Agenda packet — Monterey City Council, February 18, 2025

Council Chamber
580 Pacific St.

Monterey, California

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Council Regular Meeting and
Closed Session
Tuesday, February 18, 2025
4:00 PM – 7:00 PM
Mayor
Tyller Williamson
Councilmembers
Kim Barber, District 1
Ed Smith, District 2
Jean Rasch, District 3
Gino Garcia, District 4
City Manager
Hans Uslar
City Attorney
M. Christine Davi
HOW TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING:
 In-Person: At the meeting location listed above.
 Remotely via ZoomGov webinar:
o On a computer or smartphone: https://monterey-org.zoomgov.com/j/1607729333 Zoom software must be up-to-date. For help, please use our Zoom Meeting Instructions. o By telephone dial 833-568-8864 (Toll Free), 669-254-5252 (CA) or 646-828-7666 (NY). If one number doesn’t work, please try another. Enter Webinar ID: 160 772 9333 # If asked for participant ID, press #. To raise your hand: dial *9. Once called upon, dial *6 to unmute.  This meeting will also stream live for viewing only on youtube.com/cityofmonterey (~10 second delay) and on Comcast Channel 25 (up to 90 second delay).  Written comment: Emailed comments to [email protected] sent no later than ½ hour before the start of the meeting (sooner preferred) are not read aloud but are made available to the Council and public at monterey.gov/submitted-comments.

PUBLIC COMMENT PROCEDURES AND TIME LIMITS:

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

1. Up to three minutes per speaker.

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

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

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

February 18, 2025
2 *** Afternoon Session Agenda ***
4:00 - 7:00 p.m.

CALL TO ORDER

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS
The public may speak to any item that is not on the agenda and that is in the City of Monterey’s subject matter jurisdiction.

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

Approval of Minutes

1. January 29, 2025 Special Meeting (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20 Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5 Section 15061)

2. February 4, 2025 Regular Meeting (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20 Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5 Section 15061)
Award of Construction Contracts

3. Award a Construction Contract in the Amount of $1,279,803.57 to Earl Adams Tile-Coping & Plastering, Inc. for the Monterey Sports Center Improvements – Pool Replastering (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Ordinances
An ordinance is a law adopted by the City Council and codified in the City Code. Through the adoption of an ordinance, the City may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other laws not in conflict with state or federal law. An ordinance generally becomes effective 30 days after approval at a second reading.

4. 2nd Reading of an Ordinance Amending the Sidewalk Repair and Maintenance Ordinance to Update Definitions, Update the Private Property Owner Repair Notification Procedures, and Add a Requirement for Inspection and Repair Verification Upon Change in Property Ownership (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Resolutions
A resolution is an expression of opinion or evidence of a decision made by the City Council and often relates to administrative business of the City. Resolutions generally become effective immediately upon adoption.

5. Adopt a Resolution to Update the Administrative Citation and Parking Violation Fine Schedule (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
February 18, 2025
3 6. Authorize the Acceptance of Monterey Bay Air Resources District AB 2766 Clean Air Management Program and Clean Vehicle Program Grant Funding in the Amount of $240,000, Amending Resolution 24-099 Five Year Capital Improvement Program to Include the Fleet Electrification Program, and Authorize the Appropriation of $240,0000 (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

7. Authorize Application for, and Receipt of, California Department of Parks and Recreation’s Division of Boating and Waterways Non-Motorized Boat Launching Facilities Grant Funds (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

8. Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Purchase Agreement with Charles Murray, an individual dba JAECO Fire & Safety, for 29 Sets of Firefighter Turnouts at a Cost Not to Exceed $122,888.30 (Not a Project Under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
*** End of Consent Agenda ***

PUBLIC APPEARANCE
Public Appearance items are on non-routine issues that might stimulate public interest and comments.

9. Adopt an Urgency Ordinance Pursuant to Government Code Section 65858(a) to Temporarily Prohibit the Establishment and Operation of New Firearms and Ammunition Retail Sales Businesses in the City (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

REQUESTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS TO AGENDIZE NEW MATTERS
Councilmembers may request to agendize a matter of business on a future agenda. The sole issue to be determined is whether the substantive issue warrants being heard at a future date.

A majority vote is not required, instead, the motion will pass with two “yes” votes.

10. Councilmember Rasch’s Request to Agendize a Discussion Regarding Revising the Council’s Governance Policy Regarding Appointments to Boards, Commissions, and Committees (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

11. Councilmember Rasch’s Request to Agendize A Discussion Regarding Tree Management (Not a Project Under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

12. Councilmember Rasch’s Request to Agendize a Discussion Regarding Instituting a No Smoking Policy in Multiunit Buildings (Not a Project Under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

13. Councilmember Rasch’s Request to Agendize a Discussion Regarding Skyline Drive/Route 68 Interchange Safety Issues (Not a Project Under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) February 18, 2025
4 COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmembers may ask a question for clarification, make a brief announcement, or make a brief report on their activities. In addition, Councilmember or the City Council may provide a referral to staff or other resources for factual information. (Government Code section 54954.2(a)(3).)

CITY MANAGER REPORTS
The City Manager may make a brief report on their activities or a brief announcement. They may also ask for clarification or direction regarding scheduling of Council meetings and study sessions.
*** Adjourn to Closed Session ***
The City Council will take public comments on closed session items before convening to closed session.

CLOSED SESSION
Part or all of a meeting may be closed to the public under special conditions. Council can consider only matters covered in the agenda descriptions.

14. Public Employee Performance Evaluation, Title: City Manager; Public Employee Performance Evaluation pursuant to Government Code section 54957(b)(1), Conference with Labor Negotiator Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 for Labor Negotiations; Agency Negotiator: Shelline Bennett; Unrepresented Employee:

City Manager (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20 Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5 Section 15061) -- continued from February 4, 2025 Council Regular Meeting

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

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

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

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

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

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

CITY OF MONTEREY 24-HOUR SUGGESTION HOTLINES: (831) 646-3799 or [email protected] Upcoming city meetings are listed at monterey.gov/agendas For more information, call (831) 646-3935

MINUTES

CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING

CITY OF MONTEREY
Wednesday, January 29, 2025
4:00 PM
SCHOLZE PARK CENTER, 280 DICKMAN AVE.

MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
Councilmembers

Present: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson

Absent: None
City Staff

Present:

City Manager, Assistant City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk, Parks and Recreation Director, Assistant Urban Forester, Public Works Director, Finance Director, Fire Chief, Assistant Fire Chief, Assistant Police Chief, Library & Museums Director, Community Development Director, Human Resources Director, Parking Superintendent, Deputy Public Works Director Administration, Deputy Public Works Director/City Engineer, Sports Center Manager, General Services Superintendent, Recreation Manager, IT Applications Engineer II, Housing Manager, Recreation Supervisor, Recreation Coordinator

CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Williamson called the meeting to order at 4:03 p.m. City Clerk Klein called the roll.

PUBLIC APPEARANCE

1. Conduct a Workshop to Provide Feedback on the 2025 City Staff Work Program, Establish and Adopt City Council Priorities, and Adopt its Value Drivers (Not a Project Under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Conducted workshop, Discussed City staff work program, Identified Council priorities
City Manager Uslar and Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira gave a brief verbal introduction.

Public comment was received from: Mabel Lernoud, who requested that smoking in residential buildings be prohibited; Ursula Gallichotte, who asked for a scientific evaluation of Del Monte Beach; Mari Lynch Dehmler, who spoke about requested increased education regarding bicycling laws; Esther Malkin, who praised the work of numerous departments and thanked the City for its outreach efforts; LisAnne Sawhney, who requested greater access to meetings; and Mitchel Sawhney, who requested a focus on homeless and pedestrian issues downtown.

Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira led the Council in a series of exercises. First, referencing the City Staff Work Program, the Councilmembers recognized many successes and achievements they were most proud of in 2024. Appreciation was expressed for the City's good relationships with other agencies and military installations. The Council stressed that Monterey had a friendly community and a caring staff that helped keep the City beautiful and well run.

Next, the Council identified opportunities for the City. Opportunities highlighted by a quorum (three or more) of the Council included, in no particular order: discussing with the community the potential to renew the Measures P & S sales tax; ensuring the City's readiness for disasters and evacuations and communicating the same to residents; addressing homelessness and Date: 2/18/2025
Item No.: 1.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/18/2025, Item No. 1., Item Page 1, Packet Page 5 City Council Minutes January 29, 2025
2 assisting the unhoused population; considering making Alvarado Street pedestrian-only; strategizing on and increasing outreach to residents and businesses; continuing to prioritize affordable housing and the related allocation of resources including water credits; and focusing on economic development, which could include hiring a dedicated economic developer.

Opportunities highlighted by two Councilmembers included, in no particular order: improving pedestrian infrastructure; strengthening rental protection policies and programs; banning smoking in multifamily housing; enhancing the cleanliness of the downtown's sidewalks and facilities and supporting its businesses; partnering with the Chamber of Commerce and Monterey County Business Council; pursuing allocation of water credits; bolstering the Council's relationship with the Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program (NCIP) Committee; adopting a "dig once" undergrounding policy; and holding a town hall meeting on the subject of trees, defensible space, emergency readiness, and other fire-related topics.

Opportunities identified by individual members of the Council included, in no particular order:
thinking big with regard to the Waterfront Master Plan and improvements to Commercial Wharf 2; incorporating video surveillance for public safety; prioritizing a public safety building, potentially with Measure S renewal dollars; focusing on the Del Monte tunnel and signal controls to improve the flow of traffic; prioritizing cultural exchanges and business partnerships; investing in all business districts to take advantage of the City's assets; updating the tree management ordinance; revisiting the boards, commissions, and committees appointment process; prioritizing undergrounding of utilities; prioritizing residents and neighborhood associations; increasing code compliance activities; focusing on youth and families in crisis; incorporating Spanish interpretation into City meetings; thinking bold with the Climate Action Plan; adopting a sidewalk infrastructure policy; working on how to pay for deferred maintenance; considering term limits for board, commission, and committee members; revisiting the sign policy as relates to political signs; investing in City volunteer programs; considering Project Labor Agreements; and considering a living wage ordinance.

The Council identified challenges that included: the lack of available water for development, limits on financial resources, limits on staff capacity and time, lack of community engagement and support, unexpected crises, and deferred maintenance. It was suggested that when there were prioritization challenges between City staff's regular work program and additional initiatives from the Council, that the City staff agendize the matter so that the Council could assist in the prioritization.

Lastly, the Council did a prioritization exercise, where the Mayor and Councilmembers force-ranked 15 provided topics and then placed each into a matrix of urgency and importance.

ADJOURNMENT
The Council adjourned at 6:17 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted, Approved,
Clementine Bonner Klein Tyller Williamson
City Clerk Mayor
Council Regular Meeting, 2/18/2025, Item No. 1., Item Page 2, Packet Page 6

MINUTES

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING

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

MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
Councilmembers

Present: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson

Absent: None
City Staff

Present:

Assistant City Manager, City Attorney, Finance Director, Community Development Director, Police Chief, Fire Chief, Parks and Recreation Director, Human Resources Director, Public Works Director, City Clerk, Property Manager, Harbormaster, Deputy Public Works Director/City Engineer, Engineering Assistant, Recreation Manager, Acting Harbormaster; Administrative Analyst (Public Works)

TELECONFERENCE NOTICE
***Afternoon Session Agenda ***

CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Williamson called the meeting to order at 4:02 p.m. City Clerk Klein called the roll with the Council present as indicated above.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Councilmember Garcia led the pledge.

PRESENTATIONS

1. Recognition of Defense Language Institute Quarterly Joint Service Awards First Quarter FY25 (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Recognized servicemembers for winning the First Quarter FY25 Joint Enlisted Board (JEB) Awards
The Council recognized Petty Officer 2nd Class Cody Bryant, from the U.S. Navy; Airman 1st Class Sandra Buck, from the U.S. Air Force; Electrician’s Mate Petty Officer 1st Class Kaitlyn Green, from the U.S. Navy; and Sergeant Canyon McDonald, from the U.S. Marine Corps.

Honorees Electrician’s Mate Petty Officer 1st Class Kaitlyn Green and Sergeant Canyon McDonald were present and made brief remarks. Public comment was not received.

2. Recognize February 2025 as Black History Month (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Recognized February 2025 as Black History Month Mayor Williamson read the proclamation and spoke about the importance of Black History Month and inclusivity. Public comment was not received.

Date: 2/18/2025
Item No.: 2.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/18/2025, Item No. 2., Item Page 1, Packet Page 7 City Council Minutes February 4, 2025
2 GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS
Public comment on non-agendized matters was received from: Demetrius Kastros, Lisa Alameda, Dona Betzold of the Oak Grove Neighborhood Association, Bob Walker, Robbie Torrise, Elysha Iversen, and Meg Coleman.

CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Williamson stated that Items 4 and 5 had been requested by the public to be pulled from Consent. Public comment on the Consent Items was not received.

On a motion by Councilmember Smith, seconded by Councilmember Barber, and carried by the following vote, the City Council approved the CONSENT AGENDA, except Items 4 and 5:

3. January 21, 2025 Regular Meeting (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20 Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5 Section 15061)
Action: Approved
Ordinances

4. 1st Reading of an Ordinance to Amend Monterey City Code Chapter 17 Relating to Relocation of Vessels During City Sponsored Harbor Events, Requirements for Mooring Inspections and Repairs, and Requirements for Vessel Insurance (Exempt from CEQA, Article 5, Section 15061(b)(3) and Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1)
Action: Pulled from Consent; Passed to a second reading on March 18, 2025, amended as follows: "2. Gear Inspection" language modified to allow up to 60 days for securing repairs instead of 30, and forfeiture of mooring license at 90 days instead of 60; "3. Inadequate Mooring Gear" language modified to incorporate emergency exception, and forfeiture of mooring license at 90 days instead of 60; "m. Insurance" language modified to delay the start date to September 1, 2025; and adding language allowing flexibility to the Harbormaster for extensions based on circumstances; Directed City staff to issue another notification to Harbor and Marina occupants and licensees Acting Harbormaster Rodriguez gave the staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions.

Public comment was received from: John McHenry, who asked for a grandfather clause and said that he had not been able to find any insurer willing to insure his fifty-year old boat; Jiri Nozicka, who expressed concern about the deadlines due to supply chain issues and other logistics; Eric Foster, who worried about safety for live-aboard moorings and said that the City was solely concerned with its own property and not the property of others; and Frederick Leach, who said that it was reasonable for the City to require liability insurance but that the ability and timeline to obtain it was a challenge for boat owners.

On question from the Council, Acting Harbormaster Rodriguez explained that the insurance requirement was intended to protect the Harbor's assets and that the required insurance for a boat was higher than the value of the boat because potential damage to other vessels or the Council Regular Meeting, 2/18/2025, Item No. 2., Item Page 2, Packet Page 8 City Council Minutes February 4, 2025
3 City's properties could exceed the boat's value itself. She said that many vessels were currently insured and that their owners already provided the Harbor office with copies of the policies as a courtesy. She explained that larger companies may refuse to insure older or wooden vessels, but staff's research indicated that smaller insurance companies were willing to provide coverage. She said that 13 out of 16 harbors statewide currently required vessel insurance.

The Council discussed some options that would provide a slightly more lenient policy, and Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira agreed that the suggestions would be feasible from staff's perspective.

On a motion by Councilmember Smith, seconded by Councilmember Rasch, and carried by the following vote, the City Council passed the ordinance to a second reading at the second regular meeting in March, 2025, amended as follows: "2. Gear Inspection" language modified to allow up to 60 days for securing repairs instead of 30, and forfeiture of mooring license at 90 days instead of 60; "3. Inadequate Mooring Gear" language modified to incorporate emergency exception, and forfeiture of mooring license at 90 days instead of 60; "m. Insurance" modified to delay the start date to September 1, 2025; and adding language allowing flexibility to the Harbormaster for extensions based on circumstances; and directed City staff to issue another notification to Harbor and Marina occupants and licensees:

AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)

5. 1st Reading of an Ordinance Amending the Sidewalk Repair and Maintenance Ordinance to Update Definitions, Update the Private Property Owner Repair Notification Procedures, and Add a Requirement for Inspection and Repair Verification Upon Change in Property Ownership (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Pulled from Consent; Passed to a second reading Administrative Analyst Beckman and City Engineer/Deputy Public Works Director Easterling gave the staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions with input from City Attorney Davi and Community Development Director Cole.

Public comment was received from: Julie Gorman, who expressed concern that her private property without a sidewalk was becoming a public right-of-way and that appeals could only be done in court; and Adam Pinterits, who said sidewalk maintenance should be the City's responsibility and that alternatives should be considered for requiring point of sale inspections.

On question from the Council, Community Development Director Cole explained that there was no active program in the City to assist residents with repair of sidewalks. There was discussion with the Council about whether the Mr. Fix-It program could be expanded to assist with sidewalk repair costs. On question from the Council, City Engineer/Deputy Public Works Director Easterling said that private driveways would usually be considered encroachments within the public right-of-way and were addressed under other language in the City Code. He said that any defects or hazards to the public would conform to the sidewalk ordinance and that the property owner would have a duty to maintain and repair it.

City Attorney Davi explained that sidewalk obligations for property owners had been in place since 1955 and that the matter before the Council at this meeting was to define sidewalks and provide additional ways to ensure that sidewalk repairs are completed. She said that cities Council Regular Meeting, 2/18/2025, Item No. 2., Item Page 3, Packet Page 9 City Council Minutes February 4, 2025
4 could not be in the insurance business and inspecting every inch of the city but that property owners are in the best position to observe the condition of their own property and make necessary repairs. Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira stressed the importance of an inspection and compliance process prior to property transfers in order to ensure sidewalk safety.

The Council expressed concern about financial burdens on property owners, especially due to rising costs since the ordinance was originally enacted in the 1950s. It was noted that property owners unable to pay for repairs would have the option for the City to do the work and that the cost of repairs would be recovered upon sale of the property. It was observed that some Monterey neighborhoods lacked sidewalks, potentially leading to confusion about property lines, and the need for clearer property boundary definitions and educational efforts was highlighted.

Interest was expressed in holding a separate discussion about the possibility of financial assistance or a support mechanism for those unable to afford repairs. It was stressed that it was important to have a clear and contemporary ordinance.

On a motion by Councilmember Smith, seconded by Councilmember Barber, and carried by the following vote, the City Council passed the ordinance to a second reading as presented:

AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)

6. 2nd Reading of an Ordinance Extending Elected Officials’ First Ethics Training Deadline by 30 Days, and Requiring Electronic Filing of Campaign Finance Disclosure Statements (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Adopted Ordinance No. 3694 C.S.

Resolutions

7. Order Engineer’s Report for Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Alvarado Street Maintenance District No. 85-1 (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 25-005 C.S.

8. Order Engineer’s Report for Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Calle Principal Maintenance District No. 00- 1 (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 25-006 C.S.

Other

9. Appoint Agency Negotiators for Conference with Real Property Negotiators Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8; Property: 353 Camino El Estero; Agency Negotiators:

Kimberly Cole and Janna Aldrete; Negotiating Parties: Monica Lal (Monterey Peninsula Chamber of Commerce); Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment for Lease Amendment (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Appointed real property negotiators Cole and Aldrete *** End of Consent Agenda ***
Council Regular Meeting, 2/18/2025, Item No. 2., Item Page 4, Packet Page 10 City Council Minutes February 4, 2025
5 PUBLIC APPEARANCE

10. Amend Resolution 24-138 Authorizing Changes to the Fiscal Year 2024-25 Budget to Increase Revenues and Expenditures in the General Fund and Other Funds, Designate Funds into the Economic Uncertainty Reserve, and Update the Position Control List (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 25-007 C.S.

Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira introduced the mid-year budget and Finance Director King gave the staff presentation. During the presentation, Councilmember Smith left the Chamber at 5:50 p.m. and returned at 5:51 p.m., Councilmember Rasch left the Chamber at 5:51 p.m. and returned at 5:53 p.m., and Mayor Williamson left the Chamber at 5:53 p.m. and returned at 6:00 p.m.

Following the presentation, Finance Director King answered Councilmembers' questions.

During questions and answers, Councilmember Garcia left the Chamber at 6:17 p.m. and returned at 6:20 p.m. Councilmember Barber left the Chamber at 6:20 p.m. and returned at 6:22 p.m.

The Council expressed interest in setting reserve targets by percentage instead of dollar amount. Finance Director King noted that the economic uncertainty reserve was based on a percentage and that she would bring reserve matters to the Council in March, 2025. The Council highlighted that the City's new budget portal provided transparency but expressed some regret that it was not printable.

Public comment was not received.

On a motion by Councilmember Barber, seconded by Councilmember Smith, and carried by the following vote, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 25-007 C.S..:

AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
On a motion by Mayor Williamson, seconded by Councilmember Rasch, and carried by the following vote, the City Council extended the meeting to 9 p.m. including closed session:

AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)

COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Garcia expressed concerns about zoning relating to the newly opened gun shop in the Oak Grove neighborhood, and asked for information to be provided by staff.

Councilmember Rasch echoed the interest in learning more about the gun shop issues, and announced an upcoming town hall on fire prevention on February 27, 2025.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/18/2025, Item No. 2., Item Page 5, Packet Page 11 City Council Minutes February 4, 2025
6 Mayor Williamson joined the other members in requesting information from staff on the gun shop.

CITY MANAGER REPORTS
Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira provided further information on the upcoming Wildfire Ready town hall.
*** Adjourn to Closed Session ***
Public comment on the closed session was not received.

The Council adjourned to closed session at 6:44 p.m.

CLOSED SESSION

11. Closed Session Conference with Real Property Negotiators Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8
Property: 353 Camino El Estero
Agency Negotiators: Kimberly Cole and Janna Aldrete
Negotiating Parties: Monica Lal (Monterey Peninsula Chamber of Commerce) Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment for Lease Amendment (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: On a unanimous roll call vote, confidential direction was given to the property negotiators

12. Conference with Legal Counsel, A. Existing Litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(1):

1. City of Monterey v. Marianne McNicol (Monterey County Superior Court Case No. 23CV001205)

2. City of Monterey v. Leslie J. Flores, Trustee (Monterey County Superior Court Case No. 24CV000750)

3. City of Monterey v. Paul Soares (Monterey County Superior Court Case No. 24 CV 002533)

4. Paul Soares v. City of Monterey (United States District Court, Northern District of California Case No. 24-CV-05131-EJD)

5. Ashley Ellcessor v. City of Monterey (Monterey County Superior Court Case No. 24CV000649)

6. Bryce Hovannisian v. City of Monterey (Monterey County Superior Court Case No. 24CV003703

7. Francisca Moralez v. City of Monterey et al. (United States District Court Northern District of California Case No. 22-CV-07540)

8. Richard Rosendale v. City of Monterey (Monterey County Superior Court Case No. 23CV000879)

9. Ronald Rogers v. City of Monterey (Monterey County Superior Court Case No. 23CV003206)

10. Pacific Western Bank v. City and Stronghold Engineering, Inc. (San Bernardino Superior Court Case No. CIVSB2212212; Fourth District Court of Appeal Case No. E082907)

11. Stronghold Engineering, Inc. v. City of Monterey (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 18CV329015; Sixth District Court of Appeal Case No. H050157; Supreme Court of California Case No. S283051)

12. Stronghold Engineering, Inc. v City of Monterey (Riverside County Superior Court Case No.

CVR12103427; Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division 2, Case No. E080304; Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division 1, Case No. D082763)
Council Regular Meeting, 2/18/2025, Item No. 2., Item Page 6, Packet Page 12 City Council Minutes February 4, 2025
7 13. Save Tarpy Flats v. City of Monterey (Monterey County Superior Court Case No. 24 CV005125)
B. Anticipated Litigation, Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(2), (e)(3): Precision Grade, Inc. Claim dated August 12, 2024 (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) -- continued from January 21, 2025 Council Regular Meeting Action: No reportable action was taken

13. Public Employee Performance Evaluation, Title: City Manager; Public Employee Performance Evaluation pursuant to Government Code section 54957(b)(1), Conference with Labor Negotiator Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 for Labor Negotiations; Agency Negotiator: Shelline Bennett; Unrepresented Employee: City Manager (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20 Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5 Section 15061) -- continued from January 21, 2025 Council Regular Meeting Action: The item was not heard

ADJOURNMENT
The Council adjourned at 8:10 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted, Approved,
Clementine Bonner Klein Tyller Williamson
City Clerk Mayor
Council Regular Meeting, 2/18/2025, Item No. 2., Item Page 7, Packet Page 13 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Andrea Renny, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Cody Hennings, Engineering Assistant I
SUBJECT: Award a Construction Contract in the Amount of $1,279,803.57 to Earl Adams Tile-Coping & Plastering, Inc. for the Monterey Sports Center Improvements – Pool Replastering (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt the attached resolution

1. Approving the plans and specifications for the Monterey Sports Center Improvements – Pool Replastering (CIP2304) (“Project”) which are available in the office of the City Engineer (Room 7), and granting the Public Works Director, or their designee, the authority to approve all amendments and addenda thereto as necessitated by conditions in the field;

2. Accepting all responsive, responsible bids;

3. Awarding a Construction Contract for the Total Bid to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, Earl Adams Tile-Coping & Plastering, Inc., in the amount of $1,279,803.57;

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

5. Authorizing staff to expend up to an additional 12% for unforeseen construction contingencies for timely completion of the Project.

VALUE DRIVERS:

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

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

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

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

Date: 2/18/2025
Item No.: 3.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/18/2025, Item No. 3., Item Page 1, Packet Page 14 №10/24
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

On November 26, 2024, three (3) bids were received, but only one (1) bid was deemed responsive and responsible. The apparent low bidder was deemed non-responsive, while the second low bidder was deemed non-responsible because company is not registered with the Secretary of State and therefore, the contract will be awarded to the third lowest bidder. The responsive bid came in under the Engineer’s estimate of $1,348,000. The bids were opened by the Finance Director’s designee as follows:

Bidder Total Bid
Earl Adams Tile-Coping & Plastering, Inc. $1,279,803.57 Engineer’s Estimate $1,348,000.00
Basis of award for this project is based on the Total Bid.

Estimated Construction Cost:

Total Bid $1,279,803.57
Construction Contingency (12%) $153,575.00
Total Construction Cost (This Authorization) $1,433,378.57 Construction Management (City Staff & Indirect Cost) $ 14,500 Total Estimated Cost to Complete the Project $1,447,878.57 Available Funding Sources:

CIP2304 $1,448,649.88
This Project has an available funding balance of $1,448,649.88 as of January 28, 2024.

Therefore, funding is available in the project account for the construction of the Total Bid plus the additive alterative.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

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

Council Regular Meeting, 2/18/2025, Item No. 3., Item Page 2, Packet Page 15 №10/24
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

Council could choose not to award the construction contract for this Project, however this is not recommended since the proposed project implements maintenance activities that are required to maintain existing infrastructure.

DISCUSSION:

The Natatorium at the Monterey Sports Center features a 30 m x 25-yard lap swimming pool with 12 lanes, a 7 m x 25-yard therapeutic pool along with a 112-foot corkscrew slide, men’s and women’s saunas, a recreational obstacle course, and a sundeck. The two pools support thousands of recreational swimmers, group exercise participants, birthday parties, therapeutic exercise users, and young children taking part in private and group swim lessons. Hundreds of participants from various nonprofit organizations regularly utilize the swimming pools. Over 8,300 Sports Center members and upwards of 1,500 daily visitors use the pool facilities.

The swimming pools and Natatorium were constructed in 1991-92. A deck replacement project was completed using both CIP and NIP funds in 2006-07. A pool re-plastering project funded through CIP funds was completed in 2006-07 with an anticipated 10-15 years of life. The existing pool plaster and deck has reached the end of its expected lifespan and now has a weathered appearance.

Completing the replastering of the pools, repair of the coping surrounding the pools and the resurfacing of the pool deck will allow the pools and deck to extend their functional life another 10-15 years. This will allow the Monterey Sports Center staff to continue to provide aquatic access, programming, and lessons for another generation of residents.

CH/ab
Attachments: 1. Resolution

2. Bid Evaluation Tab
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 2/18/2025, Item No. 3., Item Page 3, Packet Page 16 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№011/24
AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,279,803.57 TO EARL ADAMS TILE-COPING & PLASTERING, INC. FOR THE MONTEREY SPORTS CENTER IMPROVEMENTS – POOL REPLASTERING (CIP2304)
WHEREAS, on the 26th day of November 2024, at 2:00 p.m. the City of Monterey Finance Director’s designee received three (3) electronic bids through the City’s e-Procurement Portal, OpenGov Procurement, for the Monterey Sports Center Improvements – Pool Replastering (CIP2304) (“Project”);
WHEREAS, Earl Adams Tile-Coping & Plastering, Inc. submitted the only responsive, and responsible bid for the Project;
WHEREAS, the basis of award for the project was the Total Base; WHEREAS, Earl Adams Tile-Coping & Plastering, Inc. submitted the lowest responsive, and responsible bid in the amount of $1,279,803.57;
WHEREAS, sufficient funds are available in account CIP2304 to complete the project; and
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that the above recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated and adopted as findings of the City Council as if fully set forth herein.

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

2. Accepting all responsive, responsible bids;

3. Awarding a Construction Contract for the Total Bid to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, Earl Adams Tile-Coping & Plastering, Inc., in the amount of $1,279,803.57;

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

5. Authorizing staff to expend up to an additional 12% for unforeseen construction contingencies for timely completion of the Project.

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

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 2/18/2025, Item No. 3., Item Page 5, Packet Page 18 City of Monterey
Finance Department
Rafaela King, Finance Director
580 Pacific Street, Monterey, CA 93940

EVALUATION TABULATION
General Solicitation - MONTEREY SPORTS CENTER IMPROVEMENTS - POOL REPLASTERING (CIP2304)

Page 1 ends

EVALUATION TABULATION
GEN No. TBD

MONTEREY SPORTS CENTER IMPROVEMENTS - POOL REPLASTERING (CIP2304)
RESPONSE DEADLINE: November 26, 2024 at 2:00 pm
Tuesday, December 3, 2024

SELECTED VENDOR TOTALS
Vendor Total
Estate Design and
Construction Inc.
$603,797.67
USA Construction LLC $1,248,760.60
Earl Adams Tile-Coping &
Plastering Inc.
$1,279,803.57

BID SCHEDULE
Vendor Total
Estate Design and
Construction Inc.
$569,797.67
Earl Adams Tile-Coping &
Plastering Inc.
$1,239,603.57
USA Construction LLC $1,242,760.60
ADDITIVE ALTERNATIVE 1
Vendor Total
USA Construction LLC $6,000.00
Estate Design and
Construction Inc.
$34,000.00
Earl Adams Tile-Coping &
Plastering Inc.
$40,200.00
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 2/18/2025, Item No. 3., Item Page 6, Packet Page 19

EVALUATION TABULATION
GEN No. TBD
MONTEREY SPORTS CENTER IMPROVEMENTS - POOL REPLASTERING (CIP2304)

Page 2 ends

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 2/18/2025, Item No. 3., Item Page 7, Packet Page 20 ORDINANCE NO. ____ C.S.

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

AMENDING THE SIDEWALK REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE ORDINANCE TO UPDATE

DEFINITIONS, UPDATE THE PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER REPAIR NOTIFICATION

PROCEDURES, AND ADD A REQUIREMENT FOR INSPECTION AND REPAIR

VERIFICATION UPON CHANGE IN PROPERTY OWNERSHIP
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY DOES ORDAIN, as follows:

SECTION 1:

WHEREAS, Streets and Highways Code section 5600 et seq. provides that the responsibility for maintenance of sidewalks rests on the abutting property owner, regardless of who created the sidewalk defects;
WHEREAS, the maintenance and repair responsibility provisions in the Streets and Highways Code have been a part of state law for more than 80 years; WHEREAS, the City of Monterey first enacted Ordinance 989 in 1955 pursuant to the Streets and Highways Code to help offset the cost of repair to and maintenance of worn out, damaged, or defective sidewalks;
WHEREAS, in 1993, the adoption of Ordinance 3127 amended the sidewalk repair and maintenance ordinance to include private property owner liability for injuries to the public due to unsafe sidewalk conditions. Sidewalk liability ordinances “provide [ ] an additional level of responsibility for the maintenance of safe sidewalks on the owners whose property is adjacent to and abuts the sidewalks”… Property owners “…are often in the best position to quickly identify and address potentially dangerous conditions that might occur on the sidewalks as opposed to [the city].” (Gonzales v. City of San Jose (2004) 125 Cal.App. 4th 1127.) WHEREAS, this ordinance revision updates definitions, clarifies repair notification procedures and processes, and adds a requirement to verify inspections and repairs upon real property transfers;
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the adoption of this ordinance is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines”), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. The adoption of this ordinance is an organizational and administrative activity of the City, does not have the potential to result in either a direct or reasonably foreseeably indirect physical change in the environment, and is therefore not a project of purposes of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15061(b)(3); 15378(b)(5).

Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary Date: 2/18/2025
Item No.: 4.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/18/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 1, Packet Page 21 2 projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

NOW THEREFORE, the Monterey City Council declares as follows:

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

SECTION 3: Chapter 32, Article 4, Section 32-23 is amended to read as follows:

Sec. 32-23 Definitions
For purposes of this Article, the following terms shall have the definitions set forth below:
(a) “Owner” means a person owning real property adjacent to or fronting on any portion of a public street, alley, or other place where a sidewalk exists. (b) “Parking strip” means the area between the street line and the edge of the right-of-way, including the sidewalk and any planting area.
(c) “Public Works Director” means the Public Works Director or designee. (d) “Real property” means a parcel(s), lot(s), or portions thereof. (e) “Sidewalk” means an improved (e.g., paved with concrete, mortared stone, mortared rock, mortared brick, asphaltic concrete, decomposed granite, hardscape, etc.) portion of the public right-of-way, between the property line and the roadway, set apart for pedestrian travel by curbs, gutters, bulkheads, retaining walls, barriers, markings, or other delineation.

For purposes of this Article, a “sidewalk” also includes a parking strip, curbs, gutters, bulkheads, retaining walls, barriers, markings, or other delineation that sets it apart from the roadway.

SECTION 4: Chapter 32, Article 4, Section 32-24 is amended to read as follows:

Sec. 32-24 Duty of Property Owners to Repair
(a) An owner shall repair and maintain any sidewalk in such condition that the sidewalk will not endanger persons or property, and repair and maintain it in a condition which will not interfere with the public safety or convenience in the use of the sidewalk or abutting roadway.
(b) For purposes of this Article, maintenance and repair of the sidewalk area shall include, but not be limited to, sweeping, cleaning, grinding, removal and replacement, removal and filling or replacement of parking strips, removal of weeds and/or debris, trimming of shrubs and/or ground cover, so that the sidewalk will remain in a condition that is not dangerous to property or to persons using the sidewalk in a reasonable manner and will be in a condition which will not interfere with the public convenience in the use of said sidewalk. (c) Exceptions.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/18/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 2, Packet Page 22

1. An owner is not responsible for conditions created or maintained in, upon, along, or in connection with such sidewalk by a third party who has a permit or right granted to them by law or by the city (e.g., encroachment permits).

2. An owner is not responsible for conditions created by a City planted or maintained tree or said tree’s roots.

SECTION 5: Chapter 32, Article 4, Sections 32-25 through 32-30 are repealed and replaced with Sections 32-25 through 32-27 as follows:

Sec. 32-25 Notice to Repair Sidewalks
(a) The notice and repair procedures set forth in this Article are alternative and supplementary to the procedures set forth in Streets and Highways Code section 5600 et seq., as those sections now exist or may hereafter be amended. The City may follow the procedures set forth in the Streets and Highways Code or those set forth in this Article, or some combination thereof.
(b) Notice Required. When the Public Works Director has actual notice of the existence of a defective sidewalk, the Public Works Director shall give written notice to the owner to repair the defective sidewalk. The Public Works Director may also give notice to the person in possession of the real property in addition to the notice given to the owner. (c) Service of Notice. The notice to repair described in subsection (b) shall be served on the owner by any of the following methods:

1. Personal service on the owner.

2. Mailing the notice by first class mail, postage prepaid, to the address of the owner as set forth on the last equalized assessment roll.

3. Personal service of a copy of the notice on the person in possession of the real property if a copy of the notice is also mailed to the owner in accordance with subsection (c)(2).

4. If the notice is served on the owner by mail, the Public Works Director shall, not more than 30 days after mailing the initial notice to repair, mail to the owner an additional notice to repair marked “second notice,” containing the same information set forth in the initial notice.
(d) Contents of Notice. The notice to repair shall contain the following information:

1. That the sidewalk needs to be repaired.

2. The nature of the work required to be done.

3. The manner in which the work is to be done, including specifications required by the City as to materials and technique.

4. If the repair is not commenced within the time specified in Section 32-26, or once commenced it is not completed diligently and without interruption, the Public Works Director shall, within a reasonable time, cause the City to make the required repairs and the cost shall become a special assessment recorded against the real property of the owner.

Sec. 32-26 Time to Commence and Complete Repairs
The owner shall commence the repairs required by the notice to repair within 90 days after Council Regular Meeting, 2/18/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 3, Packet Page 23 4 service of the notice to repair. Once commenced, repairs shall be completed diligently and without interruption.

Sec. 32-27 Failure to Make Required Repairs
(a) If the repair required pursuant to Section 32-24 is not commenced and completed within the time specified in Section 32-26, the Public Works Director shall, within a reasonable time, cause the City to make the required repairs. The Public Works Director will prepare a report specifying the repairs made, the cost, and a description of the real property fronting or adjacent to which the repairs have been made.
(b) The owner is responsible to pay the cost of all work provided by the City or under the City’s direction, including administrative and inspection costs, upon receipt of an invoice from the City.
(c) If the owner has not provided full payment 30 days after the date on the mailed invoice, the Public Works Director may initiate proceedings to make the cost of the work performed by the City a special assessment against the parcel(s) of property abutting or fronting the repaired sidewalk(s).
(d) The Public Works Director may follow the procedure set forth in City Code section 1-12.2 et seq. The report to the City Council may include repairs to any number of parcels of real property, whether contiguous to each other or not.

SECTION 6: Chapter 32, Article 4, Section 32-31.1, Liability for Injuries to the Public, is hereby renumbered as Section 32-28.

SECTION 7: Chapter 32, Article 4, Sections 32-29 is hereby added as follows:

Sec. 32-29 Inspections Upon Transfer of Real Property Requirements (a) Upon Transfer of Real Property. All owners shall, prior to the time of any transfer of ownership, inspect for any defects in the sidewalk, and, if necessary, have the sidewalk repaired or corrected to meet the City’s standards and specifications.

1. Responsibilities of Transferor. The owner of the real property prior to the time of sale or other transfer (“transferor”) shall submit a certificate of compliance and/or completion to the Public Works Director on a form provided by the Public Works Department along with a photograph of the sidewalk.

2. Option to Transfer Transferor’s Responsibility to Repair to Transferee. Before the time of sale or other transfer, the transferor and transferee of any property may mutually agree to shift responsibility for any repairs needed to comply with this Article to the transferee. In the event the transferee agrees to assume responsibility for repairing the sidewalk, the transferee shall complete the repairs to meet the City’s standards within 90 days from the date of the sale or other transfer. Before the time of sale or other transfer, the transferor and transferee shall complete the following procedures:
i. Both the transferor and transferee shall sign the City’s Transfer of Responsibility form certifying that the transferee has assumed responsibility for the pre-transfer inspection and any needed repairs.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/18/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 4, Packet Page 24 ii. The transferor shall file the signed Transfer of Responsibility to Inspect Form with the City before the time of transfer and include it in the real estate transfer documentation.
iii. The transferor shall submit a certificate of compliance and/or completion to the Public Works Director on a form provided by the Public Works Department along with a photograph of the repaired sidewalk.

SECTION 8: All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

SECTION 9: If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of these amendments and the application of such provisions to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

SECTION 10: This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days from and after its final passage and adoption.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this _____ day of _______, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 2/18/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 5, Packet Page 25 Council
Agenda Report
№10/13
FROM: Christine Davi, City Attorney
By: Lane Hayes, Paralegal
SUBJECT: Adopt a Resolution to Update the Administrative Citation and Parking Violation Fine Schedule (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt a resolution to update the Administrative Citation and Parking Violation Fine Schedule for violations of the City Code and/or the California Vehicle Code.

VALUE DRIVERS:

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Issuance of administrative citations for violation of the Monterey City Code when voluntary compliance cannot be achieved is an important tool in enforcing the City’s laws and regulations.

Updating the administrative citation and parking violation fee schedule will bring the schedule current to add fines for violation of newly adopted City Code sections, increase existing fine amounts, reflect correct references/citations to the Monterey City Code, and delete references to repealed codes.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The primary purpose of the Administrative Remedies ordinance, adopted in 1999, and its associated fines is to encourage compliance with the City’s laws. The ability for the City to impose or increase administrative fines for code violations is intended as an incentive to obey the law and a deterrent against persistent or repeat City Code violators, and not as a means of generating additional revenue for the City.

The Parking Division is operated as an Enterprise Fund through the Parking Fund. All of the Division’s operating expenses, debit payments, inter-department and overhead charges are paid from the Parking Fund and revenue generated by parking enforcement operations is deposited into the Fund. The General Fund receives 10% of the revenue collected through parking citations. All increases in fine amounts for parking violations will be directed to the Parking Fund in these same proportions.

Date: 2/18/2025
Item No.: 5.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/18/2025, Item No. 5., Item Page 1, Packet Page 26 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

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

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council could modify (increase or decrease) the fine amounts in the schedule.

DISCUSSION:

In 1999, the City Council adopted the Administrative Remedies Ordinance for violations of the City Code. The City’s Administrative Citation and Parking Fine Schedule was adopted shortly thereafter and has been amended on several occasions since its adoption, most recently in 2020. The attached draft resolution updates the fine schedule by adding fines for violation of City Code sections that have been recently adopted by ordinance, updating existing fines, deleting references to obsolete City Code sections, amending the schedule’s legend to delete references to the prior $1,000 maximum fine limitation, and making clerical revisions intended to correct duplicated or unclear language.

On October 1, 2024, the City adopted Ordinance 3686 which amended the City Code to allow imposition of fines exceeding $1,000 pursuant to the City of Monterey’s authority as a charter city. Accordingly, some of the fines recommended for adoption herein for the first time or repeat offenses exceed $1,000.

The first new fines added to the schedule are for violation of the City’s cannabis business regulations set forth in Chapter 7 of the City Code, adopted by Council under Ordinance 3674 on November 21, 2023. Fines for violation of City Code §7-7.05 (cannabis business permit required), §7-7.09 (retail permit required), §7-7.18 (retail cannabis operational requirements), §7-7.19 (distributor permit required and operational requirements), §7-7.20 (retailer permit and operational requirements), and §7-7.21 (temporary cannabis event requirements), have been added to the fine schedule in the amount of $1,000 each. Staff recommends this fine amount based on comparisons with neighboring cities that also have retail cannabis ordinances (Santa Cruz, Pacific Grove, Marina, Salinas, Seaside, and San Jose). The fines in those cities range from $100 or $250 for the first offense in local cities, to $2,500 and up in San Jose. The recommended penalty of $1,000 for violation of Monterey’s retail cannabis ordinance strikes a balance between these varying fine amounts. In accordance with the City’s established structure for progressively increasing fine amounts for repeat offenders, second violations of the same cannabis business-related code section by the same person/business within 36 months Council Regular Meeting, 2/18/2025, Item No. 5., Item Page 2, Packet Page 27 would result in a $1,500 (50% higher) fine, and third and any subsequent violations of the same code section within 36 months would result in a $2,000 (doubled) fine.

The second new administrative fine added to the schedule is for violation of the City’s new rental inventory ordinance set forth in Monterey City Code Chapter 8, Article 2, adopted by the City Council under Ordinance 3671 on November 7, 2023. A fine for violation of City Code §8-

2.02 (registration of rental units) has been added to the fine schedule in the amount of $500.

Second offenses within 36 months would be fined at $750, third and any subsequent offenses would receive a $1,000 fine. The $500 administrative fine for failure to register residential rental units was driven by comparisons to the fine schedules of other California cities with rent registry programs. The cities of San Jose, Mountain View, and Berkeley all have $500 per unit fines for unregistered rental units. In the City of Monterey, the registration fee ($50 per unit) is substantially lower than those of Mountain View ($108 per unit) and Berkeley ($344 per unit), and the late fee currently in place is 10% for every 30 days amounting to $5 per unit. The $500 per unit fine provides a stronger tool for enforcement once the 180-day late fee period has been exhausted.

In addition, staff recommends increasing the fine for a first violation of the City’s short-term rental ordinance from $1,000 to $1,500. Several cities, including the City of Pacific Grove, have already increased their fines for violation of their short-term rental laws to $1,500.

Although short-term rentals have been banned in the City of Monterey since the early 1990s, they still exist within the City and continue to be a problem for neighborhoods and for the City’s Code Compliance Division. The operation of a short-term rental in Monterey can be extremely profitable during popular events on the Monterey Peninsula and can garner nightly rental rates exceeding $1,000 per night. Because operating an illegal short-term rental can be quite lucrative, the current fine of $1,000 for the first and subsequent violations may not be a sufficient disincentive for some owners to stop the practice. Staff recommends increasing the current fine of $1,000 to $1,500 for the first citation, $2,250 for the second citation, and $3,000 for the third and all subsequent citations within a 36 month period, to decrease the profitability of operating a short-term rental and as a greater deterrent to those considering operating a short-term rental despite its illegal nature.

Fines for violation of the City’s ordinance prohibiting advertisement of short-term rentals under MCC §22-19.5 are also proposed to be increased from $100 to $250 for a first time violation, $275 for second violations within 36 months, and $500 for third and any subsequent violations within the same 36-month period.

The revised parking penalties are recommended to bring certain lower fines up to the same amount as fines existing in similar areas and under similar circumstances. The proposed penalty increases are consistent with comparable cities and will help manage parking demand, compliance, and sustain the City’s parking operation.

In addition, a new fine was added for violation of Vehicle Code section 22500(n), referred to as the “Daylighting Law” (AB 413), which prohibits vehicles from parking within 20 feet of the vehicle approach side of any marked or unmarked crosswalk, or within 15 feet of any crosswalk where a curb extension is present. This new law, which went into effect January 1, 2025, is intended to increase the range of vision for drivers, allowing them to better see pedestrians, bike Council Regular Meeting, 2/18/2025, Item No. 5., Item Page 3, Packet Page 28 riders, skateboarders or any other road users near intersections. The law applies to all intersections statewide, whether or not a red curb or no parking sign is present.

Furthermore, a new $10 reduced fine has been introduced to ensure better alignment with California Government Codes and Vehicle Codes ("CVC"). This reduced fine, previously known as the Administrative Fee (Reso 06-38), will apply in situations where a parking citation is issued due to the failure to display a proper permit, provided the individual can show proof of a valid permit or proof of payment at the time the citation was received. Additionally, in pay-by-plate parking locations, a reduced fine will also be available for those who fail to record a parking session for the correct license plate number, provided the individual can demonstrate proof of payment at the time the citation was issued. This adjustment aims to offer a more affordable alternative to the full fine, encourage compliance, and minimize administrative time to address these types of errors.

In conclusion, it is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution to update the Administrative Fine Schedule for violations of the City Code.

Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution with Exhibit
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 2/18/2025, Item No. 5., Item Page 4, Packet Page 29 RESOLUTION NO. __- ___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№06/11

ADOPTING AN ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION

AND PARKING VIOLATION FINE SCHEDULE
WHEREAS, on April 6, 1999, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 3252 C.S., known as the Administrative Remedies Ordinance. One of the purposes of this ordinance was to establish an administrative citation process for civil enforcement of City Code violations; WHEREAS, on June 15, 1999, the City Council adopted Resolution 99-115, which established a schedule of administrative citation fines for violations of the City Code. The schedule has been amended on several occasions since its adoption; WHEREAS, the last amendment of the administrative citation and parking violation fine schedule was adopted under Resolution 20-022 on March 3, 2020, and included the addition of fines for sidewalk vending pursuant to City Code §§32-3.02, 32-3.07, and 32-

3.08, and updates to fines for parking violations under the California Vehicle Code and Chapter 20 of the City Code;
WHEREAS, since the last fine schedule update, additional City ordinances and California Vehicle Code amendments have been adopted that require establishment of new fine amounts, including retail cannabis business-related regulations (Chapter 7 of the City Code), rental unit registration requirements (Chapter 8 of the City Code), and new parking restrictions under Vehicle Code Section 22500(n) which prohibits parking within 20 feet of any marked or unmarked crosswalk, or within 15 feet of any crosswalk where a curb extension is present. Other updates include the revision of fine amounts for existing parking regulations under the California Vehicle Code and City Code Chapter 20, increased penalties for unlawful short-term rentals under the Zoning Ordinance (City Code Chapter 38), increased penalties for advertisement of short-term rentals (MCC §22-19.5), and several clerical revisions including removal of fines for repealed City Code sections, deletion of duplicated fines previously listed on the schedule, and other corrections.

These new or updated fine amounts and corrections are shown on the new Administrative Citation and Parking Violation Fine Schedule attached hereto as Exhibit A; WHEREAS, on October 1, 2024, the Council adopted Ordinance No. 24-3686 which allowed for the adoption of administrative fines in excess of $1,000, as well as permitting progressive fines for subsequent violations of the same code section by the same person within 36 months to exceed $1,000 per citation. The effective date of this ordinance was October 31, 2024. In accordance with Ordinance 24-3686, the fine schedule has been amended to specifically permit fines and progressive fines to exceed $1,000; WHEREAS, the City hereby finds that violation of its laws prohibiting short-term rentals poses a threat to the health and safety of its neighborhoods, residents and visitors. As such, the fine for violation of the City’s short-term rental ordinances set forth in Chapter 38 of the City Code is hereby increased from $1,000 to $1,500 for a first violation, from $1,500 to $2,250 for a second Council Regular Meeting, 2/18/2025, Item No. 5., Item Page 5, Packet Page 30 2 violation within 36 months, and from $2,000 to $3,000 for a third and any additional violations within the same 36-month period.

WHEREAS, the “Daylighting Law” (AB 413) went into effect on January 1. 2025 and applies to all intersections statewide, whether or not marked by red curb or no parking sign. As such the fine for violation of Vehicle Code Section 22500(n) is established in the amount of $125; WHEREAS, the City has determined that a reduced fine of $10 be applied for certain parking violations, such as failure to display a valid permit or failure to record a parking session in pay-by-plate lots, when proof of a valid permit or payment is presented at the time the citation was issued with the intent to offer an affordable alternative to the full fine, encouraging compliance and minimizing administrative time to address such errors;
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it approves and adopts the Administrative Citation and Parking Violation Fine Schedule attached hereto as Exhibit A. All prior Resolutions adopting or amending the Administrative Citation Fine Schedule and Parking Penalty schedule that are inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed. This Resolution is effective immediately.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this _____ day of _______, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST: ___________________________
Mayor of Said City
__________________________
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 2/18/2025, Item No. 5., Item Page 6, Packet Page 31

ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION AND PARKING VIOLATION

FINE SCHEDULE

EXHIBIT A

CITY CODE SECTION TITLE FINE AMOUNT
Chapter 6. Animals and Fowl
6-2 Fowl running at large $ 75.00
6-3 Grazing/staking animal in public places $ 75.00
6-4 Restrictions on keeping animals generally $ 75.00
6-6 Restrictions on keeping domestic fowl $ 75.00
6-8 Sale, display of chicks, rabbits, ducklings, etc. $ 75.00 6-9 Games with animals $ 75.00
6-9.1 Feeding of wildlife $ 50.00
6-23 License not on dog $ 75.00
6-28 Vicious dog $ 500.00
Chapter 7, Article 2. Cannabis Business Regulations
7-7.05 Cannabis business permit required $ 1,000.00
7-7.09 Retail permit required $ 1,000.00
7-7.18 Retail cannabis business operational requirements $ 1,000.00 7-7.19 Distributor permit required and operational requirements $ 1,000.00 7-7.20 Retailer permit and operational requirements $ 1,000.00 7-7.21 Temporary cannabis event requirements $ 1,000.00 Chapter 8. Rental Inventory
8-2.02 Registration of rental units $ 500.00
Chapter 9. Building Regulations
9-1 thru 9-2
Violation of any adopted Code set forth in MCC §9-0.1 or City amendment thereto $ 500.00
9-18 thru 9-66 Violation of building regulations $ 500.00 Chapter 10. Cementerio El Encinal
10-4 Violation of cemetery rules and regulations $ 50.00 Chapter 13. Fire Protection
13-0.1 Violation of Adopted 2022 California Fire Code $ 500.00

13.0-2 Violation of City Amendments to the 2022 California Fire Code $ 500.00 13-4 Prohibition of Fireworks $ 1,000.00
Chapter 14. Garbage and Refuse
14-16 Prohibited Disposable Food Service Ware $ 200.00
14-17 Additional Obligations $ 200.00
14-21(a) Retail bag regulations (not Special Event) $ 200.00 14-24(c) Special Event for 1-200 persons $ 200.00
14-24(c) Special Event for 201-400 persons $ 400.00
14-24(c) Special Event for 401-600 persons $ 600.00
14-24(c) Special Event for 601 or more persons $ 1,000.00 Chapter 17. Harbor and Marina
17-5 Disposing of Refuse or other matter $ 250.00
17-14 Tampering with or damaging other vessel $ 250.00
17-18 Sale or delivery of fish $ 150.00
17-22 Use of wharves for storing of goods $ 150.00
17-27 Parking and loading restrictions $ 500.00
17-30 Diving prohibited from Wharf 2 $ 250.00
17-41 Anchoring vessel inside mooring area or Fairway Channel $ 50.00 Council Regular Meeting, 2/18/2025, Item No. 5., Item Page 7, Packet Page 32 Page 1

ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION AND PARKING VIOLATION

FINE SCHEDULE

EXHIBIT A

CITY CODE SECTION TITLE FINE AMOUNT
17-42 Transient berthing or mooring $ 50.00
17-46 Parking in designated stalls $ 48.00
17-47 Use of "Vehicle with Trailer" stall $ 123.00
17-48 Use of dock $ 25.00
17-49 Prohibition of commercial activity $ 250.00
Chapter 20. Motor Vehicles and Traffic
20-6 Unauthorized barriers $ 125.00
20-22 Interference/obstruction of officers (tire-chalk removal) $ 98.00 20-37(a)(4), (b) Blue curb - Disabled parking $ 350.00
20-37(a)(1), (b) Parking or stopping in violation of curb markings (red) $ 125.00 20-37(a)(2), (b) Parking or stopping in violation of curb markings (yellow) $ 48.00 20-37(a)(3), (b) Parking or stopping in violation of curb markings (white) $ 48.00 20-37(a)(3), (b), 20-
88(d) Parking or stopping in violation of curb markings (mail box drop) $ 48.00 20-46 Obedience to barriers, signs erected by City or public utility $ 123.00 20-48.4 Alvarado Street Mall - vehicle regulations $ 125.00 20-59 Restrictions on use of truck routes $ 260.00
20-59.1 Parking of trucks restricted $ 273.00
20-66 No Parking Zone $ 125.00
20-67(f) Parking in Roadway $ 125.00
20-68 Blocking Parkway Path $ 73.00
20-71 Failure to Curb Wheels $ 123.00
20-72 72 Hour Parking $ 123.00
20-74.2 Mobile Food Vending Vehicles - Required Permits and Licenses $ 250.00 20-74.3 Mobile Food Vending Vehicles - Regulations $ 250.00 20-77 24-minute Zones $ 48.00
20-78 12-minute Zones $ 48.00
20-79 One Hour Zones $ 48.00
20-79.1 90-minute Zones $ 48.00
20-80 Two Hour Zones $ 48.00
20-80.1 Three Hour Zones $ 48.00
20-80.2 Four Hour Zones $ 48.00
20-81.3 Parking in Permit Spaces/Misuse of Permit $ 125.00 20-84 Obedience to parking space markings - streets $ 48.00 20-85.3 No Overnight Parking - Fairgrounds Road $ 125.00 20-85.4 No Overnight Parking - Sand Dunes Drive $ 125.00 20-85.5 Regulation of Overnight Parking $ 125.00
20-86 Regulation of overnight parking; Marina lot $ 125.00 20-86.2 Private lot - unauthorized parking $ 58.00
20-86.5 Parking of semi-trailers prohibited $ 123.00
20-86.6 Commercial vehicle double parking (Cannery Row) $ 123.00 20-88(d) Use of loading and passenger zones $ 48.00
20-89 Unauthorized use of loading zone $ 48.00
20-90 Unauthorized use of passenger loading zone $ 48.00 20-95 Obedience to parking space markings - metered lots $ 48.00 20-99 Parking meter violation $ 48.00
20-102 Permit parking spaces $ 48.00
20-108 Vehicles to be parked in designated stalls $ 48.00 20-112 Head-in Parking Only $ 48.00
Council Regular Meeting, 2/18/2025, Item No. 5., Item Page 8, Packet Page 33 Page 2

ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION AND PARKING VIOLATION

FINE SCHEDULE

EXHIBIT A

CITY CODE SECTION TITLE FINE AMOUNT
20-112.1 Moving vehicles within lots to avoid time limits $ 48.00 20-112.2 Payment of prescribed parking fee required $ 48.00 20-166 Failure or refusal to remove abandoned vehicle $ 500.00 20-180
Parking of vehicles or trailers exceeding 20 feet in length and 6 feet 6 inches in height between 2:00 am and 6:00 am $ 250.00 20-185 Prohibition on Sale of Vehicles $ 48.00
20-79 (1-hour zones)
20-79.1 (90-min. zones)

20.80 (2-hour zones)

20.80.1 (3-hour zones)
20-80.2 (4-hour zones)
20-81.3 (Permit parking)
20-99 (Parking meter)
20-102 (Permit parking
spaces)
20-112.2 (Payment of
prescribed parking fee
required) Reduced Fine Upon Proof of Permit or Payment $ 10.00 California Vehicle Code
Section

TITLE FINE AMOUNT
22500(a) Parked in Intersection $ 48.00
22500(b) Parked on Crosswalk $ 48.00
22500(e) Blocking Driveway $ 48.00
22500(f) Parking on Sidewalk $ 48.00
22500(h) Double Parking $ 48.00
22500(i) Bus Parking $ 125.00
22500(l) Parked in Curb Cut $ 350.00
22500(n) Daylighting Law - No Parking 20' Before Crosswalk or 15' Before Crosswalk with Curb Extension
$ 125.00
22500.1 Fire Lane $ 157.00
22502(a) Parking Over 18" From Curb or Class IV Bikeways $ 48.00 22502(b)(2) Parked Against Traffic $ 48.00
22507.8 Disabled Parking - Private Lot $ 350.00
22514 Fire Hydrant $ 125.00
22515(a) Failure to Set Parking Brake $ 48.00
22517 Unsafe Opening of Door $ 48.00
22522 Obstruct Disabled Access - Ramp $ 350.00

CITY CODE SECTION TITLE FINE AMOUNT
Chapter 22. Miscellaneous Offenses
22-4 Aggressive Solicitation and Prohibited Solicitations $ 50.00 22-6(a) Curfew violation - by minor $ 25.00
22-6(b) Curfew violation - responsibility of parent $ 50.00 22-9 Fire alarm systems - tampering with $ 500.00
22-9.1 Installation and operation of alarm devices $ 250.00 22-11 Gambling $ 500.00
22-12 Bicycles, roller skates, skateboards prohibited in certain areas $ 50.00 22-13 Reckless operation of bicycles, skateboards, skates on Rec Trail $ 50.00 22-14 Skateboards prohibited between Wharf 1 and Mty/PG limit $ 50.00 22-18 Noise - disturbing the peace $ 50.00
Council Regular Meeting, 2/18/2025, Item No. 5., Item Page 9, Packet Page 34 Page 3

ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION AND PARKING VIOLATION

FINE SCHEDULE

EXHIBIT A

CITY CODE SECTION TITLE FINE AMOUNT
22-19.5 Advertisement of short-term rentals $ 250.00
22-21 Weapons and firearms - certain acts prohibited $ 500.00 22-22 Switchblade knives - sale $ 500.00
22-23 Discharge of firearms $ 500.00
22-24 Nude conduct $ 250.00
22-26 Loitering in parking facilities $ 50.00
22-29 Smoking in public places $ 250.00
22-31.2 Certification required - massage therapist and massage practitioner $ 250.00 22-31.3 Massage Establishment - Permit Required $ 500.00 22-31.13 Massage Establishment - General Operating Requirements $ 500.00 22-32 Second-hand dealers $ 250.00
22-33 Public restrooms - changing clothes, scuba equipment $ 50.00 22-34 Escort service $ 500.00
22-35.2 Graffiti Declared a Nuisance and Prohibited $ 250.00 Chapter 23. Parks and Lakes
23-3 Regulations in all recreation areas $ 50.00
23-5 Park closing hours $ 50.00
23-6 Flying remote control models $ 50.00
23-7 Solicitation in Scholze Park $ 50.00
23-8 Dogs in parks $ 50.00
23-8.5 Other animals in recreation areas $ 50.00
23-11 Golf prohibited $ 50.00
23-12 Group activities $ 50.00
23-22 Swimming $ 50.00
23-23 Boating $ 50.00
23-24 Fishing $ 50.00
23-25 Feeding of Birds and Animals $ 50.00
Chapter 31.5. Storm Water Management

31.5-12 thru 31.5-21 Discharge Prohibitions $ 500.00
Chapter 32. Streets, Sidewalks and Public Property
32-1 Discharging lighted cigarettes and other harmful items $ 250.00 32-3 Transacting private business on public property $ 250.00 32-3.02(a) Sidewalk vending - permit required See FN1
32-3.07 Sidewalk vending - general regulations See FN2
32-3.08 Sidewalk vending - specific regulations See FN3 Chapter 36. Taxicabs and Other Vehicles For Hire
36-23 Owner's permit - required $ 250.00
36-27 Driver's permit - required $ 250.00
Chapter 37. Preservation of Trees and Shrubs
37-3
Cutting, pruning or removal of trees on public property - permit required $ 1,000.00
37-8 Removal or damaging of trees on private property $ 1,000.00 Council Regular Meeting, 2/18/2025, Item No. 5., Item Page 10, Packet Page 35 Page 4

ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION AND PARKING VIOLATION

FINE SCHEDULE

EXHIBIT A

CITY CODE SECTION TITLE FINE AMOUNT
Chapter 38. Zoning Ordinance
38-26(G) R districts - Home occupations $ 250.00
38-26(L) Commercial Vehicle in Residential Zone $ 113.00 38-26(O) R districts and PC zone - Short term rentals $ 1,500.00 38-28(B) C-1 zone - use not classified is prohibited (short term rentals) $ 1,500.00 38-29(B) C-2 zone - use not classified is prohibited (short term rentals) $ 1,500.00 38-30(B) C-3 zone - use not classified is prohibited (short term rentals) $ 1,500.00 38-31(B) C-O zone - use not classified is prohibited (short term rentals) $ 1,500.00 38-32(B) CR zone - use not classified is prohibited (short term rentals) $ 1,500.00 38-40(B) I-R zone - use not classified is prohibited (short term rentals) $ 1,500.00 38-111(E) Combustibles and explosives $ 500.00
38-111(G) Hazardous and extremely hazardous materials $ 500.00 Fine Amount Not Specified: For administrative citation violations of any City Code section not specifically listed in the above schedule, the administrative citation fine for first-time violations shall be One Hundred Dollars ($100.00). This does not apply to Chapter 20 Parking violation citations or Vehicle Code violation citations.

Fine for Second Violation: The administrative citation fine amount for a second violation of the same Monterey City Code section by the same person within a thirty-six (36) month period shall be equal to one hundred fifty percent (150%) of the fine amount listed in the above fine schedule and any amendments thereto. This does not apply where Footnotes 1-3, below, are applicable, to Chapter 20 Parking violation citations, or Vehicle Code violation citations.

Fine for Third and Subsequent Violation: The administrative citation fine amount for a third and any subsequent violations of the same Monterey City Code section by the same person within a thirty-six (36) month period shall be equal to two hundred percent (200%) of the fine amount listed in the above fine schedule and any amendments thereto. This does not apply where Footnotes 1-3, below, are applicable, to Chapter 20 Parking violation citations, or Vehicle Code violation citations Delinquent Payments/Interest Rate: Any administrative citation fine imposed pursuant to Monterey City Code section 1-9.2 and this fine schedule shall be deemed delinquent if not paid within thirty days from the date of issuance of the administrative citation, as provided for in MCC section 1-9.4. The delinquency penalty shall be equal to ten percent (10%) of the fine amount, or ten percent (10%) of the amount of the fine remaining unpaid to the City if a portion of the fine amount was timely paid. Interest shall accrue on all delinquent fine amounts, exclusive of delinquency penalties, at the rate of one half of one percent (0.5%) per month, pro rata, of the total unpaid fine amount, from the date the fine amount becomes delinquent until the date that all delinquent fine amounts are paid to the City.

Footnotes (Sidewalk Vending - MCC Chapter 32):

FN1: $250 (first violation)
$500 (second violation within one year of first violation) $1,000 (three or more violations within one year of the first violation) NOTE: Upon proof of a valid permit, the fine is reduced to the corresponding fines for Sections 32-3.07 and 32-3.08.

FN2: $100 (first violation)
$200 (second violation within one year of first violation) $500 (three or more violations within one year of the first violation) FN3: $100 (first violation)
$200 (second violation within one year of first violation) $500 (three or more violations within one year of the first violation) A late payment penalty for parking violation citations and Vehicle Code violations is $25.00.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/18/2025, Item No. 5., Item Page 11, Packet Page 36 Page 5 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Kimberly Cole, AICP, Community Development Director Prepared By: Ted Terrasas, REHS, Sustainability Manager SUBJECT: Authorize the Acceptance of Monterey Bay Air Resources District AB 2766 Clean Air Management Program and Clean Vehicle Program Grant Funding in the Amount of $240,000, Amending Resolution 24-099 Five Year Capital Improvement Program to Include the Fleet Electrification Program, and Authorize the Appropriation of $240,0000 (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt the attached Resolution:

1. Authorizing the Finance Director to accept the Monterey Bay Air Resources District AB 2766 Clean Air Management Program and Clean Vehicle Program Grant Funding;

2. Amending Resolution 24-099, the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program, to include the Fleet Electrification Project in the Capital Improvement Program (“CIP”); and

3. Authorizing the Finance Director, or their designee, to appropriate $200,000 of grant funding to the Capital Projects Fund, Fleet Electrification Project and $40,000 to the Vehicle Replacement fund.

VALUE DRIVERS:

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

In accordance with the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP), the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is of critical importance when considering the City’s climate change mitigation targets. The CAP includes GHG reduction targets as follows:
 15% below the 2005 GHG level by 2020 (AB 32)
 25% below the 2005 GHG level by 2030 (Urban Environmental Accords)  80% below the 1990 GHG level by 2045 (Governor’s Executive Order S-3-05) More recently, the State has adopted AB 1279: The California Climate Crisis Act, which requires the State to achieve net zero GHG emissions no later than 2045.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

Date: 2/18/2025
Item No.: 6.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/18/2025, Item No. 6., Item Page 1, Packet Page 37 №10/24
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The acceptance of this reimbursement grant from Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD) will provide funding to support the purchase of two (2) electric vehicles and the installation of eight (8) electric vehicles charging stations at the Ryan Ranch Corporation Yard.

The MBARD grant funding includes: $200,000 for electric vehicle charging stations at Ryan Ranch Corporation yard and $40,000 for two (2) electric vehicles. The City has also applied for $150,000 from Central Coast Community Energy (3CE) to supplement the funding for the charging stations but hasn’t received an approval letter yet. If the City is not awarded grant funds from 3CE, the shortfall will have to come from other funds. The MBARD grant funds will significantly reduce or eliminate the funding needed from the General Fund for the completion of these projects.

The EV charging stations project cost estimate is $345,000 (prior to development of plans and receiving formal proposals). A summary of the proposed project budget includes:

Electric Vehicle Charging Stations:

MBARD Grant $200,000 (secured)
3CE Grant $150,000 (applied)
Two (2) 2024 Electric F-150 Lightning Trucks are estimated to be $144,000. A summary of the proposed project budget includes:

Electric Vehicles Purchase:

MBARD Grant $40,000 (secured)
Vehicle Replacement Fund $104,000
Additional information about the grants is provided in the Discussion Section.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

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

The ultimate project to construct electric vehicle charging stations will be a project under CEQA.

However, the project impacts are not known until project plans are developed. Environmental review will need to be prepared as part of the Capital Improvement Project.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

If MBARD grant funding is rejected, the City would need to provide funding for fleet electrification and charging projects out of the General Fund, pursue other grant opportunities to complete these projects, or not complete these projects at all.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/18/2025, Item No. 6., Item Page 2, Packet Page 38 №10/24
DISCUSSION:

Background
The City of Monterey has taken significant steps to mitigate the effects of climate change, including procuring 100% renewable energy for City operations, working to convert its fleet to hybrid and electric vehicles, increasing solid waste diversion programs and retrofitting City buildings to be more energy efficient. In addition, the City also adopted its first Climate Action Plan (CAP) in 2016 which calculated an inventory of greenhouse gas emissions in the City along with establishing targets and recommendations for GHG emissions reduction. The City is starting the preparation of a new Climate Action Plan in compliance with the recent General Plan Update mitigation measures.

In the GHG inventory completed by AMBAG in 2020, it was estimated that over 65% of the City’s GHG emissions are generated by the transportation sector. Given that transportation is the largest contributor to GHG emissions in Monterey, reducing these impacts will be critical to achieving the City’s emission reduction targets established by the CAP.

Transportation Electrification
Two main ways for the City to reduce transportation sector emissions impacts are to complete the conversion of its fleet to hybrid and electric vehicles and to provide the associated electric vehicle charging stations.

Although critical, the transition to electrically powered transportation often entails significant cost and is not historically included in General Fund budgeting. Fortunately, there are many agencies that recognize this challenge of local governments and have developed grant programs to assist with the planning, construction and procurement of vehicles and equipment necessary to electrify the transportation sector.

Recently, the City of Monterey requested and received approval for funding from the Monterey Bay Air Resources District for support with electric vehicle purchase and charging station installation, specifically:

EV Charging Stations at the Ryan Ranch Corp Yard
 $200,000 MBARD funding approval (AB 2766: Clean Air Management Program) o Based on plans developed with the assistance of Central Coast Community Energy (3CE) and Optony, Inc., including six Level 2 and two Level 3 (fast) chargers
o The City is also eligible for electrification project funding from 3CE ($150,000) which will allow project completion with no funding impact to the General Fund Electric Vehicle Purchase
 $40,000 MBARD funding approval (AB 2766 Clean Vehicle Program)  Replacement of two internal combusting engine vehicles (2009 Chevy K1500 Silverado and 2008 Toyota Tacoma) with two electric vehicles (2024 Ford F150 Lightning) Council Regular Meeting, 2/18/2025, Item No. 6., Item Page 3, Packet Page 39 №10/24
o The vehicles being replaced are experiencing increased maintenance issues, reduced efficiency and increasing environmental concerns over their emission levels
As the grant funding from MBARD supports the City’s greenhouse gas reduction targets and would reduce the financial impact on the City, staff recommends that the City authorize the Finance Director to accept the MBARD grant funding for electric vehicle purchase and charging station installation and appropriate the funds.

Attachments: 1. Resolution
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 2/18/2025, Item No. 6., Item Page 4, Packet Page 40 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

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

AUTHORIZING THE FINANCE DIRECTOR TO ACCEPT THE MONTEREY BAY AIR RESOURCES DISTRICT AB 2766 CLEAN AIR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND CLEAN VEHICLE PROGRAM GRANT FUNDING; AMENDING RESOLUTION 24-099, THE FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, TO INCLUDE THE FLEET ELECTRIFICATION PROJECT IN THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (“CIP”); AND AUTHORIZING THE FINANCE DIRECTOR, OR THEIR DESIGNEE, TO APPROPRIATE $200,000 OF GRANT

FUNDING TO THE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND, FLEET ELECTRIFICATION PROJECT AND $40,000 TO THE VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND
WHEREAS, the City has identified that the largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in its jurisdiction is from the transportation sector; WHEREAS, converting aging internal combustion engine vehicles to electric vehicles and providing charging stations is critical to reducing emissions from the transportation sector; WHEREAS, due to the initial costs associated with electrification, the City pursued outside funding sources to assist with the procurement and development of transportation electrification projects;
WHEREAS, on October 16, 2024 the Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD) approved $240,000 in grants to the City of Monterey through the Clean Air Management and Clean Vehicle Programs;
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

The ultimate project to construct electric vehicle charging stations will be a project under CEQA.

However, the project impacts are not known until project plans are developed. Environmental review will need to be prepared as part of the Capital Improvement Project.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/18/2025, Item No. 6., Item Page 5, Packet Page 41

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

1. Authorizes the Finance Director to accept the Monterey Bay Air Resources District AB 2766 Clean Air Management Program and Clean Vehicle Program Grant Funding;

2. Amends Resolution 24-099, the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program, to include the Fleet Electrification Project in the Capital Improvement Program (“CIP”);

3. Authorizes the Finance Director, or their designee, to appropriate $200,000 of grant funding to the Capital Projects Fund, Fleet Electrification Project; and

4. Authorizes the Finance Director to increase the FY25 budget account 705-110- 1130-3834 to accept the awarded funds from MBARD in the amount of $40,000 and to appropriate the funds from accounts 705-110-1130-3172-4503 and 705- 110-1130-5210-4503 for the purchase of electric vehicles.

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

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 2/18/2025, Item No. 6., Item Page 6, Packet Page 42 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Andrea Renny, PE, PTOE, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Megan Beckman, Administrative Analyst
SUBJECT: Authorize Application for, and Receipt of, California Department of Parks and Recreation’s Division of Boating and Waterways Non-Motorized Boat Launching Facilities Grant Funds (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the City Manager to submit an application for funding from California Department of Parks and Recreation’s Division of Boating and Waterways Non-Motorized Boat Launching Facilities Grant program for reconstruction and modernization of the K-Dock located between Wharf 1 and Wharf 2; receive funding; and execute a grant agreement if selected.

VALUE DRIVERS:

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

This action is consistent with the Council’s commitment to prudent fiscal discipline by implementing appropriate revenue enhancement opportunities that help ensure the high quality of life and services for residents.

In order to receive funding, the grant application guidelines require the submittal of a governing board resolution which legally authorizes the application. Without the resolution, the application would be considered incomplete and automatically disregarded.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

This action authorizes Public Works Department staff to submit an application for grant funding in the amount of $1,125,000 for the reconstruction and modernization of the K-Dock located between Wharf 1 and Wharf 2. The grant, administered by the California Department of Parks and Recreation’s Division of Boating and Waterways (“DBW”), requires 25% matching funds, of Date: 2/18/2025
Item No.: 7.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/18/2025, Item No. 7., Item Page 1, Packet Page 43 №10/24
which cash and/or in-kind services are eligible. Matching funds are available in the Replace Marina K-Tier Dock Upgrade project (“Project”). The Project was created in FY 15-16 (Reso 15- 132) with $40,000 from the Marina Fund and received additional funding in the amount of $250,000 in FY 23-24 (Reso 23-069). The Project account (64c1605) has an available balance of $238,876. The remaining matching funds required for the Project will be allocated as part of the FY 25-26 Capital Improvement Program.

Staff time to administer the grant and for construction management will be required if the application is successful.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

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

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

Council could choose not to authorize application for the grant; however, this is not recommended. Without securing grant funding, the City would face limited alternatives for the necessary reconstruction of the K-Dock. The grant would provide the necessary financial resources without diverting funds from other critical City services or placing an undue burden on dock users. Securing grant funding also allows the City to proceed with the project on a more efficient timeline, minimizing the period of disruption and inconvenience to the public. The grant enables the City to incorporate comprehensive improvements, including enhanced accessibility, safety features, and environmental sustainability measures, ensuring long-term public access to Monterey Bay for recreational boating.

DISCUSSION:

The City of Monterey is seeking funding through the DBW Non-Motorized Boat Launching Facilities Grant to address the critical need for the reconstruction and modernization of the K-Dock, a vital public access point for non-motorized water recreation in Monterey Harbor. The existing K-Dock is situated between Wharf 1 and Wharf 2.

This project proposes a complete demolition and reconstruction of the K-Dock, replacing aging and corroded infrastructure with durable, modern materials. The new dock will feature fiberglass-reinforced polymer (FRP) floats and stainless-steel piles, chosen for their resilience to the harsh marine environment and ability to provide a 50-year lifespan with minimal maintenance. This investment ensures long-term access to Monterey Bay for kayaking, paddleboarding, and other non-motorized boating activities.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/18/2025, Item No. 7., Item Page 2, Packet Page 44 №10/24
In addition to structural improvements, the project prioritizes accessibility and safety. The reconstructed K-Dock will incorporate ADA-compliant features, including a wider gangway and floating piers to accommodate individuals with disabilities. Enhanced stability, increased load capacity, and improved lighting will further ensure a safe and enjoyable experience for all users.

The project also reflects a commitment to environmental stewardship. Sustainable design elements, such as shoreline erosion protection and the use of eco-friendly materials, will minimize environmental impacts. Furthermore, educational signage will promote responsible boating practices among users.

AR/mb
Attachments: 1. Resolution
e: Christine Davi, City Attorney
Felicia Ming, Accountant/Auditor
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 2/18/2025, Item No. 7., Item Page 3, Packet Page 45 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№010/23

AUTHORIZING AN APPLICATION FOR AND RECEIPT OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION’S DIVISION OF BOATING AND WATERWAYS NON-MOTORIZED BOAT LAUNCHING FACILITIES GRANT FUNDS WHEREAS, the City of Monterey is seeking funding in the amount of $1,125,000 through California Department of Parks and Recreation’s Division of Boating and Waterways (“DBW”) Non-Motorized Boat Launching Facilities Grant to address the critical need for the reconstruction and modernization of the K-Dock, a vital public access point for non-motorized water recreation in Monterey Harbor;
WHEREAS, the project proposes a complete demolition and reconstruction of the K-Dock, replacing aging and corroded infrastructure with durable, modern materials. The reconstructed K-Dock will incorporate ADA-compliant features, including a wider gangway and floating piers to accommodate individuals with disabilities. Sustainable design elements, such as shoreline erosion protection and the use of eco-friendly materials, will minimize environmental impacts;
WHEREAS, in order to receive funding, the grant application guidelines require the submittal of a governing board resolution which legally authorizes the application; WHEREAS, the grant requires 25% matching funds, of which cash and/or in-kind services are eligible. Matching funds are available in the Replace Marina K-Tier Dock Upgrade project (“Project”). The Project account (64c1605) has an available balance of $238,876. The remaining matching funds required for the Project will be allocated as part of the FY 25-26 Capital Improvement Program;
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/18/2025, Item No. 7., Item Page 4, Packet Page 46 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby authorizes the City Manager to submit an application for funding from California Department of Parks and Recreation’s Division of Boating and Waterways Non-Motorized Boat Launching Facilities Grant program for reconstruction and modernization of the K-Dock located between Wharf 1 and Wharf 2; receive funding; and execute a grant agreement if selected.

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

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 2/18/2025, Item No. 7., Item Page 5, Packet Page 47 Council
Agenda Report
№07/19
FROM: Andrew Miller, Fire Chief
Prepared By: Cheryl Kouretas, Senior Administrative Analyst SUBJECT: Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Purchase Agreement with Charles Murray, an individual dba JAECO Fire & Safety, for 29 Sets of Firefighter Turnouts at a Cost Not to Exceed $122,888.30 (Not a Project Under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute a purchase agreement with Charles Murray, an individual dba JAECO Fire & Safety, to purchase 29 sets of Firefighter turnouts at a cost not to exceed $122,888.30.

VALUE DRIVERS:

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

It is within Council’s purview to authorize the City Manager to execute a purchase agreement for Firefighter turnouts at a cost exceeding $75,000.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The Fire Department has been able to purchase sufficient turnouts each year within the Department Head’s purchasing authority. However, the cost per set has significantly increased in the past five (5) years, reducing the number of turnouts able to purchase each year. In FY20, the cost per set was $2,652 and the most recent quote received in FY25, the cost per set is $3,813 (an increase of 44%).

Turnouts have a maximum lifespan of ten (10) years and each firefighter should have two (2) sets to ensure readiness. Cal/OSHA issued a new regulation in January 2023 for the inspection and servicing of turnouts which has resulted in turnouts needing to be retired before their maximum lifespan (due to wear and tear issues). In addition, the department hired seven (7) new firefighters in FY25.

In the beginning of the fiscal year, the Fire Department ordered 17 sets of turnouts for a cost not to exceed $72,989.82. However, after an audit of turnout needs in the department to ensure each firefighter has two (2) usable sets of turnouts, the department needs to purchase 29 total sets this fiscal year. The additional twelve (12) sets of turnouts are quoted at $49,898.48 for a Date: 2/18/2025
Item No.: 8.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/18/2025, Item No. 8., Item Page 1, Packet Page 48 total cost of $122,888.30 for FY25. The turnouts will be purchased from the existing Fire Department’s Safety Equipment budget and does not require any additional funds allocated.

Under the fire services contracts, the City of Pacific Grove and the City of Carmel pay a portion of the Safety Equipment budget each year.

The purchase on a cooperative purchase agreement “piggyback” on the Sourcewell (contract #010424-MNP) has been approved by the Finance Department. The Sourcewell contract is with Morning Pride dba Honeywell First Responder. Charles Murray, an individual dba JAECO Fire & Safety, is an authorized distributor for Honeywell as required by the Sourcewell contract.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

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

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council could choose not to authorize the City Manager to execute this purchase agreement. This alternative is not recommended as all Firefighters will not have two sets of turnouts which is a recommended standard (see discussion section).

DISCUSSION:

The Fire Department has 84 employees requiring turnouts to perform their jobs. Each employee should have two (2) sets of turnouts to ensure readiness in an emergency. Turnouts must be properly cleaned after contamination (which involves using a special extractor and takes about a day to be back in service) so having a second set available is crucial to be ready to respond to the next incident. Turnouts have a maximum lifespan of ten (10) years, but are often times required to be retired prior to ten (10) years based on normal wear and tear factors under a new Cal/OSHA regulation issued in January 2023.

Based on 84 employees and replacing one set of turnouts per person every 5 years (to replace both sets every ten years), the department needs to purchase at least 17 new sets of turnouts each year. Due to hiring of seven new employees this fiscal year and after an audit of all employee turnouts, the Fire Department needs to replace about 29 sets of turnouts this fiscal year. As discussed in the Fiscal Implications section, the cost of turnouts has increased 44% over the past five years and the cost for 29 sets is over $75,000 and requires Council action for approval.

AM/ck
Council Regular Meeting, 2/18/2025, Item No. 8., Item Page 2, Packet Page 49 Attachments: 1. Resolution
c: Finance Director
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 2/18/2025, Item No. 8., Item Page 3, Packet Page 50 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

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

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH CHARLES MURRAY, AN INDIVIDUAL DBA JAECO FIRE & SAFETY, FOR 29 SETS OF FIREFIGHTER TURNOUTS AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $122,888.30 WHEREAS, the City of Monterey Fire Department wishes to purchase 29 sets of Firefighter turnouts in FY25 at a cost not to exceed $122,888.30; WHEREAS, the purchase on a cooperative purchase agreement “piggyback” on the Sourcewell (contract #010424-MNP) has been approved by the Finance Department. The Sourcewell contract is with Morning Pride dba Honeywell First Responder. Charles Murray, an individual dba JAECO Fire & Safety, is an authorized distributor for Honeywell as required by the Sourcewell contract;
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey has funds appropriated in FY25 in the Fire Department Safety Equipment budget to pay for the turnouts;
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute a purchase agreement with Charles Murray, an individual dba JAECO Fire & Safety, for 29 sets of Firefighter turnouts at a cost not to exceed $122,888.30.

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

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

Council Regular Meeting, 2/18/2025, Item No. 8., Item Page 4, Packet Page 51 ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 2/18/2025, Item No. 8., Item Page 5, Packet Page 52 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Kimberly Cole, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Christine Davi, City Attorney
SUBJECT: Adopt an Urgency Ordinance Pursuant to Government Code Section 65858(a) to Temporarily Prohibit the Establishment and Operation of New Firearms and Ammunition Retail Sales Businesses in the City (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt an urgency ordinance pursuant to Government Code section 65858(a) to temporarily prohibit the establishment and operation of new firearms and ammunition retail sales businesses in the City.

VALUE DRIVERS:

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Persons must be licensed by the United States Department of Justice Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to engage in the business of manufacturing, importing, and/or dealing in firearms. There are nine different types of federal firearms licenses as shown in Attachment 1.

The City’s business license ordinance established a ministerial process. Issuance of a business license does not grant permission to conduct business in the City because the license is not regulatory; it is revenue generating only. (City Code section 19-2.) The City’s Zoning Code does not regulate or restrict the establishment or operation of firearms or ammunition retail sales businesses in most areas of the City, including home occupations in residential areas. Given this, an urgency ordinance is recommended to temporarily halt this use until Staff have time to study appropriate buffers from sensitive uses (e.g., residences, schools, day cares, liquor stores) and research other regulations. This matter is urgent because without a moratorium, an unlimited number of firearms and ammunition sales businesses may locate almost anywhere in the City without local regulation. When certain types of land uses are incompatible with each other, such as firearm stores in residential neighborhoods, it can lead to disputes and quality of life impacts.

This urgency interim zoning ordinance is necessary to preserve the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of Monterey by preventing a proliferation of firearm business locations in the City without regard to the appropriateness of their location. Here, the location of a new firearm Date: 2/18/2025
Item No.: 9.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/18/2025, Item No. 9., Item Page 1, Packet Page 53 №10/24
business at 301 Ocean Avenue, while legal, sits below residential units and near other sensitive uses, such as a preschool and a liquor store. This has brought to light potential vulnerabilities to the public caused by the absence of City regulations governing the location and operation of this type of business, and a corresponding urgent need to fix the problem. For example, in December 2024, it was reported that 20 firearms were stolen.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no fiscal implications in connection with adopting a moratorium ordinance.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council could: (1) decline to adopt an urgency ordinance and maintain the status quo; or (2) decline to adopt an urgency ordinance and direct staff to propose zoning code amendments through the typical (non-urgency) ordinance adoption process.

DISCUSSION:

At the February 4, 2025 City Council meeting, members of the public raised significant concerns about a new retail firearm shop that plans to operate at 301 Ocean Avenue, a location that is in close proximity to single family and multi-family residential units, a pre-school, and liquor store uses.

The City does not specifically regulate the establishment or operation of firearm or ammunition retail sales businesses in the City. Rather, this retail use is principally permitted, meaning that it is not subject to special review or approval by the City in almost all zones in the City.

There are five (5) active business licenses in the City related to ammunition, guns, and firearms sales, three of which were established in the last nine months:
 License #1013736 - L&B Firearms (exp 6/30/25) 301 Ocean Ave. (Commercial Zoning C-1) established 10/24/24
 License #1013633 - Gallagher Ammunition (exp 6/30/25) 871 Alice St. (Residential Zoning R-3-5) established 9/12/24
 License #1010512 - JC Firearms & Ammo (exp 6/30/25) 2 Harris Ct. (Industrial Zoning I-R) established 2/12/21
Council Regular Meeting, 2/18/2025, Item No. 9., Item Page 2, Packet Page 54 №10/24
 License #1013255 - Triggered Ammo & Apparel (exp 6/30/25) 532 Abrego (Planned Community Zoning PC) established 4/26/24
 License #97341 - Big 5 (exp 6/30/25) 2259 N Fremont St. (Planned Community Zoning PC) established sometime prior to 1995 Adoption of an urgency ordinance would temporarily prohibit the establishment and operation of new firearms retail sales businesses while City staff studies best practices and recommends zoning code amendments and other regulations that would apply to future applicants. An urgency ordinance would not affect the five businesses listed above.

Adoption of an urgency ordinance requires findings that there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare and that any additional principally permitted firearms businesses will result in that threat. Without a temporary moratorium and absent extensive zoning regulations that govern the location of future firearms retail uses, new firearms retail establishments may result in compatibility issues with surrounding land uses and put the City at risk of impairing its substantial interests in economically sustainable development and community health and perceptions of safety. In December 2024, it was reported that 20 firearms were stolen from a City of Salinas gun shop.1
A moratorium requires a 4/5 vote of the City Council and is effective for 45 days. It may be extended after notice and a public hearing for 10 months and 15 days and subsequently extended for one year.

The City may regulate the retail sales of firearm businesses to the extent it is not preempted by state law. A comprehensive summary of state firearm laws is set forth in this link:
https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/cfl2021.pdf
More research and study are needed, however, at this time it appears that the City may regulate retail firearms businesses as follows:2
 Require adequate insurance.
 Confine operations to commercially zoned areas. As the operation of a firearm dealership is a commercial enterprise, there is a rational basis for confining that operation to commercially zoned areas.
 Require that dealers be located away from residential areas, schools, liquor stores and bars. Because dealerships can be the targets of people who are or should be excluded from possessing weapons, it is reasonable to insist that dealerships be located away from residential areas, schools, liquor stores and bars.  Restrict any person under 18 years of age from entering or remaining within the premises without being accompanied by their parent or other adult legally responsible for the minor child where the firearms sales activity is the primary business performed at the site.

Adoption of an urgency ordinance imposing a moratorium on retail establishments selling firearms or ammunition would allow staff time to research the issues and present a comprehensive proposal for Council consideration. Staff may recommend changes to the City’s home occupancy permit regulations, its Zoning Code, and business health and safety 1 Salinas gun store burglary: 20 firearms stolen, raising community concerns (KSBW, Dec. 31, 2024.)
2 Suter v. City of Lafayette (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 1109.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/18/2025, Item No. 9., Item Page 3, Packet Page 55 №10/24
regulations to regulate retail sales of firearms and ammunition. Without the opportunity for this study, compatibility issues with surrounding land uses put the City at risk of impairing its substantial interests in compatible land uses and the public’s health, safety, and welfare. This moratorium is necessary to prevent principally permitted firearms businesses from being located almost anywhere in the City, which then give these businesses a vested right to operate from those locations in the City and could have a detrimental effect on the community.

KC/cd
Attachments: 1. Types of Federal Firearms Licenses

2. Draft Urgency Ordinance
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 2/18/2025, Item No. 9., Item Page 4, Packet Page 56

!"#$%&'#()')*&)+"+)*%),!')''&-."!-"(*!/+0
.1&/*+"2&/)"#+-/)"/.'3
4)/'&'.!'*,)#()'),567*&)+"+)*%),!')''&--/)"/.'3
89:;
<=>?=@
A)"#)/ -/)"/.'&*%)/ *%")'*/!(* ) ) ()'
4"$,/&B)/ -/)"/.'&*%)/*%" )'*/!(* )) ()'
A)"#)/ )'*/!(* )) ()'
CDE=@
F&##)(*&/&-
(!/&'"/)#('
G>HIJ>KDI@=@
L"!-"(*!/)/&- "..!*&-&/-/)"/.' &*%)/*%""..!*& -&/)'*/!(* )) ()' &/"/.&/1)/(+ "..!*& L"!-"(*!/)/&- -/)"/.'&*%)/*%" )'*/!(* )) ()' L"!-"(*!/)/&- )'*/!(* )) ()'0
"..!*&-&/
)'*/!(* )) ()'
&/"/.&/1)/(+ "..!*&
MNOP@D=@
Q.1&/*)/&--/)"/.'
&/"..!*&-&/ -/)"/.'&*%)/*%" )'*/!(* )) ()'
&/"..!*&&*%)/ *%""/.&/1)/(+ "..!*& Q.1&/*)/&-
)'*/!(* )) ()'0 "..!*&-&/ )'*/!(* )) ()'
&/"/.&/1)/(+ "..!*& 4!,#'%)R567&S!#5TU0VWTX YZ[\]^_]`abcdefghdij\\k_abcdefghe]lkmnnoap]lkmnnoqln`rfgcdehiiiq]\pq^nsATTACHMENT Council Regular Meeting, 2/18/2025, Item No. 9., Item Page 5, Packet Page 57 ORDINANCE NO. ____ C.S.

AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY №08/22
PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65858(A)

TEMPORARILY PROHIBITING THE ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION

OF NEW FIREARM AND AMMUNITION SALES BUSINESSES IN THE CITY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY DOES ORDAIN, as follows:

SECTION 1:

WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is necessary to adopt this ordinance pursuant to Government Code section 65858(a) to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. This ordinance is intended to temporarily prohibit the establishment and operation of new firearm and ammunition sales businesses in the City pending further review and study; WHEREAS, the City’s adopted value drivers include “Quality of Life Strategic Priorities” to “[r]ecognize that public safety is a priority to ensure that our City is safe and welcoming to all, contributing to our economic vitality as a destination City,” and to “[r]espond effectively to neighborhood concerns;”
WHEREAS, the City’s business license ordinance established a ministerial process.

Issuance of a business license does not grant permission to conduct business in the City because the license is not regulatory; it is revenue generating only. (City Code section 19-2); WHEREAS, the City’s Zoning Code does not regulate or restrict the establishment or operation of firearm or ammunition sales businesses in most areas of the City, including home occupations in residential areas. This matter is urgent because without a moratorium, an unlimited number of firearm sales businesses may locate almost anywhere in the City without local regulation. When certain types of land uses are incompatible with each other, such as firearm stores in residential neighborhoods, it can lead to disputes and quality of life impacts; WHEREAS, this urgency ordinance is necessary to preserve the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of Monterey by preventing a proliferation of firearm sale locations in the City without regard to the appropriateness of their location; WHEREAS, the location of a new firearm business at 301 Ocean Avenue, while legal, sits below residential units and near other sensitive uses, such as a preschool and a liquor store. This has brought to light potential vulnerabilities to the public caused by the absence of City regulations governing the location and operation of this type of business, and a corresponding urgent need to fix the problem;
WHEREAS, at the February 4, 2025 City Council meeting, members of the public raised significant concerns about a new retail firearm shop that plans to operate at 301 Ocean Avenue, a location that is in close proximity to single family and multi-family residential units, a preschool, and liquor store uses;
Council Regular Meeting, 2/18/2025, Item No. 9., Item Page 6, Packet Page 58 2 WHEREAS, in December 2024, it was reported that 20 firearms were stolen from a City of Salinas gun shop;1
WHEREAS, as of February 13, 2025, a petition requesting that firearms sales businesses not be located in areas with residential uses has been signed by 233 people; WHEREAS, there are five (5) active business licenses in the City related to ammunition, guns, and firearms sales and this urgency ordinance does not affect these five businesses, which are listed below:
 License #1013736 - L&B Firearms (exp 6/30/25) 301 Ocean Ave. (Commercial Zoning C-1) established 10/28/24
 License #1013633 - Gallagher Ammunition (exp 6/30/25) 871 Alice St. (Residential Zoning R-3-5) established 9/12/24
 License #1010512 - JC Firearms & Ammo (exp 6/30/25) 2 Harris Ct. (Industrial Zoning I-R) established 2/9/21
 License #1013255 - Triggered Ammo & Apparel (exp 6/30/25) 532 Abrego (Planned Community Zoning PC) established 4/26/24
 License #97341 - Big 5 (exp 6/30/25) 2259 N Fremont St. (Planned Community Zoning PC) established sometime before 1995 WHEREAS, three of the five businesses listed above commenced operations in the last nine months, indicating a trend in the establishment of this use; WHEREAS, without a temporary moratorium and absent extensive zoning regulations that govern the location of future firearms and ammunition retail uses, new firearms and ammunition retail establishments may result in compatibility issues with surrounding land uses and put the City at risk of impairing its substantial interests in economically sustainable development and community health and perceptions of safety; WHEREAS, more research and study are needed on potential regulations such as:2  Requiring adequate insurance.
 Confining operations to commercially zoned areas. As the operation of a firearm dealership is a commercial enterprise, there is a rational basis for confining that operation to commercially zoned areas.
 Requiring that dealers be located away from residential areas, schools, liquor stores and bars. Because dealerships can be the targets of people who are or should be excluded from possessing weapons, it is reasonable to insist that dealerships be located away from residential areas, schools, liquor stores and bars.  Restricting any person under 18 years of age from entering or remaining within the premises without being accompanied by their parent or other adult legally responsible for the minor child where the firearms sales activity is the primary business performed at the site.
1 Salinas gun store burglary: 20 firearms stolen, raising community concerns (KSBW, Dec. 31, 2024)
2 Suter v. City of Lafayette (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 1109.

Council Regular Meeting, 2/18/2025, Item No. 9., Item Page 7, Packet Page 59 WHEREAS, maintaining the status quo zoning regulations has the potential to result in new retail uses that sell firearms or ammunition without the proper analysis of any potential impacts to public health, safety, and welfare;
WHEREAS, Staff may recommend changes to the City’s home occupancy permit regulations, Zoning Code, and business health and safety regulations to regulate retail sales of firearms and ammunition. Without the opportunity for this study, compatibility issues with surrounding land uses put the City at risk of impairing its substantial interests in compatible land uses and the public’s health, safety, and welfare;
WHEREAS, this moratorium is necessary to prevent principally permitted firearms and ammunition businesses from being located almost anywhere in the City, which then give these businesses a vested right to operate from those locations in the City and could have a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community. Without this moratorium, the potential exists that establishment of new commercial operations engaged in the retail sale of firearms and ammunition within the City without addressing appropriate regulation could result in incompatibility of land uses and adverse impacts on residents, businesses and neighborhoods that present a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, and welfare;
WHEREAS, the City Council further finds that the foregoing conditions exist which require the immediate preservation of the public health, safety, and welfare through a moratorium pursuant to California Government Code section 65858; and WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

NOW THEREFORE, the Monterey City Council declares as follows:

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

SECTION 3: Moratorium. A moratorium for forty-five (45) days prohibiting the establishment and operation of new retail uses, including home occupations, engaged in firearm and ammunition sales in all zoning districts.

SECTION 4: Effective Date. This Ordinance is declared to be an urgency measure adopted pursuant to Government Code section 65858. As set forth in the findings above, this Ordinance is necessary for preserving the public safety, health, and welfare. Pursuant to Government Code section 65858, this Ordinance is effective immediately by a 4/5 vote of the City Council and shall be in full force and effect for 45 days from the date of its adoption. This Council Regular Meeting, 2/18/2025, Item No. 9., Item Page 8, Packet Page 60 4 45-day period may be extended by the City Council in accordance with the provisions of Government Code section 65858.

SECTION 5: Severability. If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the Ordinance, including the application of such part or provision to other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are severable.

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

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 2/18/2025, Item No. 9., Item Page 9, Packet Page 61 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Jean Rasch, Councilmember
SUBJECT: Councilmember Rasch’s Request to Agendize a Discussion Regarding Revising the Council’s Governance Policy Regarding Appointments to Boards, Commissions, and Committees (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) RECOMMENDATION: As provided in the attached request.

VALUE DRIVERS: As provided in the attached request.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The City Council’s Governance Policy (Resolution No. 23-131 C.S.) provides:

Agendizing of City Council Items by Individual Councilmembers.

1. A Councilmember may submit an agenda report to the City Clerk’s Office outlining a request to agendize a matter of business on a future agenda. This agenda report should, in 350 words or less, describe what, how, and why the matter of business should be considered by the City Council. The City Clerk’s Office will add the item to an upcoming agenda.

2. At the Council Meeting where the request is considered, the Councilmember who submitted the request will deliver a verbal report consistent with the agenda report. This verbal report should not exceed three minutes. The City Council may ask questions pertaining to whether the item should be agendized (e.g., the required amount of staff time, the priority level to be assigned to the item, etc.).

3. Public comment will be received.

4. In deliberating the request, the sole issue to be determined is whether the substantive issue warrants being heard at a future date. A majority vote is not required, instead, the motion will pass with two “yes” votes.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: Agendizing a matter does not have a fiscal implication. Fiscal implications of the suggested changes will be included in the future agenda item, if agendized.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

Council Regular Meeting, 2/18/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 1, Packet Page 62 №10/24
CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED: The Council could choose not to agendize the matter.

DISCUSSION:

On January 29, 2025, Councilmember Rasch provided a written request to agendize, which is attached as Attachment 1.

At its meeting on February 18, 2025, the City Council will consider whether this item should be added to a future City Council meeting agenda. Consistent with the City Council’s Governance Policy, the Councilmember who submitted the request will deliver a verbal report consistent with the agenda report. This verbal report should not exceed three minutes. The City Council may ask questions pertaining to whether the item should be agendized (e.g., the required amount of staff time, the priority level to be assigned to the item, etc.). Public comment will then be received. In deliberating the request, the sole issue to be determined is whether the substantive issue warrants being heard at a future date. A majority vote is not required, instead, the motion will pass with two “yes” votes.

JR/cbk
Attachments: 1. Request
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 2/18/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 2, Packet Page 63

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 2/18/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 3, Packet Page 64 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Jean Rasch, Councilmember
SUBJECT: Councilmember Rasch’s Request to Agendize A Discussion Regarding Tree Management (Not a Project Under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION: As provided in the attached request.

VALUE DRIVERS: As provided in the attached request.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The City Council’s Governance Policy (Resolution No. 23-131 C.S.) provides:

Agendizing of City Council Items by Individual Councilmembers.

3. Public comment will be received.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: Agendizing a matter does not have a fiscal implication. Fiscal implications of the suggested changes will be included in the future agenda item, if agendized.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

Council Regular Meeting, 2/18/2025, Item No. 11., Item Page 1, Packet Page 65 №10/24
CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED: The Council could choose not to agendize the matter.

DISCUSSION:

On January 29, 2025, Councilmember Rasch provided a written request to agendize, which is attached as Attachment 1.

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 2/18/2025, Item No. 11., Item Page 3, Packet Page 67 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Jean Rasch, Councilmember
SUBJECT: Councilmember Rasch’s Request to Agendize a Discussion Regarding Instituting a No Smoking Policy in Multiunit Buildings (Not a Project Under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) RECOMMENDATION: As provided in the attached request.

VALUE DRIVERS: As provided in the attached request.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The City Council’s Governance Policy (Resolution No. 23-131 C.S.) provides:

Agendizing of City Council Items by Individual Councilmembers.

3. Public comment will be received.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: Agendizing a matter does not have a fiscal implication. Fiscal implications of the suggested changes will be included in the future agenda item, if agendized.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

Council Regular Meeting, 2/18/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 1, Packet Page 68 №10/24
CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED: The Council could choose not to agendize the matter.

DISCUSSION:

On January 29, 2025, Councilmember Rasch provided a written request to agendize, which is attached as Attachment 1.

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 2/18/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 3, Packet Page 70 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Jean Rasch, Councilmember
SUBJECT: Councilmember Rasch’s Request to Agendize a Discussion Regarding Skyline Drive/Route 68 Interchange Safety Issues (Not a Project Under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) RECOMMENDATION: As provided in the attached request.

VALUE DRIVERS: As provided in the attached request.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The City Council’s Governance Policy (Resolution No. 23-131 C.S.) provides:

Agendizing of City Council Items by Individual Councilmembers.

3. Public comment will be received.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: Agendizing a matter does not have a fiscal implication. Fiscal implications of the suggested changes will be included in the future agenda item, if agendized.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

Council Regular Meeting, 2/18/2025, Item No. 13., Item Page 1, Packet Page 71 №10/24
CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED: The Council could choose not to agendize the matter.

DISCUSSION:

On January 29, 2025, Councilmember Rasch provided a written request to agendize, which is attached as Attachment 1.

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 2/18/2025, Item No. 13., Item Page 3, Packet Page 73

Monterey City CouncilFebruary 18, 2025

Monterey City Council
February 18, 2025