Agenda packet — Monterey City Council, April 15, 2025

Council Chamber
580 Pacific St.

Monterey, California

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Council Regular Meeting
Tuesday, April 15, 2025
4:00 PM – 6:00 PM
7:00 PM – 10:30 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.

April 15, 2025
2 AFTERNOON SESSION: 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.

Call to Order
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.

Consent: Approval of Minutes

1. March 26, 2025 Special Meeting (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20 Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5 Section 15061)

2. April 1, 2025 Regular Meeting (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20 Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5 Section 15061)
Consent: Other

3. Authorize Police Records Management System (RMS) Data Sharing Agreement Between the City of Monterey and the Cities of Pacific Grove, Marina, and Salinas (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
End of Consent Agenda
Afternoon Session Items
Public Hearing (Afternoon)
Public Hearings are held to receive a staff presentation and public comment on certain items prior to City Council action. NOTICE CONCERNING YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS: If you challenge the City Council’s zoning, planning, or land use decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing on the matter, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at the time of or prior to the public hearing. (Government Code section 65009.)

4. City Council Adopt the Planning Commission Recommendation to Adopt a 1st Reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 38 of the Monterey City Code to Require New Businesses and Existing Businesses that are Changing the Type of Use or Location Obtain a Zoning Clearance Permit (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

5. Uphold Planning Commission’s Decision to Deny Driveway Variance Application for 548 Mar Vista Drive; Application AP-25-0031; Variance Permit Application VA-24-0240; Appellants Desiree Albert and Michael Atteridge; Property Owner Albert Desiree Trust; R-1-15 Zoning District (Residential Single-Family District); Low Density Residential General Plan Land Use Designation (Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1)
April 15, 2025
3 Public Appearance (Afternoon)
Public Appearance items are on non-routine issues that might stimulate public interest and comments.

6. 1st Reading of the Sidewalk Vending Ordinance Update (Monterey City Code Chapter 32, Article 1, Section 3)(Exempt from CEQA Article 19, Section 15305, Class 5)

7. Presentation of a Proposed Ordinance Amendment, Including Findings Demonstrating Need, to Increase Compensation for the Mayor and City Councilmembers (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

8. Authorize the Mayor to Execute an Amendment to City Manager Employment Agreement to Implement a 4% Cost of Living Increase and Authorize the Finance Director to Administratively Update the Salary Schedule (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 19, Section 15061)

9. Authorize the Mayor to Execute the Third Amendment to City Attorney Employment Agreement to Implement a 4% Cost of Living Increase and Authorize the Finance Director to Administratively Update the Salary Schedule (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 19, Section 15061) Recess
Reconvene
EVENING SESSION AGENDA: 7 p.m. to 10:30 p.m.

No discussion of a new item will be started after 10:30 p.m. unless agreed upon by Council.

Pledge of Allegiance
General Public Comments, Continued
Any person who did not offer a general public comment in the afternoon session may speak to any item that is not on the agenda and that is in the City of Monterey’s subject matter jurisdiction.

Evening Session Items
Presentations (Evening)

10. Receive a Presentation from COWI North America, Inc. on the Municipal Wharf 2 – Maintenance Strategy and Lifespan (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Public Appearance (Evening)
Public Appearance items are on non-routine issues that might stimulate public interest and comments.

11. Provide Direction to Staff on the Development of the 2025 Climate Action Plan (CAP) (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
April 15, 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.

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, March 26, 2025
4:00 PM
COUNCIL CHAMBER, 580 PACIFIC ST., MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
AND TELECONFERENCE LOCATION:

MCCULLY–MO’ILI’ILI PUBLIC LIBRARY, 2211 S. KING ST., HONOLULU, HI Councilmembers

Present: Barber (left at 5:27 p.m.), Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson*

Absent: None
* Attended remotely pursuant to Gov. Code sec. 54953(b).

City Staff

Present:

Assistant City Manager, City Attorney, Community Development Director, City Clerk, Conference Center General Manager, Intern (City Manager's Office)

TELECONFERENCE NOTICE
This meeting was held with a combination of in-person and teleconference attendance, pursuant to the Ralph M. Brown Act, Calif. Gov. Code sec. 54953(b).

CALL TO ORDER
Vice Mayor Garcia called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. City Clerk Klein called the roll with the Council present as indicated above.

On question from Vice Mayor Garcia, Mayor Williamson confirmed that he could hear the meeting proceedings, that the agenda had been posted at least 24 hours prior to the meeting at the remote location listed above, and that he was providing public access from the same location, pursuant to GC 54953(b)(3). He stated that no member of the public was present with him at the teleconference location wishing to speak.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Councilmember Smith led the Pledge.

STUDY SESSION

1. Receive Draft 2025 Economic Development Strategy and Provide Feedback on Economic Development Roadmap (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Received draft strategy and provided feedback
Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira gave the staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions. He asked the Council to provide feedback on the recommended Economic Development Roadmap, wherein during Spring /Summer 2025 the City would conduct focus group and town hall meetings with business associations and industry partners to gather information and feedback for the final Economic Development Strategy, and would engage with an economic development firm to refine specific financing strategies such as tax Date: 4/15/2025
Item No.: 1.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 1., Item Page 1, Packet Page 5 City Council Minutes March 26, 2025
2 increment financing; and during Fall 2025, would present a final Economic Development Strategy to the City Council for adoption.

Public comment was received from: Monica Lal of the Monterey Peninsula Chamber of Commerce, who said that the area needed to diversify its economy and mentioned that there was an opportunity to connect aging business owners with entrepreneurs; Janine Chicourrat of the Portola Hotel and Spa, who encouraged the Council to bring in an economic developer with a vision, and who identified Heritage Harbor, Alvarado Street, and Wharf II as opportunities; Rob O'Keefe of See Monterey, who said that his organization looked forward to collaborating with the City; Rick Aldinger of the Monterey County Hospitality Association, who asked that the City bring residents into the discussion about economic development and the benefits of tourism; Bryan Rosen, who said that economic growth needed to be done in a socially and environmentally responsible way; Nina Beety, who suggested that the City reduce non-sales tax generating businesses, tax the Aquarium and second homes, and encourage shopping locally; and Lorna Moffat, who expressed concerns about pollution from tourism and said that protecting the local environment and nature should be the top priority. During public comments, Councilmember Smith left the Chamber at 5:17 p.m. and returned at 5:19 p.m.

The Council discussed the matter.

Support was expressed for approaching economic development with a focus on environmental and social responsibility, for improving the downtown area, for encouraging residents to shop locally, and for developing a Business Retention and Attraction Program. It was stated that economic development was complex and worked in both directions: with businesses' revenue supporting City amenities and in turn the City's amenities able to attract and inspire more business growth.

It was requested to learn how much of the City's overall budget came from visitors and how much came from the City's residents. It was stated that the City should look beyond hospitality and existing business corridors and explore ways to diversify the economy through pursuing military installations, education, and healthcare as economic drivers. It was stressed that the diversification of Monterey's economy may need to be the subject of a specific strategic planning discussion. It was stated that workforce development should be a priority. It was stated that the City had an opportunity to dig deeper into matters including zoning and land use, infrastructure, and pension and financial management, to further its economic development.

It was stressed that the City needed to identify how to leverage its natural, cultural and historical assets to attract responsible tourism. It was urged to think about ecotourism and focus on the attraction that outdoor activities present, and explore opportunities related to the National Marine Sanctuary. It was suggested that the City's history could be presented more interactively, and that public art should be more of a focus.

Regarding outreach, it was stated that residents and neighborhood associations needed to be included in focus groups and town halls, because residents' buy-in would be important due to concerns about environmental and traffic impacts from tourism. For outreach regarding wayfinding signs, it was stated that more stakeholders needed to be included other than just the State, such as businesses in the area. It was stated that the community needed to be included and feel that that their participation was part of the City's process, and have their suggestions and thoughts heard regarding areas where the City could improve and become more economically vibrant. It was suggested that a monthly joint newsletter with the Chamber of Commerce would enhance collaboration between the two sectors.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 1., Item Page 2, Packet Page 6 City Council Minutes March 26, 2025
3 In terms of retaining an economic developer, skill and breadth of knowledge were stated to be of utmost importance. It was noted that this could include knowledge of, and facility with, funding opportunities (such as through California Proposition 4, the Parks, Environment, Energy, and Water Bond Measure of 2024); issues such as pension and financial management; and working with various City departments to identify new additional opportunities. On question from the City Council regarding the timeline for filling this role, Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira said that one option would be to have the person work with the City from the beginning of its economic development strategy, and another option would be to identify the City's goals and priorities and then find the right developer with that skill set, with the downside would be that they would not have been part of the full process. There was some interest expressed by the Council in getting the process started sooner than the budgeting process for the next fiscal year.

Regarding transportation and accessibility, interest was expressed in enhancing pedestrian travel instead of vehicular travel. It was suggested that in looking into ways to increase pedestrian access, the City also think about how to incorporate such improvements, and other redevelopment in business corridors, with its Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") Transition Plan to accomplish its goals. Interest was expressed in seeing train access return to the Monterey area though it was noted this might not be practical. Addressing the loss of sales tax from gasoline stations, it was stated that the City could respond by becoming more aggressive with adding charging stations for electric vehicles in Monterey. Interest was expressed in making Alvarado Street pedestrian-only, and it was noted that a trial period could test the concept without changing infrastructure.

On the subjects of zoning and building, it was stated that during a time when creating housing was a struggle, the City should not create further barriers, and that some level of caution should be used when considering higher density zoning to ensure it could be accomplished without killing a development project. It was stated that to counteract the rising cost of infrastructure and public services, the City should make attempts to streamline efforts to add accessory dwelling units ("ADUs") to properties, such as by offering modular ADU plans.

Regarding additional ideas and opportunities, it was stated that the development of an adult behavioral health center in the Ryan Ranch area would be beneficial. It was stated that the City would benefit from activating temporary uses of vacant spaces, such as pop-up events and art shows, and that the City be as liberal as possible in supporting businesses that were trying to develop new and creative ideas.

It was stated that in the strategy document there should be greater emphasis on the City's State-approved Housing Element and its connection to affordable workforce housing solutions.

It was requested to spell out acronyms so that everything was clear to the public.

During the discussion, Councilmember Barber left the meeting at 5:27 p.m.

Regarding the City's infrastructure, it was noted that the City dedicated an unacceptably low percentage of the general fund to capital improvements. It was stated that this was a concern considering the significant deferred maintenance needs, and it was stressed that addressing these needs would benefit the City's residents and business community. It was stated that a portion of any public dollars managed by the City should be required to be set aside for the future rehabilitation and long term sustainability of its public infrastructure.

The financing of economic development was discussed and it was stated that it would be necessary to fully investigate options including Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts (EIFDs), Community Revitalization and Investment Authorities (CRIAs), and Climate Resilience Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 1., Item Page 3, Packet Page 7 City Council Minutes March 26, 2025
4 District (CRDs). It was requested that the Council consider a vacancy tax to ensure that the community would receive some benefit instead of only impacts.

ADJOURNMENT
Councilmember Smith left the Chamber at 6:04 p.m. and due to the resulting lack of a quorum of the governing body physically present in the Council Chamber, the meeting was adjourned.

Respectfully Submitted, Approved,
Clementine Bonner Klein Tyller Williamson
City Clerk Mayor
Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 1., Item Page 4, Packet Page 8

MINUTES

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING

CITY OF MONTEREY
Tuesday, April 1, 2025
4:00 PM 7:00 PM
COUNCIL CHAMBER, 580 PACIFIC ST.

MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
Councilmembers

Present: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith*, Williamson

Absent: None
* Attended remotely by teleconference pursuant to Gov. Code sec. 54953(f)(2)(A) for just cause
City Staff

Present:

Assistant City Manager, City Attorney, Finance Director, Community Development Director, Police Chief, Library & Museums Director, Public Works Director, City Clerk, Parking Superintendent, Parks Supervisor, Public Works Administrative Services Manager, Housing Manager, General Services Superintendent, Assistant Police Chief, Lieutenant, Police Lieutenant, Senior Administrative Analyst, Acting Harbormaster, Division Chief, Administrative Assistant
AFTERNOON SESSION: 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.

Teleconference Notice
This meeting was held with a combination of in-person and teleconference attendance, pursuant to the Ralph M. Brown Act.

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. Councilmember Smith confirmed that he could hear the meeting proceedings, gave a brief description of the circumstances relating to his needs to appear remotely pursuant to the "Just Cause" clause (travel on official business of the City), and stated that no person over the age of 18 was present in the room with him during the meeting.

Presentations (Afternoon)

1. Recognize the 15th Anniversary of Whalefest Monterey (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Recognized the anniversary
Mayor Williamson presented the proclamation, and representatives from Whalefest Monterey made brief remarks.

Public comment was received from: Nancy Soulé, who said that Whalefest could use more volunteers and asked people to sign up; Nina Beety, who expressed concerns about impacts of underwater sounds on marine life; Lorna Moffat, who expressed concerns about warming of Monterey Bay; and Eloise Shim, who complimented the City on the cleanliness of the Wharf.

2. Receive a Presentation on Pension Management Strategy and Long-Term Financial Plan (Not a Project Under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Received presentation
Date: 4/15/2025
Item No.: 2.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 2., Item Page 1, Packet Page 9 City Council Minutes April 1, 2025
2 Finance Director King introduced Andrew Flynn and Cameron Weist of Cal Muni Advisors, who gave the presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions. The Council expressed interest in pursuing a more long-term strategy and finding ways to make additional payments to reduce the overall interest to avoid burdening future generations.

Public comment was received from: Erica Walker, who said that making small payments over time would make a big difference in paying off the City's pension burden; Debby Majors-Degnan, who asked the City to look at employee overtime and how it impacts pensions; Eloise Shim, who said that the pension system overall was mismanaged and complicated; and Lorna Moffat, who expressed concern that the pension system would not remain solvent and reliable for pensioners.

General Public Comments
Public comment on non-agendized matters was received from: Carol Chorbajian, of Measure P & S Oversight Committee; Eloise Shim; Lorna Moffat; Bryan Rosen; and Colin Gallagher. During public comments, Councilmember Garcia left the Chamber from 5:09 p.m. to 5:11 p.m., and Mayor Williamson left the Chamber from 5:13 p.m. to 5:16 p.m.

Consent Agenda
Mayor Williamson stated that a member of the public had requested Item 6 to be pulled from the Consent Agenda. Councilmembers Rasch and Smith said they would both register a "no" vote on Item 5. Community Development Director Cole answered Council's brief questions about Item 7.

Public comment on the Consent Agenda was received from: Nancy Soulé, who said that the Rental Registry item was not properly noticed to the public; Erica Walker, who expressed concern about technology required to register and said that some property owners were thinking about selling due to the Rental Registry; and Lori Mazzuca, who requested that the Council abolish the Rental Registry altogether.

On a motion by Councilmember Barber, seconded by Councilmember Rasch, and carried by the following roll-call vote, the City Council approved the Consent Agenda, except Item 6, and with Councilmembers Rasch and Smith registering a "no" vote on Item 5:

3. March 18, 2025 Regular Meeting (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20 Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5 Section 15061)
Action: Approved
Consent: Award of Construction Contracts

4. Awarding a Construction Contract in the Amount of $2,034,807.22 to McKim Corporation for the Citywide Road Surface Repair Project 24/25 (Exempt from CEQA Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 25-019 C.S.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 2., Item Page 2, Packet Page 10 City Council Minutes April 1, 2025
3 Consent: Ordinances

5. 2nd Reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 8, Sections 2.02 and 2.03 Relating to the Rental Inventory Program Exempt Properties Reporting and Fee Pass-Through (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Adopted Ordinance No. 3700 C.S. (3-2, Councilmembers Rasch and Smith voting no)
Consent: Resolutions

6. Authorize the Finance Director to Appropriate $800,000 from the Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program (NCIP) Ending Balance Account to Previously Approved NCIP Forest Management and Fuel Reduction Project ***NCIP*** (Mitigated Negative Declaration approved on October 25, 2022)
Action: Pulled from Consent; Adopted Resolution No. 25-020 C.S.

Public comment was received from Nina Beety, who asked that no funding be appropriated to fuel management projects.

On a motion by Mayor Williamson, seconded by Councilmember Barber, and carried by the following roll-call vote, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 25-020 C.S.:

7. Authorize the City Manager to Sign an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement One Year Extension with MidPen Housing for Development of Affordable Housing at 587 and 593 Van Buren Street, 424 and 450 Madison Street (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 25-021 C.S.

End of Consent Agenda
Afternoon Session Items
Public Hearing (Afternoon)

8. Extend Urgency Ordinance No. 3696 to Temporarily Prohibit the Establishment and Operation of New Firearms and Ammunitions Retail Sales Businesses in the City for 10- Months and 15-Days Pursuant to Government Code Section 65858 (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Adopted Ordinance No. 3701 C.S.

Community Development Director Cole gave a verbal presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions.

Public comment was received from Colin Gallagher, who spoke against the ordinance, stating that the City should be more business-friendly.

On a motion by Mayor Williamson, seconded by Councilmember Garcia, and carried by the following roll-call vote, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 3701 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)
Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 2., Item Page 3, Packet Page 11 City Council Minutes April 1, 2025
4 9. Amending and Restating Resolution 24-018, The Master Fee Schedule, to Update the Community Development, Fire Department, Parks and Recreation, Library and Museums, Police Department, Public Works Department, Parking Division, and Harbor Division Fees (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 25-022 C.S.

Finance Director King gave a brief verbal presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions together with Community Development Director Cole.

Public comment was received from Julie Gorman, who spoke against adding the zoning clearance permit fee to the Master Fee Schedule before the ordinance adding the zoning clearance permit itself had been agendized before the City Council, and Lorna Moffat, who asked the Council not to raise fees.

On question from Council, Community Development Director Cole explained the ministerial process for approving business licenses and said that the Community Development Department did not review or have an approval ability for business licenses. She explained that under the new process new businesses would apply for a permit and Community Development Department staff would confirm that they met the zoning regulations of the district.

On a motion by Mayor Williamson, seconded by Councilmember Garcia, and carried by the following roll-call vote, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 25-022 C.S.:

10. Conduct Council Field Trip to the Central Public Safety Facility (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Conducted field trip
The Council and public convened outside the door to the Council Chamber at 6:02 p.m. Police Chief Hober led them across Madison Street for the field trip to the City's public safety facilities at 351 Madison Street, beginning at the Police Department where he verbally presented while leading a tour of the police building which he said had been built in 1959. As the group proceeded through the Police Department, Chief Hober pointed out issues that he said needed addressing, which included substandard working and storage conditions in the evidence room, deficient plumbing infrastructure that had caused leaks of raw sewage into the shower area, cramped locker rooms and offices, and inadequate security of the parking lot. The group next proceeded to the Emergency Operations Center ("EOC"), and then to the Fire Department where Fire Chief Miller verbally presented the Fire portion of the field trip tour, through the temporary building that housed Fire Administration and then into Fire Station 11. As the tour continued, he pointed out issues that he said needed addressing, such as insufficient office space, office space being affected by fumes from the apparatus bay, a ceiling leak in the sleeping quarters, and laundry equipment being housed outdoors and affected by the elements. The two chiefs answered Councilmembers' questions as they arose, with additional input and answers to questions throughout the tour were provided by Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira, Public Works Director Renny, and General Services Superintendent Dwight.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 2., Item Page 4, Packet Page 12 City Council Minutes April 1, 2025
5 Public comment was received from Karen Brown, who spoke about the history of the facility and said that in any facility update there needed to be an apology for how things were done with the Dutra Street Native American village in the past, and Esther Malkin, who thanked the City's public safety staff and said that they deserved better working conditions.

The Council recessed at 6:52 p.m. and reconvened at 7:12 p.m.

EVENING SESSION AGENDA: 7 p.m. to 10:30 p.m.

Pledge of Allegiance
Councilmember Garcia led the Pledge.

General Public Comments, Continued
Continued public comment on non-agendized matters was received from Erica Walker and Nina Beety.

Evening Session Items
Presentations (Evening)

11. Receive a Presentation on the Monterey Public Safety Facility Feasibility Study (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Received presentation
Public Works Director Renny gave the staff presentation together with Jeff Katz of COAR Design Group, and they answered Councilmembers' questions with additional input from Dustin Alamo of Griffin Structures, Inc., Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira, and Police Chief Hober.

Public comment was received from: Esther Malkin, who said it was time for the City to put some money toward providing a better public safety facility and that it was a higher priority than undergrounding utilities; Lori Mazzuca, who said taxes and costs are already high for residents and said a sales tax would be more fair; and Lorna Moffat, who said the City would need to be creative and find less expensive options.

The Council discussed the matter. It was stressed that a reimagined public safety facility would need to meet current staffing levels and anticipate growth in staffing over the next few decades.

On question from the Council, Police Chief Hober said that there were many options and said that the two presented options were excellent for the site in question and that many city services could be housed together in a facility at a different site. Fire Chief Miller said he would prefer to stay at the site but completely bring it up to modern construction standards.

The Council expressed that they were interested in receiving information on and considering all options, and presented additional suggestions, including: expanding the current designs to allow for second floor office space for non-public-facing city departments like Human Resources or Information Services Division to utilize without impacting public safety functions; taking advantage of additional space at the Monterey Public Library facilities; using the City's Ryan Ranch property (former McGraw Hill) to reenvision City Hall altogether, not only public safety functions; potentially collaborating with other local agencies to share resources for facilities such as gun ranges; and potentially creating a public safety joint powers agreement ("JPA") with the cities of Pacific Grove Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 2., Item Page 5, Packet Page 13 City Council Minutes April 1, 2025
6 and Carmel. Discussion was held on the subject of incorporating other city facility needs into the public safety facility project.

Preference was expressed for restructuring the current designs so that there was a public-facing space, and for staying centrally located in the downtown area, stating that it would provide accessibility for and outreach with communities such as Monterey High School students and homeless populations who both frequented the Monterey Public Library across the street. It was stated that it would be desirable to create a student community academy.

Financing was discussed, and on the one hand it was stated that the public was already weighted down with several bond measures, and on the other hand it was noted that voters had passed the recent Monterey Peninsula Unified School District bond and that because fire protection was on the residents' mind that this was a good time for a bond measure. It was noted that Monterey Fire Department contracted with numerous local jurisdictions and that there might be the potential to get up-front financial assistance from these agencies in exchange for continued service.

More information was requested on matters such as: an analysis indicating what a McGraw Hill location would mean for response times; a cost/benefit analysis of all options beyond only costs but also benefits and disadvantages; a cost/benefit analysis on impacts from not moving forward and continuing to "bandaid" the facilities, including recruitment and retention issues; the vote threshold for a bond measure and whether it would be lower if it resulted from a citizen initiative instead of being put on the ballot by the City Council; an analysis of bond and other financing options; and how the future need for a fire station in the Highway 68 corridor would be incorporated into facility planning. It was stated that it would be good to begin to strategize messaging and outreach to foster public support from residents.

The Council recessed at 9:10 p.m. and reconvened at 9:18 p.m.

12. Receive Police Department Annual Report - 2024 (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Received 2024 annual report
Police Chief Hober gave the staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions, with additional input provided by Lieutenant Pinkas.

In the interest of time, Mayor Williamson limited the speaking time to two minutes per speaker.

Public comment was received from: Tammy Jennings, who expressed kind words to Chief Hober about his upcoming retirement; Esther Malkin, who complimented Chief Hober and the Monterey Police Department for their accomplishments and many collaborations with the community; and Chinyere Ogbonna, who thanked Chief Hober for the Police Department's Community Academy, which she described as impactful.

On question from the public, Chief Hober said that he appreciated Police Department substations for certain specific functions but felt that overall the department should be centrally located.

The Council discussed the report and commented positively on Chief Hober's leadership strengths. It was noted that the Monterey Police Department answers many calls and stressed that the Monterey Police officers deserve recognition.

13. Receive Annual Report of the Police Automated License Plate Recognition (ALPR) System (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Received ALPR annual report
Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 2., Item Page 6, Packet Page 14 City Council Minutes April 1, 2025
7 Police Chief Hober gave the staff presentation on the implementation and use of the Automated License Plate Recognition (ALPR) system since its deployment in December 2024, and provided information on the improvements made to the Police Department's ALPR policy. He answered Councilmembers' questions, with additional input provided by Lieutenant Kaster.

In the interest of time, Mayor Williamson limited the speaking time to two minutes per speaker.

Public comment was received from: Lori Mazzuca, who asked about the issue of many cars not having front license plates; Esther Malkin, who spoke in support of the ALPR technology; Eloise Shim, who said she was now supportive of the ALPR system, and spoke highly of Chief Hober; and Nina Beety, who spoke in opposition to ALPR system, citing concern about the ability to access the data with ill intent.

In response to public comments, Chief Hober said that most ALPR readers read rear license plates.

The Council and Chief discussed the report and policy.

Positive remarks were shared about the department's ALPR transparency portal, and it was suggested to update the map of device locations and to consider providing a breakdown of locations by Council district. It was questioned whether there were any coverage gaps. On question from the Council regarding whether there were any coverage gaps or need to add more cameras at "choke points," Chief Hober said that over time and with more use it was possible that analysis would lead to improvements.

On the subject of the policy, appreciation was expressed for the proactive improvements to the policy. On the other hand, it was discussed whether changes to the policy should require prior approval from the Council. On question from the Council, Chief Hober explained that his policy revisions were prompt in relation to the recognition of their need, and that bringing each adjustment to the Council would create delays and logistical challenges. He reiterated that policy updates would continue to be reported in the annual report, and City Attorney Davi expressed that this was recommended and was consistent with the City's police policy update practices. It was suggested by the Council to add more detail about the department's required ALPR training into the policy to make sure that the training was applied consistently over a longer period of time.

On question from the Council, Chief Hober provided context about the system's "hot list" alerts (regarding license plates associated with vehicles confirmed to be used in a crime) and how they were used as opposed to investigative searches.

Regarding data sharing between agencies, concern was expressed about the potential of the City's ALPR data being accessed by external agencies such as the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE"), Chief Hober reiterated that the department and six other agencies had signed a memorandum of understanding ("MOU") together that included promising to comply with the policy and not share data with out of state agencies or federal agencies.

Public Appearance (Evening)

14. Receive Annual Report and Renew the Military Equipment Purchase and Use Ordinance – Monterey City Code, Chapter 27, Article 3, Section 27-10, and Authorize the Acquisition of Additional Military Equipment Including a Crisis Negotiating Team Command Vehicle, Four Unmanned Aerial Systems, and Replace Eight Patrol Rifles (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Received annual report, Adopted Resolution No. 25-023 C.S.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 2., Item Page 7, Packet Page 15 City Council Minutes April 1, 2025
8 Assistant Police Chief Bruno gave the staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions.

Public comment was received from Nina Beety, who asked for the number of drones to be limited to one.

On question from the Council, Assistant Police Chief Bruno said that high-end drones could be used in some scenarios and that in other scenarios you would not want to risk your high-end equipment and would want to use less expensive drones.

On a motion by Mayor Williamson, seconded by Councilmember Barber, and carried by the following roll-call vote, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 25-023 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)
Council Comments
Councilmember Rasch announced that the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) was currently soliciting opinions on Connect Monterey Bay 2050, a document for long term transportation planning, and shared the dates of related upcoming public workshops.

City Manager Reports
Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira shared that the recent Resident Parking Program town hall meeting was successful and said that there was an online survey available on the Have Your Say Monterey site regarding the program. He announced that the pool at the Monterey Sports Center was being renovated and was expected to reopen around June 1, 2025. He announced the upcoming "Bunny Hop Photo Op" event and congratulated Monterey Recreation Department for its recent receipt of numerous Monterey Herald reader choice awards.

Adjournment
The Council adjourned at 11:09 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted, Approved,
Clementine Bonner Klein Tyller Williamson
City Clerk Mayor
Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 2., Item Page 8, Packet Page 16 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: David J. Hober, Chief of Police
Prepared By: Michael Bruno, Assistant Chief of Police
SUBJECT: Authorize Police Records Management System (RMS) Data Sharing Agreement between the City of Monterey and the Cities of Pacific Grove, Marina, and Salinas (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 or
designee to execute the Police Records Management
System (RMS) Data Sharing Agreement between the
City of Monterey and the cities of Pacific Grove,
Marina, and Salinas.

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.

Develop and retain a quality workforce by providing
sufficient resources and support to develop, retain,
and recruit a high-quality city workforce.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Approving the Police Records Management System
(RMS) data sharing agreement between the City of
Monterey and the cities of Pacific Grove, Marina, and
Salinas is consistent with the City Council’s Value
Driver and Quality of Life Strategic Priorities:

Recognize 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; prepare for emergencies and community resiliency; recognize that
our workforce is our greatest resource for providing
the service that our community deserves by providing
city staff with the tools, resources, coaching, and
feedback they need to perform well.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE
ACT) APPLIES: No.

Agenda Report Highlights
 The Monterey Police Department
seeks City Council approval to
establish a data-sharing agreement
with Pacific Grove, Marina, and
Salinas Police Departments for
improved law enforcement
collaboration.
 The agreement leverages the cloudbased Records Management System (RMS) to enable secure and
efficient sharing of crime report data
across jurisdictions.
 This collaboration aims to enhance
investigative capabilities, improve
case resolution, and address crime
that cross city boundaries.
 Privacy protections are built into the
agreement, including strict data
usage limitations, audit logging, and
compliance with state privacy laws.
 Without this agreement, MPD would
face significant challenges in
accessing critical crime data,
potentially impacting public safety
and delaying investigations.

Date: 4/15/2025
Item No.: 3.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 3., Item Page 1, Packet Page 17 №10/24
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None
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:

Without Council approval of the proposed data-sharing resolution, the Police Department will be unable to access critical crime report data from partnering law enforcement agencies, including Pacific Grove, Marina, and Salinas Police Departments. The absence of a comprehensive, interoperable records management system will significantly impede criminal investigation processes, potentially delaying case resolution and compromise the effectiveness of multiagency law enforcement efforts. Such limitations could directly impact public safety by creating information silos that restrict timely and comprehensive information exchange between local law enforcement agencies.

DISCUSSION:

In February 2024, the Monterey Police Department implemented the Mark43 Records Management System (RMS), a comprehensive cloud-based RMS, which is also utilized by the Pacific Grove, Marina, and Salinas Police Departments. This unified technological infrastructure creates an opportunity for seamless, secure, and efficient information sharing among local law enforcement agencies.

The proposed data sharing agreement operates as a sophisticated "pointer system" that enables participating agencies to identify potential matching records across jurisdictional boundaries. When a search indicates a potential match, the requesting agency must submit a formal, documented request to access the specific report, ensuring a controlled and accountable information exchange process.

Law enforcement investigations are fundamentally constrained by geographic limitations, while criminal activities are not. Criminals routinely operate across city and county boundaries, making inter-agency data sharing crucial for comprehensive and effective law enforcement. By establishing this collaborative system, participating agencies can:
 Enhance investigative capabilities
 Increase the likelihood of identifying and apprehending criminal actors  Create a more comprehensive understanding of regional criminal patterns The proposed agreement incorporates robust privacy protections:
 Strict limitations on data usage
Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 3., Item Page 2, Packet Page 18 №10/24
 Compliance with the California Value Acts (Government Code Section 7284 et seq.)  View / Read Only Records
 The ability to restrict the sharing of highly confidential records  Comprehensive audit logging of all system searches and requests The agreement includes a mutual indemnity clause where each party agrees to indemnity the other parties from and against all claims, demands and causes of actions and suits of any kind or nature for personal injury, death or damage to property on account of or arising out of services performed, the omissions of services or in any way resulting from the negligent or wrongful acts or omissions of the indemnifying party and its officers, employees and agents.

This approach ensures that inter-agency cooperation does not compromise individual privacy rights or create unintended surveillance mechanisms.

DJH/mb
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, 4/15/2025, Item No. 3., Item Page 3, Packet Page 19 Council
Agenda Report
№10/24
FROM: Kimberly Cole, AICP, Community Development Director Prepared By: Levi Hill, AICP, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: City Council Adopt the Planning Commission Recommendation to Adopt a 1st Reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 38 of the Monterey City Code to Require New Businesses and Existing Businesses that are Changing the Type of Use or Location Obtain a Zoning Clearance Permit (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council receive the recommendation from the Planning Commission and adopt the first reading of an
Ordinance amending Chapter 38 of the Monterey City
Code to require new businesses and existing businesses
that are changing the type of use or location obtain a
Zoning Clearance Permit.

VALUE DRIVERS:

Foster a local government that is transparent and
collaborative; and solicits, welcomes and appreciates input from all.

Recognize that City government’s role is to provide core services to the public, and partnerships with nonprofit, military, business, and other government agencies can be an effective means of supporting the public good.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Land Use within the City’s jurisdiction is regulated by Chapter 38 of the Monterey City Code. The proposed
Ordinance would require new businesses and existing
businesses that are changing land uses or location to
obtain a zoning clearance permit to ensure the applicable land use policies are being enforced.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE
ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

If approved, the proposed Ordinance would require new
businesses and existing businesses that are changing land Agenda Report Highlights
 The City Council is considering
adopting an ordinance that requires
new businesses and existing
businesses changing their type of
use or location to obtain a Zoning
Clearance Permit
 The proposed ordinance aims to
ensure businesses comply with
zoning requirements before opening
or relocating.
 The Zoning Clearance Permit
process will help business owners
confirm their business use is
permitted at a specific location,
providing certainty before investing
in leases or tenant improvements.
 The application fee for the Zoning
Clearance Permit is set at $42.00 to
cover the cost of staff time for
reviewing and processing
applications
 The Planning Commission has
recommended approval of the
ordinance.

Date: 4/15/2025
Item No.: 4.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 1, Packet Page 20 №10/24
uses or location to obtain a zoning clearance permit. Permit applications would require payment of a $42.00 application fee for cost recovery of staff time.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

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. In the event adoption of this ordinance does constitute a project, it is categorically exempt under the Class 20 (Changes in the Organization of Local Governments) categorical exemption (State CEQA Guidelines section 15320). Further, none of the exceptions to exemptions found in State CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2 apply.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council may approve, modify, or disapprove the recommendation of the Planning Commission (Government Code section 65857). Any substantial modification proposed by the City Council not previously considered by the Planning Commission shall first be referred to the Planning Commission for its recommendation. (Government Code section 65857.) The Planning Commission has 40 days to report on the reference, and if it does not report back, it shall be deemed a recommendation for approval.

DISCUSSION:

The City is proposing a Zoning Clearance Permit procedure to determine whether a business meets the zoning requirements for a particular location and to approve the establishment of the business use at a location. This regulatory review of whether a proposed activity complies with the regulations of the City’s zoning code is to assist business owners with meeting all requirements to open and operate a new business or an existing business that is changing locations. A Zoning Clearance Permit process helps to provide certainty to potential business owners/operators before entering into a lease or spending significant investment on tenant improvements for a use or location that is not permitted under the City’s regulations One common misconception is that a business license is the regulatory permit needed to operate. However, the Monterey City Code section 19-2, the City’s business license ordinance is not regulatory, it is for revenue generating purposes only. A Zoning Clearance Permit will provide the surety that business owners need to open a business.

The Planning Commission (PC) considered the proposed Ordinance (Attachment 1) at the March 11, 2025 regularly scheduled meeting. The PC received the staff presentation along with public comment. The PC discussed the need for the proposed zoning clearance permit and asked for clarification on the associated application fee and applicable appeal procedures.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 2, Packet Page 21 №10/24
As noted previously in this report, the proposed application fee will be $42.00 and is intended to recover costs associated with the review and processing of applications. Additionally, decisions on zoning clearance application would be subject to the appeal procedures set forth in Section 38-7(E) of the Monterey City Code. Ultimately, the PC adopted a Resolution recommending approval of the proposed Ordinance.

In conclusion, staff recommends the City Council receive the recommendation from the Planning Commission and adopt the first reading of an Ordinance amending Chapter 38 of the Monterey City Code to Require New Businesses and Existing Businesses that are Changing the Type of Use or Location Obtain a Zoning Clearance Permit.

KC/lh
Attachments: 1. Ordinance Amending Chapter 38 of the City Code

2. Public Comments Received Prior to City Council Report Publication 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, 4/15/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 3, Packet Page 22 ORDINANCE NO. ____ C.S

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

AMENDING THE ZONING CODE TO REQUIRE NEW BUSINESSES AND EXISTING

BUSINESSES THAT ARE CHANGING THE TYPE OF USE OR LOCATION TO OBTAIN A

ZONING CLEARANCE PERMIT
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY DOES ORDAIN, as follows:

SECTION 1:

WHEREAS, pursuant to Monterey City Code section 19-2, the City’s business license ordinance is not regulatory, it is for revenue generating purposes only; WHEREAS, a Zoning Clearance Permit procedure is used to determine whether a business meets the zoning requirements for a particular location and to approve the establishment of the business use at that location;
WHEREAS, regulatory review of whether a proposed activity complies with the regulations of the City’s zoning code is to assist business owners with meeting all requirements to open and operate a new business or an existing business that is changing locations; WHEREAS, a Zoning Clearance Permit process helps to provide certainty to potential business owners/operators before entering into a lease or spending significant investment on tenant improvements for a use or location that is not permitted under the City’s regulations; WHEREAS, The Planning Commission (PC) considered the amendment at the March 11, 2025 regularly scheduled meeting. The PC received the staff presentation along with public comment and adopted a Resolution recommending approval of the proposed Ordinance.

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).

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 38, Article 21, Section 38-150, Zoning Review Generally, is amended as follows:

A. Purpose. Zoning Clearance is the procedure used by the City to verify that a proposed land use or structure complies with the list of uses allowed in the applicable zone and the development standards applicable to the use or structure or if additional approvals are required before a Zoning Clearance Permit can be issued.

B. Applicability. A Zoning Clearance from the Community Development Director, or designee, shall be obtained:

1. For each new or expanded use of a site and each new or expanded structure prior to issuance of a building permit, grading permit, certificate of occupancy, or utility service connection.

2. For all new businesses to the City that are required to have a business license pursuant to Monterey City Code section 19-4, and

3. For all existing businesses that are required to have a business license pursuant to Monterey City Code section 19-4 that are changing the type of use or location within the City.

C. Review Procedures. Zoning Clearance permits are reviewed and issued by the Community Development Department. Other City departments, such as the Fire Department, will be notified when a Zoning Clearance Permit application has been submitted and will contact the applicant if additional permits or inspections are required.

D. Validity. A Zoning Clearance Permit remains valid as long as the land use, business operations, structure, and location do not change.

SECTION 4: All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

SECTION 5: 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 6: 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:

Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 5, Packet Page 24 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 6, Packet Page 25 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 7, Packet Page 26 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 8, Packet Page 27 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 9, Packet Page 28 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 10, Packet Page 29 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 11, Packet Page 30 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 12, Packet Page 31 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 13, Packet Page 32 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 14, Packet Page 33 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 15, Packet Page 34 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 16, Packet Page 35 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 17, Packet Page 36 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 18, Packet Page 37 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 19, Packet Page 38 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 20, Packet Page 39 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 21, Packet Page 40 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 22, Packet Page 41 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 23, Packet Page 42 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 24, Packet Page 43 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 25, Packet Page 44 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 26, Packet Page 45 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 27, Packet Page 46 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 28, Packet Page 47 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 29, Packet Page 48 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 30, Packet Page 49 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 31, Packet Page 50 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 32, Packet Page 51 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 33, Packet Page 52 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 34, Packet Page 53 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 35, Packet Page 54 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 36, Packet Page 55 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 37, Packet Page 56 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 38, Packet Page 57 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 39, Packet Page 58 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 40, Packet Page 59 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 41, Packet Page 60 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 42, Packet Page 61 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Kimberly Cole, AICP, Community Development Director Levi Hill, AICP, Planning Manager
Prepared By: Christy Sabdo, AICP, Principal Planner
SUBJECT: Uphold Planning Commission’s Decision to Deny Driveway Variance Application for 548 Mar Vista Drive; Application AP-25-0031;Variance Permit Application VA-24-0240; Appellants Desiree Albert and Michael Atteridge; Property Owner Albert Desiree Trust; R-1-15 Zoning District (Residential Single-Family District); Low Density Residential General Plan Land Use Designation (Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt the attached resolution
denying the appeal and the driveway variance
application, which would uphold Planning Commission
Resolution P25-004.

VALUE DRIVERS:

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

No change to policy would occur with decisions related
to this item.

The City Council must conduct a fair hearing and
provide an opportunity for appellants to establish that the findings made by the Planning Commission are not
supported by substantial evidence. The burden of
proof rests with the appellant. The City Council may
affirm, reverse, or modify the Planning Commission’s
decision as it deems just and equitable.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE
ACT) APPLIES: Yes.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

No fiscal implications would occur with decisions
related to this item.

Agenda Report Highlights
 The City Council is recommended to
uphold the Planning Commission's
decision to deny the driveway
variance application for 548 Mar
Vista Drive.
 The property owner was asked to
remove driveway modifications that
violated city standards, specifically
the requirement for a 3-foot
landscaped buffer between the
driveway and the side property line.
 The Planning Commission denied
the variance application based on
findings that the property does not
have unique circumstances that
justify the variance and that granting
the variance would be inconsistent
with zoning purposes and would
constitute a special privilege.
 The appellants argue that the
driveway modifications improve
safety and convenience, but the
Commission found no substantial
evidence to support this claim.

Date: 4/15/2025
Item No.: 5.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 5., Item Page 1, Packet Page 62 №10/24
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1) because the proposed variance would potentially involve minor alterations to an existing, developed residential lot, which would not create an expansion of use. Furthermore, the project does not qualify for any of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions found at CEQA Guidelines 15300.2.

Exception a - Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located - a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply in all instances, except where the project may have an impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies. The proposed variance would potentially involve minor alterations to an existing driveway; therefore, no impacts related to location would occur.

Exception b - Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. No cumulative impacts are anticipated because the proposed variance would potentially involve minor alterations to an existing residential property, and there is not a concentration of the same type of variance proposals in the same place.

Exception c - Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. No impacts are anticipated because the subject property is located on an existing, developed residential property in an urban environment with no potential for significant effects on the environment due to unusual circumstances.

Exception d - Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The subject property is not visible from a scenic highway; therefore, there would be no impacts to scenic resources.

Exception e - Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. The property is not located on a hazardous waste site pursuant to Governmental Code Section 65962.5.

However, the project would not involve alterations to the existing residence, only potentially to the existing driveway. The property is not within a sensitive archeological area; therefore, there would be no impacts to archeological resources. As such, there would be no impacts to historic resources.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council may approve the appeal and overturn the Planning Commission’s decision.

The City Council’s decision must be supported by substantial evidence.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 5., Item Page 2, Packet Page 63 №10/24
DISCUSSION:

Background
The subject site, 548 Mar Vista Drive, is a 16,220 square-foot lot located in the Monterey Vista Neighborhood that has an existing one-story single-family dwelling (Figure 1). The site is zoned R-1-15 (Residential Single-Family District) and is designated Low Density Residential on the General Plan Land Use Map.

Figure 1. Subject property at 548 Mar Vista Drive
The following parking and driveway standards apply to residential properties in the R-1 District:

Parking should be kept to a minimum in front yard setbacks [Monterey City Code (MCC) Section 38-23 (D)(5)(b)]:
 On lots of a size 5,000 square feet or greater and on lots with a street front footage of 50 feet or greater, parking in the front yard setback shall be limited to the driveway in front of covered parking and in front of any required open parking space.  The driveway in the front yard setback area shall not be widened more than an additional 10 feet and shall not be closer than 3 feet to a side property line. This widened area shall be a paved surface like the existing driveway or alternative paving surfaces, which have been reviewed and approved by staff. The 3-foot area between the driveway apron and the side property line shall be landscaped and not paved.  On all residential parcels, no more than 50 percent of the front yard shall be paved.  Additional improved parking area may be considered by the Zoning Administrator where there is a physical hardship based on lack of on-street parking, topography, or natural features. There shall be no parking in the front yard setback on non-driveway areas.

On June 26, 2024, the property owner was sent a letter from the Code Compliance Division of the Community Development Department based on an inspection of the property on June 25, 2024, that determined recent site improvements were in violation of the City’s driveway Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 5., Item Page 3, Packet Page 64 №10/24
standards. The letter asked for the property owner to “remove the driveway that is closer than (3) feet from the property line” by July 27, 2024 (Attachment 2) and included photos (Figure 2 and 3). The letter cited the Monterey City Code Section 38-23 described above.

Figure 2. April 2021 Google Maps Street View of 548 Mar Vista Drive Figure 3. Photo of 548 Mar Vista Drive taken on June 25, 2024 On behalf of the property owner, Michael Atteridge with Nicora Law Offices, LLP as the applicant, submitted a variance application to the Planning Division requesting a variance to allow the existing driveway improvements at 548 Mar Vista Drive to remain. The variance Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 5., Item Page 4, Packet Page 65 №10/24
application included a letter from the applicant that states that “the driveway modifications would allow safer and more convenient access to and from the driveway to the public street, eliminate the planter box that during the rainy season would dislodge mud on the driveway toward the house” (Attachment 3).

Pursuant to Monterey City Code section 38-116, variance applications may be approved if three findings, described below, are made. On January 28, 2025, the Planning Commission considered the variance application and denied driveway variance VA-24-0240 based on the following findings:

1. Variance Criteria No. 1: “That, because of special circumstances or conditions applicable to the subject property (including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings), strict application of the requirements of this ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under an identical zoning classification.” (City Code section 38-116(B)(1).) Appellant Argument: The topography, slope, and conditions right on the property line make this request for a variance unique and special to the condition at this site. The real property has slope conditions which cannot be altered and the prior conditions at the property rendered a planter box which created a hazardous condition with soil, mud, silt, slurry being directed at the residential unit in rainy conditions.

Planning Commission Determination: This finding is not met. The subject property is one of the largest lots along Mar Vista Drive between Toda Vista and Via Gayuba. The topography of the lots along Mar Vista Drive are similar with steep slopes at the rear of the lots and an approximate 4-foot elevation change or less from the street to the end of the driveway (Figure 1). The subject property slopes 4 feet in elevation along the driveway, approximately 462 feet in elevation at the property line to 458 feet in elevation along the driveway near the house. There is nothing special about the property location or surroundings that would make it unique to other properties under the same zoning classification. The lot is not unique in size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings; therefore, there is no special circumstance or condition applicable to the subject property. Strict application of the Monterey City Code would not deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification.

Figure 1. Topography along Mar Vista Drive
Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 5., Item Page 5, Packet Page 66 №10/24

2. Variance Criteria No. 2: “That granting the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity of the development site, or to the public health, safety, or general welfare.” (City Code section 38-116(B)(2).) Appellant’s Argument: There is no improvement in this variance which would be detrimental or impede the public health or safety of the neighborhood.

Staff and Planning Commission Determination: This finding is not met. Staff has concluded that the removal of the 3’ buffer along the side property line removes the opportunity for landscaping and open space that can be seen historically in site photos.

Landscaping provides a visual buffer between residential units; thereby, improving the neighborhood aesthetics and area’s general welfare. Staff has concluded this finding cannot be met.

In contrast, the Planning Commission determined that this finding can be met. Granting the application as proposed, maintaining the driveway improvements, would not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity of the development site, or to the public health, safety, or general welfare.

3. Variance Criteria No. 3: That granting the application is consistent with the purposes of this ordinance and will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district. (City Code section 38-116(B)(3).)
Appellant’s Argument: There are no special privileges which would be granted if this variance were to be approved. There are unique conditions at the site which make the variance application reasonable given the unusual topography, prior conditions and needed safety conditions at the site. The increase of the pavers against the property line is required both because of the existing slope involved and the prior conditions at the site which is greatly improved at no risk at impeding other landowners.

Planning Commission Determination: This finding is not met. Granting the variance request would not be consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance in that the property development standards that apply to R-1 zoned properties would not be enforced. The Zoning Code specifies that two of the purposes of the residential district are to:
 Ensure adequate light, air, privacy, and open space for each dwelling, and protect residents from the harmful effects of excessive noise, population density, traffic congestion, and other adverse environmental effects and  Achieve design compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods. (Municipal Code Section 38-21, B and D).

The removal of the 3’ landscape area reduces open space and privacy between the residences and reduces the design compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood.

Monterey City Code Section 38-23 (D)(5)(b) states, “The 3-foot area between the driveway apron and the side property line shall be landscaped and not paved.” This 3- foot area used to be landscaped (Figure 2) and was removed with the latest driveway modifications. Granting this variance application would constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 5., Item Page 6, Packet Page 67 №10/24
Figure 2. April 2021 Google Maps Street View of 548 Mar Vista Drive Furthermore, the Planning Commission denial of the driveway variance VA-24-0240 and approval of Planning Commission Resolution P25-004 would require compliance with the following Special Condition of Approval:
1) That the property owner remove pavers within a three-foot area between the driveway and the side property line and relandscape this area consistent with Monterey City Code Section 38-23 (D)(5)(b).

Appeal
The appellants, Desiree Albert and Michael Atteridge, filed application AP-25-0031 to appeal the Planning Commission’s denial of VA-24-0240. A written statement was not provided by the appellant summarizing the basis for the appeal but was submitted with the variance application (Attachment 3).

Analysis
MCC Section 38-211 states:

Upon hearing the appeal, the City Council or Planning Commission shall consider the record and such additional evidence as may be offered and shall find whether, in its opinion, error was made. The City Council may affirm, reverse, or modify the action appealed as it deems just and equitable, and may exercise all rights of any other officer or commission. The City Council or Planning Commission shall transmit a copy of its decision to the applicant, appellant, and the body whose action is appealed within 30 days of hearing the matter. (Ord. 3586 § 4, 2018) The City Council is tasked with finding whether, in its opinion, error was made by the Planning Commission. The City Council may affirm, reverse, or modify the action appealed as it deems just and equitable, and may exercise all rights of any other officer or commission.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 5., Item Page 7, Packet Page 68 №10/24
Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal. Denying the appeal would require the property owner to bring the property into compliance with MCC Section 38-23(D)(5)(b). This recommendation would be consistent with the Planning Commission’s decision.

In conclusion, by upholding the Planning Commission decision, a precedent would not be set for residential properties to not meet the driveway standards in the R-1 District, the intent of which is to maintain the aesthetics of the single-family neighborhood.

Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal with findings.

Attachments: 1. Resolution Denying Appeal-25-0031 to Allow a Driveway Variance

2. City of Monterey Code Compliance Letter dated July 27, 2024

3. Applicants Cover Letter Submitted with Variance Application VA-24-0240 e: Desiree Albert and Michael Atteridge, Appellants
Albert Desiree Trust, Property Owner
Monterey Vista Neighborhood Association
KC/LH/cs
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, 4/15/2025, Item No. 5., Item Page 8, Packet Page 69 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№011/24
UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO DENY DRIVEWAY VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR 548 MAR VISTA DRIVE;
APPEAL APPLICATION AP-25-0031
WHEREAS, Desiree Albert and Michael Atteridge, appellants, submitted an application to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission to deny a driveway variance application VA24-0240 that would have allowed the property owners to retain the recent driveway improvements, which included replacement of landscaping with pavers within the required 3-foot landscaped area between the driveway apron and the side property line; WHEREAS, the subject property is designated Low Density Residential on the General Plan Land Use Map and is zoned R-1-15 (Residential Single-Family District); WHEREAS, the R-1 District includes parking and driveway standards, including but not limited to the following:

The driveway in the front yard setback area shall not be widened more than an additional 10 feet and shall not be closer than 3 feet to a side property line. This widened area shall be a paved surface like the existing driveway or alternative paving surfaces, which have been reviewed and approved by staff. The 3-foot area between the driveway apron and the side property line shall be landscaped and not paved [Monterey City Code Section 38-23 (D)(5)(b)].

WHEREAS, on June 26, 2024, the property owner was sent a letter from the Code Compliance Division of the Community Development Department based on an inspection of the property on June 25, 2024, that determined recent site improvements were in violation of the City’s driveway standards. The letter asked for the property owner to “remove the driveway that is closer than (3) feet from the property line” by July 27, 2024; WHEREAS, on behalf of the property owner, Michael Atteridge with Nicora Law Offices, LLP as the applicant submitted a variance application (VA-24-0240) to the Planning Division requesting a variance to allow the existing driveway improvements at 548 Mar Vista Drive to remain. The variance application included a letter from the applicant that states that “the driveway modifications would allow safer and more convenient access to and from the driveway to the public street, eliminate the planter box that during the rainy season would dislodge mud on the driveway toward the house”;
WHEREAS, on January 28, 2025, the Planning Commission considered the variance application and denied driveway variance with the adoption of Resolution P25-004; WHERAS, the property owners, Albert Desiree Trust, filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision (AP-25-0031);
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1) because the proposed variance would potentially involve minor alterations to an existing, developed residential lot, which would not create an expansion of use. Furthermore, the project Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 5., Item Page 9, Packet Page 70 does not qualify for any of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions found at CEQA Guidelines 15300.2.

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 denies Appeal Application AP-25-0031 and upholds the Planning Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 5., Item Page 10, Packet Page 71 Commission (PC) decision to deny the variance application because the findings for a variance could not be made for the following reasons:

Monterey City Code section 38-116(B) requires the following factors in order for a variance to be granted::

B. For Variances.

1.That, because of special circumstances or conditions applicable to the subject property (including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings), strict application of the requirements of this ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under an identical zoning classification;

2.That granting the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity of the development site, or to the public health, safety, or general welfare; and

3.That granting the application is consistent with the purposes of this ordinance and will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district.

The foregoing criteria have not been met because:

1. The subject property is one of the largest lots along Mar Vista Drive between Toda Vista and Via Gayuba. The topography of the lots along Mar Vista Drive are similar with steep slopes at the rear of the lots and an approximate 4-foot elevation change or less from the street to the end of the driveway (Figure 1). The subject property slopes 4 feet in elevation along the driveway, approximately 462 feet in elevation at the property line to 458 feet in elevation along the driveway near the house. There is nothing special about the property location or surroundings that would make it unique to other properties under the same zoning classification. The lot is not unique in size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings; therefore, there is no special circumstance or condition applicable to the subject property. Strict application of the Monterey City Code would not deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification.

Figure 1. Topography along Mar Vista Drive
Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 5., Item Page 11, Packet Page 72 This finding is not met. Staff has concluded that the removal of the 3’ buffer along the side property line removes the opportunity for landscaping and open space that can be seen historically in site photos. Landscaping provides a visual buffer between residential units; thereby, improving the neighborhood aesthetics and area’s general welfare. Staff has concluded this finding cannot be met.

3. This finding is not met. Granting the variance request would not be consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance in that the property development standards that apply to R-1 zoned properties would not be enforced. The Zoning Code specifies that two of the purposes of the residential district are to:
 Ensure adequate light, air, privacy, and open space for each dwelling, and protect residents from the harmful effects of excessive noise, population density, traffic congestion, and other adverse environmental effects and  Achieve design compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods. (Municipal Code Section 38-21, B and D).

The removal of the 3’ landscape area reduces open space and privacy between the residences and reduces the design compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood.

Monterey City Code Section 38-23 (D)(5)(b) states, “The 3-foot area between the driveway apron and the side property line shall be landscaped and not paved.” This 3-foot area used to be landscaped (Figure 2) and was removed with the latest driveway modifications. Granting this variance application would constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district.

Figure 2. April 2021 Google Streets view of 548 Mar Vista Drive 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:

Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 5., Item Page 12, Packet Page 73 APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 5., Item Page 13, Packet Page 74 CITY OF MONTEREY – WARNING LETTER

OPPORTUNITY FOR COMPLIANCE-CORRECTIVE ACTION REQUIRED

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

CODE COMPLIANCE DIVISION
City Hall, Monterey, CA 93940
File No. CODEB24-0120 Owner: ALBERT DESIREE TR
Permit No. Mailing Address: 548 MAR VISTA DR, MONTEREY, CA 93940 Violation Address: 548 MAR VISTA DR, MONTEREY, CA 93940 Inspection Date: 6/25/2024

AN INSPECTION OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE HAS IDENTIFIED THE FOLLOWING VIOLATIONS OF THE MONTEREY MUNICIPAL CODE:

CODE SECTION VIOLATIONS AND CORRECTIONS REQUIRED
MCC§38-
23(D)(1) and
(5)(b)
Violation: R-1 Residential Single-Family District.

D. Property Development Standards.Property development standards that apply to new construction or alterations and additions in the R-1 District are shown below.

R-1 DISTRICT: PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

1.Minimum Yards (in feet):
a. Front 15 (a)
b. First-Story Side (b)
c. Corner Side (c)
d. Second-Story Side (d)
e. Second-Story Corner Side (e)
f. Rear 20 (f)

2.Maximum Lot Coverage (Percent)
a. One-story Buildings 40%
b.Buildings with 2 or more stories 35%

3.Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 40% (g)

5. b. Parking should be kept to a minimum in front yard setbacks (Ord 3334; 01/2004) On lots of a size 5,000 square feet or greater and on lots with a street front footage of 50 feet or greater, parking in the front yard setback shall be limited to the driveway in front of covered parking and in front of any required open parking space.

The driveway in the front yard setback area shall not be widened more than an additional 10 feet and shall not be closer than 3 feet to a side property line. This widened area shall be a paved surface like the existing driveway or alternative paving ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 5., Item Page 14, Packet Page 75 surfaces, which have been reviewed and approved by staff. The 3-foot area between the driveway apron and the side property line shall be landscaped and not paved.

On all residential parcels, no more than 50 percent of the front yard shall be paved.

Additional improved parking area may be considered by the Zoning Administrator where there is a physical hardship based on lack of on-street parking, topography, or natural features. There shall be no parking in the front yard setback on non-driveway areas.

Corrections Required:

1. Remove the driveway that is closer than three (3) foot from the property line.

Compliance Deadline: July 27, 2024.
6/26/2024______ __RORY LAKIND (831) 646-3750
Date of Notice Code Compliance Officer Phone No.

WARNING

FAILURE TO COMPLY MAY SUBJECT YOU TO ADMINISTRATIVE CITATIONS, FINES AND OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE AND LEGAL REMEDIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH MCC SECTIONS 1-9 ET SEQ..

THE BASE AMOUNT OF THE FINE FOR EACH COUNT IS $100.00, INCREASING TO 150% FOR THE SECOND AND 200% FOR THE THIRD AND EACH SUBSEQUENT VIOLATION WITHIN A THIRTYSIX(36) MONTH PERIOD. EACH DAY THAT A VIOLATION EXISTS CONSTITUTES A SEPARATE VIOLATION.

WARNING LETTER-OPPORTUNITY FOR COMPLIANCE
You are required to fully correct all listed violations of the Monterey City Code by the compliance dates shown on page one of this Notice and maintain the property in that condition and do so in the future.

Permits from the Building Safety Division may be required for structural, plumbing, mechanical and electrical work.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 5., Item Page 15, Packet Page 76

WORK DONE WITHOUT THE REQUIRED PERMITS IS A MISDEMEANOR AND WILL NOT QUALIFY AS COMPLIANCE.

NOTIFICATION
Please call or email the Code Compliance Office immediately to arrange an inspection when the corrective work is completed. If staff does hear from you by the date the corrections are due, staff will re-inspect your property. There will be no further notice or warning prior to the issuance of a citation for a continuing or future violation.

PENALTIES
Failure to correct the violation by the compliance date may subject you to Administrative Citations, fines, liens and other administrative and legal remedies in accordance with Chapter One, Article Two of the Monterey City Code and other applicable state and local laws, rules and regulations. In most cases, each day that a violation exists constitutes a separate violation.

COMPLIANCE ORDER
If voluntary compliance is not achieved, a Compliance Order can be issued and the City may begin proceedings to undertake repairs at your expense. If unpaid, the costs of repairs may be imposed as a special assessment or attached as a lien on your property.

QUESTIONS
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. You may reach my office by phone at (831)646- 3750 OR email [email protected].

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 5., Item Page 16, Packet Page 77 April 2021 Google Streets view
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 5., Item Page 17, Packet Page 78 Current View. Pavers need to be no more than 3 foot from property line.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 5., Item Page 18, Packet Page 79 Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 5., Item Page 19, Packet Page 80 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 5., Item Page 20, Packet Page 81 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 5., Item Page 21, Packet Page 82 Council
Agenda Report
№10/24
FROM: Kimberly Cole, AICP, Community Development Director Prepared By: Levi Hill, AICP, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: 1st Reading of the Sidewalk Vending Ordinance Update (Monterey City Code Chapter 32, Article 1, Section 3) (Exempt from CEQA Article 19, Section 15305, Class 5)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt a first reading of an
ordinance amending the sidewalk vending regulations.

VALUE DRIVERS:

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.

Expand opportunities for people of all ages and abilities to bike and walk safely through active transportation,
accessibility, and safety initiatives.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Senate Bill (“SB”) 946 was signed into law on
September 17, 2018, prohibiting local agencies from
regulating sidewalk vendors except in accordance with
its provisions, which are codified in Government Code
sections 51038 and 51039. In accordance with State
law, additional local regulations were established by City Council in 2019 through Ordinance No. 3603. If the City Council does not adopt the proposed amendment, sidewalk vending will continue to be allowed in compliance with the existing City and State regulations.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

Agenda Report Highlights
 The City Council is recommended to
adopt a first reading of an ordinance
amending sidewalk vending
regulations.
 Senate Bill 946 limits the City's
ability to regulate sidewalk vending,
requiring compliance with state
provisions.
 Ordinance No. 3606, adopted in
2019, established local regulations
for sidewalk vending to comply with
state law and support economic
opportunities for low-income and
immigrant communities.
 The proposed amendments aim to
address safety hazards and
overcrowding by reorganizing
existing regulations and adding new
requirements for vendor locations,
maximum space, and goods sold.

Date: 4/15/2025
Item No.: 6.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 6., Item Page 1, Packet Page 83 №10/24
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

No changes to applicable fees are proposed with this action. Therefore, no fiscal impact is anticipated.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15305, Class 5) because the project proposes minor alterations to the City Code to allow sidewalk vending that does not result in land use or density changes. Furthermore, the project does not qualify for any of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions found at CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2.

Exception a - Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located -a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply in all instances, except where the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies. The proposed sidewalk vending is temporary and will be conducted on City sidewalks. The environment is not particularly sensitive.

Exception b - Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. The proposed ordinance will not result in a cumulative impact as the sidewalk vending is temporary and will occur on sidewalks.

Exception c - Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. The proposed ordinance allows sidewalk vending. No significant impact is anticipated as the vending is temporary and will occur on sidewalks.

Exception d - Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The ordinance does not enable sidewalk vending on the City’s officially designated state scenic highways.

Exception e - Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. The sidewalk vending is temporary and would be located on public sidewalks which are not listed on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.

Exception f - Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. The sidewalk vending would be a temporary use located on public sidewalks. As a result, no substantial adverse change is anticipated. The project does not involve ground disturbance; therefore, no impacts to archaeological or historical resources will occur.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council may choose not to amend the existing sidewalk vending regulations. This would allow vendors to operate under the regulations currently in place.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 6., Item Page 2, Packet Page 84 №10/24
DISCUSSION:

Background
Prior to 2019, Monterey City Code generally prohibited the use of public property for transacting commercial business. Senate Bill ("SB") 946 was signed into law on September 17, 2018, prohibiting local agencies from regulating sidewalk vendors except in accordance with its provisions, which are codified in Government Code sections 51038 and 51039. This State law limits the City’s ability to regulate sidewalk vending.

On December 3, 2019, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 3606 which established local regulations for sidewalk vending. This action was done in an effort to comply with new state law and recognize that sidewalk vending provides important entrepreneurship and economic development opportunities to low-income and immigrant communities, contributes to a dynamic public space and increases access to desired goods and culturally significant food and merchandise.

Additionally, Ordinance No. 3606 states:
“the act of vending on sidewalks and other areas of the public right-of-way has the potential for increased safety hazards, such as, but not limited to, inhibiting the ability of disabled individuals and other pedestrians to follow a safe path of travel; interfering with the performance of police, firefighter, and emergency medical personnel services; encouraging pedestrians to cross midblock or stand in roadways to purchase food; and creating obstacles and contributing to congestion for pedestrian, vehicle, and bicycle traffic.” Public Feedback
Public feedback on sidewalk vending has presented two main perspectives. At City Council meetings in September, October and November 2024, supporters emphasize the significant economic opportunities, particularly for low-income individuals and immigrants, and the contribution to a lively community atmosphere and increased availability of diverse goods and services. Some advocated for allowing reasonable fees and penalties and allowing for tables and chairs for displaying goods and accommodating customers. Conversely, significant concerns have been raised about potential negative impacts. These include the obstruction of pedestrian flow and visibility, especially on the recreational trail, where it was noted that vending could obstruct oceanfront views and coastal access. Feedback also included worries about distracting signage, how to address repeat offenders, complaints about aesthetics, and the potential for unfair competition with established businesses.

The City of Monterey hosted a Town Hall meeting on sidewalk vending on April 9, 2025 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber. Notices were hand delivered to nineteen sidewalk vendors displaying goods on April 5th between the Wharf I and the public parking lot. The City also sent meeting flyers directly via email to sidewalk vendors and Wharf I business owners on April 4th.

Additional notice was provided in the City weekly email blast. The meeting was well attended.

During the town hall, participants emphasized that many vendors near Wharf I already work together to "self-police" the area, ensuring it remains well-maintained, trash-free, and with adequate walking paths between vendors. They suggested that in many ways, vendors provide a public presence, acting as "eyes on the street" to protect the area. Police response has been limited to resolve the types of disputes that are occurring on weekends.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 6., Item Page 3, Packet Page 85 №10/24
Many vendors requested increased enforcement by the City to prevent vendors from setting up tables before the official start times, particularly on weekends. They noted a lack of City officials "in-charge" on weekends and expressed concerns about the City adding staff positions to resolve the issue.

Anticipating increased crowds during the summer months, vendors discussed potential solutions such as limiting the number of vendors to existing license holders and establishing a "local preference" for vendors living in the City or region. Regarding display space, some vendors suggested a limit of four to five tables or a maximum of 144 square feet per vendor, while others expressed concern about potential revenue reduction if limited to one table.

Proposed Amendment
Since the adoption of Ordinance No. 3606 in 2019, City staff has received an annual average of 33 sidewalk vending applications with the majority of vendors proposing to locate and operate along the City-controlled property between the Waterfront Parking Lot and State-owned Custom House Plaza, as well as the walkway near the Harbormaster’s Office, due to the high concentration of visitors in the area. This area is further bisected by the Monterey Bay Coastal Recreation Trail, an 18-mile, regional, multi-purpose trail for residents and visitors of Monterey and the surrounding region.

Section 32-3.08(g) of the Monterey City Code already prohibits vending in, on, or along the Recreation Trail, however no specific separation distance from the trail is noted. Additionally, the existing sidewalk vending regulations do not prescribe limitations to the maximum area allowed for a vendor and associated equipment to operate within. Given the aforementioned, staff has identified potential safety hazards concerning the overcrowding of the area and the safe movement of pedestrians and bicyclists. This area also provides the public with beautiful oceanfront views and coastal access.

The proposed amendments include a reorganization of the existing sidewalk vending regulations along with additional or modified location and operational requirements for vendors.

The amended regulations would include but not be limited to maximum space requirements, distance/location requirements, and limitations on goods being sold.

In conclusion, staff recommends the City Council adopt an Ordinance amending Chapter 32 of the Monterey City Code amending the sidewalk vending regulations.

KC/lh
Attachments: 1. Ordinance Amending Chapter 32 of the City Code

2. Letter from the Fisherman’s Wharf Association

3. Letter from Steinbeck Jewelers

4. Letter from Cannery Row Business Association

5. Letter from Ruby Falls Fund
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, 4/15/2025, Item No. 6., Item Page 4, Packet Page 86 ORDINANCE NO. ____ C.S.

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

SIDEWALK VENDING ORDINANCE UPDATE
(MONTEREY CITY CODE CHAPTER 32, ARTICLE 1, SECTION 3)
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY DOES ORDAIN, as follows:

SECTION 1:

WHEREAS, since 1936, Monterey City Code section 32-3 has generally prohibited the use of public property for transacting commercial business. Senate Bill (“SB”) 946 was signed into law on September 17, 2018, prohibiting local agencies from regulating sidewalk vendors except in accordance with its provisions, which are codified in Government Code sections 51038 and 51039;
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance 3606 on December 3, 2019, recognizing that sidewalk vending provides important entrepreneurship and economic development opportunities to low-income and immigrant communities, contributes to a dynamic public space and increases access to desired goods and culturally significant food and merchandise. The findings set forth in the recitals in Ordinance 3606 are affirmed and incorporated herein by reference;
WHEREAS, in January 2023, SB 972 took effect and updated the California Retail Food Code to exempt some sidewalk vending operations from the requirement to obtain a health permit and the City Code needs to be updated to reflect this change; WHEREAS, since the enactment of Ordinance 3606, the City has observed health and safety issues related to sidewalk vending, and it has received complaints regarding safety, aesthetics, congestion of public spaces, among other complaints, resulting from sidewalk vending activity. In particular, concerns with sidewalk vending operations interfering with the flow of runners, bikers, and pedestrians on the recreation trail, and obstructing oceanfront views and coastal access. Given this, there is a need for additional regulation of sidewalk vendors on public property that are directly related to objective health, safety, and welfare concerns created by competing uses of sidewalks by residents, visitors, and sidewalk vendors. The Council further finds and declares that regulations on sidewalk vending in City parks, open spaces, and beach access areas are necessary to ensure the public’s use and enjoyment of natural resources and recreational opportunities, and are necessary to prevent an undue concentration of commercial activity that unreasonably interferes with the scenic and natural character of the parks, open spaces, and beach access areas;
WHEREAS, the City Council determines that this ordinance is a matter of City-wide importance and necessary for the preservation and protection of the public peace, health, safety and/or welfare of the community, is a valid exercise of local police power and is in accordance with the public purposes and provisions of applicable State and local laws and requirements; WHEREAS, the City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15305, Class 5) Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 6., Item Page 5, Packet Page 87 2 because the project consists of a Municipal Code amendment to modify sidewalk vending regulations in areas with existing sidewalk vending regulations, which would not result in any changes in population density or traffic patterns. Furthermore, the project does not qualify for any of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions found at CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2; Exception a - Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located – a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply in all instances, except where the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies. No significant impact will occur because this is a minor change to land use limitations.

Exception d - Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR). No impact will occur because there would be no improvements or damage to a scenic highway.

Exception e - Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. Hazardous waste sites will not be impacted because no construction is proposed.

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: Monterey City Code section 32-3.01, Sidewalk Vending – Definitions, is hereby amended to insert the following definitions in alphabetical order, and the existing definitions are to be re-lettered in alphabetical order:
“Above-ground structure” means any structure affixed to a sidewalk, including a streetlight, tree well, parking meter, utility structure, utility box, bike rack, mailbox, trash can, elevator, kiosk, newspaper rack, picnic shelter, bench, table, wall, sign pole, traffic signal pole, signal pushbutton pole, planter, and stairs.” Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 6., Item Page 6, Packet Page 88 “Beach access point” means public stairways, ramps, and other physical access points to the beach.
“School” means an institution of learning that offers instruction in those courses of study required by the California Education Code or that is maintained pursuant to standards set by the State Board of Education. This definition does not include a vocational or professional institution or an institution of higher education, including a community or junior college, college, or university.”
SECTION 4: Monterey City Code section 32-3.02(b)(4) is hereby amended as follows:
“If the applicant will vend food products and if required by the California Retail Food Code, a valid Monterey County Health Department permit issued to the vendor and, if applicable, to the transport vehicle.”
SECTION 5: Monterey City Code section 32-3.03(b)(6) is hereby amended to read as follows:
“Proof of a policy or policies of comprehensive general liability insurance insuring the sidewalk vendor and naming the City as an additional insured against loss by reason of injury or damage that may result to persons or property from the negligent operation or defective construction of the sidewalk vending device, or from violation of this chapter or of any other law of the State or the United States. The insurance policy shall be in the sum as determined adequate by the City’s Finance Director, or designee, which said sum shall be listed on the sidewalk vending permit application. Such insurance shall further provide that the policy shall not terminate or be canceled without 30 calendar days’ advance written notice to the City.”
SECTION 6: Monterey City Code section 32-3.07(f) is amended as follows:
“Sidewalk vendors shall not display any goods for sale on the ground. Displays may not be less than 28 inches or more than 34 inches off the ground.”
SECTION 7: Monterey City Code section 32-3.07(g) is amended as follows:
“Sidewalk vendors shall not connect to an external source of power, water, or any other utilities located on public property.” SECTION 8: Monterey City Code section 32-3.07(j) is amended as follows:
“Sidewalk vendors shall not leave vending equipment or goods unattended at any time. Any equipment or objects used for sidewalk vending purposes must be removed from public property at 10:00 p.m. or by the hours of operation imposed on other businesses or uses on the same street, whichever is least restrictive. Any equipment or objects used for sidewalk vending purposes left on City property outside of permitted sidewalk vending hours will be considered discarded and may be
immediately seized or disposed of by the City.”
Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 6., Item Page 7, Packet Page 89 4 SECTION 9: Monterey City Code section 32-3.07(k) is amended as follows:
“To facilitate the enforcement of this chapter, every sidewalk vendor must display their City-issued sidewalk vending permit on their pushcart, stand, display, pedal-driven cart, wagon, showcase, rack, or other nonmotorized conveyance when
operating. Every sidewalk vendor must possess proof of
insurance required by this chapter when operating.”
SECTION 10: Monterey City Code section 32-3.07(s) is amended as follows:
“No sidewalk vendor shall occupy a space exceeding 32 square feet, greater than eight feet in length, or four feet in width, including vending equipment but excluding the space the sidewalk vendors own person occupies.”
SECTION 11: Monterey City Code section 32-3.07 Sidewalk vending- General regulations, subsections (t) through (y) are added as follows:
t. No sidewalk vendor shall use or display any item, equipment, or structure greater than eight feet in height or that extends or overhangs more than four inches.
u. Sidewalk vending customer seating is prohibited.
v. No vending equipment may be attached to or contact any above ground structure.
w. Sidewalk vending hours limitations in areas zoned for nonresidential use will be between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. or the hours of operation imposed on other businesses or uses on the same street, whichever is least restrictive.
x. Roaming sidewalk vending is limited to the hours of 9:00 a.m. through 5:00 p.m. for areas that are exclusively residential. y. Sidewalk vendors shall not use portable generators, outdoor wood burning ovens, charcoal barbecues, or gasoline or
kerosene.

SECTION 12: Monterey City Code section 32-3.08 Sidewalk vending- Specific regulations, is retitled as Monterey City Code section 32-3.08, Sidewalk Vending- Location regulations.

SECTION 13: Monterey City Code sections 32-3.08(a) and (b) are amended as follows:
“a. Stationary sidewalk vending shall not be located:

1. within 10 feet of any:

A. driveway;
B. marked crosswalk; or
C. fire escape.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 6., Item Page 8, Packet Page 90

2. within 15 feet of any:

A. other sidewalk vendor;
B. intersection;
C. building entrance;
D. loading zone, parking space or access ramp designed for individuals with disabilities;
E. fire hydrant;
F. red curb marking (no parking);
F. public restroom;
G. any decorative fountain, statute, monument, memorial, or art installation; or
H. curb ramp.

3. within 25 feet of:

A. outdoor dining or patio area;
B. any beach access point;
C. Municipal Wharf No. 1; or
D. Municipal Wharf No. 2.

4. within 100 feet of any:

A. vehicle entrance to any Fire Station, Police Department, Hospital, or any other structure dedicated to health and safety emergency matters; or
B. street or sidewalk closure.

5. within 500 feet of:

A. the property line of any school between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. on the days the school is in session;
B. a permitted certified farmers’ market or any area subject to a special event permit for the duration of the permit; or C any freeway on-ramp or off-ramp as defined in the California Vehicle Code.
b. Stationary sidewalk vendors are prohibited from:

1. vending in areas that are exclusively residential; or

2. vending within five feet of any above ground structure.” SECTION 14: Monterey City Code section 32-3.08(c) is deleted and this subsection is reserved.

SECTION 15: the first sentence of Monterey City Code section 32-3.08(d) is amended as follows:
“In addition to the other applicable requirements of this chapter, sidewalk vending in City parks is subject to the following regulations, and in the event of a conflict between the provisions of this section and other provisions of this chapter, this section shall govern sidewalk vending in City parks:”
SECTION 16: Monterey City Code section 32-3.08(d)(2) is amended as follows:
“Sidewalk vending in City parks may only occur during the park’s normal open hours.

Sidewalk vending is permitted between 8:00 a.m. and sunset in parks where there is no designated closing time.”
Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 6., Item Page 9, Packet Page 91 6 SECTION 17: Monterey City Code section 32-3.08(d)(5) is added as follows:
“Sidewalk vendors shall not vend within 50 feet of another sidewalk vendor.” SECTION 18: Monterey City Code section 32-3.08(e) is amended as follows:
“e. Sidewalk vending is prohibited on the sidewalk between the Harbor Master Office located at 250 Figueroa Street and Wharf 1 within 12’ of the walkway railing or rock causeway.

SECTION 19: Monterey City Code section 32-3.08(g) is amended as follows:
“No sidewalk vending shall be allowed in, on, along, or within 25 feet on either side of the centerline of Monterey Bay Coastal Recreation Trail within the City of Monterey.” SECTION 20: Monterey City Code section 32-3.08(i) is added as follows:
“No sidewalk vending shall be allowed in, on, along, or within Simoneau Transit Plaza.” SECTION 21: All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

SECTION 22: If any section, sub-section, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted the Ordinance and each section, sub-section, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, sub-sections, sentences, clauses, phrases or portions to be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 23: 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 _______, 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, 4/15/2025, Item No. 6., Item Page 10, Packet Page 92 April 9, 2025
Ms. Kimberly Cole
Fisherman's Wharf Association
P.O. Box 465
Monterey, CA 93942
Community Development Director
City of Monterey
570 Pacific Street
Monterey, CA 93940
[email protected]
Dear Ms. Cole:

I am the Executive Director of the Fisherman's Wharf Association. The purpose of this letter is to ,let you know that the Fisherman's Wharf Association encourages the City of Monterey to consider changing the City's current regulations regarding sidewalk vending. The City's current regulations do not adequately define a safe path of travel on the Causeway. A safe path of travel is a public safety necessity to protect the thousands of pedestrians, cyclists, people with disabilities and first responders who travel the Causeway every day. By adopting a safe path of travel, the City will help ensure that the Causeway continues to be an area enjoyed by tourists, locals, and sidewalk vendors.

Thank you for your consideration.
s��
Wendy Brickman, Executive Director
Fisherman's Wharf Association
cc: Board of Directors Fisherman's Wharf Association
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 6., Item Page 11, Packet Page 93 Outlook
Fw: Town Hall Street vending issue
From Hans Uslar <[email protected]>
Date Wed 4/9/2025 12:14 PM
To Kimberly Cole <[email protected]>; Levi Hill <[email protected]>; Nat Rojanasathira <[email protected]>; Clementine Bonner Klein <[email protected]> Hans Uslar
City Manager
City of Monterey
From: TAMARA G <steinbecks@a�.net>
Sent: Wednesday, April 9, 2025 11:45:42 AM
To: Tyller Williamson <[email protected]>; Kim Barber <[email protected]>; Gino Garcia <[email protected]>; Jean Rasch <[email protected]>; Ed Smith <[email protected]>; Hans Uslar <[email protected]>
Subject: Town Hall Street vending issue
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important Mayor Tyler Williamson, Council Members: Dr. Kim Barber, Ed Smith, Gino Garcia, Jean Rasch, and City Mangager Hans Uslar,
Unfortunately, we are unable to a�end the town hall regarding street vending tonight, but we wish for our voices to be heard on this ma�er.

The vending at the mouth of the wharf is a huge safety concern on many levels. The lowest level concern is people not having adequate room to simply walk through without ge�ng bumped by a stroller or back of feet stepped on. But then the safety risk level goes drama�cally up from there. With bikes flying through the area, it is an accident wai�ng to happen. Then take into account if an emergency happens in an already �ght space of the wharf itself, leaving no room for emergency vehicles to pass in a �mely manner, let alone an evacua�on.

The liability as it stands now should be a concern large enough to have daily enforcement and create stricter regula�on.

If safety and liability isn't enough to �ghten regula�on, we would urge a serious discussion of op�cs. As a small business, we are suppor�ve of the entrepreneurial spirit of even smaller businesses. However, as a small brick and mortar business, as many wharf and Cannery Row business owners are, we are responsible year round for the major expense of running a business. This includes taking �me, care, and finances to carefully select products to sell in our stores and restaurants.

If one who merely has to pay a few hundred dollars annually comes to set up a table during only the busy and profitable �mes before the visitor even gets to the brick and mortar stores, it has a bu�erfly effect. The small brick and mortars stop hiring, or even reducing hours for exisi�ng staff, can no longer afford fresh merchandise, and slowly are nudged out by vendors with really no overhead. The other scenerio that commonly happens is that the more discrimina�ng visitor sees an en�re flea market setup they need to cross to get to brick and mortars, they avoid the area all together, and take their dollars to neighborhing ci�es where this is simply not an issue.

We absolutely think that there is a way to support sidewalk vendors and balance with those of us who get ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 6., Item Page 12, Packet Page 94 regulated on city, state, and federal levels. We would suggest a higher annual vendor license fee to encourage ar�sts who sell unique and high quality goods, limi�ng the tables and enforcing space between them, and regular daily enforcement to make certain vendors are in compliance with the guidelines. In addi�on, we would suggest a quarterly audit to ensure taxes are properly being collected and paid to the city.

Thank you for your �me and though�ullness to this very important issue. We want all visitors in Monterey to enjoy all that the area has to offer. We feel strongly that working together to create a beau�ful mix of stores and vendors will best serve all.

Regards,
Tamara Gear, Owner
DeAnn Brady, Manager and Cannery Row Business Associa�on Vice President Steinbeck Jewelers
Tamara G Jewelers
711 Cannery Row Suite G
Monterey, CA 93940
831-585-1539
steinbecks@a�.net
www.tamaragdesign.com
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open a�achments unless you are sure the content is safe.] ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 6., Item Page 13, Packet Page 95 Outlook
Fw: Sidewalk Vending Concerns
From Hans Uslar <[email protected]>
Date Wed 4/9/2025 6:07 PM
To Nat Rojanasathira <[email protected]>; Kimberly Cole <[email protected]>; Christine Davi <[email protected]>; Clementine Bonner Klein <[email protected]>; Levi Hill <[email protected]> Thank you.

Hans Uslar
City Manager
City of Monterey
(831) 646-3760
From: lance l <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 9, 2025 5:55 PM
To: Tyller Williamson <[email protected]>; Kim Barber <[email protected]>; Gino Garcia <[email protected]>; Jean Rasch <[email protected]>; Ed Smith <[email protected]>; Hans Uslar <[email protected]>
Subject: Sidewalk Vending Concerns
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important Hello Mayor Williamson, Council and City Manager Hans. I unfortunately will not be able to attend tonight's town hall meeting on the very important subject of the sidewalk vending so I hope this email finds you all in time. As the Chair of the CRBA and then having business interests on Cannery Row and Fisherman's Wharf, the issues with sidewalk vending affect our businesses and employees greatly. I personally am most concerned with public safety and the safety of our staff members. Crowded rec trails increase the likelihood of pedestrian injuries and aid in the inability of emergency vehicle response for any emergencies in the two areas. Additionally crowded sidewalks force our visitors into the street and risk being struck by motorist. I also believe that it is important to protect our brick and mortar businesses primarily because our valued employees livelihoods depend on our success and ability to provide hours and insurance benefits. I encourage action be taken to drastically reduce the amount of sidewalk vending permits available in an effort to clean up our image for visitors and to make the area safer for everyone. My apologies for not attending in-person tonight and thank you in advance for your consideration on this very important issue.

Lance Koehler
Chair
Cannery Row Business Association
Owner
Pacific Pet Treats LLC
General Manager
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 6., Item Page 14, Packet Page 96 Louie Linguini's
660 Cannery Row
Monterey CA 93940
831-536-7904
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open a�achments unless you are sure the content is safe.] ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 6., Item Page 15, Packet Page 97 Outlook
Fw: My opinion on Street Vendors
From Hans Uslar <[email protected]>
Date Wed 4/9/2025 6:07 PM
To Kimberly Cole <[email protected]>; Christine Davi <[email protected]>; Nat Rojanasathira <[email protected]>; Clementine Bonner Klein <[email protected]> 1 attachment (3 MB)
TOWNHALL on STREET VENDORS.pdf;
Thank you.

Hans Uslar
City Manager
City of Monterey
(831) 646-3760
From: Cannery Row Plaza <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 9, 2025 3:49 PM
To: Tyller Williamson <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Gino Garcia <[email protected]>; Jean Rasch <[email protected]>; Ed Smith <[email protected]>; Hans Uslar <[email protected]>; Nat Rojanasathira <[email protected]> Subject: RE: My opinion on Street Vendors
Mayor, Hans, and City Council,
I am writing to share a proposal regarding the regulation of street vendors in Monterey, a topic I understand is under consideration at tonight’s Townhall. I only became aware of this meeting this morning, but I have quickly compiled some thoughts and attached a detailed letter for your review, which I believe could inform your approach to this matter.

As a local business owner in Monterey, I am deeply invested in preserving the character and appeal of our community—a city renowned for its rich history, vibrant culture, and pristine natural surroundings. While I recognize the entrepreneurial spirit of street vendors, I am concerned that their current unregulated presence detracts from the image we strive to project to tourists and residents alike.

From my perspective, popup vendors introduce an element of disorganization, ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 6., Item Page 16, Packet Page 98 contributing to congestion, potential food safety risks, low-quality goods, and a transient atmosphere that clashes with our established lifestyle.

Operating a brick-and-mortar business, such as my planned mobile pizza café on my property, requires navigating a rigorous framework of regulations and financial obligations. These include substantial business license fees, a $5 million insurance policy, workers’ compensation, and compliance with various permits—all of which ensure safety, accountability, and fairness. In contrast, street vendors appear to enjoy a significant advantage, operating with lower overhead costs and the flexibility to appear only during peak seasons or favorable weather, reaping benefits without the year-round commitments borne by our permanent business community. We remain steadfast through economic highs and lows, supporting Monterey’s economy consistently while incurring expenses throughout the year.

I respectfully urge the City Council to consider implementing robust regulations for street vendors, aligning their requirements more closely with those imposed on brick-and-mortar establishments. Such measures could include stricter permitting processes, comparable insurance mandates, and limitations on operating hours and locations to mitigate their impact on public spaces and ensure equitable competition. My attached letter elaborates on these suggestions, offering a framework to balance economic opportunity with the integrity of our community.

Thank you for your time and dedication to Monterey’s future. I would be honored to discuss this further at the Townhall or at your convenience.

Bob Faulis
Ruby Falls Fund
484 Cannery Row
Monterey, CA 93940
(760) 212-3729
Bob Faulis
CEO
501 Cannery Row
Monterey, Ca 93940
(833) 880-8880. (o)
ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 6., Item Page 17, Packet Page 99 (760) 212-3729 (m)
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open a�achments unless you are sure the content is safe.] ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 6., Item Page 18, Packet Page 100 TOWNHALL on STREET VENDORS
Monterey, CA. – City Chambers 6 pm Tonight.

Street vending in California has been transformed by recent legislation. The Safe Sidewalk Vending Act (SB 946, 2018) decriminalized sidewalk vending, allowing local authorities to adopt non-criminal laws for health, safety, and welfare Safe Sidewalk Vending Act. SB 972 (2023) eased health permit requirements, effective January 1, 2023, by introducing Compact Mobile Food Operations (CMFOs) for non-motorized carts SB 972 Effect. These changes have increased vendor activity, but also raised concerns in Monterey, as evidenced by recent crackdowns on unpermitted vendors Monterey County Crackdown.

I am not sure how many residents of Monterey feel that the street vending culture enriches our community but many business owners feel that there is unfair advantage to a pop-up table. The business owners feel that the issue requires structured oversight to address safety, equity, and economic fairness. Drawing on statewide legislation (e.g., SB 946, SB 972) and lessons from other California cities, this strategy proposes actionable policies to mitigate risks while fostering a sustainable environment for vendors and brick-and-mortar businesses alike
Economic studies, such as the Economic Roundtable’s analysis, show street vendors in Los Angeles contribute $504 million annually, sustaining 5,234 jobs, with negligible crime correlation (<1%) Sidewalk Stimulus. However, in Monterey, local reports highlight health risks, litter, and competition with brick-and-mortar businesses, prompting regulatory action Salinas Crackdown.

Current Monterey Regulations
Monterey’s City Code (Chapter 32-3.02) requires a sidewalk vending permit, including identification, seller’s permit, health permits for food vendors, LiveScan background checks, insurance naming the City as additional insured, and site plans for ADA compliance Monterey City Code. Fees are nonrefundable, with credits for existing business licenses. While comprehensive, enforcement gaps and space management issues persist, necessitating updates.

Brick-and-mortar businesses claim that the $400 annual license fee ($1.10/day) is unfair when they pay much higher fees plus rents, trash, maintenance, sidewalk repairs, and other expenses that make up a solid business presence for tourists and community alike.

Detailed Measures
• Safety Enhancements: Increase health inspections for food vendors, educate on safety practices, and enforce penalties for violations to reduce risks like food-borne illnesses and blocked pathways.

ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 6., Item Page 19, Packet Page 101 • Vendor Screening: Expand background checks to include Megan’s Law compliance and fraud history, ensuring only qualified vendors operate, with annual permit renewals for ongoing compliance.
• Space and Numbers: Cap vendors per block (e.g., one per 50 feet), limit setup sizes (e.g., 25 square feet), and designate low-conflict zones to prevent overcrowding and ensure pedestrian access.
• Economic Fairness: Adjust fees to reflect public space use, promote vendor-business collaborations, and prevent direct competition with brick-and-mortar stores through zoning (e.g., 20 feet from entrances).
• Taxes and Auditing: Mandate seller’s permits, conduct biannual audits, and impose penalties for tax non-compliance to ensure revenue capture. • Fees and Insurance: Review permit fees for cost coverage, offer sliding scales for lowincome vendors, and set minimum insurance (e.g., $1 million) to protect against liabilities.
• Limits and Revenue: Cap vendor numbers, restrict hours (10 AM–8 PM), designate vending zones, and increase fees (e.g., booth rentals) to optimize city revenue while managing impact.

Survey Note: Comprehensive Analysis of Street Vendor Regulation in Monterey, California
This report provides an in-depth analysis of popup street vendors on California public city property, focusing on Monterey, based on a review of articles, reports, studies, and local regulations. It develops a detailed strategy for the Monterey City Council, addressing safety, screening, space, economic fairness, taxes, fees, insurance, and limits on vendor presence, with a strong argument for restricting numbers, areas, hours, and city revenue.

Context and Legal Framework
Street vending in California has been transformed by recent legislation. The Safe Sidewalk Vending Act (SB 946, 2018) decriminalized sidewalk vending, allowing local authorities to adopt non-criminal laws for health, safety, and welfare Safe Sidewalk Vending Act. SB 972 (2023) eased health permit requirements, effective January 1, 2023, by introducing Compact Mobile Food Operations (CMFOs) for non-motorized carts SB 972 Effect. These changes have increased vendor activity, but also raised concerns in Monterey, as evidenced by recent crackdowns on unpermitted vendors Monterey County Crackdown.

Economic studies, such as the Economic Roundtable’s analysis, show street vendors in Los Angeles contribute $504 million annually, sustaining 5,234 jobs, with negligible crime correlation (<1%) Sidewalk Stimulus. However, in Monterey, local reports highlight health risks, litter, and competition with brick-and-mortar businesses, prompting regulatory action Salinas Crackdown.

ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 6., Item Page 20, Packet Page 102 Current Monterey Regulations
Monterey’s City Code (Chapter 32-3.02) requires a sidewalk vending permit, including identification, seller’s permit, health permits for food vendors, LiveScan background checks, insurance naming the City as additional insured, and site plans for ADA compliance Monterey City Code. Fees are nonrefundable, with credits for existing business licenses. While comprehensive, enforcement gaps and space management issues persist, necessitating updates.

Detailed Strategy Components
Safety Issues
Safety concerns include health risks from unpermitted food vendors, physical hazards from blocked pathways, and potential crime. Since July 2024, Monterey County received 66 complaints about unpermitted vendors, linked to food-borne illness risks Monterey County Crackdown. Proposed measures include:
• Increasing health inspections, educating vendors on sanitation, and enforcing penalties for violations.
• Ensuring vendor setups do not block sidewalks, bike lanes, or emergency access, with regular safety audits.
• Collaborating with law enforcement to monitor vending areas for crime, given the negligible crime correlation found in studies (<1%) Sidewalk Stimulus.

1. Enhanced Safety Protocols
• Food Safety Compliance:
o A little riskier is that street vendors can obtain a county health permit under SB 972’s streamlined guidelines, which minimizes equipment standards (e.g., waiving three-compartment sinks for non-hazardous foods, refrigeration) Seek to revise the relax standards invoked which gives unfair advantage to the vendors compared to brick-and-mortar operators. This also can open the door
o Mandate periodic health inspections, focusing on food sourcing, storage, and handling. Monterey County’s recent crackdown on unpermitted vendors highlights the risks of unregulated food sales, including foodborne illnesses ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 6., Item Page 21, Packet Page 103 • Screening of Vendors
Current screening includes LiveScan background checks, but additional measures are needed for Megan’s Law compliance and fraud history. Permitted vendors like Jesus Perez in Salinas pay $2,000 annually for permits, fearing customer illness from unpermitted competitors Salinas Crackdown. Proposed measures:
• Expand checks to include Megan’s Law, outstanding tax liens or unresolved code violations from renewing permits (See Santa Ana’s resolution against unsafe vending practices offers a model), criminal convictions and fraud history, with annual permit renewals.
• Require health permits for all food vendors, with exemptions for prepackaged nonhazardous items (≤25 sq ft) Guidance on Street Vendor Laws.

Number of Tables and Space Sizes (Pedestrian and Traffic Safety):

Overcrowding can disrupt pedestrian flow, especially in tourist areas like Alvarado Street.

Current regulations ensure ADA compliance, but lack specific limits. Proposed measures:
• Cap vendors per block (e.g., one per 50 feet), limit setups to 25 square feet, and designate zones away from high-traffic areas.
• Limit cart dimensions to 4’x6’ and mandate a 5-foot clearance for pedestrian pathways, aligning with Anaheim’s public safety ordinances • Regularly inspect to ensure compliance, drawing from Los Angeles’ spacing rules (≥20 ft from entrances) Guidance on Street Vendor Laws to prevent sidewalk congestion.

Unfair Cost Basis for Brick-and-Mortar Businesses
Street vendors’ lower overheads can undercut brick-and-mortar stores, as seen in Salinas where unpermitted vendors operate weekends near malls Salinas Crackdown. Proposed measures:
• Implement tiered fees based on revenue, require daily/weekly fees in high-traffic areas, and zone vendors ≥20 ft from business entrances.
• Promote collaborations, such as joint marketing, to foster a supportive ecosystem.

Taxes Collected and Auditing
Tax evasion by unpermitted vendors reduces city revenue. Current rules mandate seller’s permits, but enforcement is weak. Proposed measures:
• Require proof of seller’s permit in applications, conduct biannual audits, and impose penalties for non-compliance.
• Provide workshops to help vendors comply, ensuring revenue capture Guidance on Street Vendor Laws.
• Require sales tax reporting requirements mirroring brick-and-mortar obligations.

Los Angeles’ $504M vendor revenue demonstrates untapped tax potential.

ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 6., Item Page 22, Packet Page 104 Business License Fees
Fees must cover regulatory costs. Current fees are nonrefundable, with credits for existing licenses. Proposed measures:
• Review fees for cost coverage, offer sliding scales for low-income vendors, and consider booth rentals in designated areas. More appropriate fees would be $1,000 to $3,000 to cover administrative costs, enforcement, and other public concerns. • Set up a vendor market buy the entrance of Wharf 2 with covered shed as they do in other tourist areas outside of the US. This would make inspection, licensing, and tax audits a simpler process.

Insurance Requirements
Insurance protects against liabilities. Current rules require general liability naming the City, but amounts need standardization. Proposed measures:
• Set minimum insurance at $1 million per occurrence, require annual proof, and educate vendors on coverage importance.

Limiting Number, Size of Area, Hours, and City Revenue
Limiting vendor presence addresses safety, fairness, and revenue. Arguments include:
• Public safety: Fewer vendors reduce overcrowding risks. • Pedestrian flow: Designated areas ensure accessibility. • Economic fairness: Prevents oversaturation harming businesses. • Aesthetic concerns: Managed areas improve cleanliness. • Revenue optimization: Caps maximize fee revenue.

Proposed measures:
• Cap total vendors, restrict hours to 10 AM–7 PM, designate zones, and increase fees (e.g., booth rentals, percentage-based for high-revenue vendors). • Rotate permitted zones quarterly to prevent monopolization of high-demand areas, inspired by San Francisco’s Mission Street pilot
Public Engagement
Community input is crucial. Proposed measures:
• Hold hearings, conduct surveys, and form an advisory committee with stakeholders to ensure regulations reflect local needs. This townhall is an important sample of outreach. • Unfortunately, the demands on a brick-and-mortar business are much higher than pop-up vendors who have less issues to deal with. Greater outreach top local businesses are needed. I, as a local business owner, was unaware of this meeting till the morning it was to be held.

ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 6., Item Page 23, Packet Page 105 Addressing Brick-and-Mortar Concerns
• Cost Burden Mitigation:
o Offer brick-and-mortar businesses a property tax credit (up to $1,000 annually) to offset losses from vendor competition, leveraging Monterey’s existing MEHKO permit framework
o Create a vendor adjacency buffer (200 feet) for restaurants, mirroring San Francisco’s lawsuit over unfair competition
o
Implementation Plan
The plan includes five phases:

1. Review and identify gaps based on best practices (e.g., Los Angeles, Santa Barbara).

2. Develop and approve updated regulations.

3. Educate vendors and public through workshops.

4. Enforce with a 30-day grace period for compliance.

5. Monitor and adjust based on feedback.

Quantity Control:
• Cap permits at 30 citywide to manage competition and ensure enforceability, reflecting UCLA’s findings on L.A.’s low permit issuance rates Enforcement and Revenue Generation
• Technology-Driven Compliance:
o Adopt cloud-based enforcement software (e.g., Comcate) to track violations, issue fines (100–100–1,000 per SB 946), and audit tax compliance in real time .
o Establish a citizen-reporting portal for unpermitted vendors, as used in Santa Barbara County.
• Revenue Reinvestment:
o Direct 50% of fines and fees to small business grants for brick-and-mortar stores impacted by vendor competition, addressing concerns raised in Mission Viejo and Santa Ana.

ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 6., Item Page 24, Packet Page 106 Conclusion
This strategy balances Monterey’s cultural vibrancy with public safety and economic fairness.

By adopting tiered permits, rigorous screening, and equitable fees, the city can protect vendors’ livelihoods while safeguarding residents and businesses. Failure to act risks replicating L.A.’s challenges, where only 165 of 10,000 food vendors operate legally The City must approach this with a focus on community safety and economic fairness, positioning Monterey as a model for urban management. It addresses all concerns, from safety to revenue, with clear, actionable steps grounded in local and state evidence.

Recommended Motion:

1. Draft an ordinance incorporating the above measures.

2. Allocate $150,000 for enforcement technology and staff training.

3. Form a stakeholder task force (vendors, businesses, health officials) to review progress biannually.

ANNOUNCEMENT FLYER NEXT PAGE
ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 6., Item Page 25, Packet Page 107 ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 6., Item Page 26, Packet Page 108 Council
Agenda Report
№08/22
FROM: Rafaela T. King, Finance Director
SUBJECT: Presentation of a Proposed Ordinance Amendment, Including Findings Demonstrating Need, to Increase Compensation for the Mayor and City Councilmembers (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council receive a presentation on a
proposed ordinance amendment, including findings
demonstrating need, to increase compensation for the
Mayor and City Councilmembers. This is the first step in a three-step process to increase City Council
compensation. After this presentation, there will be a
first reading of the ordinance, and thereafter a second reading, for it to be adopted.

VALUE DRIVERS:

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

According to California State Senator Bill Dodd, DNapa, the author of SB 329:

City Councilmembers have one of the hardest
jobs in California government. They deal with a
wide range of issues, from street maintenance to
emergency response duties. And all too often,
they do this job with very little financial
compensation. No one runs for City Council in
order to make money. But the low levels of pay
make it much harder for them to balance their
careers and personal obligations with the calling
to serve their community. The Legislature has
not raised the base pay amounts for City
Councilmembers since 1984. It's time those
amounts caught up to the present economic
reality, especially with the rapid increase in
Agenda Report Highlights
 The City Council is considering a
proposed ordinance amendment to
increase compensation for the
Mayor and City Councilmembers.
 The proposed increase aims to
address the need for fair
compensation due to the demanding
nature of the roles and the rising
cost of living.
 The new compensation rates,
effective January 1, 2027, would be
$1,562.79 per month for the Mayor
and $1,064.20 per month for City
Councilmembers.
 The increase is based on a formula
allowing up to 5% per year from the
last adjustment, as authorized by
Government Code section 36516.
 The cost of the proposed increase in
compensation is $6,492.60 per year.
 The increase in compensation is
intended to attract qualified
candidates, promote diversity, and
improve public service and
governance.

Date: 4/15/2025
Item No.: 7.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 7., Item Page 1, Packet Page 109 inflation we've seen recently. Raising the pay will also make it easier for members of marginalized communities to serve. City Councils should be reflective of the communities they represent and I believe raising their compensation is an important step to achieving that equitable outcome.

This bill was supported by the League of California Cities because:

Lengthy time commitments and limited pay discourage many, especially lowincome residents, single parents, people of color, and young people, from running for public office. For many, being a council member is a full-time commitment with part-time pay. Cal Cities is proud to sponsor this important legislation that lessens barriers for those interested in governing at the local level. This overdue reform is another tool communities can choose to use that can help ensure our city councils are reflective of the residents who live, work, and play in their communities.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The cost to increase compensation for the Mayor and City Councilmembers is $6,492.60 per year.

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 has 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:

Ultimately, the City Council could choose not to increase City Council compensation, or it could increase compensation by a lesser amount than the amount proposed in the draft ordinance.

DISCUSSION:

On June 29, 2023, the Governor signed SB 329 into law, allowing for city councilmember pay to increase in general law cities. The Legislature last adjusted these amounts in 1984.

Effective January 1, 2024, the Government Code authorizes up to $950 per month based on Monterey's population. This new law applies to the City of Monterey because City Charter section 4.1 authorizes the City Council to be compensated in an amount permitted by state law for general law cities of the same population, with extra compensation for the Mayor.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 7., Item Page 2, Packet Page 110 In September 2023, the City Council adopted Ordinance 3668 increasing City Councilmember monthly compensation to $965.25 and the Mayor’s monthly compensation to $1,417.50, effective January 1, 2024. Amounts paid for retirement, health, and other benefits are not included for purposes of determining salary provided that the same benefits are available and paid by the city for its employees.

The proposed new amount of compensation may be determined according to one of two formulas set forth in Government Code section 36516. The amount of the increase allowed under the Government Code shall not exceed the greater of either of the following: (1) an amount equal to 5% for each calendar year from the last adjustment (not compounded pursuant to an Attorney General opinion); or (2) an amount equal to inflation since January 1, 2024 based on the California Consumer Price Intex, which shall not exceed 10% for each calendar year.

Here, the 5% for each calendar year from the last adjustment formula has been used, resulting in the following monthly salaries:

Mayor: $1,562.79
City Councilmember: $1,064.20
The need to increase city council and mayor salaries revolves around attracting qualified candidates, ensuring fair compensation for the demanding work, promoting diversity, improving public service, and boosting overall governance. As the cost-of-living increases, the salaries of city council members and mayors should keep pace. If salaries are not adjusted for inflation, they can effectively decrease in real value, making it more difficult for elected officials to meet the demands of the role.

SB 329 went into effect on January 1, 2024. However, it is important to note that pursuant to Government Code section 36516.5, any council salary increase may take effect only when at least one member of the council commences a new term.

The earliest opportunity for at least one member of the council to commence a new term would be after the November 2026 election. Therefore, if approved, the increase in compensation would be effective January 1, 2027.

Attachments: 1. 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, 4/15/2025, Item No. 7., Item Page 3, Packet Page 111 ORDINANCE NO. ____ C.S.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№07/19
AMENDING CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE 1, SECTION 2-1.06 TO THE MONTEREY CITY CODE TO

INCREASE COMPENSATION FOR THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY DOES ORDAIN, as follows:

SECTION 1:

WHEREAS, because City Charter section 4.1 authorizes the City Council to be compensated in an amount permitted by state law for general law cities of the same population, with extra compensation for the Mayor;
WHEREAS, City Councilmembers are currently paid $965.25 and the Mayor $1,417.50 (effective 2024);
WHEREAS, on June 29, 2023, the Governor signed SB 329 into law, allowing for city councilmember pay to increase in general law cities. The Legislature last adjusted these amounts in 1984. Effective January 1, 2024, the Government Code authorizes up to $950 per month based on Monterey's population.

WHEREAS, under Government Code section 36516, Councilmember salary may be increased if the increase does not exceed: (1) an amount equal to 5% for each calendar year from the last adjustment (not compounded pursuant to an Attorney General opinion); or (2) an amount equal to inflation since January 1, 2024 based on the California Consumer Price Index, in an amount not to exceed 10%;.

WHEREAS, the City Council agrees with the author of SB 329, Senator Bill Dodd-DNapa, that:

City Councilmembers have one of the hardest jobs in California government.

They deal with a wide range of issues, from street maintenance to emergency response duties. And all too often, they do this job with very little financial compensation. No one runs for City Council in order to make money. But the low levels of pay make it much harder for them to balance their careers and personal obligations with the calling to serve their community. The Legislature has not raised the base pay amounts for City Councilmembers since 1984. It's time those amounts caught up to the present economic reality, especially with the rapid increase in inflation we've seen recently. Raising the pay will also make it easier for members of marginalized communities to serve. City Councils should be reflective of the communities they represent and I believe raising their compensation is an important step to achieving that equitable outcome.

WHEREAS, the City Council agrees with the League of California Cities, which Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 7., Item Page 4, Packet Page 112 2 supported SB 329 for the following reasons:

WHEREAS, the need to increase city council and mayor salaries revolves around attracting qualified candidates, ensuring fair compensation for the demanding work, promoting diversity, improving public service, and boosting overall governance. As the cost of living increases, the salaries of city council members and mayors should keep pace. If salaries are not adjusted for inflation, they can effectively decrease in real value, making it more difficult for elected officials to meet the demands of the role;
WHEREAS, this ordinance was presented to the City Council with findings demonstrating the need for the increased compensation on April 15, 2025 consistent with the requirement set forth in Government Code section 36516(g)(2); WHEREAS, a first reading of the ordinance was held on May 6, 2025; 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 has 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: Monterey City Code, Chapter 2, Article 1, Section 2-1.06(a) and (b) are amended as follows:
2-1.06 Compensation for the Mayor and City Councilmembers Effective January 1, 2027, Compensation for the Mayor and City Councilmembers shall be as follows:
(a) Compensation for the Mayor is hereby established in the sum of $1,562.79 per month.
(b) Compensation for City Councilmembers is hereby established in the sum of Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 7., Item Page 5, Packet Page 113 $1,064.20 per month.

SECTION 4: All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed effective January 1, 2027.

SECTION 5: 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 _______, 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, 4/15/2025, Item No. 7., Item Page 6, Packet Page 114 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Brette Neal, Human Resources Director
Prepared By: Gina Russo, Assistant HR Director
SUBJECT: Authorize the Mayor to Execute an Amendment to City Manager Employment Agreement to Implement a 4% Cost of Living Increase and Authorize the Finance Director to Administratively Update the Salary Schedule (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 19, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt a resolution approving an
amendment to the Employment Agreement with City
Manager, Hans Uslar, to implement a 4% cost of living
increase effective July 1, 2025, authorize the Mayor to sign the contract amendment, and the Finance
Director to administratively update the salary
schedule.

VALUE DRIVERS:

Provide sufficient resources and support to develop,
retain, and recruit a high quality city workforce.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The City is committed to supporting staffing decisions
that ensure the best guidance for City Council and
management of the City.

City Manager contracts that include compensation are
to be approved in an open session and agendized as
a separate item at a regular City Council meeting.
(Government Code sections 54956(b); 54957(b)(4).)
The City is required to orally report a summary of a
recommendation for final action on the salary of a
local agency executive such as the City Manager.
(Government Code section 54953(c)(3).)

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT
(LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The increase in cost over 2024-25 base fiscal year is: $11,709. The cost for FY 25-26 has been included in the current budget. Amounts for subsequent fiscal years will be included in the corresponding budget years.

Agenda Report Highlights
 The City Council is considering a
4% cost of living salary increase for
City Manager Hans Uslar, effective
July 1, 2025, aligning with increases
for Monterey Executive
Management Employees
Association members.
 The amendment to the City
Manager's Employment Agreement
will extend the current contract
terms, which are set to end on June
30, 2027.
 The fiscal impact of the salary
increase for FY 2024-25 is $11,709,
and costs for subsequent years will
be included in future budgets.
 The City Manager's contract
amendments are required to be
approved in an open session and
reported orally per Government
Code regulations.

Date: 4/15/2025
Item No.: 8.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 8., Item Page 1, Packet Page 115 №10/24
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 staff recommendation is consistent with recent City Council guidance.

DISCUSSION:

The City Manager is a single position classification appointed by the City Council. Hans Uslar was originally retained as City Manager by an individual employment contract adopted by Council on August 7, 2018 (Ag-7331), it was amended in 2019, and a subsequent employment agreement was authorized by the City Council on August 2, 2022 (Ag-12554). The Employment Agreement has a current end date of June 30, 2027. Based on Council direction, Staff is recommending an amendment with the following salary and benefit terms:
 4% salary increase effective July 1, 2025.

This is the same cost of living increase that the City Council approved for all other labor groups.

BN/gr
Attachments: 1. Resolution
e: Christine Davi, City Attorney
Rafaela King, 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, 4/15/2025, Item No. 8., Item Page 2, Packet Page 116 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

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

AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN AMENDMENT TO CITY MANAGER EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT TO IMPLEMENT A 4% COST OF LIVING INCREASE

AND AUTHORIZING THE FINANCE DIRECTOR TO ADMINISTRATIVELY UPDATE THE

SALARY SCHEDULE
WHEREAS, the City Council has retained City Manager Hans Uslar since August 7, 2018 (Ag-7331);
WHEREAS, the City Council’s employment agreement with the City Manager is effective July 1, 2022 until June 30, 2027 (Ag-12554);
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to continue to retain the City Manager and revise the employment agreement with the following terms:
• 4% salary increase effective July 1, 2025.

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 Mayor is authorized to execute an amendment to the employment agreement of Hans Uslar as City Manager to implement a 4% salary increase effective July 1, 2025 and the Finance Director is authorized to administratively update the Salary Schedule.

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:

Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 8., Item Page 3, Packet Page 117 APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 8., Item Page 4, Packet Page 118 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Brette Neal, Human Resources Director
Prepared by: Gina Russo, Assistant HR Director
SUBJECT: Authorize the Mayor to Execute the Third Amendment to City Attorney Employment Agreement to Implement a 4% Cost of Living Increase and Authorize the Finance Director to Administratively Update the Salary Schedule (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 19, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt a resolution approving a
third amendment to the Employment Agreement with
City Attorney, M. Christine Davi to implement a 4% cost of living increase effective July 1, 2025, authorize the Mayor to sign the contract amendment, and the
Finance Director to administratively update the salary
schedule.

VALUE DRIVERS:

Provide sufficient resources and support to develop,
retain, and recruit a high quality city workforce.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The City is committed to supporting staffing decisions
that ensure best guidance for City Council and
management of the City.

City Attorney contracts that include compensation are
to be approved in an open session and agendized as a
separate item at a regular City Council meeting.
(Government Code sections 54956(b); 54957(b)(4).)
The City is required to orally report a summary of a
recommendation for final action on the salary of a local agency executive such as the City Attorney.
(Government Code section 54953(c)(3).)
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The increase in cost over 2024-25 base fiscal year is: $10,836. The cost for FY 25-26 has been included in the current budget. Amounts for subsequent fiscal years will be included in the corresponding budget years.

Agenda Report Highlights
 The City Council is considering a
4% cost of living increase for City
Attorney M. Christine Davi, effective
July 1, 2025, consistent with other
labor groups.
 The increase will cost $10,836 over
the 2024-25 base fiscal year and is
included in the current budget for
FY 25-26.
 The City Attorney's employment
agreement, which expires on June
30, 2027, was last amended on
August 20, 2024.
 The amendment will be reviewed
and approved by outside legal
counsel.

Date: 4/15/2025
Item No.: 9.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 9., Item Page 1, Packet Page 119 №10/24
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The staff recommendation is consistent with recent City Council guidance.

DISCUSSION:

The City has retained Christine Davi as City Attorney since May 1, 2012. The City Attorney is a single position classification appointed by the City Council and retained by an individual employment contract. The current agreement expires on June 30, 2027. The agreement was most recently amended on August 20, 2024 (Resolution 24-141.) Based on Council direction, Staff is recommending a third amendment with the following updated salary and benefit terms:

1. 4% salary increase effective July 1, 2025.

This is the same cost of living increase that all other labor groups will be receiving. The amendment to the agreement will be reviewed and approved by outside legal counsel.

BN/gr
Attachments: 1. Resolution
e: Hans Uslar, City Manager
Rafaela King, 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, 4/15/2025, Item No. 9., Item Page 2, Packet Page 120 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

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

AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE THIRD AMENDMENT TO CITY ATTORNEY EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT TO IMPLEMENT A 4% COST OF LIVING INCREASE AND

AUTHORIZING THE FINANCE DIRECTOR TO ADMINISTRATIVELY UPDATE THE SALARY

SCHEDULE
WHEREAS, the City Council has retained City Attorney Christine Davi (“Davi”) since May 1, 2012;
WHEREAS, the current contract expires on June 30, 2027. The agreement was most recently amended on August 20, 2024 (Resolution 24-141); WHEREAS, the City Council desires to continue to retain the City Attorney and revise the employment agreement with the following terms:

1. 4% salary increase effective July 1, 2025.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that the Mayor is authorized to execute the third amendment to the employment agreement of Christine Davi as City Attorney and the Finance Director is authorized to administratively update the salary schedule.

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:

Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 9., Item Page 3, Packet Page 121 APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 9., Item Page 4, Packet Page 122 Council
Agenda Report
№10/24
FROM: Andrea Renny, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Max Rieser, Senior Engineer
SUBJECT: Receive a Presentation from COWI North America, Inc. on the Municipal Wharf II – Maintenance Strategy and Lifespan (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council receive a Presentation from COWI
North America, Inc. on the Municipal Wharf II –
Maintenance Strategy and Lifespan.

VALUE DRIVERS:

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.

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

This action is consistent with the City Council’s strategic initiative of quality of life to maintaining a safe environment for the Municipal Wharf II, in addition to the priority to preserve and protect Monterey’s maritime history.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE
ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no fiscal implications associated with receiving this presentation. The City has invested over $3 million in the wharf programmatic repairs program over the last six years including over $1.3 million in recent deck
repairs. The City will need to continue investing money every year into critical maintenance and repair needs to keep the wharf rating of poor condition or consider other strategies. This presentation will provide an overview of other potential strategies with design life and cost
estimates.

Agenda Report Highlights
 The City Council is set to receive a
presentation from COWI North
America, Inc. regarding the
maintenance strategy and lifespan
of Municipal Wharf II.
 Municipal Wharf II, built in 1926,
supports commercial fishing, public
access, parking, restaurants, and a
yacht club, and is a key tourist
destination.
 The wharf is currently in "poor"
condition, requiring ongoing repairs
to address major deterioration
without significantly reducing loadbearing capacity.
 Over the past six years, the City has
invested over $3 million in repairs,
including $1.3 million for emergency
deck repairs in 2024.
 The presentation will explore
alternative maintenance strategies,
design life, and cost estimates for
the wharf's future.
 The City’s current maintenance
approach is considered a "band-aid"
solution with an unknown lifespan.

Date: 4/15/2025
Item No.: 10.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 1, Packet Page 123 №10/24
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council could choose not to accept the presentation, or to request additional information from City or COWI staff.

DISCUSSION:

Background
The Municipal Wharf (Wharf II) was originally constructed in 1926 to service the commercial fishing industry. Today, the wharf continues to support the commercial fishing industry as well as public access, parking, an abalone farm, restaurants, and a yacht club. It serves as a landmark tourist destination and local fishing spot and is an element of Monterey’s rich fishing history and culture.

Wharf II is currently maintained through a programmatic repair program which prioritizes repairs based on urgencies identified through periodic structural assessments. The damage scale ranges from minor, moderate and major, to severe. Multiple inspections and subsequent repair and rehabilitation projects have been undertaken at Wharf II. The City has invested over $3 million in the wharf programmatic repairs program over the last six years. The most recent inspection in 2024 resulted in emergency deck repairs at a cost of $1.3 million, critical pile repairs estimated to cost roughly $100,000, and in future additional upcoming projects to address moderate and major damage across the entire structure.

Wharf Maintenance Needs
COWI North America, Inc. (COWI) has supported the City’s structural maintenance program for 10 years and performed a condition assessment in 2024. The findings of which concluded that the wharf is in “poor” condition. Poor is defined as: "Major deterioration or overstressing observed on widespread portions of the structure but does not significantly reduce the loadbearing capacity of the structure. Repairs may need to be carried out with moderate urgency." These conditions are in general alignment with previous inspection results. Typical damage found includes widespread marine borer damage (ocean critters burrowing) to timber structural elements and piles causing loss of section/material, deterioration/cracking of concrete encased piles, concrete bracing, beams found on the outer segment of the wharf and asphalt degradation over the timber deck found throughout.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 2, Packet Page 124 №10/24
At nearly 100 years old, Wharf II is well past its intended lifespan. The City’s programmatic repair program only addresses the identified critical maintenance needs; the repairs do not strengthen the wharf. It costs approximately $3M every program cycle of assessment and repair (every three to five years). This maintenance strategy can be said to be a “band-aid” approach. This approach has an unknown lifespan and associated risks. In addition, the costs and risk will continue to rise.

Maintenance Strategy and Costs
After the 2024 inspection, COWI notified the City that repairing all the damage may not be economically feasible, particularly for the concrete portions of the wharf, and that alternative approach strategies should be considered for the future. The strategies for consideration are abandonment, strengthening and replacement, or various combinations of multiple strategies.

COWI has informed the City that strengthening the structure to meet current codes, such as seismic code, would improve resistance to storm damage, increase the design life to 50 years or longer. This would entail adding new, larger concrete or steel piles and structural members throughout the wharf and would cost approximately $50M in construction costs. Full replacement of the wharf is likely closer to $150M, this alternative would have a new lifespan of 75 years or longer.

On May 29, 2024, the Council received a presentation on the state of our City’s infrastructure funding needs. At the time, one to five year investment necessary into repairs was $96M and the six-to-20-year investment in repairs was $192M, the total for the next twenty years was estimated to be $288M. This estimate did not include items such as a new Public Safety Facility, Undergrounding or Sea Level Rise. This included an estimated $13.6M in needs for Wharf II with the assumption that the current maintenance strategy would continue and the City would only repair immediate and critical damage. On May 6, 2024, the Council will receive an updated presentation on the City’s infrastructure which will include costs to strengthen Wharf II.

In kind with the rest of the City’s facilities needs, sources of funding to address the issues are not readily available. Staff is actively pursuing grant funding through the Port Infrastructure Development Program (PIDP). This discretionary grant program is administered Federally by the Maritime Administration (MARAD) and through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) provides $2.25 billion for the program over five years (2022-2026). Funding is restricted to $112.5 million per State and would require matching funds of around 25%. This is the final year of the grant program and staff, with COWI’s support, are working diligently to put together a competitive application for strengthening Wharf II. This funding is highly competitive, and this project is going against larger projects in other commercial ports.

Keeping the status quo and investing $3M every 3 years will no longer be an option. A few different cases over the years have highlighted the need to rehabilitate and make significant investment in wharves. On December 23, 2024, the end of the Santa Cruz Municipal Wharf, where the Dolphin Restaurant and Restroom #3 were located, collapsed into the ocean along with three construction workers. The Capitola Wharf was damaged in 2023 after a winter storm.

The Berkeley Pier, built in 1926, has been closed since 2015 due to an inspection revealing widespread damage. While staff is hard at work procuring grants, we cannot rely solely on the possibility of grants to fund the alternatives presented. Costs and deterioration will continue to increase.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 3, Packet Page 125 №10/24
Wharf No. 2 Revenues
The City’s revenue from Wharf 2 businesses and uses do not cover either the $50 million price tag for the cost of adding new, larger concrete or steel piles and structural members throughout the wharf, nor the replacement costs of $150M. The typical annual revenue for the Wharf averages $434,000 annually. This includes an annual average of $72,000 in base rent and $114,000 from percentage rent from restaurants and yacht club, as well as $203,000 of base rent from fishing businesses and $45,359 from wharfage fees.

Next Steps
COWI will present on the condition of Wharf II, the current maintenance strategy, reference case studies on other older, in-water structures and layout options for strategic considerations.

AR/mr
Cc: Tenants of Wharf 2
Monterey Bay Fisheries Trust
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, 4/15/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 4, Packet Page 126 Council
Agenda Report
№10/24
FROM: Kimberly Cole, AICP, Community Development Director Prepared By: Ted Terrasas, REHS, Sustainability Manager SUBJECT: Provide Direction to Staff on the Development of the 2025 Climate Action Plan (CAP) (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the Council receive a presentation and provide
direction to staff on the development of the 2025
Climate Action Plan (CAP).

VALUE DRIVERS:

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The City of Monterey completed a CAP in 2016 and
planned to periodically update the CAP to ensure that
the City continued to achieve greenhouse gas
emission reduction goals. In the updated CAP, the
City will target goals set by the State through Senate
Bill 32, requiring 40 percent GHG emission reduction
below 1990 levels by 2030 and Assembly Bill 1279,
requiring carbon neutrality by 2045.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT
(LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The City is working with Rincon Consultants Inc., to
update the CAP. This was budgeted at $238,272 as
part of the Planning Office budget to implement a
required General Plan Amendment EIR mitigation
measure resulting from the Land Use, Housing and
Safety Elements adopted in July 2024
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey determined that the proposed
action is not a project as defined by the California
Agenda Report Highlights
 The City of Monterey is updating its
Climate Action Plan (CAP) for 2025
to address climate change and
enhance community resilience.
 The updated CAP aims to align with
California's legislative goals,
including a 40% reduction in
greenhouse gas emissions by 2030
and achieving carbon neutrality by
2045.
 Key activities include updating
emissions inventories, forecasting
future emissions, developing
reduction strategies, and engaging
the community.
 The CAP will focus on areas such
as carbon-free electricity, building
electrification, clean transit, electric
vehicle infrastructure, organic waste
diversion, and carbon sequestration.
 Public engagement is a crucial part
of the CAP development, involving
various stakeholders including lowincome and disadvantaged community members.

Date: 4/15/2025
Item No.: 11.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 11., Item Page 1, Packet Page 127 №10/24
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:

No alternatives were considered.

DISCUSSION:

Background
Climate change is a serious global concern and poses special environmental risks for communities in coastal areas. Human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation, are the main sources of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, which drive climate change. Climate change is already negatively affecting both human and natural systems globally. This includes but is not limited to sea level rise, increasing frequency and intensity of weather events, increasing global temperature, community displacement, decreasing agricultural productivity, economic disruption and threats to human health. If current levels of GHG emissions continue, it will likely lead to long-term and increasingly intense impacts related to climate change. These impacts pose significant risks and have led to widespread adverse effects to humans and the environment.

Therefore, it is crucial that local governments continue to act, pass regulations, and make recommendations to reduce emissions and protect the community from these growing threats.

The City of Monterey developed a Climate Action Plan (CAP) in 2016 to lay out the City’s approach to a global environmental challenge. The 2016 CAP consisted of a 2005 GHG emissions inventory, a 2012 GHG emissions inventory, and existing and planned GHG emissions reduction strategies for both the community (geographic) and government (municipal) operations.

This year, staff will update the CAP for 2025, working with Rincon Consultants, Inc., who has been providing climate related consulting services since 2012 and has developed over 80 different CAPs for cities, counties and special districts across California.

The 2025 CAP will incorporate an updated GHG emissions inventory, forecasts, and target information. The update will also include new GHG emissions reduction strategies and enhanced community engagement to support Monterey in achieving the community’s identified climate goals.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 11., Item Page 2, Packet Page 128 №10/24
CAP Goals, Objectives, and Overview
The 2025 CAP will be developed to meet three key goals for Monterey: 1) proactively address climate change, 2) enhance community resilience, and 3) align with State targets as part of a CEQA-qualified GHG reduction plan.

To accomplish these goals, the following key activities are planned for the CAP:

1. Update emissions inventory (2023) and compare to baseline year (2005 or 2012);

2. Complete a GHG emissions forecast to 2045 and back-cast to 1990;

3. Complete GHG emissions reduction targets that align with the key California legislative emissions goals;

4. Develop strategies, measures, and actions that support Monterey achieving the emissions targets;

5. Quantify the emissions reductions from the outlined strategies, measures, and actions;

6. Provide tracking capability for the City to monitor progress;

7. Develop and execute an extensive engagement plan, incorporating community members including low income/disadvantaged members (LIDACs), local government, business owners, tourists, climate organizations, and other stakeholders to review ideas and developed measures/actions; and

8. Draft the CAP for public review before the final is released.

Staff anticipates reduction Measures in at least six key areas:
 Citywide carbon-free electricity
 New and existing building electrification
 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) reduction through clean transit and active transportation  Charging infrastructure and parking for electric vehicles (EVs)  Organic waste diversion
 Carbon sequestration
Next Steps
Staff will present an overview of the CAP Update, the goals and objectives above, the proposed activities, priority sectors, engagement plans and a schedule to the City Council to solicit feedback on the approach, timeline, and engagement plan. Staff would like to understand any concerns, priorities, and/or anticipated challenges in development, funding, and/or outreach that could be identified at this time.

KC/tjt
Attachments: 1. Letter from LandWatch Monterey County
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, 4/15/2025, Item No. 11., Item Page 3, Packet Page 129 April 8, 2025
Mike Dawson
Chair of Planning Commission
City of Monterey
580 Pacific Street
Monterey, CA 93940
RE: Development of the 2025 Climate Action Plan (CAP)
Dear Chair and Planning Commission Members:

I write regarding the development of Monterey’s 2025 Climate Action Plan (CAP). In addition to the recommended actions in today’s staff report, the Planning Commission should:

1. ensure that the VMT analysis uses an origin-destination model;

2. direct the consultants to include an evaluation of whether building more housing to address Monterey's jobs-housing imbalance would help reduce VMT, and to what extent, in line with the city's RHNA allocation and Housing Element.

Over the years, LandWatch has supported the City’s efforts to devise and implement more sustainable and climate friendly policies. In 2021, in collaboration with EcoDataLab, LandWatch provided a Zero Carbon 2045 Strategy Outline for the City. We are encouraged to see that many of our suggestions are included in the goals for the 2025 updated CAP, and in the methods for achieving those goals.

Specifically, we support the decarbonization of new and existing buildings. We also commend the City’s efforts for VMT electrification and reduction through increased opportunities for public transit, walking, and biking. We also support programs for organic waste diversion and carbon sequestration.

P.O. Box 1876, Salinas, CA 93902-1876 | 831-759-2824 | www.landwatch.org | [email protected] ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 11., Item Page 4, Packet Page 130 Thank you for your efforts to implement more climate friendly policies and practices in Monterey, and for your consideration of our comments. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Regards,
Michael DeLapa
Executive Director
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 4/15/2025, Item No. 11., Item Page 5, Packet Page 131

Monterey City CouncilApril 15, 2025

Monterey City Council
April 15, 2025