On August 11, 2026, the Saratoga City Council approved an agreement with the Sheriff with reduced patrol services at a cost of approximately $10.6 million in the first year.

At the same time, the City of Saratoga requested that the Town of Los Gatos provide a proposal to expand the Los Gatos Monte Sereno Police Department and provide law enforcement services to Saratoga. The Los Gatos Town Council will review the draft agreement at their meeting on September 15, 2026 and the Saratoga City Council will discuss the draft agreement at their meeting on September 16, 2026.

Analysis:

Like many cities throughout California, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, and Saratoga face increasing pressure to sustain current service levels with existing revenues while managing rising public safety, personnel, technology, emergency preparedness, and operational costs. A carefully structured regional partnership may allow each community to preserve high-quality law enforcement services while lowering the net cost of service delivery by sharing appropriate fixed costs and expanding operational capacity.

Each community also has a mutual interest in retaining and growing law enforcement capacity to meet future emergency needs, including major incidents and disaster response. By working together, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, and Saratoga may be able to strengthen regional readiness, improve coordination, and better protect the safety and quality of life of residents across adjoining communities.

A potential agreement between Los Gatos and Saratoga for law enforcement services would not affect the current agreement between Los Gatos and Monte Sereno for these services.

However, with an expanded police department, the overall share of costs of services provided to Monte Sereno would be smaller, which would likely be financially beneficial to the City in future agreements.

A draft letter is attached to this report that the Council may consider sending to the Saratoga Mayor and City Council expressing support for the Los Gatos Monte Sereno Police Department.

California Environmental Quality Act:

The action being considered does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4) in that it is a fiscal activity that does not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potential significant impact on the environment.

Fiscal Impact:

No fiscal impact will occur as a result of the draft letter of support.

Public Noticing:

The City of Monte Sereno's Council meeting agenda was posted on the bulletin board outside of Monte Sereno's City Hall and the agenda with this staff report can be accessed on the City of Monte Sereno's website located at www.montesereno.org.

Attachments:

1. Draft Letter of Support for LGMSPD

September 15, 2026
Mayor and City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue,
Saratoga, California 95070
Dear Mayor Page and Saratoga City Council Members:

I am writing on behalf of the City Council of the City of Monte Sereno to respectfully recommend that the City of Saratoga join the Los Gatos Monte Sereno Police Department (LGMSPD) for the provision of municipal law enforcement services.

The City of Monte Sereno has firsthand experience with the benefits of having our police services provided through the LGMSPD. We first entered into an agreement with the Town of Los Gatos to provide law enforcement services in 1995 and most recently, the agreement was extended last year.

Monte Sereno has received excellent services from LGMSPD. I am confident that Saratoga residents will receive the same high-quality services.

Saratoga is a highly valued neighboring community with many of the same characteristics and expectations as Monte Sereno. Your community understandably expects responsive patrol services, effective crime prevention, strong investigative capabilities, professional emergency response, and meaningful community engagement. I am confident a partnership with LGMSPD would provide Saratoga with these services while creating additional opportunities for coordination among our neighboring communities.

I also believe Saratoga's participation could strengthen the police department itself. Adding Saratoga to the LGMSPD partnership could create a larger and more geographically integrated service area, potentially providing additional staffing depth, resources, and operational flexibility while strengthening cooperation among our three communities.

Thank you for your consideration and for your leadership on behalf of the residents of Saratoga. I look forward to continuing the strong relationship among our neighboring communities and exploring opportunities to work together to make our communities safer and stronger.

Sincerely,
Lionel M. Allan
Mayor
18041 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road
Monte Sereno, California 95030-4299
Telephone: 408.354.7635
www.montesereno.org

STAFF REPORT
Meeting: City Council - Sep 15 2026
Agenda Heading: NEW BUSINESS
Staff Contact: Gloisy Gonzalez-Langarica, City Clerk
Department: City Clerk
Title: Youth Commission – Presentation of 2026–2027 Goals and Priorities Recommendation(s):

Staff recommends that the City Council receive the Youth Commission’s presentation regarding its proposed goals and priorities for the 2026–2027 program year and provide feedback to the Youth Commission regarding its proposed activities and areas of focus.

Background Information:

The Monte Sereno Youth Commission was established to provide local youth with an opportunity to participate in City government, develop leadership skills, engage in community service, and provide a youth perspective on issues and activities affecting the community.

The Youth Commission meets regularly throughout the year and participates in community events. Commissioners also work together to identify opportunities for community service, youth engagement, and activities that benefit Monte Sereno residents.

As the Commission begins the 2026–2027 program year, the Youth Commission has identified areas in which it would like to focus its efforts. The Commission would like to present its proposed goals and priorities to the City Council to provide an overview of its anticipated activities for the coming year.

Fiscal Impact:

There are no unbudgeted fiscal impacts with this agenda item.

Public Noticing:

The City of Monte Sereno's Council meeting agenda was posted on the bulletin board outside of Monte Sereno's City Hall and the agenda with this staff report can be accessed on the City of Monte Sereno's website located at www.montesereno.org.

STAFF REPORT
Meeting: City Council - Sep 15 2026
Agenda Heading: NEW BUSINESS
Staff Contact: Diana Perkins, City Manager
Department: City Manager
Title: Consideration of a Letter to the California Public Utility Commission Regarding San Jose Water Company’s Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Rate Application (26-04-010)
Recommendation(s):

Staff recommends that the City Council consider whether a letter to the California Public Utility Commission Regarding San Jose Water Company’s Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Rate Application (26-04-010) be sent.

Background Information:

San Jose Water Company (SJWC) is regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and serves over one million customers in the San Jose, Campbell, Cupertino, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno and Saratoga communities. Every three years, SJWC is required by law to file a General Rate Case (GRC) application to adjust water rates. The proposed rate adjustments must be reviewed and approved by the CPUC, following a robust and transparent process that spans about 12 months. Further rate increases between rate cases are reviewed through annual escalation filings, surcharges and pass-through offsets.

On April 10, 2026, SJWC filed Application 26-04-010 asking the CPUC to approve a revenue increase of $25,171,741, or 4.05 percent, to fund treatment for PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) at its Williams Station, where six of 15 wells are out of service. SJWC estimates that the average residential customer, using 10 hundred cubic feet (ccf) of water per month, would pay about $5.76 more per month, or about $69 more per year, phased in from 2028 through 2031. Households that use more water would pay more.

Council Member Mekechuk requested this item be placed on the agenda for Council’s consideration and prepared the attached documents describing the concern and content of the proposed letter.

California Environmental Quality Act:

The action being considered does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4) in that

it is a fiscal activity that does not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potential significant impact on the environment.

Fiscal Impact:

No fiscal impact.

Public Noticing:

The City of Monte Sereno's Council meeting agenda was posted on the bulletin board outside of Monte Sereno's City Hall and the agenda with this staff report can be accessed on the City of Monte Sereno's website located at www.montesereno.org.

Attachments:

1. Report Prepared by Council Member Mekechuk

1. Report Prepared by Council Member Mekechuk - Ruling by ALJ Deny Party Status

1. Report Prepared by Council Member Mekechuk - CPUC Water Rate Setting Process

1. Report Prepared by Council Member Mekechuk - Attachment A

CITY OF MONTE SERENO
Councilmember Report
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Bryan Mekechuk, Councilmember
DATE: September 10, 2026
SUBJECT: Consideration of Letter to the CPUC to San Jose Water Company’s PFAS Rate Application (A.26-04-010)
Recommendation
I recommend that City Council:

1. Authorize Councilmember Bryan Mekechuk to draft a letter on behalf of the City to the California Public Utilities Commission objecting to San Jose Water Company’s Application 26-04-010, subject to review by the City Attorney; and

2. Authorize Mayor Lon Allan to review and sign the letter on behalf of the City.

Background and Context
San Jose Water Company (SJWC) is the investor-owned utility that provides water service to Monte Sereno residents. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC or Commission) sets SJWC’s rates, principally through a General Rate Case (GRC) filed every three years, with further increases between rate cases through annual escalation filings, surcharges and pass-through offsets.

SJWC has raised water rates to our residents significantly each year for many years. The cost of water is not affordable to many of our residents, particularly those on fixed incomes.

Over the past 10 years, the City has objected to excessive SJWC rate increases (Attachment A), including:
• 2019: The City protested SJWC Advice Letter 532, in which SJWC sought to recover $9,020,356 from its Water Conservation Memorandum Account for 2018. The City argued that customers should not carry the burden of making SJWC’s revenue whole when water sales had been miscalculated. The Commission denied the request in Resolution W-5210 on December 19, 2019. • 2021: Following the May 13, 2021 public participation hearing in SJWC’s 2021 GRC (A.21-01-003), at which Councilmember Mekechuk spoke on behalf of ratepayers, the City sent a 12-page letter dated June 16, 2021, signed by then Mayor Shawn Leuthold, to Administrative Law Judge Daphne Lee. The letter objected to the proposed revenue requirement, connection charges, volumetric rates and tier structure. SJWC did not acknowledge or respond to the letter. • 2024: In SJWC’s 2025‒2027 GRC (A.24-01-001), in which SJWC requested increases of 11.11 percent in 2025, 3.99 percent in 2026 and 4.49 percent in 2027, the City Council appointed Councilmember Mekechuk to represent residents in reviewing and potentially protesting the increases.

Discussion
Current Application
On April 10, 2026, SJWC filed Application 26-04-010 asking the Commission to approve a revenue increase of $25,171,741, or 4.05 percent, to fund treatment for PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) at its Williams Station, where 6 of 15 wells are out of service. SJWC estimates that the average residential customer, using 10 hundred cubic feet (ccf) of water per month, would pay about $5.76 more per month, or about $69 more per year, phased in from 2028 through 2031. Households that use more water would pay more.

The City supports safe drinking water and compliance with PFAS standards. The concern is how SJWC has brought these costs forward. SJWC filed the request as a standalone application outside its GRC, although the increase would not begin until 2028, the test year of SJWC’s next GRC, which SJWC is expected to file in 2027. Considering the PFAS costs separately makes it harder for the Commission and customers to weigh them against SJWC’s total revenue requirement, other capital projects that may overlap, and the cumulative effect on customer bills.

SJWC Did Not Give the Notice Required by the Commission’s Rules Notice is the foundation of due process in ratesetting. Rule 3.2 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure requires a utility that applies for a rate increase to notify the Attorney General and the cities and counties it serves, publish notice in a newspaper, and notify its customers, each within a fixed number of days after filing. Notice gives customers and public agencies time to participate, including by seeking party status before the prehearing conference at which the scope and schedule of the proceeding are set.

In a compliance filing dated July 29, 2026, SJWC conceded that it had not sent the required notices, attributing the failure to “an administrative oversight arising from multiple leadership transitions within the San Jose Water rates department.” SJWC discovered the failure only after the prehearing conference held on July 2, 2026. SJWC then completed the notices late:

Rule 3.2 Requirement Deadline Completed Days Late
Notice to the Attorney General and to cities and
counties, Rule 3.2(b)
April 30, 2026 July 8, 2026 69
Newspaper publication, Rule 3.2(c) April 30, 2026 July 6, 2026 67 Notice to customers, Rule 3.2(d) June 24, 2026 July 24, 2026 30 The City of Monte Sereno received its notice by electronic mail on July 8, 2026, 89 days after the application was filed and six days after the prehearing conference. The City therefore had no opportunity to participate when the scope and schedule of the proceeding were set. SJWC completed its customer notices on July 24, 2026, 105 days after the application was filed.

The Proceeding Has Continued Regardless
Notwithstanding the notice failure, the proceeding has continued on its original schedule. The Assigned Commissioner issued the Scoping Memo and Ruling on July 29, 2026, the same day SJWC filed its admission, and the Administrative Law Judge is allowing the rate process to proceed without requiring

SJWC to re-notice the application or resetting the schedule. SJWC argues that no party was prejudiced by the late notice.

The certificate of service for the Scoping Memo recites service on the service list for a different proceeding, A.26-04-005, a PacifiCorp application, rather than the service list for A.26-04-010.

An SJWC customer from Los Gatos, Patrick Kearns, MD, filed a motion for party status on August 5, 2026 and a motion for expedited treatment on August 19, 2026, citing SJWC’s notice failure as good cause for his late request. This was rejected on September 10, 2026.

Effect of a City Letter
A letter from the City would be a public comment in the proceeding. The Commissioners and the Administrative Law Judge consider public comments, but public comments are not evidence and are not part of the formal record on which the decision is based. A letter from an affected city nonetheless answers SJWC’s argument that no one was prejudiced by the late notice, supports customers who are seeking late party status, and places the City’s position on the public record of the proceeding.

Proposed Content of the Letter
The letter would be addressed to the Assigned Commissioner and the Administrative Law Judge in A.26- 04-010, submitted through the Commission’s public comment process, and copied to SJWC, the Commission’s Public Advocates Office, the City’s State Senator and Assemblymember, and the other cities in SJWC’s service area. The letter would:

1. State that the City supports safe drinking water and compliance with PFAS standards, and that its objection is to the process and to piecemeal ratemaking, not to remediation.

2. Object to SJWC’s failure to comply with Rule 3.2 and to the proceeding continuing as though timely notice had been given, and ask the Commission to require SJWC to re-notice the application and to reset the schedule so that customers and public agencies can participate, including by seeking party status.

3. Object to rate increases outside the GRC and ask the Commission to consider the PFAS costs in SJWC’s next GRC, since the proposed increase would not begin until 2028.

4. Ask the Commission to weigh the affordability of water for residential customers and the cumulative effect of SJWC’s annual increases.

Alternatives
The City’s choices range from no action, to a written comment signed by the Mayor or by all Councilmembers, to formal participation in the proceeding as a party. The four alternatives below cover that range.

Alternative 1: Letter Signed by the Mayor on Behalf of the City (Recommended) Councilmember Mekechuk drafts the letter, the City Attorney reviews it, and Mayor Allan reviews and signs it on behalf of the City. The letter states the official position of the City as authorized by a vote of the Council and can be sent promptly. This is consistent with the City’s practice, including the June 16, 2021 letter to the Commission signed by the Mayor and the September 2026 letter urging the Governor to

sign AB 1761, signed by Mayor Allan following a unanimous Council vote. The letter can report the Council’s vote to show the level of support.

Alternative 2: Letter Signed by All Councilmembers
The same letter, signed by all five Councilmembers. This shows unanimity visibly but carries the same weight as a City letter signed by the Mayor, takes longer to complete, and requires care under the Brown Act, since a draft circulated among a majority of the Council for comment outside a public meeting could constitute a serial meeting. The Council would need to approve the final text at a meeting before it is circulated for signature.

Alternative 3: City Seeks Party Status in A.26-04-010
The City files a motion for late party status, citing SJWC’s notice failure as good cause. As a party, the City could submit testimony and briefs that become part of the formal record. This is a larger commitment: the City would take on the obligations of a party, including service of filings and responding to data requests, and would incur City Attorney or outside counsel costs. This alternative is not recommended at this time. The Council could revisit this alternative if the letter does not achieve its objectives.

Alternative 4: No Letter
The City takes no position on A.26-04-010. No staff or City Attorney time is required. The Commission would not hear from the City, and the absence of objection from affected public agencies could be read as support for SJWC’s argument that no one was prejudiced by the late notice.

Fiscal Impact
Alternatives 1 and 2 have no direct cost to the City beyond staff and City Attorney time to review and transmit the letter. Alternative 3 would involve City Attorney or outside counsel costs. Alternative 4 has no cost to the City.

For residents, SJWC estimates that the application would add about $5.76 per month, or about $69 per year, to the average residential bill when fully phased in, in addition to other SJWC increases. At 1,260 parcels, this is approximately $87,000 per year, with no sunset to the bill increase.

Next Steps
If the Council approves the recommendation, Councilmember Mekechuk will prepare a draft letter for City Attorney review. After review, Mayor Allan will review and sign the letter, and staff will submit it to the Commission and distribute the copies. Consistent with the Brown Act, the draft will not be circulated to a majority of the Council for comment outside a public meeting. The letter should be sent promptly, since the proceeding continues on the schedule set in the Scoping Memo, which is to be determined.

Attachments
A. City of Monte Sereno letters objecting to SJWC rate increases, 2016‒2026 B. SJWC Rule 3.2 Compliance Filing in A.26-04-010, July 29, 2026 (available online at https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/SearchRes.aspx?DocFormat=All&DocID=604607298)

616434101 - 1 -
ALJ/GK1/abb 9/10/2026

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Application of SAN JOSE WATER
COMPANY (U168W) for Approval of
Cost Recovery for PFAS Remediation. Application 26-04-010

RULING ON MOTION FOR PARTY STATUS
Patrick Kearns (Movant) filed a Motion for Party Status in this proceeding on August 5, 2026. Movant seeks party status as an individual customer of San Jose Water Company (SJWC).

Movant identifies interests concerning customer affordability, PFAS remediation, water quality, federal PHAS regulatory requirements, SJWC’s proposed cost-recovery mechanism, and whether SJWC’s PFAS expenditures should instead be considered in its anticipated 2027 General Rate Case (GRC).

The Motion is denied.

1. Applicable Standard
The interests identified by Movant are legitimate interests of utility customers. However, the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (Rules) do not require the addition of every individual customer who identifies an interest in a ratesetting proceeding as a formal party. Under Rule 1.4(b), a person seeking party status by motion must state the factual and legal contentions the person intends to make, demonstrating that those contentions are reasonably pertinent to the issues already presented. Rule 1.4(c) authorizes the FILED
09/10/26
08:27 AM
A2604010

A.26-04-010 ALJ/GK1/abb
- 2 -
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), where circumstances warrant, to deny status or limit participation.

Here, the interests and issues identified by Movant are already represented in this proceeding by the Public Advocates Office of the California Public Utilities Commission (Cal Advocates), which is a party to this proceeding and has a statutory mandate to advocate on behalf of the utility customers.

Movant has not demonstrated that granting him separate party status would present a materially distinct customer interest, factual contention, or legal contention that is not already appropriately before the Commission.

Rule 1.4(b) provides that a person seeking party status by motion shall:

1. Fully disclose the persons or entities in whose behalf the filing, appearance or motion is made, and the interest of such persons or entities in the proceeding; and

2. State the factual and legal contentions that the person intends to make and show that the contentions will be
reasonably pertinent to the issues already presented.

Rule 1.4(c) provides that:

The Assigned Administrative Law Judge, where circumstances warrant, deny party status or limit the degree to which a party may participate in a proceeding.

Thus, a person’s status as a utility customer and general interest in the subject matter do not, standing alone, require the Commission to grant formal party status.

The Commission’s rules contemplate a distinction between having an interest in a proceeding and obtaining the procedural rights and responsibilities associated with formal party status. The Commission’s public participation guidance likewise recognizes the ALJ may balance the interests of a person

A.26-04-010 ALJ/GK1/abb
- 3 -
seeking party status against the interests of the existing parties and the proceeding in general. Here, Movant’s identified customer interests are already represented.

Movant identified principal interests are as follows:

1. Affordable water rates;

2. Protection of water health and water quality;

3. Appropriate and cost-effective PFAS remediation;

4. Coordination of federal PHAS regulatory requirements;

5. Examination of SJWC’s proposed rate and revenue
recovery mechanism; and

6. Consideration of whether PFAS expenditures should be addressed in the Company’s GRC.

These interests substantially correspond to the issues already presented in this proceeding.

The assigned Commissioner’s Scoping Memo identifies issues concerning the reasonableness of SJWC’s proposed PFAS capital expenditures and alternatives, the proposed ratemaking and cost-recovery framework, revenue requirements and rate impacts, the necessity of expenditures to comply with existing or anticipated state and federal PHAS requirements, and other matters affecting costs borne by customers. Accordingly, the Commission does not find that the issues identified by Movant are absent from this proceeding. On the contrary, they are already within its scope.

2. Cal Advocates is Already a Party Representing the
Interests of SJWC’s Customers
Cal Advocates is already a party to this proceeding. The Legislature has assigned Cal Advocates the responsibility of representing the interests of utility customers before the Commission. Public Utilities Code Section 309.5 establishes

A.26-04-010 ALJ/GK1/abb
- 4 -
the Public Advocated Office and provides for its representation of the interests of the public utility customers.

Cal Advocates’ participation is not merely theoretical. It is a formal party to this proceeding and is entitled to participate in the evidentiary and briefing process applicable to this proceeding.

The concerns raised by the Movant – customer affordability, the reasonableness of utility expenditures, cost recovery, rate impacts, and alternatives that may reduce customer costs all fall squarely within the type of customer interests that Cal Advocates is authorized to examine and advocate before the Commission.

The Commission therefore finds that the customer interests identified by Movant are already represented by an existing party with a statutory mandate to advocate for the customers.

3. Movant has not Demonstrated a Distinct Interest or
Contention Requiring Separate Party Status
The Commission does not hold that Cal Advocates has exclusive authority to represent every customer or that an individual customer can never obtain party status when Cal Advocates is participating. Nor does the Commission hold that the Movant’s views are unimportant.

The question is narrower: whether Movant has made the showing necessary to warrant adding him as a separate formal party when the interests he identifies are already being represented by Cal Advocates. Here, he has not.

Movant identifies himself as a single customer and also suggests that he may represent other SJWC customers who have given him permission to represent them. However, the Motion does not identify a distinct legal interest possessed by those customers that differs from the customer interests already

A.26-04-010 ALJ/GK1/abb
- 5 -
represented by Cal Advocates. Nor does the Motion identify a specific factual or legal contention that could not appropriately be presented by an existing party.

Movant states that he intends to “probe” SJWC’s proposed costs, examine the rational for the proposed cost recovery mechanism, consider the relationship between this proceeding and the 2027 GRC, and provide information concerning PFAS regulatory developments.

All these subjects are already within the scope of the proceeding and available for consideration by the existing parties, including Cal Advocates.

The Motion therefore establishes an interest in this proceeding but does not establish a sufficient basis for duplicative formal representation of that interest.

4. The Commission Can Fully Consider Customer
Interest Without Adding Another Party
The Commission’s determination does not depend upon accepting or rejecting any position advanced by Cal Advocates. Rather, the existence of Cal Advocates as a party ensures that customer interests are formally before the Commission and that the customer perspective may be developed through discovery, testimony, evidentiary hearings, and briefing.

The Commission will independently evaluate the evidence and arguments presented by all parties and will determine whether SJWC’s proposed costs and ratemaking are reasonable and lawful.

Accordingly, denial of Movant’s request does not prevent the Commission from considering customer affordability, PFAS remediation alternatives, regulatory requirements, or other ratepayer concerns identified in the Motion.

These matters remain fully within the scope of this proceeding and may be addressed by existing parties.

A.26-04-010 ALJ/GK1/abb
- 6 -

5. Movant’s Reliance on His Experience and Prior
Participation Does Not Guarantee Party Status
Movant identifies substantial prior experience participating in Commission proceedings and states that he has previously represented or advocated for SJWC customers. The Commission recognizes that experience and customer involvement may be valuable. However, prior participation in other proceedings does not establish an entitlement to party status in this proceeding.

Each request for party status is evaluated under the Rules and considering the circumstances of the proceeding.

Here, the relevant consideration is that Movant’s stated interests and proposed areas of inquiry are already encompassed by the issues in this proceeding and can be adequately represented by Cal Advocates. His prior participation, therefore, does not establish a need for separate party status.

6. Conclusion
Movant has demonstrated that he has an interest in the subject matter of this proceeding as a SJWC customer. However, Rule 1.4 does not require formal party status merely because an individual has an interest in a ratesetting proceeding
The interests identified by Movant are already within the scope of this proceeding and are represented by Cal Advocates, an existing party with a statutory mandate to advocate for utility customers.

Movant has not demonstrated that he would bring a materially distinct customer interest or specific factual or legal contention that requires separate formal party status.

Granting party status under these circumstances would therefore provide duplicative formal representation without demonstrating a corresponding need for an additional party.

A.26-04-010 ALJ/GK1/abb
- 7 -
For these reasons, the Motion is denied pursuant to Rule 1.4(c).

IT IS RULED that:

1. Patrick Kearn’s Motion for Party Status in Application 26-04-010 is Denied.

2. This ruling does not determine the merits of Movant’s substantive views concerning PFAS remediation, federal PFAS requirements, SJWC’s proposed expenditures, or SJWC’s proposes ratemaking mechanism.

3. The Commission will consider the customer and ratepayer interests identified by Movant to the extent they are relevant to the issues withing the scope of this proceeding and are presented through the existing procedural framework.

4. The proceeding shall continue in accordance with the issues and schedule established by the Assigned Commissioner’s Scoping Memo and Ruling.

This order is effective today.

Dated September 10, 2026, at San Francisco, California. /s/ GERALD F. KELLY
Gerald F. Kelly
Administrative Law Judge

CPUC Water Rate Setting Process v04.docx Page 1
CPUC Rate Setting Process for Investor-Owned Water Utilities Overview of the General Rate Case, the Cost of Capital Proceeding, Escalation Year Filings, and Interim Rate Mechanisms
September 10, 2026

1. Purpose and Scope
This report describes how the California Public Utilities Commission (the Commission, or CPUC) sets rates for an investor-owned water utility, using San Jose Water Company (U 168 W) as the reference example. It covers the three recurring cycles that set rates on a schedule ‒ the General Rate Case, the Cost of Capital proceeding, and the escalation year advice letter ‒ and the between-cycle mechanisms that exist for costs the General Rate Case did not anticipate.

It is written for a reader who needs to open a filing, locate the point of entry, and understand what is actually being decided at each step, rather than for a reader seeking a general introduction to utility regulation.

In important distinction for the water entity – the CPUC regulates investor-owned water utilities only.

Municipal systems and special districts ‒ Valley Water and San Jose Municipal Water, for example ‒ set their own rates through their governing boards under Proposition 218, and none of the process described here applies to them. Within Santa Clara County the two regimes sit side by side, which is a frequent source of confusion in public discussion of water rates.

2. The Regulatory Architecture

2.1 There are Five Key Players
• The Commission itself: five Commissioners, who vote on decisions and resolutions at public meetings. • The Administrative Law Judge Division: the assigned Administrative Law Judge acts as presiding officer, manages the record, and writes the proposed decision.
• The Division of Water and Audits, commonly called the Water Division: reviews advice letters, drafts resolutions, maintains tariffs, and audits results of operations. • The Public Advocates Office, commonly called Cal Advocates: an independent division within the CPUC with a statutory mandate to represent ratepayer interests. It is a party to the proceeding, not a decisionmaker.
• Intervenors: customers, customer groups, local governments, and other affected parties who obtain party status. Water Rate Advocates for Transparency, Equity and Sustainability (WRATES) is an example of a customer group operating in this role.

2.2 Utility Classification
The rate setting process depends on the size of the water utility. A utility with 10,000 or more service connections is Class A and uses the formal application process described in this report. Smaller utilities use progressively less formal procedures, and Class B, C, and D utilities may seek a general rate increase by advice letter rather than by application ‒ although if more than 50 percent of customers protest, the matter converts to a formal proceeding. San Jose Water Company, with roughly 230,000 connections, is Class A.

CPUC Water Rate Setting Process v04.docx Page 2

2.3 Governing Authorities
Authority What It Governs
Pub. Util. Code § 451 Rates must be just and reasonable; service must be adequate, safe, and sufficient.

Pub. Util. Code § 454 No rate increase may take effect without a showing before the Commission and a finding that the increase is justified.

Pub. Util. Code § 455.2 Water-specific. Requires the decision in a general rate case for a utility with more than 10,000 connections to be effective on the first day of the first test year; authorizes interim rates when it is not; and requires an application under the Rate Case Plan every three years.

Pub. Util. Code § 728 Authorizes the Commission, after hearing, to fix just and reasonable rates.

Pub. Util. Code § 1701.5 Ratesetting proceedings must be resolved within 18 months of initiation unless the scoping memo states specific reasons for a later date and the assigned Commissioner approves it.

Pub. Util. Code § 311 Requires a proposed decision to be issued for public review and comment, ordinarily 30 days before the Commission may vote on it.

Pub. Util. Code §§ 1801-1812 Intervenor compensation for customers and customer groups that make a substantial contribution.

Pub. Util. Code §§ 1731, 1756 Application for rehearing, which is a prerequisite to judicial review, and petition for writ of review.

Rules of Practice and
Procedure
Rule 1.4 party status; Rule 2.6 protests and responses; Rule 3.2 notice of an application to increase rates; Rule 7.2 prehearing conference; Rule 7.3 scoping memo; Rule 12.1 settlements; Rule 14.3 comments on a proposed decision.

General Order 96-B The advice letter process, including the tier structure, protest rights, and disposition.

D.07-05-062 The Rate Case Plan for Class A water utilities: minimum data requirements, the processing schedule, and the escalation and attrition advice letter procedure.

Standard Practice U-27-W Processing of offset rate increases and the establishment and amortization of memorandum and reserve accounts.

2.4 The Two Tracks: Applications and Advice Letters
Nearly every rate change reaches the tariff by one of two routes, and knowing which route is in use tells a reader how much scrutiny the change will receive and how long there is to respond.

An application opens a formal proceeding: party status, testimony under oath, cross-examination, briefing, a proposed decision, and a Commission vote. An advice letter is an administrative filing reviewed by the Water Division. Under General Order 96-B advice letters are sorted into three tiers:
• Tier 1 ‒ effective on filing, subject to staff review. Used for ministerial and formula-driven changes such as escalation increases and most expense offsets.
• Tier 2 ‒ effective after staff review, ordinarily not sooner than 30 days after filing. Used for cost of capital mechanism adjustments and the establishment of memorandum accounts.

CPUC Water Rate Setting Process v04.docx Page 3
• Tier 3 ‒ effective only on a Commission resolution. Used for rate base offsets and for the amortization of memorandum account balances into rates.

Any interested person may protest an advice letter, ordinarily within 20 days of filing. The protest window is short, the filings are not served on a proceeding service list, and they appear only on the Commission’s advice letter pages and the utility’s own site.

Importantly, this is where rate changes pass with the least attention.

3. What Rates Recover: the Revenue Requirement
Every proceeding described below is, at bottom, an argument about one equation:

Revenue Requirement = Operating Expenses + Depreciation + Taxes + (Rate Base × Rate of Return) The elements are these:

Element What It Contains and Where It Is Decided
Operating expenses Source of supply, pumping, water treatment, transmission and distribution, customer accounts, and administrative and general expense. Payroll, purchased water, purchased power, and groundwater extraction charges (the pump tax) are the largest and most contested line items. Decided in the General Rate Case.

Depreciation expense Recovery of plant investment over its service life, driven by the depreciation study and the service lives adopted. Decided in the General Rate Case.

Taxes Ad valorem, payroll, and state and federal income tax, including the treatment of tax timing differences as flow-through or normalized. Decided in the General Rate Case.

Rate base Net utility plant in service, plus working cash and materials and supplies, less accumulated depreciation, accumulated deferred income taxes, contributions in aid of construction, and advances for construction. The capital budget is the principal driver.

Decided in the General Rate Case.

Rate of return The weighted average cost of the adopted capital structure. Decided in the separate, triennial Cost of Capital proceeding, and adjusted between proceedings by the Water Cost of Capital Mechanism.

Once the revenue requirement is set, rate design allocates it: between the fixed service charge tied to meter size and the volumetric quantity charge, among tiers within the quantity charge, and across customer classes.

Rate design determines who pays, and it can move an individual customer’s bill substantially even when the total revenue requirement is unchanged.

The structural point worth holding onto is that two proceedings decide two different halves of the equation on two different calendars. The General Rate Case decides everything except the rate of return. The Cost of Capital proceeding decides the rate of return and nothing else. They converge only when the tariff is filed.

4. Cycle One: the General Rate Case

4.1 Frequency, Test Year, and Schedule Length
Section 455.2(c) requires a Class A water utility to file a general rate case application every three years. The application sets rates for a test year and two subsequent escalation years.

CPUC Water Rate Setting Process v04.docx Page 4
The Rate Case Plan provides two processing schedules measured from the application to the effective date of rates: 14 months for a single-district utility, and 20 months for a multi-district utility. San Jose Water Company, a single-district utility, filed Application 24-01-001 on January 2, 2024; the Commission issued Decision 24-12-077 on December 19, 2024, adopting a settlement agreement and authorizing revenue requirements of $566.5 million for test year 2025, $581.5 million for 2026, and $599.7 million for 2027. Its next general rate case application is due in 2027.

A note on vocabulary: the Rate Case Plan calls years two and three escalation years, while decisions and utility filings frequently call them attrition years. The terms are used interchangeably in practice, and Section VII of the Rate Case Plan is titled the escalation and attrition advice letter procedure for that reason.

4.2 The Pre-Filing Phase
The Rate Case Plan schedule begins 60 days before the application is filed. The utility serves a proposed application, which is confidential and not a public document, on the Water Division and on Cal Advocates, and the Water Division reviews it against the Rate Case Plan minimum data requirements. If it is deficient, a deficiency letter issues at day -30; the utility may appeal to the Executive Director at day -25; and the Executive Director acts at day -20.

This is the first and least visible opportunity to raise a completeness objection. A filing that reaches day 0 with gaps in the minimum data requirements produces a proceeding in which parties spend the discovery period assembling what should have been in the application.

Cal Advocates must be diligent in identifying the minimum data requirements to save time, effort and expense for intervenors, such as WRATES.

4.3 Filing and Notice
Rule 3.2 governs notice, and its deadlines run from the filing date:

Rule Requirement Deadline From Filing

3.2(b) Notice to the Attorney General and to the county and city officials of each affected jurisdiction, and to other appropriate persons 20 days

3.2(c) Publication in a newspaper of general circulation in each affected county
20 days

3.2(d) Individual notice to customers, by bill insert or separate mailing 45 days on a billing cycle of 30 days or less; 75 days on a
longer cycle

3.2(e) Proof of compliance filed with the Commission 20 days after the last applicable compliance date
Notice is not a formality. The protest window, the prehearing conference, and the practical opportunity to seek party status all run from the filing date, not from the date notice is actually given. Defective or late notice therefore compresses or eliminates the participation window for precisely the customers and public officials the rule is designed to reach, and the proceeding continues on its original schedule regardless.

CPUC Water Rate Setting Process v04.docx Page 5

4.4 Protests and Party Status
A protest is filed within 30 days of the notice of the application in the Commission’s Daily Calendar (Rule 2.6).

A timely protest establishes party status as of right and states the issues the protesting party intends to raise.

After that window closes, a person seeking to participate files a motion for party status under Rule 1.4 and must show good cause. The practical test the presiding officer applies is whether admitting the party would disturb the schedule. A movant who can take the schedule as found ‒ serving testimony concurrently with Cal Advocates, for example ‒ removes the principal objection. Defective notice by the applicant is itself good cause, since the reason the motion is late is the applicant’s own failure.

4.5 The Prehearing Conference and the Scoping Memo
The prehearing conference is held between day 10 and day 75 under both schedules. Parties appear, the issues are identified, and a schedule is discussed. The assigned Commissioner then issues a scoping memo and ruling under Rule 7.3, which fixes:
• the issues to be determined in the proceeding
• the schedule, including testimony, hearing, and briefing dates • the category of the proceeding, ordinarily ratesetting • whether evidentiary hearings are needed
• the presiding officer
• the statutory deadline under Section 1701.5, and any extension of it The scoping memo is the single most consequential procedural document in the case.

Its significance was made concrete in 2024, when the California Supreme Court set aside Decision 20-08-047 in Golden State Water Co. v. Public Utilities Commission on the sole ground that the scoping memos in that rulemaking did not fairly signal that elimination of the Water Revenue Adjustment Mechanisms was within scope. The Court did not reach the merits of the policy. An issue outside the scoping memo is, in practical terms, an issue the Commission cannot lawfully decide ‒ which cuts both ways for an intervenor, and makes the prehearing conference the moment to get an issue named.

4.6 Testimony
The applicant serves its prepared testimony with the application at day 0 and updates its showing at day 45 on the 14-month schedule or day 100 on the 20-month schedule. Cal Advocates serves its report and testimony at day 97 or day 204. Other parties serve at day 97 or day 218. Rebuttal follows at day 112 or day 264.

Served, sworn testimony is the only vehicle that puts a fact into the evidentiary record. A contention that appears only in a brief, a public comment, or a letter cannot support a finding.

4.7 Public Participation Hearings
Public participation hearings are held between day 10 and day 90 on the 14-month schedule, or day 10 and day 190 on the 20-month schedule, with between 5 and 30 days of advance notice. Customers appear and speak; their comments are transcribed and are considered by the Commission.

CPUC Water Rate Setting Process v04.docx Page 6
They are not evidentiary hearings. Comments made there are not sworn, are not subject to crossexamination, and do not create a record on which a factual finding can rest. Volume of public comment is a political signal rather than an evidentiary one, and the distinction is worth explaining to any constituency that expects otherwise.

4.8 Settlement and Alternative Dispute Resolution
The Rate Case Plan sets aside days 115 to 125 on the 14-month schedule, or days 270 to 290 on the 20- month schedule, for the alternative dispute resolution process. Most Class A water general rate cases settle in substantial part.

Under Rule 12.1 the Commission may adopt a settlement only if it is reasonable in light of the whole record, consistent with law, and in the public interest. A party may join a settlement, take no position, or contest it; a party that joins is bound by it. San Jose Water Company’s 2024 general rate case was resolved this way:

Decision 24-12-077 adopted a settlement agreement, and the rates that took effect on January 1, 2025 came from that agreement rather than from a litigated result.

Settlement is therefore where most of the money is actually decided, and a party that is not at the settlement table is arguing against a package that every other party has already agreed to defend.

4.9 Evidentiary Hearings and Briefs
Evidentiary hearings, if required, run days 126 to 130 or days 290 to 310. They consist of cross-examination on served testimony; they are not an occasion for new affirmative evidence. Opening briefs are filed at day 160 or day 340, and reply briefs at day 175 or day 350.

4.10 The Water Division Technical Conference
At day 180 or day 370 the Water Division convenes a technical conference to reconcile the results-ofoperations models the parties have used. The purpose is arithmetic rather than policy: to ensure that the revenue requirement in the proposed decision is supportable from an agreed model. Errors caught here are far cheaper to fix than errors caught in comments on the proposed decision.

4.11 The Proposed Decision and the Final Decision
The proposed decision is mailed at day 240 or day 460. Section 311 gives the public 30 days to review it.

Comments are due at day 260 or day 480 and reply comments at day 265 or day 485; under Rule 14.3 comments are confined to factual, legal, or technical error, and are not an opportunity to reargue the case.

Any Commissioner may issue an alternate decision, which carries its own review period. The Commission votes at day 280 or day 500.

A final decision does not by itself change a customer’s bill. The utility files a compliance advice letter placing the adopted rates in tariff, and the Water Division reviews it for conformity with the decision.

4.12 The Rate Case Plan Processing Schedule
The full schedule adopted in Decision 07-05-062, stated in days relative to the filing of the application:

CPUC Water Rate Setting Process v04.docx Page 7
Event 14-Month Schedule 20-Month Schedule
Proposed application served Day -60 Day -60
Deficiency letter mailed Day -30 Day -30
Appeal to the Executive Director Day -25 Day -25
Executive Director acts Day -20 Day -20
Application filed and testimony served Day 0 Day 0
Prehearing conference start date Days 10-75 Days 10-75
Update of the applicant’s showing Day 45 Day 100
Public participation hearings, as needed Days 10-90 Days 10-190 Cal Advocates testimony Day 97 Day 204
Other parties serve testimony Day 97 Day 218
Rebuttal testimony Day 112 Day 264
Alternative dispute resolution process Days 115-125 Days 270-290 Evidentiary hearings, if required Days 126-130 Days 290-310 Opening briefs filed and served Day 160 Day 340
Motion for interim rates Day 160 Day 340
Mandatory status conference Day 161 Day 341
Reply briefs filed and served Day 175 Day 350
Water Division technical conference Day 180 Day 370
Proposed decision mailed Day 240 Day 460
Comments on the proposed decision Day 260 Day 480
Reply comments Day 265 Day 485
Commission meeting and final decision Day 280 Day 500

CPUC Water Rate Setting Process v04.docx Page 8

5. Cycle Two: the Cost of Capital Proceeding

5.1 Frequency and Filing Date
Cost of capital is set on its own triennial cycle. Applications are filed on May 1 for a three-year period beginning January 1 of the following year. The four largest Class A utilities ‒ California Water Service Company, California-American Water Company, Golden State Water Company, and San Jose Water Company ‒ file on the same date and are decided together, which allows the Commission to compare their showings directly. The remaining Class A utilities file on their own cycle; Decision 24-12-007 set cost of capital for Great Oaks Water Company, Liberty Utilities, San Gabriel Valley Water Company, and Suburban Water Systems.

5.2 What Is Decided
• Capital structure: the authorized proportions of common equity and long-term debt. • Cost of long-term debt: the embedded cost of the utility’s outstanding debt, plus forecast pricing for planned issuances.
• Return on equity: litigated through discounted cash flow, capital asset pricing model, and risk premium analyses, using a proxy group of comparable utilities, with adjustments argued for financial and business risk.
• Rate of return: the weighted average of the above, which is the number that multiplies rate base in the revenue requirement.

The capital structure deserves as much attention as the return on equity and usually receives less. A higher authorized equity ratio raises the weighted rate of return even if the authorized return on equity is unchanged, and equity is the more expensive component.

5.3 Recent History and the Current Cycle
Decision 23-06-025, issued June 29, 2023, set cost of capital for the four large utilities. To illustrate the components, California Water Service was authorized a 9.05 percent return on equity, a 4.23 percent cost of debt, a capital structure of 53.40 percent common equity and 46.60 percent long-term debt, and a resulting

6.80 percent rate of return, effective July 31, 2023.

The next application would ordinarily have been filed May 1, 2025. The joint utilities have obtained three successive one-year deferrals, and the filing is now due May 1, 2027, for rates effective January 1, 2028. San Jose Water Company’s current authorized return on equity is 9.81 percent, which reflects a 10.01 percent base return less a 20 basis point reduction associated with its Water Conservation Memorandum Account.

A deferral of this kind is itself a ratemaking event. It holds the authorized return in place for years beyond the period on which it was litigated, and leaves the Water Cost of Capital Mechanism described next as the only adjustment operating in the interval.

5.4 The Water Cost of Capital Mechanism
The Water Cost of Capital Mechanism, adopted in Decision 09-07-051 and retained in the subsequent cost of capital decisions, adjusts the authorized return between proceedings by formula:

CPUC Water Rate Setting Process v04.docx Page 9
Feature Operation
Index Moody’s Aa Utility Bond Index, or the Baa index for a utility with a lower credit rating.

Measurement period The 12-month average from October 1 through September 30, compared with the benchmark adopted in the last cost of capital decision.

Deadband No adjustment unless the difference exceeds 100 basis points in either direction.

Return on equity adjustment The authorized return on equity moves by one-half of the difference between the benchmark and the measured average.

Cost of debt Updated to the actual embedded cost at August month end, plus forecast rates for planned new issuances.

Capital structure Unchanged between cost of capital proceedings.

Mechanics Tier 2 advice letter filed by October 15, effective January 1.

A worked example from a recent San Jose Water Company filing: a 140 basis point difference between the index average and the benchmark produced a 70 basis point increase in the authorized return on equity, from 9.31 percent to 10.01 percent.

Two features are worth noting. The mechanism is symmetrical ‒ it reduces the authorized return as readily as it raises it. And it is driven entirely by a bond index, not by any review of the utility’s actual risk, capital program, or earned return. It is the reason an authorized return can change in a year when no cost of capital proceeding is pending, and it arrives as a Tier 2 advice letter in mid-October with a 20-day protest window.

6. Cycle Three: the Escalation Years
The second and third years of a general rate case cycle are set by advice letter rather than by litigation. The mechanics are set out in Section VII of the Rate Case Plan:
• The escalation advice letter, with workpapers, is filed under General Order 96-B no later than 45 days before the first day of the escalation year, as a Tier 1 filing effective on the first day of that year. • The increase is computed by applying the escalation factors adopted in the general rate case decision to the adopted labor and non-labor expense categories, together with the attrition allowance for the plant additions the decision authorized.
• A pro forma earnings test is applied for the 12 months ending September 30. To the extent pro forma earnings exceed the rate of return authorized in the decision, the requested increase is reduced accordingly.
• A filing that does not comply is rejected under General Order 96-B.

This is the least visible of the three cycles and the least contested. The earnings test is the only substantive check, and it rests on the utility’s own pro forma showing, which makes the workpapers ‒ not the cover letter ‒ the document worth reading.

CPUC Water Rate Setting Process v04.docx Page 10

7. Between the Cycles: Interim Rates and Unanticipated Costs The question of what happens when costs change in a way the general rate case did not anticipate has several distinct answers, and they are not interchangeable. The five mechanisms below are mutually exclusive in their triggers, and together they cover the field.

7.1 Interim Rates When the Decision Is Late
Section 455.2(a) requires the Commission to conclude a general rate case for a utility with more than 10,000 connections so that the decision is effective on the first day of the first test year. Section 455.2(b) provides the remedy when it is not, and Decision 07-05-062 supplies the procedure:

1. The applicant files a motion for interim rates on or before the date opening briefs are due ‒ day 160 on the 14-month schedule, day 340 on the 20-month schedule ‒ addressing whether the applicant caused any part of the delay.

2. The presiding officer convenes a mandatory status conference the following day and rules on whether the applicant was responsible for the delay and whether interim rates may be implemented by advice letter.

3. If the applicant was not responsible, interim rates are effective on the first day of the first test year in the application. Where the utility caused the delay, the presiding officer may set a later effective date.

4. The interim increase is limited to inflation, in practice the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers as of the preceding October. The Commission may authorize a lesser increase if the public interest so requires.

5. The utility establishes a general rate case interim rate memorandum account, which records the difference between revenues billed at interim rates and the revenues that would have been billed at final rates, with interest at the 90-day commercial paper rate.

6. On the final decision, rates are adjusted upward or downward back to the interim rate effective date, and the memorandum account balance is amortized through a surcharge or surcredit.

The essential point is that interim rates are not a partial grant of the requested increase and carry no implication about the outcome. They are an inflation-indexed placeholder, expressly subject to refund, and the true-up runs in both directions. A customer group’s leverage here is narrow but real: the motion must address causation of delay, and a party that can show the applicant’s own conduct caused the delay can move the effective date.

7.2 Offset Rate Increases
Offsets address changes in costs that are beyond the utility’s control and were already quantified in the last general rate case. Standard Practice U-27-W governs them.

Expense offsets cover purchased water, purchased power, and groundwater extraction charges. The offset applies the new unit price to the quantities adopted in the last general rate case, which may not be more than five years old. A minimum revenue impact of one percent is required. These are ordinarily Tier 1 filings.

Rate base offsets cover plant additions that the general rate case decision authorized but did not place in rates at the time. The offset applies the authorized rate of return to the net addition and adjusts for depreciation expense, property taxes, and franchise fees. A Class A utility must have prior authorization in a decision, and amortization ordinarily requires a Tier 3 filing and a resolution.

CPUC Water Rate Setting Process v04.docx Page 11
Offsets are symmetrical by rule: a utility is required to reduce rates when an offsettable cost falls, not merely permitted to raise them when it rises. Verifying that downward offsets are filed when unit costs decline is a legitimate and under-exercised area of scrutiny.

7.3 Memorandum, Balancing, and Reserve Accounts
A memorandum account records a cost as it is incurred so that recovery may be sought later. It is not authority to recover anything; it preserves the ability to ask. Under Standard Practice U-27-W a memorandum account is justified when the expense meets four conditions:

1. it is caused by an event of an exceptional nature that is not under the utility’s control

2. it was not reasonably foreseeable at the time of the last rate case

3. it is substantial in amount

4. recording it produces a benefit to ratepayers
Establishing an account is ordinarily a Tier 2 advice letter. Amortizing the balance into rates is a Tier 3 filing that requires a Commission resolution and a demonstration that the recorded amounts were reasonably incurred. Interest accrues at the 90-day commercial paper rate.

A balancing or reserve account, by contrast, tracks the running difference between an offsettable cost actually incurred and the revenue collected through the corresponding offset rate. Amortization becomes mandatory when the balance exceeds two percent of gross operating revenue. Undercollections are recovered through a surcharge and overcollections refunded through a surcredit, ordinarily spread over one to three years.

The reasonableness review at amortization is the real contest, and it occurs years after the spending decisions were made. A party that intends to test the prudence of a program is generally better served raising it at the establishment stage or in the next general rate case, when the alternatives are still live.

7.4 Catastrophic Events and Declared Emergencies
Catastrophic event memorandum accounts, and accounts opened by Commission order for declared emergencies, water supply emergencies, and drought response, follow the same structure: record now, justify later, amortize by Tier 3 filing. They exist to remove the disincentive to respond quickly to an event no forecast contemplated.

7.5 Standalone Applications for Major Unanticipated Programs When a cost is too large, too novel, or too far outside the last general rate case to fit within an offset or an escalation filing, the utility files a separate application and litigates it on its own schedule. Advanced metering infrastructure has been handled this way, as have major water quality programs.

The current example in San Jose Water Company’s territory is Application 26-04-010, filed April 10, 2026, seeking a revenue increase of $25.2 million, or 4.05 percent, to fund ion exchange treatment at the Williams Station, where 6 of 15 wells are out of service on PFOS exceedances, ahead of the 2029 federal compliance deadline.

Whether a cost of this magnitude belongs in a standalone application or in the utility’s next general rate case is itself a contested ratemaking question, and the two paths are genuinely different. A standalone application

CPUC Water Rate Setting Process v04.docx Page 12
accelerates recovery, isolates the issue, and gives it a dedicated record. Consolidation into the general rate case tests the request against the utility’s entire capital program, exposes duplication among overlapping projects, and preserves the earnings test and the trade-offs that a whole-company review makes visible. The choice is the utility’s in the first instance, but it is a proper subject of protest.

7.6 Revenue Decoupling and Sales Variance
Sales volume varies with weather, conservation, and drought restrictions, and a utility that recovers most of its revenue through volumetric charges under-recovers when sales fall. Two families of mechanism address this:
• Full decoupling: a Water Revenue Adjustment Mechanism, which tracks the difference between adopted and actual revenue, paired with a Modified Cost Balancing Account, which tracks the difference between adopted and actual purchased water, power, and pump tax cost. • Partial decoupling: a Monterey-style Water Revenue Adjustment Mechanism, which tracks only the revenue difference attributable to the conservation rate design rather than to sales volume generally, paired with an Incremental Cost Balancing Account.

Decision 20-08-047, issued in August 2020, directed Class A utilities to eliminate full decoupling and move to the Monterey-style structure. In 2024 the California Supreme Court set that decision aside in Golden State Water Co. v. Public Utilities Commission on notice grounds, without reaching the merits.

The practical consequence is that there is no single answer to what mechanism applies. It depends on what each utility’s most recent general rate case decision adopted and what its current preliminary statement says. That document, not a general statement of Commission policy, is the authority to check.

8. Participation: Where a Party Can Enter and What Each Entry Achieves

8.1 Entry Points
Stage Timing What It Can Accomplish
Proposed application review Days -60 to -20 Test the filing against the minimum data requirements before the clock starts.

Protest 30 days from Daily Calendar
notice
Party status as of right; states the issues to be
raised.

Motion for party status Later, on a showing of good
cause
Party status; access to discovery, hearings, and
briefing.

Prehearing conference Days 10-75 Get an issue named before the scoping memo fixes the scope.

Scoping memo Following the prehearing
conference
The outer boundary of what the decision may
address.

Served testimony Day 97 or Days 204-218 The only means of putting a fact into the evidentiary record.

Public participation hearing Days 10-90 or 10-190 Public comment; persuasive, but not evidence.

CPUC Water Rate Setting Process v04.docx Page 13
Stage Timing What It Can Accomplish
Settlement conference Days 115-125 or 270-290 Where the numbers are most often actually determined.

Evidentiary hearing Days 126-130 or 290-310 Cross-examination of the served testimony.

Briefs Days 160 and 175, or 340 and
350
Legal argument confined to the record.

Comments on the proposed
decision
Day 260 or 480 Correction of factual, legal, or technical error only.

Application for rehearing 30 days from the decision Preserves the record and is a prerequisite to judicial review.

Petition for writ of review 30 days from denial of
rehearing
Review in the Court of Appeal or the Supreme
Court.

8.2 The Public Advocates Office
Cal Advocates is the principal counterweight to the utility’s showing. It is independent of the Commission’s decisionmakers, staffed with engineers, accountants, and rate specialists, and resourced to audit an application in a way no volunteer intervenor can match.

It is not, however, a substitute for an intervenor. Its mandate runs to the ratepayer class as a whole, its analytic priorities are its own, and it necessarily allocates limited resources across every Class A utility in the state. Issues that are locally significant, or that turn on facts particular to a service area, are frequently issues that only a local intervenor will raise.

8.3 Intervenor Compensation
Sections 1801 through 1812 allow a customer or customer group to recover reasonable advocate’s fees, expert witness fees, and related costs. The elements are:
• A notice of intent to claim compensation, ordinarily filed within 30 days of the prehearing conference. • A showing of customer status, and for individual customers and certain groups, a showing of significant financial hardship.
• A substantial contribution to the decision ‒ the Commission must have adopted, in whole or in part, a factual contention, legal contention, or specific policy or procedural recommendation the intervenor presented.
• A claim filed within 60 days of the final decision, itemizing hours and costs.

This is the mechanism that makes sustained participation financially feasible for a customer group. It is also a discipline: compensation follows contributions the Commission actually adopts, which rewards a focused case built on the record over a broad one built on argument.

CPUC Water Rate Setting Process v04.docx Page 14

9. The Three Cycles on One Calendar
An illustrative composite for a single-district Class A utility on the 14-month schedule, showing how the cycles interlock in a year when a general rate case is pending:

Period Filing or Event Cycle
May 1, year 0 Cost of capital application, triennial Cost of capital November, year 0 Proposed general rate case application served, day -60
General rate case
January 2, year 1 General rate case application filed, day 0 General rate case January-February,
year 1
Rule 3.2 notices; 30-day protest window General rate case February-March,
year 1
Prehearing conference and scoping memo General rate case April, year 1 Cal Advocates and intervenor testimony,
day 97
General rate case
May, year 1 Rebuttal and settlement process General rate case June, year 1 Evidentiary hearings and opening briefs;
motion for interim rates
General rate case
By October 15, year
1 Water Cost of Capital Mechanism advice
letter, if triggered
Cost of capital
September, year 1 Proposed decision, day 240 General rate case October, year 1 Final decision, day 280; compliance advice letter
General rate case
January 1, year 2 Test year rates, or interim rates if the decision is late
General rate case
By mid-November,
year 2
Escalation advice letter for the first
escalation year, 45 days out
Escalation
January 1, year 3 First escalation year rates effective Escalation By mid-November,
year 3
Escalation advice letter for the second
escalation year
Escalation
Any time Offset advice letters, memorandum
account filings, standalone applications
Between cycles

CPUC Water Rate Setting Process v04.docx Page 15

10. Observations

1. The scoping memo defines the universe. An issue not named there will not be decided, however well it is briefed. The prehearing conference is the moment to get it named, and it occurs early ‒ as soon as 10 days after filing.

2. Testimony creates the record; comment does not. Public participation hearings matter politically and are worth organizing, but a finding requires served, sworn testimony subject to cross-examination.

3. Settlement is where the numbers move. A party absent from the settlement conference is left arguing against a package that every other party has agreed to defend, under a standard that asks only whether the package as a whole is reasonable.

4. The quiet filings carry real money. Escalation advice letters, expense and rate base offsets, Water Cost of Capital Mechanism adjustments, and memorandum account amortizations together can move rates as much as a general rate case decision, and each arrives as a Tier 1 or Tier 2 advice letter with a 20-day protest window and no service list.

5. Notice failures are consequential even when they are not fatal. Every participation deadline runs from the filing date, so a late Rule 3.2 notice consumes the window it was meant to open, and the proceeding does not pause to compensate.

6. Memorandum accounts defer the argument rather than resolving it, and they defer it to a proceeding held years later, when the money is spent and the alternatives are gone. The time to test a program’s prudence is when it is proposed.

7. Watch the capital structure alongside the return on equity. The authorized equity ratio moves the weighted rate of return without appearing in the headline number that press coverage reports.

8. Verify the mechanisms in force for the specific utility. Decoupling, balancing accounts, and conservation adjustments differ by utility and by decision, and general statements of Commission policy are an unreliable guide. The utility’s current preliminary statement and its most recent general rate case decision are the authorities.

To: Tariff Unit, Water Division, 3rd floor
Public Utilities Commission (PUC)
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco CA 94102
SUBJECT: Application A.21-01-003
Dear President Batjer and PUC Commissioners:

The City of Monte Sereno supports clean and safe delivery of water. The City of Monte Sereno strongly objects to San Jose Water Company’s (SJWC) General Rate Case (GRC) application requesting a total of an $88M increase in the cost of service over the three-year period of 2022-2024, the recovery of $7M (balancing account), and $11M (memorandum account) via customer surcharges beginning January 1, 2022, for 36 months or until recovered.

Covid-19 continues to strain Santa Clara County’s economy. SJWC’s wholesaler, Valley Water, sensibly did not increase water rates during the pandemic.

Economic woes are impacting every facet of our local economy. Families are struggling with finances and health insurance premiums. Businesses are shutting down and laying off employees. Schools are still largely closed, forcing parents to stay home from work, resulting in housing stress.

Additionally, our senior population which comprises almost 30% of Monte Sereno’s residents, is on fixed incomes. A 21.47% increase in one year will present an untenable financial hardship for those seniors.

In the last 10 years, SJWC’s net income after taxes was $342M. Below are how those monies have been allocated:

1. Infrastructure improvements

2. Water quality requirements, and

3. Addressing cybersecurity/data privacy projects
Please analyze SJWC’s financials to justify what has been completed in the three categories mentioned above, including what was spent for improvements on water main and well replacements, enhancements to pumping stations and well fields, and water tank upgrades and replacements throughout SJWC’s 140 square miles of service area. We believe the data shows they have not performed as promised with the last increase. They should not be rewarded with more. 18041 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road
Monte Sereno, California 95030-4299
Telephone: 408.354.7635
Fax: 408.395.7653
www.cityofmontesereno.org

We request the CPUC’s assistance guiding SJWC back to operational efficiency and market-rate competitiveness. Please do not approve any rate increase requests until SJWC can benchmark other water utilities. Please consider comparison metrics from other public & private utilities in the San Francisco Bay Area when determining the appropriate cost of capital adjustments and proposed future rate increases.

We urge you to visit https://tinyurl.com/SJWCAppendix for summary financial data, rate increase histories, and a review of case studies A through J. Please consider previous large SJWC rate increases which far outpaced inflation.

Please also consider actions by SJWC resulting from the 2016 drought. Water consumption decreased, and SJWC proposed an increase in water rates due to the decrease in usage. Monte Sereno residents were adversely impacted by this action. A reduction in demand (a.k.a conservation), should never lead to price gouging to protect profits.

In their merger with Connecticut Water Company, SJWC promised economies of scale, greater efficiencies, and in turn, savings for consumers – not simply ever-greater profits for their executives and shareholders.

Since the SJWC/Connecticut Water merger occurred, rates have climbed steadily higher. This is completely unacceptable. It is your job to protect consumers and shut down these unreasonable rate increases. We implore you to do so.

Once again, SJWC’s approach to this proposed increase has been less than forthright. After requesting an outrageous 30%+ increase SJWC puts out press releases lauding that they are now doing right by reducing their request. Yet, at 20%+, they are still pursuing the strategy of an outrageous “ask” in the hope that you will give them at least half of what they desire. Why 30% initially? Why 1/3 less two weeks later? This is not good faith. Let’s start by reducing their outrageous executive pay and bonuses by 30% and then we review what they really need to fulfill their mission of efficiently providing safe water to our residents – a basic human necessity and human right!
***THANK YOU CPUC COMMISSIONERS, STAFF AND ORA: Monte Sereno appreciates your diligence protecting consumers and residents from SJWC rate increases in years past and rejecting future increases which are unjustifiably profit driven.

Sincerely,
Shawn Leuthold
Mayor, City of Monte Sereno

° City of Monte Sereno

1.1kiTEDOs4.

January 25, 2017
Tariff Unit, Water Division, 3rd floor
Public Utilities Commission
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco CA 94102
Re: Protest SJWC's Advice Letter No. 501 dated January 9, 2017 Dear CPUC Water Division,
The Monte Sereno City Council hereby submits its unanimous protest to the San Jose Water Company's Advice Letter No. 501 dated January 9, 2017.

The request for an SRM (Sales Reconciliation Mechanism) adjustment based on lower sales revenue than forecasted for the period of October 2015 through September 2016 would result in permanent increased tier rates that would go into effect March 15, 2017. 0-3ccf - will increase from $4.2210 to $4.4453
4-18ccf - will increase from $4.6900 to $4.9392
Over 18ccf - will increase from $5.1590 to $5.4331
We respectfully request that the PUC deny San Jose Water Company's request for a rate increase for the following reasons:

Protest ground No. 6 : The relief requested in the advice letter is unjust, unreasonable, or discriminatory.
1 - In 2015 and 2016 San Jose Water Company employed a temporary mechanism to make up the difference between forecasted revenue and actual revenue. The Water Conservation Memorandum Account (WCMA) line items on the water bills charge customers a per ccf rate for a limited time (12 months).
2 - With Advice Letter 501, San Jose Water Company is requesting a permanent rate increase (instead of a temporary charge) to make up the difference between forecast revenue and actual revenue.
3 - It does not make sense to compensate a drought year loss of revenue with a permanent rate increase.
4 - Why wasn't San Jose Water Company's forecast of water sales more realistic in the fifth year of a drought? Advice Letter 501 states that the authorized sales forecast was 49,861 Kccf, yet during a 12 month period actual sales were only 40,173 Kccf. This is a 9688 Kccf difference or 19.4% shortfall. Why should customers make San Jose Water Company's revenue "whole" when the water sales were so grossly over-forecasted?
5 - It is only January and there are already three rate increases enacted, requested, or projected for this year.
18041 Saratoga-lios Gatos Road
Monte Screno, California 95030-4299
Telephone: 408.354.7635
Fax: 408.395.7653
www.eityofmontesereno.org

Ver rul yours,
Marshall
Mayor, Ci nte Sereno
n Craig
Vice Mayor, of Monte Sereno
ez.e.te.„„
Curtis Rogers U
Council Member, City of Monte Sereno

3.83% tier rate increase which went into effect January 1, 2017. This increased tier rates as follows:
0-3ccf - increased from $4.0581 to $4.2210
4-18ccf - increased from $4.509 to $4.6900
Over 18ccf - increased from $4.9599 to $5.1590
The 3.65% rate increase requested by Advice Letter No. 501 to recapture the shortfall in forecasted revenue.

The annual rate increase from the SCVWD for purchased and ground water. The best estimate for this increase is 9.9% x 38% = 3.76%.

Therefore, the total rate increase for 2017 is an estimated 11.24% in three rate increases. Given that San Jose Water Company customers saw 12 distinct rate increases on their bills in 2016, it is probable that San Jose Water Company customers will see an increase far in excess of

11.24% for 2017.

The annual increases in San Jose Water Company rates from 2013 to 2016 averaged 20%, and San Jose Water Company customers cannot sustain such high rate increases year after year.

Lastly but not least, the payment of a $3,000,000 bonus to the CEO of San Jose Water is an insult to the users and payers of San Jose water who were compelled to pay huge increases in their water bills and at the same time reduce their water consumption. It just is not fair.

The Monte Sereno City Council respectfully requests that the PUC rejects San Jose Water Company's Advice Letter No. 501.

Rowena Turner
Council Member, City of Monte Sereno
Evert Woltheimer
Council Member, City of Monte Sereno

° City of Monte Sereno
974,,b•
*Ann MK"
March 10, 2017
18041 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road
Monte Sereno, California 95030-4299
Telephone: 408.354.7635
Fax: 408.395.7653 Tariff Unit, Water Division, 3rd floor www.cityofmontesereno.org California Public Utilities Commission,
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102
RE: Advice Letter 506 Rate Increase- San Jose Water Company To Whom it May Concern:

On behalf of the residents of the City of Monte Sereno, the City Council hereby protests San Jose Water Company's Advice Letter No. 506 dated February 17, 2017, a request to increase the revenue requirement by $5,338,823 via a rate base offset for plant additions in 2016 related to the MWTP Upgrade Project (Montevina Project).

Although the San Jose Water Company rate increase request appears to be within the PUC guidelines, the City Council would like the record to reflect that the City Council opposes this latest request for a rate increase. The residents of Monte Sereno consistently have expressed concerns that water rates continue to escalate, despite significant efforts by them to conserve water. This is yet another request in a long series of rate hikes that have nearly doubled our residents' quantity rates in just 4 years.

The frequency and amount of increases imposed on our residents cannot be sustained.

We respectfully request that San Jose Water Company's Advice Letter No. 506 be denied.

Respectfully,
Marshall W. Ancta idig
Mayor, City of Monte Sereno
Curtis Rogers
Council Member, City of Monte Sereno
Burton Craig
Vice Mayor, City of Monte Seren9
Kes;iKt-e ce- e
Rowena Turner
Council Member, City of Monte Sereno
Evert Wolsheimer
Council Member, City of Monte Sereno
cc: Regulatory Affairs, San Jose Water Company Page 85 of 93 Monte Sereno City Council
2026 Tentative Council Meeting Calendar
Updated: September 10, 2026

Council Meeting
Date
Agenda Item Staff Public
Hearing?
Agenda
Category
January 6, 2026 West Valley Recycles Presentation N Presentation Finance Reports DP N Consent Calendar
Meeting Minutes GGL N Consent Calendar
Accept the Annual Approval and Signing of the City Council Code of Ethics GGL N Consent Calendar Supplemental Law Enforcement Service Fund (SLESF) GGL N Consent Calendar Revisions to City of Monte Sereno Council Ad-Hoc Committees DP N New Business Discuss Selection of Meeting Date for Strategic Goal Setting DP N New Business Consideration to Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with CliffordMoss, LLC for Consulting Services for a Potential Police Services Parcel Tax Including Public Opinion Polling, Public Outreach, and a Prop 218 Compliant Ballot Measure for an amount not to exceed $84,850 Plus a 10% Contingency for Program Costs.

DP N New Business
January 20, 2026 Presentation of Certificates of Recognition to 2025 STEM Winners from the City of Monte Sereno
GGL N Presentation
Finance Reports DP N Consent Calendar
Meeting Minutes GGL N Consent Calendar
Authorize the City Manager to Establish Automated Payments for City Hall Utility Bills
DP N Consent Calendar
Consider Establishment of an Appointment to the Monte Sereno City Council Financial Implementation Support and Audit Support Ad Hoc Committee DP N Consent Calendar
Application 2025-3089 for a Variance application for reduced rear yard setback of 25 feet where 30 feet is required at 18113 Bancroft Avenue. (CEQA: Exempt, Guidelines sections 15302, 15303)
DP Y Public Hearing
City Manager’s Quarterly Report DP N New Business
Consideration and Appointment to Fill One Alternate Representative Vacancy on the Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority Board
GGL N New Business
February 3, 2026 Los Gatos Monte Sereno Police Department Semi-Annual Report Police N Presentation Finance Reports DP N Consent Calendar
Meeting Minutes GGL N Consent Calendar

Monte Sereno City Council
2026 Tentative Council Meeting Calendar
Updated: September 10, 2026

Council Meeting
Date
Agenda Item Staff Public
Hearing?
Agenda
Category
February 17, 2026 Finance Reports DP N Consent Calendar Meeting Minutes GGL N Consent Calendar
Hold Public Hearing and Adopt a Reso Overruling Objections and Determining to Proceed with Weed Abatement
GGL Y Public Hearing
Discuss Hosting a City Picnic and Consider a Budget for the City Picnic GGL N New Business Discussion and Consideration of a City of Monte Sereno Community Grants Deadline, Selection Dates, and Budget Amount
DP N New Business
Discuss a Potential City Council Ad Hoc Committee to Analyze Existing City Hall Property
DP N New Business
Discuss the Creation of Leadership Monte Sereno DP N New Business March 3, 2026 Santa Clara County Fire Department Semi-Annual Public Safety Report Fire N Presentation Finance Reports DP N Consent Calendar
Meeting Minutes GGL N Consent Calendar
Adopt a Resolution to Authorize the City Manager to Accept or Not Accept Applications for Annexation to the City of Monte Sereno DP N Consent Calendar
Adopt a Resolution to Extend the Memorandum of Understanding with the Monte Sereno Association of City Employees for One Year with an Expiration Date of June 30, 2027
DP N Consent Calendar
Discuss the Creation of Leadership Monte Sereno DP N New Business Council Goal Setting Session for Fiscal Year 2026-2027 DP N New Business Accept the Resignation of Council Member Mekechuk as Primary Director of the Santa Clara County VTA Policy Advisory Board and Appoint a New Primary Director
DP N New Business
March 17, 2026 Finance Reports DP N Consent Calendar
Meeting Minutes GGL N Consent Calendar
2025 Housing Element Annual Progress Report DP N Consent Calendar Adoption of 2026-2027 City Council Goals DP N Consent Calendar Establishment of a City Council Ad Hoc Committee to Analyze Existing City Hall Facilities and Needs
DP N Consent Calendar
Discussion and Consideration of a City of Monte Sereno Community Grants DP N Unfinished Business

Monte Sereno City Council
2026 Tentative Council Meeting Calendar
Updated: September 10, 2026

Council Meeting
Date
Agenda Item Staff Public
Hearing?
Agenda
Category
April 7, 2026 Finance Reports DP N Consent Calendar
Meeting Minutes GGL N Consent Calendar
Review potential SB10 Multifamily Zoning Overlay DP Y Public Hearing Appointment to Fill One Vacancy on the Monte Sereno Site and Architectural Commission for an Unexpired Term Ending December 31, 2027 GGL N New Business
April 21, 2026 Meeting Cancelled
May 5, 2026
Special Meeting
General Plan Update Study Session DP N Unfinished
Business
May 5, 2026 Finance Reports DP N Consent Calendar
Meeting Minutes GGL N Consent Calendar
Adoption of Ordinance No. NS-247, an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Monte Sereno Amending Title 10, Chapter 10.05 by Amending Section

10.05.010 (Zoning District Designations) and Adding Section 10.05.044 (MultiFamily Residential Overlay Zone) and Chapter 10.06 by Amending Section

10.06.140 (Accessory Dwelling Units; Junior Accessory Dwelling Units; Standards And Requirements) and Chapter 10.08 by Amending Section 10.08.040 (Site Development Permit Required) and by Amending Section 10.08.050 (Permit Process); and Chapter 10.11 (Amendments, Annexations and Enforcement) By adding Section 10.11.016 (Multi-Family Overlay District Amendment Process).

DP N Consent Calendar
Authorize the City Manager to Execute the Second Amendment to the Agreement with the County of Santa Clara for the Countywide Household Hazardous Waste Collection Program.

DP N Consent Calendar
Application 2024-3066 for a Site Development Permit for a new approximately 4,915 square foot two-story house, a Tree Removal Permit to remove one tree, and a Variance for reduced front, side, and rear yard setbacks at 18571 Withey Road.

DP Y Public Hearing
Application 2026-3001 for a Variance for a detached Accessory Dwelling Unit DP Y Public Hearing

Monte Sereno City Council
2026 Tentative Council Meeting Calendar
Updated: September 10, 2026

Council Meeting
Date
Agenda Item Staff Public
Hearing?
Agenda
Category
(ADU) in the front yard that is 992 square feet in floor area where a maximum of 800 square feet in floor area is allowed at 15391 Winchester Boulevard.

City Manager’s Quarterly Report DP N New Business
Receive the report and provide feedback on the West Valley Homeless Services Feasibility Study and adopt a Resolution of Intent to support participation in a West Valley Homeless Services Implementation Task Force DP N New Business
May 18, 2026
Special Meeting
Receive an Informational Update on the Potential Police Services Parcel Tax and Provide Direction to Staff
DP N Unfinished
Business
May 19, 2026 Finance Reports DP N Consent Calendar
Meeting Minutes GGL N Consent Calendar
Adoption of a Resolution Declaring Hazardous Vegetation (Brush) a Public Nuisance and Set Public Hearing (SCCF)
GGL N Consent Calendar
Consideration to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Professional Services Agreement with The Pun Group for Annual Financial Audit Services for Fiscal Year 2025/2026.

DP N Consent Calendar
First Study Session for Review of Proposed FY 26/27 Budget DP N New Business Discuss Monte Sereno Residents Participation in Leadership Los Gatos and Provide Direction for Next Year’
DP N New Business
June 2, 2026 VTA Local Investment Plan Presentation VTA N Presentation Finance Reports DP N Consent Calendar
Accept a Report on the Status of the City’s Vacancies, Recruitment, and Retention Efforts Pursuant to Assembly Bill 2561
DP Y Public Hearing
Appointment of 2026-2027 Youth Commissioner GGL N New Business Discussion of Japan Friendship City DP N New Business
Consideration of a Letter of Opposition to SB 866 (Blakespear) Homeless Housing, Assistance, and Prevention Program: Housing Element DP N New Business
June 16, 2026 San Jose Water Presentation by John Tang Water N Presentation Finance Reports DP N Consent Calendar
Meeting Minutes GGL N Consent Calendar

Monte Sereno City Council
2026 Tentative Council Meeting Calendar
Updated: September 10, 2026

Council Meeting
Date
Agenda Item Staff Public
Hearing?
Agenda
Category
Adoption of Resolution Establishing and Fixing the Amount of Special Real Property Tax Levy for Police Protection Purposes for the Fiscal Year 2026-2027 GGL N Consent Calendar
Calling of Election Resolution GGL N Consent Calendar
Updated Fee Schedule for User and Regulatory Fees DP N Consent Calendar Adoption of a Resolution Setting Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 2026-27 DP N Consent Calendar Annual Street Maintenance - Adoption of Projects FY 26/27 MW N Consent Calendar Consideration to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Professional Services Agreement with Eide Bailly for Annual Financial Audit Services DP N Consent Calendar
Consider Terminating the Potential Police Services Parcel Tax Ad Hoc Committee DP N Consent Calendar Adoption of the FY 26/27 Budget DP Y Public Hearing
Accepting changes of the Council Policy for Regulations and Guidelines for the Conduct of Public Meetings with SB707 Updates
DP N Unfinished
Business
Appointment of a member to the 2026-2028 VAT BPAC GGL N New Business June 30, 2026
Special Meeting
DP N New Business
July 7, 2026
July 21, 2026
Meetings Cancelled
August 4, 2026 San Jose Water Presentation by Tanya Moniz-Witten Water N Presentation Finance Reports DP N Consent Calendar
Meeting Minutes GGL N Consent Calendar
Consideration to Authorize the City Manager to Execute First Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Maze and Associates Accounting Corporation for Accounting Services
DP N Consent Calendar
Youth Commission Non-Voting Members Resolution GGL N Consent Calendar Adopt a Resolution Confirming a Weed Abatement Report and Assessment List to be Entered on the Tax Assessment Roll
GGL Y Public Hearing
Receive and adopt the General Plan Update DP Y Public Hearing Consideration of Nominees Citizen of the Year Award GGL N New Business Appointment to Fill One Vacancy on the Monte Sereno Site and Architectural GGL N New Business

Monte Sereno City Council
2026 Tentative Council Meeting Calendar
Updated: September 10, 2026

Council Meeting
Date
Agenda Item Staff Public
Hearing?
Agenda
Category
Commission for an Unexpired Term Ending December 31, 2027 League of California Cities Annual Conference Voting Delegate GGL N New Business City Manager’s Quarterly Report DP N New Business
Adoption of Updated General Plan DP N New Business
How the City Uses Volunteers DP N New Business
Communications with the Community DP N New Business
Consideration of Support for the Diablo Canyon 2045 Coalition DP N New Business August 18, 2026 Midpen Presentation N Presentation
Finance Reports DP N Consent Calendar
Meeting Minutes GGL N Consent Calendar
Discuss Communications with the Community DP N New Business Discuss How the City Uses Volunteers for Commissions and Committees DP N New Business Receive report from City of Saratoga Mayor Chuck Page on Climate Resilience Districts
DP N New Business
Consider Support to Remove Eucalyptus Trees in the Highway 9 Median Due to Potential Fire Hazard
DP N New Business
Consider Adoption of a Resolution to Amend the City of Monte Sereno Regulations and Guidelines for the Conduct of Public Meetings to Adjust the Council Meeting Start Time and Other Administrative Corrections KP N New Business
Consider and Adopt a Resolution Canceling the November 3, 2026 General Municipal Election and Appointing the Nominated Candidates to the City Council GGL N New Business
September 1, 2026 Los Gatos Monte Sereno Police Department Semi-Annual Report Police N Presentation Finance Reports Warrant list DP N Consent Calendar
Meeting Minutes GGL N Consent Calendar
Approve Response to 2025-2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, "Pothole Damage: Improving claims processes within Santa Clara County" DP N Consent Calendar
Approve Response to 2025-2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, "VTA’s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II" DP N Consent Calendar
Consideration of a Resolution to Support to Remove Eucalyptus Trees in the Highway 9 Right-of-Way Due to Potential Fire Hazard
DP N Consent Calendar
Introduction and Waiver of First Reading of Ordinance No. NS-### An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Monte Sereno Amending Title 4 of the Monte DP N New Business

Monte Sereno City Council
2026 Tentative Council Meeting Calendar
Updated: September 10, 2026

Council Meeting
Date
Agenda Item Staff Public
Hearing?
Agenda
Category
Sereno Municipal Code to Repeal Chapter 4.16 (Social Gatherings) and Adopt Chapter 4.16 (Social Host Ordinance)
Consideration of a Letter of Support for SB 922 (Laird). Vehicles: local agency charges: use of streets or highways.

DP N New Business
Consideration of a Letter of Support for AB 1761 (Rogers). Electricity: calculation methodology: nonbypassable charges: data disclosure.

DP N New Business
Consider Membership in the Government AI Coalition DP N New Business September 15, 2026 Finance Reports DP N Consent Calendar Treasurer’s Report for the month ending July 2026 DP N Consent Calendar Meeting Minutes GGL N Consent Calendar
Adoption of Ordinance No. NS-251 An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Monte Sereno Amending Title 4 of the Monte Sereno Municipal Code to Repeal Chapter 4.16 (Social Gatherings) and Replace It with a New Chapter 4.16 (Social Host Ordinance)
DP N Consent Calendar
Youth Commission – Presentation of 2026–2027 Goals and Priorities GGL N New Business Consideration of a Letter of Support for the Los Gatos Monte Sereno Police Department to be sent to the City of Saratoga Mayor and City Council DP N New Business
Consideration of a Letter to the California Public Utility Commission Regarding San Jose Water Company’s Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Rate Application (26-04-010)
BM N New Business
October 6, 2026 Santa Clara County Fire Department Semi-Annual Public Safety Report Fire N Presentation Finance Reports DP N Consent Calendar
Meeting Minutes GGL N Consent Calendar
October 20, 2026
Finance Reports DP N Consent Calendar
Meeting Minutes GGL N Consent Calendar
City Manager’s Quarterly Report DP N New Business
November 3, 2026 Finance Reports DP N Consent Calendar

Monte Sereno City Council
2026 Tentative Council Meeting Calendar
Updated: September 10, 2026

Council Meeting
Date
Agenda Item Staff Public
Hearing?
Agenda
Category
Meeting Minutes GGL N Consent Calendar
November 17, 2026 Finance Reports DP N Consent Calendar Meeting Minutes GGL N Consent Calendar
December 1, 2026 Youth Commission Report GGL N Presentation Finance Reports Warrant list N Consent Calendar
Meeting Minutes GGL N Consent Calendar
Better Street Commission & S&A Applicants GGL N New Business Council Nomination of Mayor and Vice Mayor DP N New Business Discuss Committee to Review Police Costs and Potential Revenue Sources DP N New Business December 15, 2026 Finance Reports DP N Consent Calendar Meeting Minutes GGL N Consent Calendar
Declaring Weeds a Public Nuisance GGL N Consent Calendar Consider and Set City Council Meeting Dates for 2027 GGL N New Business Recognition of Outgoing Betters Streets Commissioners and Site and Architectural Commissioners
DP N New Business
Consider and Approve City Committee/Commission Assignments for CY2027 DP N New Business Supplemental Law Enforcement Service Fund (SLESF) DP N New Business