Agenda packet — Monterey City Council, May 20, 2025

Council Chamber,
580 Pacific St.

Monterey, California

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Council Regular Meeting and
Closed Session
Tuesday, May 20, 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.

May 20, 2025
2 AFTERNOON SESSION: 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.

Call to Order
Presentations (Afternoon)

1. Congratulate Parks and Recreation Director Karen Larson on Her Retirement and Recognize Her 39 Years of Service to the City of Monterey (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

2. Recognize National Public Works Week 2025 (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) 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

3. April 30, 2025 Special Meeting (Not a project under CEQA per Article 20 Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5 Section 15061)

4. May 6, 2025 Regular Meeting (Not a project under CEQA per Article 20 Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5 Section 15061)
Consent: Award of Construction Contracts

5. Approve an Amendment to the Construction Contract with ACCO Engineered Systems, Inc., DBA, Geo H. Wilson for the Sports Center Pool Modernization Dehumidifier Replacement Project by Increasing the Contract Contingency Amount by $250,000 (Exempt from CEQA Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1) ***CIP*** Consent: Ordinances
An ordinance is a law adopted by the City Council and codified in the City Code. Through the adoption of an ordinance, the City may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other laws not in conflict with state or federal law. An ordinance generally becomes effective 30 days after approval at a second reading.

6. 1st Reading to Repeal and Replace City Code Chapter 13, Article 3, to Adopt Updated Fire Hazard Severity Zones ((Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

7. 2nd Reading of an Ordinance, Including Findings Demonstrating Need, to Increase Compensation for the Mayor and City Councilmembers Effective January 1, 2027 (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
May 20, 2025
3 Consent: Resolutions
A resolution is an expression of opinion or evidence of a decision made by the City Council and often relates to administrative business of the City. Resolutions generally become effective immediately upon adoption.

8. Approve a Concession Agreement for the Monterey Public Library Café with Ardent Culinaire with Conditions (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

9. Authorize Professional Services Agreement with Columbia Telecommunications Corporation (CTC) Media Group, Inc., for a Not to Exceed Amount of $200,000, to Provide Engineering Services to Evaluate and Process Permit Applications for the Construction and Modification of Wireless Facilities (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

10. Authorize Professional Services Agreement with Rincon Consultants, Inc. for a Not to Exceed Amount of $200,000, to Provide On-Call Planning Services to Evaluate and Process Permit Applications for Wireless Facilities (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

11. Authorize Professional Services Agreements with Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc; Dudek; Dyett & Bhatia, Urban and Regional Planners; EMC Planning Group, Inc.; Rincon Consultants, Inc.; Placeworks, Inc.; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc; Kosmont and Associates, Inc.; and BAE Urban Economics, Inc. for a Not to Exceed Amount of $1,000,000 Each for On-Call Planning, Economic, and Environmental Services (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

12. Authorize Professional Services Agreements with Architectural Resources Group, Inc.; Dudek; and Page & Turnbull, Inc. for a not to exceed amount of $200,000 Each, to Provide On-Call Cultural Resource Preservation Services (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

13. Authorize Professional Services Agreements with CSG Consultants, Inc., 4LEAF, Inc., TRB and Associates, and Bureau Veritas North America, Inc., for a Not to Exceed Amount of $500,000 each, to Provide On-Call Building Inspector, Permit Technician, and Plan Check Services (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

14. Authorize a Professional Services Agreement with GHD, Inc. for a Not to Exceed amount of $818,600 to Provide a Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment, Adaptation Plan, and Economic Analysis (Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15306, Class 6)

15. Identifying Cass and El Dorado Street Curb Ramp and Road Rehabilitation as the Project to be Funded by SB 1: The Road Repair and Accountability Act (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

16. Awarding a Contract in the Amount of $131,928.00 to Alliance Environmental Group, LLC for Presidio of Monterey (POM) Kitchen Hoods and Exhaust Fans Cleaning ***IGSA*** (Categorically Excluded from NEPA 32 CFR, Part 651, Section II(g )(1)) May 20, 2025
4 Consent: Other

17. Appoint Agency Negotiators for Conference with Real Property Negotiators Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8; Property: Crematorium at El Encinal Cemetery, Fremont Street and Camino Aguajito; Agency Negotiators: Kimberly Cole and Janna Aldrete; Negotiating Parties: Michelle Price (Keystone America, Inc., dba The Paul Mortuary, a subsidiary of Service Corporation International); Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment for Lease Amendment (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) 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.)

18. Receive a Report on Compliance with Assembly Bill 2561 / Government Code Section 3502.3 regarding Vacancies, Recruitment and Retention Efforts (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20 Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5 Section 15061)

19. Levy Assessments to Fund the Cannery Row, New Monterey, and North Fremont Business Improvement Districts (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Public Appearance (Afternoon)
Public Appearance items are on non-routine issues that might stimulate public interest and comments.

20. Adopt the City of Monterey Crosswalk Policy (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Adjourn to Closed Session
The City Council will take public comments on closed session items before convening to closed session.

Closed Session (Afternoon)
Part or all of a meeting may be closed to the public under special conditions. Council can consider only matters covered in the agenda descriptions.

21. Closed Session Conference with Real Property Negotiators Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8; Property: Crematorium at El Encinal Cemetery, Fremont Street and Camino Aguajito; Agency Negotiators: Kimberly Cole and Janna Aldrete; Negotiating Parties: Michelle Price (Keystone America, Inc., dba The Paul Mortuary, a subsidiary of Service Corporation International); Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment for Lease Amendment (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

22. Closed Session Conference with Real Property Negotiators Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8
Property: 1 Old Golf Course Road (Hyatt Regency Monterey) May 20, 2025
5 Agency Negotiators: Kimberly Cole and Janna Aldrete
Negotiating Parties: Tony Lombardo (Representing FWREF Monterey, LLC) Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment for New Lease Agreement (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) -- continued from May 6, 2025

23. Conference with Agency Labor Negotiators Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 for Labor Negotiations; Agency Negotiators: Brette Neal, Gina Russo; Employee Organization: Monterey Executive Management Employees' Association (MEMEA) and Unrepresented Confidential Executive Management (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 4, Section 15061) -- continued from May 6, 2025

24. Conference with Legal Counsel, Existing Litigation, Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(1):

1. Caniglia v. City of Monterey (Workers Compensation Appeals Board Case No.:

ADJ14079261

2. Perkins v. City of Monterey (Workers Compensation Appeals Board Case Nos.:

ADJ14007581; ADJ18599532
(Not a Project Under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, 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.

Announcements from Closed Session
Evening Session Items
Public Appearance (Evening)
Public Appearance items are on non-routine issues that might stimulate public interest and comments.

25. Receive a Presentation on Various Financing Options to Address the Infrastructure Needs and Provide Direction (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

26. Receive Parks and Recreation Commission Recommendation and Approve the Preferred Concept for the Old Capitol Site Future Park Plan Development (Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15306, Class 6)
May 20, 2025
6 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 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Hans Uslar, City Manager
Nat Rojanasathira, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Congratulate Parks and Recreation Director Karen Larson on Her Retirement and Recognize Her 39 Years of Service to the City of Monterey (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council congratulates and recognizes
Parks and Recreation Director Karen Larson on her
retirement and for 39 years of service to the City of
Monterey.

VALUE DRIVERS:

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Recognizing employees of the City at City Council
meetings, particularly employees for their retirement, is consistent with City policy.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE
ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no fiscal implications to receiving this report.

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 Agenda Report Highlights
 Karen Larson is retiring in June
2025 after 39 years of service to the
City of Monterey.
 She began her career in 1986 as a
part-time seasonal employee and
progressed through various roles,
including Recreation Leader, Facility
Coordinator, and Sports Center
Operations Manager.
 Karen was appointed Parks and
Recreation Director in December
2019, overseeing Recreation,
Sports Center, and Parks Divisions.
 Her contributions include creating
safe and engaging programs for all
age groups and providing awardwinning services and amenities to the community.
 The City Council plans to recognize
her dedication, compassion, and
positivity at its meeting.

Date: 5/20/2025
Item No.: 1.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 1., Item Page 1, Packet Page 7 №10/24
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.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council could choose not to make this recognition.

DISCUSSION:

Parks and Recreation Director Karen Larson will be retiring in June 2025 after 39 years of outstanding service to the City of Monterey.

Raised on the Monterey Peninsula, Karen was first hired as a part-time seasonal employee in the Parks and Recreation Division on June 1, 1986. She held several positions including Recreation Leader, Assistant Day Camp Director, and Recreation Specialist.

In February 1993, Karen was hired full-time as a Community Center Director (known today as Recreation Coordinator), tasked with leading programs and operating community center facilities. In September 1997, she became a Facility Coordinator at the Monterey Sports Center, which had only opened five years earlier. In June 2002, Karen was promoted to the Operations Manager at the Monterey Sports Center and was in charge of staffing, facility management, and customer service.

In April 2014, Karen was promoted to Senior Administrative Analyst in the Public Works Department and was later promoted to Public Works Administrative Services Manager. In July 2019, she was appointed Interim Parks and Recreation Director and assumed the permanent role in December 2019. As Parks and Recreation Director, Karen oversees a diverse workforce and service delivery that includes Recreation, Sports Center, and Parks Divisions. Karen and her team are responsible for providing award-winning services and amenities to the community, including community programs, field sports, youth camps, aquatic programs, overnight camps urban forests, parks, beaches, campgrounds, cemetery, and much more.

Throughout Karen’s career, she has been committed to creating safe and engaging programs for youth, children, teens, adults, seniors, and families. She has had an outstanding work ethic and has been dedicated to the Monterey community since she joined the City in 1986. Karen’s colleagues and co-workers appreciate her compassion, kindness, and the positivity that she brings to work every day.

NR/HU
Attachment: Proclamation
e: All members of Boards, Commissions, and Committees
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, 5/20/2025, Item No. 1., Item Page 2, Packet Page 8 ATTACHMENT 1
Proclamation Recognizing
Parks and Recreation Director Karen Larson
on the occasion of her Retirement
WHEREAS, Parks and Recreation Director Karen Larson will be retiring after 39 years of outstanding service to the City of Monterey; and,
WHEREAS, raised on the Monterey Peninsula, Karen was first hired as a part-time seasonal employee in the Parks and Recreation Department in June of 1986. During her tenure as a seasonal employee, she held several positions including Recreation Leader, Playground Director, and Recreation Specialist; and,
WHEREAS, in February 1993, Karen was hired full-time as a Community Center Director, known today as a Recreation Coordinator, and tasked with leading programs and operating community center facilities. In 1997, five years after the opening of the Monterey Sports Center (MSC), Karen became a Facility Coordinator at MSC. In 2002, she was promoted to Operations Manager at MSC and oversaw staffing, facility management, and customer service; and, WHEREAS, after more than 10 years as Operations Manager of MSC, Karen was promoted in 2014 to Senior Administrative Analyst in the Public Works Department and again promoted to Public Works Administrative Services Manager. In July 2019, she was appointed as Interim Parks and Recreation Director and assumed the permanent role five months later in December 2019; and,
WHEREAS, as Parks and Recreation Director, Karen oversaw a diverse workforce and service delivery team that included Recreation, the Sports Center, and Parks division. Karen and her team were responsible for providing award-winning services and amenities to the community including field sports, youth camps, aquatic programs, overnight camps, urban forestry, parks, beaches, campgrounds, the cemetery, and more; and,
WHEREAS, throughout her career, Karen has been committed to creating safe and engaging programs and spaces for youth, children, teens, adults, families, and seniors. Her coworkers and colleagues have always appreciated her kindness, compassion, work ethic, and positivity; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT I, Tyller Williamson, Mayor of the City of Monterey, on behalf of the City Council and citizens, thank Karen Larson, Parks and Recreation Director, for her dedication and genuine commitment to our community. We wish you much happiness in your retirement.

Dated: May 2025 _____________________
Tyller Williamson, Mayor
Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 1., Item Page 3, Packet Page 9 Council
Agenda Report
№10/24
FROM: Andrea Renny, PE, PTOE, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Sara South, Engineering Programs Analyst
SUBJECT: Recognize National Public Works Week 2025 (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 to
recognize National Public Works Week 2025.

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.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

It is within the City Council’s purview to acknowledge
the people and services delivered by the City of
Monterey by recognizing the contributions of its
workforce. National Public Works Week 2025 is an
appropriate recognition by the City Council.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE
ACT) APPLIES: No.

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.

Agenda Report Highlights
 The City Council is recommended to
recognize National Public Works
Week 2025.
 The theme for National Public
Works Week 2025, announced by
the American Public Works
Association, is "People Purpose
Presence."
 The Public Works Department
supports community health and
economic vitality by managing
infrastructure across seven
divisions.
 The divisions include engineering,
parking, general services, streets &
utilities, harbor, fleet services, and
administration.

Date: 5/20/2025
Item No.: 2.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 2., Item Page 1, Packet Page 10 №10/24
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED: None.

DISCUSSION:

For National Public Works Week, many states, provinces, cities/towns and municipalities from across North America come together to celebrate with official government proclamations and resolutions in honor of the contribution Public Works makes to their communities: in planning, building, managing and operating the heart of our local communities and in building the quality of life. The American Public Works Association (APWA) announced “People, Purpose, Presence” as the theme for the 2025 National Public Works Week.

The Public Works Department builds and maintains the City’s necessary infrastructure, supporting the health and economic vitality of the community, and helping create a great place to live. In the City of Monterey this includes our many divisions from engineering, construction management, environmental regulations, parking, general services, streets & utilities, harbor, and fleet services.

The City of Monterey’s largest department is the Public Works Department, comprised of seven divisions working together to support the City’s infrastructure system:

Engineering, Construction Management, and Environmental Division This division provides engineering management of the public right-of-way, traffic engineering, civil engineering, administration of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), Neighborhood Capital Improvement Program (NCIP) and projects assigned by the U.S. Army through the Intergovernmental Services Agreement (IGSA). The Division works with other agencies, utility providers, residents, project stakeholders, and other City departments, to ensure that information is coordinated in a smooth and timely fashion.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 2., Item Page 2, Packet Page 11 №10/24
Parking Division
This division operates 31 parking facilities with approximately 3,500 off-street parking spaces. In addition to off-street parking spaces, there are over 3,000 on-street spaces in the Downtown, Cannery Row and Lighthouse areas of the City. The Parking Division works with businesses, residents, institutions and visitors alike to meet parking needs.

General Services
The General Services Division of the City of Monterey provides building maintenance and custodial services for all City buildings and facilities through cost effective repair, renovation and routine maintenance. The General Services Division also provides these same services to military partners. Monterey is proud to celebrate 25 years of partnership with its military partners!

Street & Utilities Division
The mission of the Streets Division is to maintain the City of Monterey’s roadways, sanitary sewers, storm drains, signage, traffic signals, and related infrastructure. The Streets Division maintains 101 centerline miles of roadway, 104 miles of sanitary sewer, 43 miles of storm drain culverts, over 5,000 regulatory signs, and 56 signalized intersections. Streets crews are on standby, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year to respond to sanitary sewer overflows, vehicle accidents where City infrastructure is damaged, and to support public safety.

Harbor Division
This division provides access to a variety of recreational, as well as commercial opportunities for residents and visitors alike in a scenic setting, and continues to improve services and infrastructure, allowing for even greater access to the area for fishing or leisure purposes.

Fleet Services Division
The Fleet Division of the Public Works Department is a fully functional, modern vehicle and equipment repair facility with certified technicians and up-to-date equipment. The mission of the Fleet Services Department is to provide for the maintenance of City owned vehicles and equipment. The department supports the City Council’s priorities related to associated costs of ownership of all vehicles and equipment. This equipment is used in the everyday support of City Employees in performance of their duties to help promote a high quality of life for City residents.

Public Works Administration
The Public Works Administration division provides professional and executive-level support to its six diverse operating divisions with a total of 163 full-time and regular part-time employees.

This division provides essential administrative services including budget development and monitoring, human resources, contract management, internal controls review, strategic planning, and initiatives to enhance organizational efficiency.

The American Public Works Association (APWA) announced "People Purpose Presence" as the theme for the 2025 National Public Works Week.

An oral report will be presented at the meeting.

AR/ss
Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 2., Item Page 3, Packet Page 12 №10/24
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, 5/20/2025, Item No. 2., Item Page 4, Packet Page 13

MINUTES

CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING

CITY OF MONTEREY
Wednesday, April 30, 2025
4:00 PM
COUNCIL CHAMBER, 580 PACIFIC ST.

MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
Councilmembers

Present: Barber (left at 5:45 p.m.), Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson

Absent: None
City Staff

Present:

City Manager, Assistant City Manager, City Attorney, Finance Director, Community Development Director, Police Chief, Fire Chief, Parks and Recreation Director, Library & Museums Director, Public Works Director, City Clerk, Acting Assistant Fire Chief, General Services Superintendent, Public Works Administrative Services Manager, Recreation Manager, Conference Center General Manager, Senior Administrative Analyst (Public Works), Senior Administrative Analyst (Police), Management Analyst (Recreation), Sports Center Manager, Assistant Human Resources Director, Finance Manager, Finance Analyst, Parks Supervisor
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.

Afternoon Session Items
Presentations (Afternoon)

1. Receive Presentation from See Monterey: FY 2024-25 Mid-Year Performance & Group Sales Trends (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Received presentation
Rob O'Keefe, President and CEO of See Monterey, gave the presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions.

In the interest of time, public comment was limited to two minutes per speaker. Public comment was received from: Lauren Cohen, of My Museum, who said See Monterey supported their museum and allowed it to thrive; Paige Viren of Monterey County Hospitality Association and California State University Monterey Bay (CSUMB)'s Sustainable Hospitality & Tourism Management program, who said that supporting See Monterey was critical to the region; Alicia Ibarra, student of the CSUMB Sustainable Hospitality & Tourism Management program, who said that See Monterey's support of the local tourism industry had allowed her to have valuable hands-on experiences and internships; and Steven Wales, of Monterey County Hospitality Association and Fogs End Distillery, who said that See Monterey provided value by improving the quality of visitors coming to the area; and Kent Glenzer, who said that Monterey could learn from the history of the South by Southwest event n Austin Texas, and that the hospitality industry needed to do a better job of paying its workers.

The Council briefly discussed the presentation, stating that it was important to think about the workforce doing the work in the hospitality industry, and that increasing housing affordability in Monterey would contribute greatly to local quality of life.

Date: 5/20/2025
Item No.: 3.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 3., Item Page 1, Packet Page 14 City Council Minutes April 30, 2025
2 Study Session

2. Study Primer for FY 2025-26 Annual Budget (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Received presentation
City Manager Uslar gave a verbal introduction, and Councilmember Smith left the Chamber from 4:57 p.m. to 4:59 p.m. Finance Director King gave the staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions together with City Manager Uslar.

Public comment was received from: Daniel Almandariz, who referred to one of the presentation slides and asked whether the $2M would be accounted for; and Tom Reeves, who referred to the costs for Fire personnel to respond to medical calls and asked whether the City could recover insurance funds for these services, asked if the City had considered undertaking a full cost study to ensure that City fees currently charged were sufficient, and said that the rate of the increase in expenses was concerning as compared with the increase in revenues.

On question regarding the $2M, Finance Director King said that the $10M had been an estimate and the $8M was an audited number, not that there was $2M lost or missing. On question, City Manager Uslar said that the Monterey Sports Center loan would expire on May 1, 2032. He agreed that it would be appropriate to do a comprehensive look at the City's services and fees, though he advised that it may not be popular with constituents. He stressed that the City needed to find a way to decrease its expenditures and at least not lose further revenues. He said that he anticipated that in the new Fiscal Year the staff would be working to manage the expenditures increase rate as compared with the revenues increase rate.

The Council thanked the Finance budget team and City staff. Hope was expressed that hiring an economic developer would expand the attraction of business to the area, including STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) sectors. It was stressed that the City needed to expand and diversify its economy and bring more businesses in. It was stressed that the increase received by City staff had been deserved and needed in order to stay competitive with the job market. It was stated that the community engagement had been an improvement but that finding interactive ways to involve residents in budget issues would be a benefit. It was suggested to look at vacancy taxes and property transfer taxes as potential revenue boosters. It was requested to receive more context and justification for adding new City staff positions. It was requested to receive a five-year forecast for revenues vs expenditures. During the Council discussion, Councilmember Barber left the meeting at 5:45 p.m.

Adjournment
The Council adjourned at 6:02 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted, Approved,
Clementine Bonner Klein Tyller Williamson
City Clerk Mayor
Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 3., Item Page 2, Packet Page 15

MINUTES

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING

CITY OF MONTEREY
Tuesday, May 6, 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:

City Manager, Assistant City Manager, City Attorney, Finance Director, Community Development Director, Parks and Recreation Director, Library & Museums Director, City Clerk, Planning Manager, Building Official, Deputy Public Works Director/City Engineer, General Services Superintendent, Housing Manager, Assistant Director of Information Resources, Assistant Human Resources Director, Lieutenant, Police Lieutenant, Management Analyst (Recreation), Sports Center Manager, Public Works Administrative Services Manager, Recreation Manager, Engineering Projects Manager
Teleconference Notice
This meeting was held with a combination of in-person and teleconference attendance, pursuant to the Ralph M. Brown Act.

AFTERNOON SESSION: 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.

Call to Order
Mayor Williamson called the meeting to order at 4:03 p.m. City Clerk Klein called the roll with the Council present as indicated above.

Councilmember Barber confirmed that she could hear the meeting proceedings, gave a brief description of the circumstances relating to her need to appear remotely pursuant to the Just Cause clause (health), and stated that nobody over the age of 18 was present in the room with her during the meeting.

General Public Comments
Public comment on non-agendized matters was received from: Mira Nissim, Gustavo Esparza of Downtown Streets Team Salinas, Taryn Cadena, Chris Franqui, and Lorna Moffat.

Consent Agenda (Afternoon)
A motion was introduced by Councilmember Garcia, and seconded by Councilmember Smith, to approve the Afternoon Consent Agenda (Afternoon).

The Council remarked on Item 3, suggesting that the City's old technology be donated for reuse by charitable organizations, and on Item 5, stating that the property owners on Alvarado Street will pay a higher maintenance fee to increase maintenance and cleaning frequency in the district.

Date: 5/20/2025
Item No.: 4.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 1, Packet Page 16 City Council Minutes May 6, 2025
2 Public comment on the Afternoon Consent Agenda was not received.

The motion carried by the following roll-call vote:

AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
Consent: Proclamations

1. Recognize May 2025 as Building Safety Month (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Recognized May 2025 as Building Safety Month
Consent: Approval of Minutes

2. April 15, 2025 Regular Meeting (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Approved
Consent: Resolutions

3. Authorize the Purchase of 275 Lenovo Desktop Computers in the Amount of $229,474 (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 25-027 C.S.

4. Award Two Professional Services Agreements in the Amount of $500,000 Each for OnCall Environmental and Civil Engineering Support Services to G7EI Inc. and Dudek (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Adopted Resolution Nos. 25-028 C.S. and 25-029 C.S.

5. Approve Alvarado Street Maintenance District 85-1 Engineer's Report; Adopt a Resolution of Intention to Levy Assessment; and Set Time for Public Hearing (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 25-030 C.S.

6. Approve Calle Principal Street Maintenance District 00-1 Engineer's Report; Adopt a Resolution of Intention to Levy Assessment; and Set Time for Public Hearing (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 25-031 C.S.

7. Adopt the Annual Reports and Approve Resolutions to Set a Public Hearing Date to Levy the Annual Assessment for the Cannery Row Business Improvement District, the New Monterey Business Improvement District, and the North Fremont Business Improvement District (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Adopted Resolution Nos. 25-032 C.S., 25-033 C.S., and 25-034 C.S.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 2, Packet Page 17 City Council Minutes May 6, 2025
3 Consent: Other

8. Appoint Agency Negotiators for Conference with Real Property Negotiators Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8; Property: 1 Old Golf Course Road (Hyatt Regency Monterey); Agency Negotiators: Kimberly Cole and Janna Aldrete; Negotiating Parties:

Tony Lombardo (Representing FWREF Monterey, LLC); Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment for New Lease Agreement (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Appointed agency real property negotiators Cole and Aldrete End of Consent Agenda
Afternoon Session Items
Public Hearing (Afternoon)

9. Adopt the Proposed Draft 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan, Draft Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Annual Action Plan, and Draft 2025 Citizen Participation Plan for the Community Development Block Grant Program and Authorize Submittal to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) (Exempt from NEPA per 24 CFR Part 58 and from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15301, Class1, 15306, Class 6 and 15326, Class 26) Action: Public hearing held, Adopted Resolution No. 25-035 C.S.

Housing Manager Wyatt gave the staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions with additional input from Community Development Director Cole.

Public comment was received from: Lynn Young of Justine Kerns Memorial Pool, who spoke about their organization's wor and noted that they had not applied for CDBG funds in the recent cycle because of the cost of administering the program; and Adam Pinterits, who thanked City staff for its robust outreach and suggested that CDBG funds could be used in the future for rental assistance and defensible space protections.

On a motion by Councilmember Garcia, seconded by Councilmember Rasch, and carried by the following roll-call vote, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 25-035 C.S.:

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

10. Adopt the Proposed Draft Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) and Authorize Submittal to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) (Categorically Excluded from NEPA per 24 CFR Part 58 and from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15306, Class 6)
Action: Public hearing held; Adopted Resolution No. 25-036 C.S. as amended Housing Manager Wyatt gave the staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions.

Public comment was not received.

A motion was introduced by Councilmember Smith, and seconded by Councilmember Rasch, to adopt Resolution No. 25-036 C.S.

The Council discussed the matter. The report was appreciated for its value in understanding housing barriers and answering community questions about why more housing wasn't being built.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 3, Packet Page 18 City Council Minutes May 6, 2025
4 It was stressed that water was a key housing barrier, because a source of new water was needed in order to build more housing. The cost burden was referenced as another major barrier, especially for seniors on fixed income who could not afford to maintain their homes, and generally for residents who struggled with high housing costs. It was highlighted that there were many units in pipeline projects and it was requested that the City highlight this information for the public.

Community engagement suggestions included the need for better outreach to trusted non-profits and racial minority and underrepresented ethnic groups to share updates and ask for direct feedback on the City's housing programs. It was recommended that the City target renters with mailers to inform them about resources and not assume that everyone had the same level of digital access and awareness. It was stressed that beyond affordability the adequacy of living conditions was also crucial, and it was urged that the Council consider both the cost and condition of housing. Regarding the sentiment that people who could not afford to live in Monterey should move, emphasis was made on the need for inclusive housing policies that would create housing for people of all income levels, races, and identities, because it was essential to the community's wellbeing and quality of life. A few typographical errors (“typos”) were identified in the report, and City Attorney Davi advised that these typos could be corrected administratively.

The motion carried by the following roll-call vote:

AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
Adjourn to Closed Session
Closed Session (Afternoon)
Public comment on the closed session was not received. The Council adjourned to closed session at 5:37 p.m.

11. Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(1):

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

E082907)

2. Stronghold Engineering, Inc. v. City of Monterey (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 18CV329015)
(Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: On a unanimous roll-call vote, confidential direction was given to legal counsel

12. Conference with Legal Counsel, Deciding Whether to Initiate Litigation, Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(4) (One Case)
(Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: No reportable action taken

13. Closed Session Conference with Real Property Negotiators Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8
Property: 1 Old Golf Course Road (Hyatt Regency Monterey) Agency Negotiators: Kimberly Cole and Janna Aldrete
Negotiating Parties: Tony Lombardo (Representing FWREF Monterey, LLC) Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 4, Packet Page 19 City Council Minutes May 6, 2025
5 Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment for New Lease Agreement (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Continued

14. Conference with Agency Labor Negotiators Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 for Labor Negotiations; Agency Negotiators: Brette Neal, Gina Russo; Employee Organization: Monterey Executive Management Employees' Association (MEMEA) and Unrepresented Confidential Executive Management (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 4, Section 15061) Action: Continued
The Council recessed at 6:59 p.m. and reconvened at 7:06 p.m.

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

Pledge of Allegiance
Councilmember Smith led the Pledge.

Mayor Williamson informed the public that Item 21 would be tabled and there would be no presentation made, but public comment would be accepted.

General Public Comments, Continued
Public comment on non-agendized matters was received from Karen Brown and Nina Beety.

Announcements from Closed Session
Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira reported out from the closed session as indicated in the actions recorded for closed session items 11, 12, 13, and 14, above.

Evening Session Items
Presentations (Evening)

15. Recognize May 2025 as Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Recognized May 2025 as Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month
Mayor Williamson read the proclamation and Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira gave the staff presentation. Public comment was not received.

Consent Agenda (Evening)
Public comment on the Evening Consent Items was not received.

On a motion by Councilmember Smith, seconded by Councilmember Rasch, and carried by the following roll-call vote, the City Council approved the Evening Consent Agenda:

AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 5, Packet Page 20 City Council Minutes May 6, 2025
6 16. Approve a Concession Agreement for the Monterey Sports Center Cafe with 831 Catering with Conditions (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 25-037 C.S.

17. Allocate Funding for the Special Event Support Program (SESP) for Fiscal Year 2024/25 and Authorize the City Manager to Enter into Funding Agreements (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 25-038 C.S.

18. Authorize the Mayor to Sign a Letter on Behalf of the City Council Supporting AB 650 (Papan) Planning and Zoning: Housing Element: Regional Housing Needs Allocation (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Authorized the letter
Public Appearance (Evening)

19. Receive Presentation on the State of Our City’s Infrastructure Funding Needs (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Received presentation, Discussed
Public Works Director Renny gave the staff presentation with additional input from City Manager Uslar.

Public comment was received from: An unidentified woman, who described beach erosion that she said needed to be addressed; Adam Pinterits, who said the Council would need to make challenging decisions and that bonds would not solve the problem; and Staci Alziebler-Perkins, of Gathering for Women, who addressed a question from the Council, stressing that Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds were very needed by her organization and others.

On question from the Council regarding the potential to give up the City's lease of Lower Presidio Park, City Manager Uslar acknowledged that current City costs for mowing and restroom maintenance were minimal but did add up, and noted that the U.S. Army, as the landowner, had asked the City for costly capital improvements to stabilize the Presidio curve. On question regarding the timeline, Public Works Director Renny said that the current report had extended the timeline to 30 years to provide a broader planning range. More context was provided to explain how City staff had developed the project costs. General Services Superintendent Dwight shared the details of an analogy that compared facility standards with platinum, gold, silver, and bronze medals, noting that the City prioritized repairs appropriately based on urgency and condition and that ignoring issues when they were smaller could lead to greater structural damage and cost in the long run.

The Council discussed the matter. It was stated that the Council should set a maintenance standard and it was expressed that "gold" or "platinum" approach to facility maintenance would be smart if it would ensure long-term savings and create more resilience in the City's infrastructure. It was noted that not every situation required a tear-down and rebuild, and that with careful analysis the City could determine what could be repurposed with the right amount of money to renew the life of an investment while saving for when you have to do the whole thing.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 6, Packet Page 21 City Council Minutes May 6, 2025
7 Regarding the City's finances, on the one hand it was stated that the City should be looking at ridding itself of assets that were liabilities, and on the other hand, concern was expressed about liquidating assets as a reaction to financial strain. It was stated that the Council should updating its reserve policy and that it would be beneficial to base reserve goals on a percentage rather than a dollar figure. Support was expressed for maintaining contributions to the reserves while being cautious with spending. It was stated that as the Council considered budget cuts it should be cautious not to trim in such a way as to impact revenues. The need was stressed for community engagement and compassion in trimming expenses, and in considering what to trim it was suggested to evaluate the future of Wharf 2, the potential use of artificial intelligence ("AI") and automation in reducing staffing costs over time, and reducing the number of City-owned properties to lower maintenance demands.

Regarding bonding to fund infrastructure projects, it was stated that bonds could be used for some projects if they would contribute to a long-term financial strategy, but were not a full solution.

Concern was expressed about using bonds to defer expenses, or "kick the can down the road." Further information was requested on the up-front cost involved in initiating projects, and a breakdown of infrastructure costs by year to identify both what was needed annually and where funds might be reallocated.

Regarding public outreach, further input from residents was requested on funding priorities and facility standards. It was proposed to utilize an interactive budget tool to educate and involve the public in the challenging decisions that the Council would need to make.

It was clarified that a question about CDBG funds related to reallocation of percentages, not cutting nonprofit funding.

The Council recessed at 8:46 p.m. and reconvened at 8:54 p.m.

20. 2nd 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, Location, or Building Occupancy Classification to Obtain a Zoning Clearance Permit (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Adopted Ordinance No. 3702 C.S.

Planning Manager Hill gave the staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions.

Public comment was received from: Mike Patel, who asked how the proposed regulations would apply to dually-owned parking lots; Daniel Armendariz, who expressed concern that businesses without a strucutre or foundation were not addressed in the ordinance; and Adam Pinterits, who said that the business community should have had more outreach from the City and felt like it was double-dipping.

On question from the Council, Planning Manager Hill said that how an application would be handled would depend on the use proposed.

A motion was introduced by Councilmember Garcia, and seconded by Councilmember Barber, to adopt Ordinance No. 3702 C.S.

The Council briefly discussed the matter. It was stated that the ordinance would preemptively streamline the process for starting a business, by helping people make sure they were in compliance with zoning before they get their business license and start operating so that they Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 7, Packet Page 22 City Council Minutes May 6, 2025
8 wouldn't find out too late that their business model was not feasible. It was stated that City staff had the goal to run the process smoothly and efficiently.

The motion carried by the following roll-call vote:

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

21. 2nd 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) Action: Tabled
This item was heard after Item 22 at the Mayor's request. Mayor Williamson stated that the item was recommended to be tabled.

Public comment was received from Daniel Armendariz, who stated that his businesses had been unjustly attacked by competing businesses asserting that people like him did not belong.

On a motion by Mayor Williamson, seconded by Councilmember Smith, and carried by the following roll-call vote, the City Council tabled the matter:

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

22. 1st Reading of Proposed Ordinance Amendment, Including Findings Demonstrating Need, to Increase Compensation for the Mayor and City Councilmembers Effective January 1, 2027 (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Passed ordinance to a second reading (3-2, Councilmembers Rasch and Smith voting no)
This item was heard after Item 20 and before Item 21 at the Mayor's request. City Manager Uslar gave a brief verbal presentation. Public comment was not received.

The Council discussed the matter.

In opposition to the increase in compensation, it was stated that given what the Council had been hearing about the state of the City's finances, it was the Council's role to be bold and leave their compensation as it was, which was stated to be adequate and generous. It was asserted that the Council should not be giving itself a raise while also looking at the budget trying to find places to save money. It was stressed that the City's elected members were devoted to giving and that voting on a raise for themselves was uncomfortable. It was acknowledged that the proposed increase did not amount for much money in total each year but it was stated that sometimes decisions weren't made by the dollar amount but by the principle of what it represented.

In favor of the proposed increase in compensation, it was stated that it was meant to provide opportunity and access, and a little bit of support, for potential future Councilmembers who might need that little bit of support to support their community in this way if they otherwise could not. It was noted that the increase would not take place until January of 2027 and would not amount to much more in City dollars spent. It was noted that the previous increase had come after two Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 8, Packet Page 23 City Council Minutes May 6, 2025
9 decades of no increases and that the proposed further increase was just part of establishing a process. It was stated that in an economic emergency the conversation might be different but right now the City was doing pretty well. It was stressed that finances had a great impact in how people manage their lives and that just because someone might be experiencing financial challenges it should not mean that they could not bring their voice to participate in the Council.

On a motion by Mayor Williamson, seconded by Councilmember Garcia, and carried by the following roll-call vote, the City Council passed the ordinance to a second reading:

AYES: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Williamson
NOES: 2 COUNCILMEMBERS: Rasch, Smith
Council Comments
Councilmember Smith thanked mothers in honor of the upcoming Mother's Day holiday. He reported that he had attended a recent Transportation Authority for Monterey County (TAMC) meeting. He said he spoke at the Sunrise Rotary to provide a City overview. He announced that there would be a ribbon cutting in June for the Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST) SURF! bus line and that a 14-month construction process would begin. He reported on the Association of Defense Communities summit that he had attended in Washington DC from March 31 to April 2 with staff from the City Manager's office, and provided updates stating that the military had a strong focus on mission readiness, cost and staff reductions, infrastructure, and ship building.

Councilmember Barber left the meeting at 9:33 p.m.

Mayor Williamson reported from Monterey One Water (M1W), sharing that M1W was currently undergoing a $30M electric upgrade for its interconnection project, that both of its two main pump stations on the Peninsula were being upgraded, and that the Pure Water Monterey expansion project was expected to be completed in October.

City Manager Reports
City Manager Uslar invited all to attend the upcoming "Fun in the Park" Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) event at Montecito Park.

Adjournment
The Council adjourned at 9:40 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted, Approved,
Clementine Bonner Klein Tyller Williamson
City Clerk Mayor
Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 9, Packet Page 24 Council
Agenda Report
№11/25
FROM: Andrea Renny, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Jason Bradley, Project Manager
SUBJECT: Approve an Amendment to the Construction Contract with ACCO Engineered Systems, Inc., DBA, Geo H. Wilson for the Sports Center Pool Modernization Dehumidifier Replacement Project by Increasing the Contract Contingency Amount by $250,000 (Exempt from CEQA Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1) ***CIP***
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt the attached Resolution
authorizing the City Manager to execute Amendment 1
to the contract with ACCO Engineered Systems, Inc.,
DBA Geo. H. Wilson for the Sports Center Pool
Modernization Dehumidifier Replacement Project
(CIP2414), increasing the contract amount from
$965,000 to $1,215,000, an increase to the contract of
$250,000 and Authorizing the Finance Director, or their designee to transfer $250,000 from the Sports Center
Reserve Fund to the Monterey Sports Center
Natatorium Dehumidifier Project (CIP2414).

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.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

This Project is consistent with the City Council’s Value Drivers and Strategic Priorities of Quality of Life – “Respond effectively to neighborhood concerns;” Fiscal Stewardship- “Prioritize funding models and sources for facility rehabilitation, repair, and replacement.” Agenda Report Highlights
 City Council is recommended to
approve a $250,000 increase to the
construction contract for the Sports
Center Pool Modernization
Dehumidifier Replacement Project.
 The total project cost will rise from
$1,139,750 to $1,389,750, funded
by the Sports Center Reserve Fund.
 Replacement of corroded return
ducting is necessary to ensure the
efficiency and functionality of the
new dehumidifier system.
 Alternatives to amending the
contract are not recommended due
to the critical need for duct
replacement.

Date: 5/20/2025
Item No.: 5.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 5., Item Page 1, Packet Page 25 №11/24
This action is in accordance with Chapter 28-Purchasing of the City Code which requires Public Works project contract awards exceeding $150,000 to be approved by City Council; amendments to these contracts must also be approved by City Council.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

On September 20, 2022, Council awarded a construction contract to ACCO Engineered Systems Inc., dba Geo H. Wilson in the amount of $965,000 and authorized staff to expend an additional 15% ($144,750) for unforeseen construction contingencies (Reso 22-131). Staff has executed change orders totaling $144,750 and the original contingency budget has been depleted. This action will increase the contract contingency by $250,000 in order to fund necessary repairs that were discovered during construction.

Total Project Construction Estimate:

Total Bid $965,000
Original Authorized Construction Contingency, 15% $ 144,750 Original Construction Estimate $1,109,750
Construction Management (City Staff & Indirect Cost) $ 30,000 Original Estimated Cost to Complete the Project $1,139,750 Estimated Construction Cost for the Additional Work:

Additional Construction Work Authorization $ 250,000
Total Cost of the Project $1,389,750
Available Funding Sources:

Sports Center Reserve Fund (101-2640-0000-2668) $2,500,000.

As of May 8, 2025, sufficient funding is available for this action.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

City of Monterey Planning Office determine d the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1) because the project consists of the replacement of the pool dehumidification unit on the roof of the Monterey Sports Center. 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. Exception a - Location - does not apply to projects which are exempt under Class 1.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 5., Item Page 2, Packet Page 26 №11/24
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. There would be no cumulative impact because the project would involve the replacement of existing equipment.

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 unusual circumstances are anticipated due to improvements' limited scope and distinct locations.

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 project would not be visible from 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. No impact to sites included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government code would occur.

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 Monterey Sports Center is not a historic resource. The project is located in an area of high archeological sensitivity as shown in the General Plan (Figure 8); however, the project will only involve replacement of existing equipment on the roof. Therefore, the project would not have an impact on historic resources.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

Council could choose not to amend the construction contract for the project, however that is not recommended. The ducting is excessively compromised by corrosion and needs to be replaced in order for the new system to be fully operational. Improper containment of return air to the natatorium will reduce the efficiency of the dehumidifier and increase utility costs.

DISCUSSION:

On September 20, 2022, Council awarded a construction contract to ACCO Engineered Systems Inc., dba Geo. H. Wilson in the amount of $965,000, and authorized staff to expend an additional 15% ($144,750) for unforeseen construction contingencies (Reso 22-131) for the Sports Center Pool Modernization Dehumidifier Project (CIP2414).

During the construction of this project, City staff executed change orders totaling $144,750.

Change orders to date include a rental of a temporary dehumidifier, addition of control circuitry and wiring, re-routing interior ducting, and adding neoprene lining to the intake plenum. The change order to date have depleted the original authorized contingency funding. The project did not plan to replace the return ducting but while under construction, it was observed that the bottom walls of all of the ducts are compromised by standing condensation developed during the extended period in which the previous dehumidifier was inoperable. The amount of compromise found will greatly reduce the efficiency of the dehumidifier and require wholesale Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 5., Item Page 3, Packet Page 27 №11/24
replacement of all return ducting. Staff recommends a contract amendment to increase the contract contingency by $250,000 so that the ducting can be replaced.

AR/jb
Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 5., Item Page 4, Packet Page 28 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

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

APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WITH ACCO ENGINEERED SYSTEMS, INC. DBA, GEO H. WILSON FOR THE SPORTS CENTER POOL

MODERNIZATION DEHUMIDIFIER REPLACEMENT PROJECT BY INCREASING THE CONTRACT CONTINGENCY AMOUNT BY $250,000
WHEREAS, on the 17th day of October 2023, Council awarded a construction contract to ACCO Engineered Systems Inc., dba Geo H. Wilson in the amount of $965,000, and authorized staff to expend an additional 15% for unforeseen construction contingencies (Reso 23-116); WHEREAS, during construction, it was determined that the return ducting from the dehumidifier to the natatorium is excessively compromised by corrosion and was not part of the original scope;
WHEREAS change orders for duct lining, controls addition and re-routing interior ducting due to unforeseen conditions in the wall depleted the contract contingency; WHEREAS, staff recommends adding $250,000 to the ACCO contract to account for addition of replacement supply ducting on the roof due to extensive corrosion found during construction;
WHEREAS, sufficient funding is available in the Sports Center Reserve Fund, which has a balance of $2,500,000; and
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1) because the project consists of the replacement of the pool dehumidification unit on the roof of the Monterey Sports Center. Furthermore, the project does not qualify for any of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions found at CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2.

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 Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 5., Item Page 5, Packet Page 29 due to unusual circumstances. No unusual circumstances are anticipated due to improvements' limited scope and distinct locations.

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 authorizes the City Manager to execute Amendment 1 to the contract with ACCO ENGINEERED SYSTEMS, INC., DBA GEO H. WILSON for the Sports Center Pool Modernization Dehumidifier Replacement Project (CIP2414) (“Project”), increasing the contract contingency amount by $250,000 and authorizes the Finance Director, or their designee to transfer $250,000 from the Sports Center Reserve Fund to the Monterey Sports Center Natatorium Dehumidifier Project (CIP2414).

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:

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 5., Item Page 6, Packet Page 30 Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 5., Item Page 7, Packet Page 31 Council
Agenda Report
№11/25
FROM: Andrew Miller, Fire Chief
Prepared By: Justin Cooper, Division Chief
SUBJECT: 1
st Reading of an Ordinance to Repeal and Replace City Code Chapter 13, Article 3, to Adopt Updated Fire Hazard Severity Zones (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council pass a first reading of an ordinance to update the Fire Hazard Severity Zones set forth in Monterey City Code, Chapter 13, Article 3, Fire Hazard Severity Zones.

VALUE DRIVERS:

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

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

It is the policy of the State of California for public agencies, such as the City, to adopt its Fire Hazard Severity Zone map within 120 days of its publication.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE
ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no fiscal implications with passing this ordinance.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

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 Agenda Report Highlights
 The City Council is recommended to
pass an ordinance to update Fire
Hazard Severity Zones in Monterey
City Code, Chapter 13, Article 3.
 Updated Fire Hazard Severity
Zones are based on terrain,
vegetation, fire history, and climate
conditions, and must be adopted
within 120 days of publication by
state law.
 All parcels must maintain defensible
space requirements, with stricter
standards for properties in
Moderate, High, and Very High
zones.
 Property sellers must disclose Fire
Hazard Severity Zone designations
and conduct defensible space
inspections during real estate
transactions.
 The updated map does not affect
fire service provision.

Date: 5/20/2025
Item No.: 6.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 6., Item Page 1, Packet Page 32 №10/24
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:

The map must be adopted by the City to be compliant with state law. The City cannot make changes to the map that reduces the fire hazard classification, although it may suggest a higher severity level to the State Fire Marshal pursuant to Government Code section 52119 as follows:
a. The City could designate areas not identified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones by the State Fire Marshal, as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones following a finding supported by substantial evidence in the record that the requirements of Government Code Section 51182 are necessary for effective fire protection within the area. b. The City could designate areas not identified as Moderate and High Fire Hazard Severity Zones by the State Fire Marshal, as Moderate and High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, respectively.

With the exception of a single parcel with more than one fire hazard severity zone, neither of the foregoing alternatives are recommended because they would impose additional regulatory requirements on property owners beyond those mandated by the State, potentially leading to increased costs, community opposition, and legal challenges. Moreover, absent compelling and well-documented local evidence demonstrating a heightened fire risk, such designations could be seen as arbitrary or unsupported.

The proposed ordinance indicates that when a single parcel has more than one fire hazard severity zone associated with such parcel, in order to effectively administer fire protection within the area it is necessary that the highest fire hazard severity zone associated with that parcel be administered and enforced on the entire lot.

DISCUSSION:

Overview
The State Fire Marshal in conjunction with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) is tasked with assigning and periodically updating Fire Hazard Severity Zones in the state based on the severity of fire hazard that is expected to prevail in those areas.

Moderate, High, and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones are based on fuel loading, slope, fire weather, and other relevant factors including areas where winds have been identified by the Office of the State Fire Marshal as a major cause of wildfire spread. (Government Code section 51178)
On March 10, 2025, CAL FIRE released the 2025 Local Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity (FHSZ) maps that apply to the City of Monterey. The maps indicate potential hazard, not immediate risk, and do not take into account mitigation efforts such as maintaining Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 6., Item Page 2, Packet Page 33 №10/24
defensible space or fire-resistant construction. Changes to the map do not affect how fire services are provided.

Requirements and Updates
Within 30 days of the City receiving the FHSZ information, the City was required to publish the information and make it available for public comment. (Government Code section 51178.5.) The City is also required by state law to adopt, by ordinance, the updated FHSZ map within 120 days of publication. (Government Code section 51178.) FHSZ classifies the zones by categorizing properties as Moderate, High, or Very High based on terrain, vegetation, fire history, and climate conditions.

All parcels in Monterey, regardless of FHSZs, are required to maintain defensible space requirements as outlined in the amendments to the California Fire Code Section 4907.1.1.

Homeowners in the updated Very High, High, and Moderate FHSZ must comply with more stringent defensible space requirements as required by the state.

New construction and certain renovations in Very High FHSZ must adhere to the WildlandUrban Interface (WUI) building code standards. The City adopted its WUI with the adoption of Resolution No. 24-097 C.S. on June 4, 2024.

Property sellers must disclose FHSZ designations and have a defensible space inspection during real estate transactions. (AB 38 inspection – Civil Code section 1102.19).

Finally, the City is required to post a notice at the office of the County Recorder, County Assessor, and County Planning Agency identifying the location of the map provided by the State Fire Marshal.

City Actions
On March 13, 2025, the City timely shared the FHSZ information through a press release.

On March 28, 2025 the information was posted on the City website at. https://monterey.gov/city_hall/fire/preparedness/fire_hazard_severity_zones.php.

A form was also created and posted on the website for public comments through May 15, 2025.

Staff will be evaluating the need to modify the City’s WUI to align with the newly updated FHSZ maps. Planning Staff will bring forward an amendment to the General Plan Safety Element to adopt the new FHSZ map.

AM/jc
Attachments: 1. Draft Ordinance with Appendix A (Map)
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, 5/20/2025, Item No. 6., Item Page 3, Packet Page 34 ORDINANCE NO. ____ C.S.

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

REPEALING AND REPLACING
MONTEREY CITY CODE CHAPTER 13, ARTICLE 3, FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONES THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY DOES ORDAIN, as follows:

SECTION 1:

WHEREAS, the State Fire Marshal is tasked with identifying areas in the state as moderate, high, and very high fire hazard severity zones based on the severity of fire hazard that is expected to prevail in those areas. Moderate, High, and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones are based on fuel loading, slope, fire weather, and other relevant factors including areas where winds have been identified by the Office of the State Fire Marshal as a major cause of wildfire spread. (Government Code section 51178.);
WHEREAS, on March 10, 2025, CAL FIRE released the 2025 Local Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity (FHSZ) maps that apply to the City. The City published the FHSZ map within 30 days of the City receiving the FHSZ information and made it available for public comment pursuant to Government Code section 51178.5;
WHEREAS, the City is required by state law to adopt, by ordinance, the updated FHSZ map within 120 days of publication. (Government Code section 51178.) FHSZ classifies the zones by categorizing properties as Moderate, High, or Very High based on terrain, vegetation, fire history, and climate conditions;
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the adoption of this ordinance is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines”), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. The adoption of this ordinance is an organizational and administrative activity of the City, does not have the potential to result in either a direct or reasonably foreseeably indirect physical change in the environment, and is therefore not a project of purposes of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15061(b)(3); 15378(b)(5).

Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. 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.

NOW THEREFORE, the Monterey City Council declares as follows:

SECTION 2: The above recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated and Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 6., Item Page 4, Packet Page 35 2 adopted as findings of the City Council as if fully set forth herein.

SECTION 3: Monterey City Code, Chapter 13, Article 13, Fire Hazard Severity Zones, is repealed and replaced as follows:
“Article 13, Fire Hazard Severity Zones
Sec. 13-3.00 Fire Hazard Severity Zones
(a) The City hereby designates the Fire Hazard Severity Zones as recommended by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Government Code section 51178. The map, as shown in Appendix A to the ordinance codified in this chapter, is hereby incorporated by reference, and titled “City of Monterey Fire Hazard Severity Zones.”
The official map is also located electronically on the following website:
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/5065c998b4b0462f9ec3c6c226c610a9 (b) In the event that a single parcel has more than one fire hazard severity zone associated with such parcel on the Appendix A map, the more strict designation shall apply to the entire property. In order to effectively administer fire protection within the area it is necessary that when a parcel has more than one fire hazard severity zone on a single lot, the highest fire hazard severity zone on that lot shall be administered and enforced for the entire lot.

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 _______, 202_, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 6., Item Page 5, Packet Page 36 City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 6., Item Page 6, Packet Page 37 City and County boundaries as of 10/22/24 (CA Board of Equalization) CAL FIRE State Responsibility Areas (SRA25_1)
CAL FIRE Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZSRA23_3, FHSZLRA_25_1) Data Sources:

Daniel Berlant, State Fire Marshal, CA Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Joe Tyler, Director/Fire Chief, CA Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Wade Crowfoot, Secretary for Natural Resources, CA Natural Resources Agency The State of California and the Department of Forestry and Fire Gavin Newsom, Governor, State of California Protection make no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy of data or maps. Neither the State nor the Department shall be liable under any circumstances for any direct, special, incidental, or consequential damages with respect to any claim by any user or third party on account of, or arising from, the use of data or maps. and other relevant factors including areas where winds
have been identified by the Office of the State Fire Marshal as a major cause of wildfire spread.
statewide criteria and based on the severity of fire hazard that is expected to prevail in those areas. Moderate, high, and very high fire hazard severity zones shall be based on fuel loading, slope, fire weather, Government Code section 51178 requires the State Fire
Marshal to identify areas in the state as moderate, high, and very high fire hazard severity zones based on consistent Waterbody
Federal Responsibility
Area (FRA)
Unzoned LRA
Incorporated City
Projection: NAD 83 California Teale Albers
Scale: 1:45,000 at 11" x 17"
Km 0 1 2 3
Mi 0 1 2
Very High High Moderate
Very High High Moderate
Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) in Local Responsibility Area (LRA), as Identified by the State Fire Marshal
Monterey
1 68
218

UNINCORPORATED
MONTEREY CO.

CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
DEL
REY
OAKS

PACIFIC GROVE SAND CITY

SEASIDE
M O N T E R E Y C O .

March 10, 2025
As Identified by the
State Fire Marshal
Local Responsibility Area
Fire Hazard Severity Zones
CITY OF MONTEREY – MONTEREY COUNTY
Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility
Area (SRA), Effective April 1, 2024

APPENDIX A
Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 6., Item Page 7, Packet Page 38 Council
Agenda Report
№08/22
FROM: Rafaela T. King, Finance Director
SUBJECT: 2nd Reading of an Ordinance, Including Findings Demonstrating Need, to Increase Compensation for the Mayor and City Councilmembers Effective January 1, 2027 (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council pass a first reading of an
ordinance, including findings demonstrating need, to
increase compensation for the Mayor and City
Councilmembers effective January 1, 2027.

VALUE DRIVERS:

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The City Charter does not require a 4/5ths vote to
increase the compensation for City Councilmembers.

Rather, a majority vote is required. Charter Article 5, City Manager and Administrative Department, pertains
to officers and employees and not to the City Council.

Therefore, the 4/5 vote requirement in Charter section

5.3 does not apply to this item. Charter Article 4, City Council, governs City Councilmember compensation. It
does not have a 4/5 vote requirement.

According to California State Senator Bill Dodd, DNapa, the author of SB 329 (effective January 1, 2024):

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
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: 5/20/2025
Item No.: 7.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 7., Item Page 1, Packet Page 39 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.

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.

Differing from state law, the City’s Charter authorizes an increase in compensation to be effective during the term of office. (Charter section 4.1(d).) However, during the discussion of this item on April 15, 2025, it was clear that the City Council wanted to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest and preferred to delay the increase until after the next election. Therefore, an alternative would be to have the increase implemented concurrently with the effective date of the ordinance or some other date. The Fair Political Practices Commission has advised that generally a public official is not disqualified from voting on decisions affecting their compensation. In addition, a charter city has the authority to adopt an ordinance to increase Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 7., Item Page 2, Packet Page 40 compensation for city council members which would become effective at a time different from that provided by state law. (57 Op.Atty.Gen. 11, 1-10-74.) 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. This state 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.

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.

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, however, the City’s Charter provides that it may be effective earlier. Given the City Council’s discussion on this item, the proposed ordinance follows state law and implements the increase after the election.

Therefore, if approved, the increase in compensation would be effective January 1, 2027.

In addition, the current policy regarding City Councilmember benefits (e.g. health insurance) was established in 1989 with the adoption of Ordinance 2913 and updated with the adoption of Ordinance 3223 on October 7, 1997. This action codifies Ordinance 3223 in City Code section 2-1.06 and makes only minor technical changes to that section.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 7., Item Page 3, Packet Page 41 The draft ordinance was presented to the City Council on April 15, 2025 consistent with the Government Code. A first reading of the proposed ordinance amendment was presented as a public appearance item at the May 6, 2025 council meeting. This is the second reading of the proposed ordinance and if it passes it will 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, 5/20/2025, Item No. 7., Item Page 4, Packet Page 42 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 OF THE MONTEREY CITY CODE TO

INCREASE COMPENSATION FOR THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2027
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY DOES ORDAIN, as follows:

SECTION 1:

WHEREAS, 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 January 2024);
WHEREAS, the current policy regarding City Councilmember benefits (e.g. health insurance) was established in 1989 with the adoption of Ordinance 2913 and updated with the adoption of Ordinance 3223 on October 7, 1997. This action codifies Ordinance 3223 in City Code section 2-1.06 and makes only minor technical changes to that section; 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 supported SB 329 for the following reasons:

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 7., Item Page 5, Packet Page 43 2 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.

WHEREAS, the need to increase City Councilmember 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 elected officials 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, the City Charter does not require a 4/5 vote to increase the compensation for City Councilmembers. Charter Article 5, City Manager and Administrative Department, pertains to officers and employees and not to the City Council. Therefore, the 4/5 vote requirement in Charter section 5.3 does not apply to this item. Charter Article 4, City Council, governs City Councilmember compensation and it does not have a 4/5 vote requirement; WHEREAS, differing from state law, the City’s Charter authorizes an increase in compensation to be effective during the term of office. (Charter section 4.1(d).) A charter city has the authority to adopt an ordinance to increase compensation for city council members which would become effective at a time different from that provided by state law. (57 Op.Atty.Gen. 11, 1-10-74.) However, during the discussion of this item on April 15, 2025, it was clear that the City Council wanted to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest and preferred to delay the increase until after the next election;
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 Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 7., Item Page 6, Packet Page 44 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 is amended as follows:
2-1.06 Compensation and Benefits for the Mayor and City Councilmembers a. Compensation. Effective January 1, 2027, Compensation for the Mayor and City Councilmembers shall be as follows:

1. Compensation for the Mayor is hereby established in the sum of $1,562.79 per month.

2. Compensation for City Councilmembers is hereby established in the sum of $1,064.20 per month.

3. The compensation set forth in subsections (a)(1) and (a)(2) is exclusive of any amount paid by the City for retirement and health benefits under subsection (b); provided that the same benefits are available and paid by the City for its employees.

4. This section does not and shall not provide for automatic future increases in compensation.
b. Benefits. The Mayor and City Councilmembers may, by individual election and subject to the rules and regulations of the provider, receive any non-cash benefit granted by Resolution to non-sworn members of the Monterey Executive Management Employee’s Association. `Non-Cash benefits' include those that are not limited to retirement and health insurance where the City pays the provider directly. Cash or cash in lieu payments to the Mayor or to a Council Member are not authorized.

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, 5/20/2025, Item No. 7., Item Page 7, Packet Page 45 Council
Agenda Report
№11/25
FROM: Brian Edwards, Library & Museums Director
Prepared By: Francesca Garibaldi, Library & Museums Administration SUBJECT: Approve a Concession Agreement for the Monterey Public Library Café with Ardent Culinaire with Conditions (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council approve a concession agreement
with Ardent Culinaire for the Monterey Public Library
Café operations with conditions.

VALUE DRIVERS:

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Awarding concession agreements is consistent with past
Council policy and is used for other types of services
throughout the City. This concession agreement will
augment the City’s capacity for providing excellent
programs and amenities at the Monterey Public Library,
as well as provide revenue generation.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE
ACT) APPLIES: Yes.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The new concession agreement terms include a base
rent of $4,800 annually with the possibility of increased revenue through special programs and events. This
concession model for the Monterey Public Library will
relieve the inefficient expense and time of staff operating a café which previously brought in less revenue than the cost to operate. The revenue would be allocated to the
Library Trust Fund to support ongoing operations and
programming for the benefit of the community.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

Agenda Report Highlights
 Approval recommended for a
concession agreement with Ardent
Culinaire to operate the Monterey
Public Library Café, enhancing
visitor experience and generating
revenue.
 The café will provide a variety of
nutritious food and beverage
options, supporting community
connection and the City's Healthy
Eating, Active Living Initiative.
 Ardent Culinaire selected based on
qualifications, local experience, and
commitment to sustainability,
offering a flexible menu.
 Agreement terms include a base
rent of $400 per month or 5% of
gross receipts, with reduced rent for
the first three months unless sales
exceed $6,000.
 The café will utilize the Library’s
kitchen space, previously used for
programs and fundraisers, relieving
staff from snack bar operations and
supporting Library Trust Fund
revenue.

Date: 5/20/2025
Item No.: 8.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 8., Item Page 1, Packet Page 46 №10/24
The City of Monterey determined that the proposed access is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 CEQA Guidelines Article20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council could elect not to award this concessionaire agreement; however, this is not recommended. The added benefit of café service at the Monterey Public Library will enhance the customer experience for locals and visitors resulting in community building, learning opportunities, and economic benefits.

DISCUSSION:

The Monterey Public Library is a department of the City of Monterey located at 625 Pacific Street, Monterey. Established in 1849, the Monterey Public Library is the first public library in California. Today, the Library is a thriving cultural, historical, and educational center on the Monterey Peninsula, also becoming a creative community hub. Connection, growth, positivity, creativity and wellness are infused into operations. It’s an exciting time as Library services expand reach in the Monterey community.

The Monterey Public Library is the largest public library on the Monterey Peninsula, serving over 121,000 patrons annually and averaging over 500 visitors daily. For the past 16 years, it has been voted “Best Library" by Monterey County Weekly readers. It is nestled amidst the Civic Center campus with hundreds of private sector and public employees within walking distance and students from nearby Monterey High School, Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey, and Monterey Peninsula College. Approximately 55% of the Library’s patrons reside in Pacific Grove, Carmel-by-the-Sea, Marina, Seaside, and other communities outside of the City of Monterey, and often seek other amenities, such as coffee, drinks, snacks, and other food options during their visit to the Library. Food and beverages are permitted inside the Library.

The Library is open to the public 44 hours per week, on Mondays from 2:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. and Tuesday through Saturday from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., and provides regularly scheduled weekly and monthly programs attended by repeat patrons.

The Café at the Library
In 2016, the kitchen was built and funded by the Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program (NCIP) with additional financial support from the non-profit Friends of the Monterey Public Library, now the Monterey Public Library Friends & Foundation (F&F). The kitchen is located at the back of the Monterey Public Library, with access from the Library's patio. The kitchen is comprised of a non-commercial operational 210 square-foot kitchen with a service window facing an outdoor courtyard with benches and tables. A countertop cooktop, full-sized Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 8., Item Page 2, Packet Page 47 №10/24
oven, split top refrigerator and freezer, two microwaves, twin airpot coffee brewers, and dishwasher. Food items prepared offsite are allowed, provided they are prepared in a facility and manner approved by the County of Monterey’s Health Department.

Initially built as an amenity for Monterey Public Library programs and fundraisers, staff opened a snack bar called Etta’s Eats, named after Monterey Public Library’s first City Librarian Etta Eckhardt. Etta’s Eats opened in February 2017 based on customer feedback that coffee and snacks would be an added benefit when visiting the Library. The goal was to provide a welcoming amenity for Library customers with affordable snacks and beverages. Geared toward high school students at the time, food and beverage selection was limited. Numerous challenges arose related to snack bar attendant staffing and the lack thereof.

Often, library staff would cover snack bar shifts which then removed them from regular responsibilities intended to serve library projects and priorities. Nearly 50% of staffing to operate the snack bar was borrowed from other library divisions demonstrating that a staff-run snack bar was not feasible when taking into account all operational aspects.

Since the kitchen addition was built, staff have used the kitchen space to support cooking programs, library programs, and donor events. F&F uses the kitchen for fundraising programs, including the well-loved and popular annual Chocolate & Wine Benefit that raises funds for Library materials, programs and services. Alternative uses for the kitchen were explored including renting the space with Community Room bookings, using it as an additional meeting space, and partnering with a non-profit to operate a snack bar as a work-ready site for job skills and training. However, none were cost-effective at the time nor was there an organization ready to take on such an endeavor. Staff then sought exploring the opportunity of enhancing visitor experience and generating additional revenue through the establishment of a café.

Selection of a Café Operator
The City issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the Monterey Public Library Cafe operations on August 8, 2024 and extended the initial proposal deadline from September 9, 2024 to September 30, 2024. The RFP received three proposals from the following firms: Ardent Culinaire, a firm located in Illinois, and a culinary enterprise located in Monterey County. The proposals were evaluated based on overall quality and criteria outlined in the RFP:
 Ability to design an approach and work plan to meet the project requirements (20%)  Ability of the proposer to carry out and manage the proposed project (20%)  Staff (20%)
 Commitment to the City of Monterey’s Healthy Eating, Active Living Initiative, sustainability, and menu pricing (15%)
 Cost of proposal and potential revenue (10%)
 Familiarity with locality (10%)
 Willingness to comply with the proposed agreement terms (5%) Library staff invited the proposers to interview and met with two of the three who responded.

Vendors offered service suggestions that would benefit library members, visitors, nearby employees and residents, including options for easy ordering, convenience and menu options.

Knowledge of the Monterey Public Library, proximity to the cafe, compliance with the criteria in the RFP were considered along with the financial and operational stability of the vendors and associated costs and projected revenues as well as the commitment to the City's Healthy Eating Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 8., Item Page 3, Packet Page 48 №10/24
Active Living Initiative. Menu affordability, quality, and overall ability to serve the Monterey Public Library were discussed, minimum days of service, as well as continued access to the kitchen for library programs and fundraisers.

Ardent Culinaire was selected as the most qualified respondent for the City, demonstrating exceptional qualifications and references as well as flexibility in working with the unique conditions of the agreement.

Ardent Culinaire is a locally-rooted food service company of skilled culinary and hospitality professionals with decades of experience in food service management, catering, banquets, restaurant management and concessions. Their mission is to share our passion for food with our community. We do this by using fresh, high-quality ingredients and preparing them with culinary artistry and attention to detail. We offer fresh, sustainable, organic and fair-trade products, while supporting local vendors as a first option. Above all, we believe in providing our guests with a delectable experience that surpasses their expectations.

Ardent Culinaire President Cheyenne Vandenbrook brings fifteen years of experience in managing a variety of food service productions including corporate café, restaurant, and catering & event management. She graduated from the Art Institute of Los Angeles with a degree in Culinary Arts. Ardent Culinaire has successfully facilitated food and beverage services at Point Pinos Grill in Pacific Grove from 2019-2020 and was awarded the contract for food service at Monterey Peninsula College (MPC) in 2021. Ardent currently operates three locations on the MPC Monterey campus and maintains a fresh food vending kiosk at MPC’s Marina campus. In 2024, they were contracted to provide food service for the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey.

Ardent Culinaire’s proposal noted that the Monterey Public Library should be a place where guests can find a variety of palatable and nutritious options in a welcoming environment. Ardent would provide a selection of salads, hot and cold sandwiches, wraps, burritos, and snacks to appeal to the variety of ages and income levels. Their management team conducts regular reviews and updates of menus based on customer feedback, item sales, ingredient availability and pricing. Ardent Culinaire has successfully worked with the Blue Zones Project (BZP) and plans to have the Library café become BZP approved to support the ongoing collaboration between the Monterey Public Library and the Blue Zones Project.

The Library Cafe adds value to Library programs and services along with generating revenue.

Providing a variety of food and beverage options on-site that connect our community together through the Monterey Public Library has the potential to generate increased social capital which is priceless in a time of increased isolation and separation.

Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution, which:

1. Awards a Concessionaire Agreement for the Monterey Public Library café operations to Ardent Culinaire with an initial term of three (3) years, plus an option for one 3- year extension, to operate and maintain a food and beverage service facility in the Library’s kitchen space with conditions for operating hours, required permits, sustainability, utilities, maintenance, equipment and fixtures, performance evaluation and other permitted uses and conditions.

2. Requires Ardent Culinaire to pay to the City a base rent of $400 per month or 5% of monthly gross receipts, whichever amount is greater, after the initial three (3) Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 8., Item Page 4, Packet Page 49 №10/24
months. Base rent for the first three (3) months will be $200 per month unless a minimum of $6,000 in sales is met or exceeded in which case full rent will apply.

3. Authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute the agreement with Ardent Culinaire.

Attachments: 1. Resolution
e: Board of Library Trustees
Hans Uslar, City Manager
Nat Rojanasathira, Assistant City Manager
Christine Davi, City Attorney
Rafaela King, Finance Director
Stella Sandoval, Assistant Finance Director
Kimberly Cole, Community Development 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, 5/20/2025, Item No. 8., Item Page 5, Packet Page 50 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№011/24
APPROVING CONCESSION AGREEMENT FOR THE MONTEREY PUBLIC LIBRARY CAFÉ

WITH ARDENT CULINAIRE WITH CONDITIONS
WHEREAS, on August 8, 2024, the City issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the Monterey Public Library café operations;
WHEREAS, on September 30, 2024, the City received three (3) responsive proposals from interested vendors;
WHEREAS, staff formed a selection committee to independently review and score each vendor’s proposal based upon specific criteria in the RFP; WHEREAS, the selection committee determined that Ardent Culinaire was the best qualified firm;
WHEREAS, a new concession agreement with Ardent Culinaire will provide Monterey Public Library visitors and those who work or live in proximity with an amenity that increases the draw to the library and supports Library programs;
WHEREAS, the City provides a variety of services to the public which benefit the entire community, individuals, or businesses;
WHEREAS, Ardent Culinaire is offering to provide affordable food and beverage service at the Monterey Public Library;
WHEREAS, the Monterey Public Library has evaluated the kitchen operations and determined the most responsible course of action is to award a concession agreement for the Library cafe in; and
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed access is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 CEQA Guidelines Article20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project.

Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability;

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 8., Item Page 6, Packet Page 51

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

2. Requires Ardent Culinaire to pay to the City a base rent of $400 per month or 5% of monthly gross receipts, whichever amount is greater, after the initial three (3) months. Base rent for the first three (3) months will be $200 per month unless a minimum of $6,000 in sales is met or exceeded in which case full rent will apply.

3. Records revenue from this Agreement into the Library Trust Fund.

4. Authorizes the City Manager, or his designee, to execute the agreement with Ardent Culinaire.

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, 5/20/2025, Item No. 8., Item Page 7, Packet Page 52 Council
Agenda Report
№11/25
FROM: Kimberly Cole, AICP, Community Development Director Levi Hill, AICP, Planning Manager
Prepared By: Matthew Buggert, Senior Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Authorize a Professional Services Agreement with Columbia Telecommunications Corporation (CTC) Media Group, Inc. for a Not to Exceed Amount of $200,000, to Provide Engineering Services to Evaluate and Process Permit Applications for the Construction and Modification of Wireless Facilities (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing a
professional services agreement with Columbia
Telecommunications Corporation (CTC) Media Group,
Inc. for a not-to-exceed amount of $200,000, to provide engineering services for wireless facilities for the City’s Community Development Department.

VALUE DRIVERS:

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Awarding professional services agreements is consistent with past Council policy and is used for other types of professional services for projects throughout the City.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE
ACT) APPLIES: Yes.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The City’s Wireless Ordinance allows the City to charge application fees sufficient to cover the professional services required to process the applications. These fees are collected to cover the costs of the consultants prior to the start of work.

Agenda Report Highlights
 City Council recommends
authorizing a $200,000 professional
services agreement with CTC Media
Group, Inc. for engineering services
related to wireless facilities.
 City Council recommends
authorizing a $200,000 professional
services agreement with CTC Media
Group, Inc. for engineering services
related to wireless facilities.
 The City’s Wireless Ordinance
allows application fees to cover
consultant costs, ensuring no fiscal
burden on the City.
 The City lacks in-house expertise
for radio frequency (RF) report
reviews, necessitating external
professional services.

Date: 5/20/2025
Item No.: 9.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 9., Item Page 1, Packet Page 53 №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:

Council could decide that professional services for on-call engineering services to evaluate and process permit applications for the construction and modification of wireless facilities are not required at this time. However, the City requires peer review of radio frequency (RF) reports to verify that projects meet federal standards. The City does not have in-house expertise to prepare or review RF reports. In 2024, approximately six (6) permit applications for wireless facilities were processed by the Planning Division, and in 2023 approximately nine (9) permit applications were processed.

DISCUSSION:

On March 24, 2025, staff circulated the Request for Proposals (RFP) for On-Call Engineering Services to Evaluate and Process Permit applications for the Construction and Modification of Wireless Facilities. Firms that provide the desired services were specifically contacted. The RFP was posted through the City’s e-Procurement Portal, OpenGov Procurement and on the City’s website. By the April 24, 2025 deadline, responses were received from two firms.

The recommended firm has experience providing a full range of engineering services for wireless facilities in California and are familiar with Monterey:
 CTC Media Group, Inc.

The selected firm would provide the City with expertise in engineering services (i.e., radio frequency reports) to evaluate and process permit applications for the construction and modification of wireless facilities in Monterey.

The agreement would have an initial one-year term and a $200,000 aggregate not-to-exceed fee for all tasks provided. The agreement will include an option for four additional one (1) year extensions.

KC/LH/mb
Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution
e: Michael Afflerbach, CTC Media Group, Inc.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 9., Item Page 2, Packet Page 54 №10/24
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, 5/20/2025, Item No. 9., Item Page 3, Packet Page 55 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

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

AUTHORIZING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENTS WITH COLUMBIA TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION (CTC) MEDIA GROUP, INC. FOR A NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT OF $200,000, TO PROVIDE ON-CALL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR

WIRELESS FACILITIES
WHEREAS, the Planning Office needs to augment its planning staff to obtain engineering expertise to evaluate wireless facility applications; WHEREAS, on March 24, 2025, the City released a Request for Proposals (RFP) to firms that provide the desired services, and posted the RFP on the City’s e-Procurement Portal, OpenGov Procurement, and the City’s website;
WHEREAS, on April 24, 2025, responses to the RFP were received from two firms; a selection committee consisting of planning staff reviewed and scored the responses; the selection committee held deliberations; and one firm was found to be qualified: CTC Media Group, Inc.;
WHEREAS, the firm (CTC Media Group, Inc.) has experience providing a full range of engineering services for wireless facilities in California and is familiar with Monterey; WHEREAS, the agreement will have an initial one-year term and a $200,000 aggregate not-to-exceed fee for all tasks provided. The agreement will include an option for four additional one (1) year extensions also with an annual not-to-exceed funding limit of $200,000; WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that is hereby authorizes the City Manager, or designee, to execute Professional Services Agreement with Columbia Telecommunications Corporation (CTC) Media Group, Inc. to provide professional services to provide on-call engineering services to process Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 9., Item Page 4, Packet Page 56 wireless permit applications, for a not to exceed amount of $200,000 per year, for a one year term that may be extended for four additional one year terms.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this 20th day of May 2025, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 9., Item Page 5, Packet Page 57 Council
Agenda Report
№11/25
FROM: Kimberly Cole, AICP, Community Development Director Levi Hill, AICP, Planning Manager
Prepared By: Matthew Buggert, Senior Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Authorize Professional Services Agreement with Rincon Consultants, Inc. for a Not to Exceed Amount of $200,000, to Provide On-Call Planning Services to Evaluate and Process Permit Applications for Wireless Facilities (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing a
professional services agreement with Rincon
Consultants for a not-to-exceed amount of $200,000, to
provide planning services for wireless facilities for the City’s Community Development Department and Public
Works Department.

VALUE DRIVERS:

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Awarding a professional services agreement is
consistent with past Council policy and is used for other types of professional services for projects throughout the City.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE
ACT) APPLIES: Yes.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

Agenda Report Highlights
 City Council is recommended to
authorize a $200,000 professional
services agreement with Rincon
Consultants for on-call planning
services for wireless facilities.
 The agreement supports efficient
processing of permit applications,
addressing Federal regulations
and staff capacity limitations.
 Application fees collected under
the City’s Wireless Ordinance will
cover the costs of the consultant
service.
 Rincon Consultants was the sole
respondent to the RFP and has
relevant experience in California
and familiarity with Monterey
Date: 5/20/2025
Item No.: 10.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 1, Packet Page 58 №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:

Council could decide that professional services for on-call planning services for wireless facilities are not required at this time. However, given the Federal regulations of wireless services, the Planning Office may receive multiple applications that will exceed the capacity of current Planning Office staff, and assistance will be necessary to process the applications within the required timelines. In 2024, approximately six (6) permit applications for wireless facilities were processed by the Planning Division, and in 2023 approximately nine (9) permit applications were processed.

DISCUSSION:

On March 24, 2025, staff circulated the Request for Proposals (RFP) for On-Call Planning Services to Provide Planning Services to Evaluate and Process Permit Applications for the Construction and Modification of Wireless Facilities. Firms that provide the desired services were specifically contacted. The RFP was posted through the City’s e-Procurement Portal, OpenGov Procurement and on the City’s website. By the April 24, 2025 deadline, responses were received from one firm.

The firm selected has experience providing planning services for wireless facilities in California and is familiar with Monterey:
 Rincon Consultants
The firm would provide the City with expertise in on-call planning services for wireless facilities.

The agreement would have an initial one-year term and a $200,000 aggregate not-to-exceed fee for all tasks provided. The agreement would include an option for four additional one (1) year extensions.

KC/LH/crs
Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution
e: John Dreher, Rincon Consultants
Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 2, Packet Page 59 №10/24
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, 5/20/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 3, Packet Page 60 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

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

AUTHORIZING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH RINCON CONSULTANTS FOR A NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT OF $200,000,

TO PROVIDE ON-CALL PLANNING SERVICES FOR WIRELESS FACILITIES WHEREAS, the Planning Office needs to augment its planning staff to process wireless permit applications;
WHEREAS, on March 24, 2025, the City released a Request for Proposals (RFP) to firms that provide the desired services and also posted the RFP on the City’s e-Procurement Portal, OpenGov Procurement, and the City’s website;
WHEREAS, on April 24, 2025, responses were received from one firm; Rincon Consultants, Inc.;
WHEREAS, the firm (Rincon Consultants) has experience providing a full range of planning and environmental services in California and are familiar with Monterey; WHEREAS, the agreement will have an initial one-year term and a $200,000 aggregate not-to-exceed fee for all tasks provided. The agreement will include an option for four additional one (1) year extensions also with an annual not-to-exceed funding limit of $200,000; WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that is hereby authorizes the City Manager, or designee, to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Rincon Consultants to provide professional services to provide on-call planning services to process wireless permit applications for a not to exceed amount of $200,000.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this 20th day of May, 2025, by the following vote:

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 4, Packet Page 61 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 5, Packet Page 62 Council
Agenda Report
№11/25
FROM: Kimberly Cole, AICP, Community Development Director Levi Hill, AICP, Planning Manager
Prepared By: Chris Schmidt, Senior Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Authorize Professional Services Agreements with Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc; Dudek; Dyett & Bhatia, Urban and Regional Planners; EMC Planning Group, Inc.; Rincon Consultants, Inc.; Placeworks, Inc.; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc; Kosmont and Associates, Inc.; and BAE Urban Economics, Inc. for a Not to Exceed Amount of $1,000,000 Each for On-Call Planning, Economic, and Environmental Services (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing
professional services agreements with Denise Duffy &
Associates, Inc; Dudek; Dyett & Bhatia, Urban and
Regional Planners; EMC Planning Group, Inc.; Rincon
Consultants, Inc.; Placeworks Inc. Economic &
Planning Systems, Inc; Kosmont and Associates, Inc.;
and BAE Urban Economics, Inc. for a not-to-exceed
amount of $1,000,000 each, to provide on-call
planning, economic, and environmental services for
the City’s Community Development Department.

VALUE DRIVERS:

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

Agenda Report Highlights
 City Council is recommended to
authorize agreements with nine
firms for on-call planning, economic,
and environmental services.
 Each agreement has a $1,000,000
not-to-exceed limit and an initial
one-year term with options for four
automatic one-year extensions.
 Selected firms specialize in
planning, environmental, and
economic development services in
California.
 Costs for services will be covered
through developer deposits or City
funds, depending on the project.

Date: 5/20/2025
Item No.: 11.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 11., Item Page 1, Packet Page 63 №10/24
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Awarding professional services agreements is consistent with past Council policy and is used for other types of professional services for projects throughout the City. These services will augment the City’s capacity for project delivery, consistent with the City Council’s vision and strategic initiative of “Working to improve the quality of life of our residents.” CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: Yes.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The City of Monterey Master Fee Schedule allows the City to charge application fees (through developer deposits) sufficient to cover the professional services required to process the applications. These deposits are collected and placed in a developer deposit account to cover the costs of the consultants prior to the start of work. In addition, the City may have a future project where on-call planning, economic, and environmental services are needed; for example, a General Plan update or environmental review for a City project. The City would then determine at that time which City fund would be used to cover the costs of the project. In some cases, a separate City Council action will be required to appropriate funds. Other times, this work will be covered by approved Capital Improvement Program (CIP) or Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program (NCIP) projects.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

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

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

Council could decide that professional services for on-call planning, economic, and environmental services are not required at this time.

DISCUSSION:

On March 24, 2025, staff circulated the Request for Proposals (RFP) for On-Call Planning, Economic, and Environmental Services. Firms that provide the desired services were specifically contacted. The RFP was posted through the City’s e-Procurement Portal, OpenGov Procurement and on the City’s website. By the April 24, 2025 deadline, responses were received from twenty firms.

Six of the firms selected have experience providing a full range of planning and environmental services in California:

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 11., Item Page 2, Packet Page 64 №10/24
 Denise Duffy and Associates, Inc.
 Dudek
 Dyett and Bhatia, Urban and Regional Planners
 EMC Planning Group, Inc.
 Rincon Consultants, Inc.
 Placeworks, Inc.

Three of the firms selected have experience providing economic development services in California with a particular focus on economic and market forces.  Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. from Sacramento, CA  Kosmont and Associates, Inc.
 BAE Urban Economics, Inc.

The combination of the nine firms will provide the City with expertise in on-call planning, economic, and environmental services.

Each agreement will have an initial one-year term and a $1,000,000 aggregate not-to-exceed fee for all tasks provided. The agreement will include an option for four (4) additional one (1) year automatic extensions.

KC/lh/crs
Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution
e: Denise Duffy, Principal-in-Charge, Denise Duffy and Associates, Inc.

Stephanie Strelow, Contract Manager, Dudek
Rajeev Bhatia, AICP, Principal, Dyett and Bhatia, Urban and Regional Planners Michael Groves, EMC Planning Group
Lilly Rudolph, MPA, AICP, Rincon Consultants, Inc.

Henry Bultman, Placeworks Inc.

David Zehnder, Economic & Planning Services, Inc.

Larry Kosmont, CRE, Kosmont and Associates, Inc.

Stephanie Hagar, BAE Urban Economics Inc.

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, 5/20/2025, Item No. 11., Item Page 3, Packet Page 65 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

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

AUTHORIZING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENTS WITH DENISE DUFFY AND ASSOCIATES, INC; DUDEK; DYETT AND BHATIA, URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNERS; EMC PLANNING GROUP, INC.; RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC.; PLACEWORKS, INC.; ECONOMIC & PLANNING SYSTEMS, INC.; KOSMONT AND ASSOCIATES, INC,; AND BAE URBAN ECONOMICS INC., FOR A NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT OF $1,000,000 EACH, TO

PROVIDE ON-CALL PLANNING, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES WHEREAS, the Planning Office needs to augment its planning staff to help the city with a full range of planning, economic, and environmental services, including but not limited to, current planning, long-range planning, assistance with economic development projects and analysis, and CEQA/NEPA related work.

WHEREAS, on March 24, 2025, the City released a Request for Proposals (RFP) to firms that provide the desired services and also posted the RFP on the City’s e-Procurement Portal, OpenGov Procurement, and the City’s website;
WHEREAS, on April 24, 2025, responses were received from twenty firms; a selection committee consisting of planning staff reviewed and scored the responses; the selection committee held deliberations; and, six firms were found to be qualified: Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc; Dudek; Dyett & Bhatia, Urban and Regional Planners; EMC Planning Group, Inc.; Rincon Consultants, Inc.; Placeworks Inc.; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc; Kosmont and Associates, Inc.; and BAE Urban Economics, Inc.;
WHEREAS, six of the selected firms have experience providing a full range of planning and environmental services in California; and three of the selected firms have experience providing economic development services in California;
WHEREAS, the agreement will have an initial one-year term and a $1,000,000 aggregate not-to-exceed fee for all tasks provided. The agreement will include an option for four additional one (1) year automatic extensions also with an annual not-to-exceed funding limit of $1,000,000;
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that is hereby authorizes the City Manager, or designee, to execute Professional Services Agreements Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc; Dudek; Dyett & Bhatia, Urban and Regional Planners; EMC Planning Group, Inc.; Rincon Consultants, Inc.; Placeworks Inc. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc; Kosmont and Associates, Inc.; and BAE Urban Economics, Inc.; to provide professional services to provide on-call planning, economic development, and environmental services, for a not to exceed amount of $1,000,000 per year each, for one year terms, and with options for four additional one year extensions.

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

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 11., Item Page 5, Packet Page 67 Council
Agenda Report
№11/25
FROM: Kimberly Cole, AICP, Community Development Director Levi Hill, AICP, Planning Manager
Prepared By: Matthew Buggert, Senior Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Authorize Professional Services Agreements with Architectural Resources Group, Inc.; Dudek; and Page & Turnbull, Inc. for a Not to Exceed Amount of $200,000 Each, to Provide On-Call Cultural Resource Preservation Services (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing
professional services agreements with Architectural
Resources Group, Inc.; Dudek; and Page & Turnbull Inc.
for a not-to-exceed amount of $200,000 each, to provide on-call cultural resource preservation services for the City’s Community Development Department and Public
Works Department.

VALUE DRIVERS:

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Awarding professional services agreements is consistent with past Council policy and is used for other types of professional services for projects throughout the City.

These services will augment the City’s capacity for
project delivery, consistent with the City Council’s vision and strategic initiative of “Working to improve the quality of life of our residents.”
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: Yes.

Agenda Report Highlights
 City Council is recommended to
authorize agreements with three
firms for on-call cultural resource
preservation services, each with a
$200,000 not-to-exceed amount.
 Services will support the Community
Development and Public Works
Departments in preserving
Monterey’s historic and cultural
resource.
 Agreements will have an initial oneyear term with options for four additional one-year extensions.
 Costs for services will be covered
through developer deposits or
specific City funds, depending on
the project.

Date: 5/20/2025
Item No.: 12.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 1, Packet Page 68 №10/24
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The City of Monterey Fee Schedule allows the City to charge application fees (through developer deposits) sufficient to cover the professional services required to process applications. These deposits are collected and placed in a developer deposit account to cover the costs of the consultants prior to the start of work. In addition, the City may have a future project where on-call cultural resources preservation services are needed; for example, a sitespecific analysis for a City project requiring excavation in a sensitive archaeological area. The City would then determine at that time which City fund would be used to cover the costs of the project. In some cases, a separate City Council action will be required to appropriate funds.

Other times, this work will be covered by approved Capital Improvement Program (CIP) or Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program (NCIP) projects.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

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

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

Council could decide that professional services for on-call cultural resources preservation services are not required at this time.

DISCUSSION:

On-Call Cultural Resource Preservation Services provide expertise to City staff on matters related to historic preservation and cultural resource preservation. This expertise is critical in Monterey, which has more historic buildings downtown than any city west of Santa Fe and is immensely proud of its heritage and historic resources.

On March 24, 2025, staff circulated the Request For Proposals (RFP) for On-Call Cultural Resources Preservation Services. Firms that provide the desired services were specifically contacted. The RFP was posted through the City’s e-Procurement Portal, OpenGov Procurement and on the City’s website. By the April 24, 2025 deadline, responses were received from ten firms.

Each of the firms selected have experience providing historic preservation consulting services in California and are familiar with Monterey. The combination of the following three firms will provide the City with local representation as well as expertise in cultural resource preservation services:
 Architectural Resources Group, Inc. from San Francisco Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 2, Packet Page 69 №10/24
 Dudek from Santa Cruz
 Page & Turnbull, Inc. from San José
Each agreement will have an initial one-year term and a $200,000 aggregate not-to-exceed fee for all tasks provided. The agreement will include an option for four additional one (1) year extensions.

KC/LH/crs
Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution
e: Lisa Yerogivch, AIA LEED AP, ARG
Sarah Hahn, Project Manager, ARG
Ryan Brady, RPA, Contract Manager, Dudek
Christina Dikas Brobst, Principal, Page &Turnbull, Inc.

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, 5/20/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 3, Packet Page 70 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

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

AUTHORIZING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENTS WITH ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP, INC.; DUDEK; AND PAGE & TURNBULL, INC. FOR A NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT OF $200,000, TO PROVIDE ON-CALL CULTURAL RESOURCE

PRESERVATION SERVICES
WHEREAS, the Planning Office needs to augment its planning staff to facilitate cultural resources preservation services;
WHEREAS, on March 24, 2025, the City released a Request for Proposals (RFP) to firms that provide the desired services and also posted the RFP on the City’s e-Procurement Portal, OpenGov Procurement, and the City’s website;
WHEREAS, on April 24, 2025, responses were received from ten firms; a selection committee consisting of planning staff reviewed and scored the responses; the selection committee held deliberations; and, three firms were found to be qualified: Architectural Resources Group Inc.; Dudek; and Page & Turnbull Inc;
WHEREAS, the three firms selected have experience providing a full range of cultural resource preservation services in California and are familiar with Monterey; WHEREAS, the agreement will have an initial one-year term and a $200,000 aggregate not-to-exceed fee for all tasks provided. The agreement will include an option for four additional one (1) year extensions also with an annual not-to-exceed funding limit of $200,000; WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that is hereby authorizes the City Manager, or designee, to execute Professional Services Agreements with Architectural Resources Group Inc.; Dudek; and Page & Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 4, Packet Page 71 Turnbull Inc., to provide on-call cultural resource preservation services, for a not to exceed amount of $200,000 each, with one year terms plus four additional one year extension options.

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

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 5, Packet Page 72 Council
Agenda Report
№11/25
FROM: Kimberly Cole, AICP, Community Development Director Prepared By: Kevin Morgan, Senior Building Inspector
SUBJECT: Authorize Professional Services Agreements with CSG Consultants, Inc., 4LEAF, Inc., TRB and Associates, and Bureau Veritas North America, Inc., for a Not to Exceed Amount of $500,000 each, to Provide On-Call Building Inspector, Permit Technician, and Plan Check Services (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing
professional services agreements with CSG
Consultants, Inc., 4LEAF Inc., TRB and Associates,
Bureau Veritas North America, Inc., for a not to exceed amount of $500,000 each, to provide building inspector, permit technician and plan check services on an on-call basis for the City’s Building and Safety Division.

VALUE DRIVERS:

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Awarding professional services agreements is
consistent with past Council policy and is used for other types of professional services for projects throughout
the City. This service will augment the City’s capacity for providing essential services.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE
ACT) APPLIES: Yes.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

Building Division funds spent on consultant services to date this past fiscal year total $221,693 and are
primarily due to a vacant Plans Examiner position. Fees are entirely offset by revenue collected for plan
checking services.

Agenda Report Highlights
 City Council is recommended to
authorize agreements with four
firms for on-call building inspector,
permit technician, and plan check
services, each with a $500,000
annual limit.
 Contracts will address staffing
shortages, vacation coverage, and
complex technical requirements to
maintain service levels and ensure
public safety.
 Fees for services are offset by
revenue collected from permit
applications, ensuring no additional
financial burden on the City.
 Selection process involved
reviewing proposals from eleven
firms, with four chosen based on
qualifications.
 Agreements include an initial oneyear term with options for four additional one-year extensions.

Date: 5/20/2025
Item No.: 13.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 13., Item Page 1, Packet Page 73 №10/24
These contracts would only be utilized on an as-needed basis in cases where existing staffing is inadequate to maintain the desired level of service to our customers. Examples would include vacation coverage, staffing vacancies, or complex technical skill requirements that extend beyond staffing levels. Fees for these services are collected on a case-by-case basis when permit applications are submitted and issued. Consequently, as demand increases, so does the revenue to cover the service. Not awarding these contracts could result in costly delays, reduced service, and a lack of specialty skills necessary to ensure the safety of complex projects.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey staff 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(b)(5)). 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:

Council could decide that professional services for building inspector, permit technician and plan check services are not required at this time.

DISCUSSION:

In the interest of public safety, the Building and Safety Division plays an essential role in ensuring that residential and commercial construction projects in the City of Monterey, comply with all State and local code requirements. In 2024, the Building and Safety Division issued over 1,800 building and encroachment permits and during that time, there was a vacant Plans Examiner position. In order to conduct reviews of plans, the division relied upon its sole consultant contract, which will expire in October 2025.

Every year, the State Legislature enacts new laws that set time limits on municipal building departments to streamline the building permit process. Awarding multiple contracts would afford the City the opportunity to address potential bottlenecks and fluctuations in service demands without solely relying upon one company’s resources.

On March 28, 2025, the City released a Request for Proposals (RFP) to firms that provide the desired services and posted the RFP on the City’s e-Procurement Portal, OpenGov Procurement, and the City’s website.

By the April 18, 2025 deadline, responses were received from eleven firms. A selection committee consisting of building and planning staff reviewed and scored the responses. The selection committee held deliberations, and selected CSG Consultants Inc., 4LEAF Inc., TRB and Associates, and Bureau Veritas Noth America, Inc., as the most qualified.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 13., Item Page 2, Packet Page 74 №10/24
The agreement will have an initial one-year term and a $500,000 aggregate not-to-exceed fee for all tasks provided. The agreement will include an option for four additional one (1) year extensions, also with an annual not-to-exceed funding limit of $500,000.

KC/km
Attachments: 1. Resolution awarding contract
e: Shweta Prakash, CSG Consultants Inc.

Craig Tole, 4LEAF Inc.

Todd Bailey, TRB+Associates
Craig Baptista, Bureau Veritas
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, 5/20/2025, Item No. 13., Item Page 3, Packet Page 75 №011/24
RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY

AUTHORIZING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENTS WITH CSG CONSULTANTS INC., 4LEAF, INC., TRB AND ASSOCIATES, AND BUREAU VERITAS NORTH AMERICA, INC., FOR A NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT OF $500,000 EACH, TO PROVIDE ON-CALL

BUILDING INSPECTOR, PERMIT TECHNICIAN, AND PLAN CHECK SERVICES WHEREAS, the Community Development Department, on an as-needed-basis, needs to augment its Building Inspector, Permit Technician and Plan Check services to support the Building and Safety Division;
WHEREAS, on March 28, 2025, the City released a Request for Proposals (RFP) to firms that provide the desired services and posted the RFP on the City’s new eProcurement Portal, OpenGov Procurement, and the City’s website;
WHEREAS, on April 18, 2025, responses were received from eleven firms; a selection committee consisting of building and planning staff reviewed and scored the responses; the selection committee held deliberations and selected CSG Consultants Inc., 4LEAF, Inc., TRB and Associates, and Bureau Veritas North America, Inc.; WHEREAS, each agreement will have an initial one-year term and a $500,000 aggregate not-to-exceed fee for all tasks provided. The agreement will include an option for four additional one (1) year extensions also with an annual not-to-exceed funding limit of $500,000; WHEREAS, 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 Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects 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, this matter is not a project. Because the proposed action 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 FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby authorizes the City Manager, or designee, to execute the Professional Services Agreement with CSG Consultants, Inc., 4LEAF Inc., TRB and Associates, and Bureau Veritas North America, Inc. to provide building inspector, permit technician and plan check services on an on-call basis for the Building and Safety Division, for a not to exceed amount of $500,000 per contract term, with an option for the one year term to be extended for four additional one-year terms.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 13., Item Page 4, Packet Page 76 №011/24
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this ___ day of ___, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 13., Item Page 5, Packet Page 77 Council
Agenda Report
№11/25
FROM: Kimberly Cole, AICP, Community Development Director Levi Hill, AICP, Planning Manager
Prepared By: Christy Sabdo, AICP, Principal Planner
SUBJECT: Authorize a Professional Services Agreement with GHD, Inc. for a Not to Exceed Amount of $818,600 to Provide a Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment, Adaptation Plan, and Economic Analysis (Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15306, Class 6)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing a
Professional Services Agreement with GHD, Inc. for a
not to exceed amount of $818,600 to provide a Sea
Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment, Adaptation Plan,
and Economic Analysis.

VALUE DRIVERS:

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

On October 9, 2024, the California Coastal Commission
(CCC) approved an award of $1.64 million in Local
Coastal Plan (LCP) Local Assistance grant funds for the City of Monterey to prepare a sea level rise vulnerability assessment, adaptation plan, economic analysis, LCP
amendment, and associated public outreach and
engagement. On November 5, 2024, the City Council
authorized receipt and appropriation of CCC LCP Grant
funds in the amount of $1.64 Million and authorized a
contract with the CCC. A grant agreement with the
Coastal Commission was executed on February 26,
2025 in the amount of $818,600 for Phase 1 of the
project. If the project is not authorized for the updated sea level rise vulnerability assessment and adaptation
Agenda Report Highlights
 City Council is recommended to
authorize a $818,600 agreement
with GHD, Inc. for a Sea Level Rise
Vulnerability Assessment,
Adaptation Plan, and Economic
Analysis.
 The project is funded by a California
Coastal Commission grant and must
be completed by December 31,
2027.
 The study aims to address sea level
rise impacts, develop adaptation
strategies, and align with Coastal
Act goals.
 Public outreach and community
engagement will prioritize
marginalized communities and
environmental justice perspectives.
 Failure to proceed may result in loss
of grant funds and non-compliance
with SB 2721 requirements.

Date: 5/20/2025
Item No.: 14.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 1, Packet Page 78 №10/24
plan, the City will, in short time, be out of compliance with SB 2720F 1 approved by the Governor
on October 7, 2023, which requires local governments to incorporate sea level rise plans as part of new or updated Local Coastal Programs.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: Yes.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The City entered into a grant agreement with the California Coastal Commission in the amount of $818,600 for Phase 1 of the project, which is required to be completed by December 31, 2027. Phase 1 of the project would fund the preparation of an updated sea level rise vulnerability assessment, potential adaptation responses and associated economic analysis, public outreach and community engagement, and an LCP amendment that will be required as a program in the draft Local Coastal Plan (Draft LCP) (currently being prepared for 2025 approval). The grant allocation includes both consultant time and City staff time needed to manage and administer the grant. If the work is not authorized, the City cannot implement the grant agreement and will likely lose the grant funds. The City then will ultimately be required to fund a similar study utilizing the City’s general funds.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15306, Class 6) because the project would fund activities, such as basic data collection, research, and resource evaluation activities, which do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource.

These would be strictly for information gathering purposes.

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 activities would not cause a significant impact on the environment because they would involve basic data collection, research, and resource evaluation activities, which do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource.

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 activities would not cause a cumulative impact on the environment because they would involve basic data collection, research, and resource evaluation activities, which do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource.

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 1 Senate Bill 272: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB272 Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 2, Packet Page 79 №10/24
due to unusual circumstances. The activities would not cause a significant impact on the environment because they would involve basic data collection, research, and resource evaluation activities, which do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource.

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 activities would not cause a significant impact on scenic highways because they would involve basic data collection, research, and resource evaluation activities, which do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource.

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 activities would not cause a significant impact on hazardous waste sites because the project site is not included 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. These activities would not cause a significant impact on historical resources because they would involve basic data collection, research, and resource evaluation activities, which do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource.

Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council could decide that professional services are not required at this time for an updated sea level rise vulnerability assessment and adaptation plan.

DISCUSSION:

The City’s Goal for a Local Coastal Plan
The Coastal Act mandates the protection of public access and recreation along the coast, coastal habitats, and other sensitive resources, as well as providing priority visitor-serving and coastal-dependent or coastal-related development while simultaneously minimizing risks from coastal hazards. The Coastal Act requires each local government to prepare a Local Coastal Plan (LCP) for the coastal zone portion of its jurisdiction.

The purpose of an LCP is to meet the requirements and implement the provisions and policies of the Coastal Act. LCPs serve as a blueprint for the development and buildout of the coastal Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 3, Packet Page 80 №10/24
zone while addressing emerging issues such as climate change, sea level rise, and affordable housing. Generally, an LCP consists of a local government’s land use plans, zoning ordinances, zoning district maps, and other documents that implement the Coastal Act at the local level (CA 30108.6). Once an LCP is certified, the local jurisdiction is the delegated authority to approve Coastal Development Permits (CDP) for development in the coastal zone. Without a certified LCP, the responsibility and authority for CDPs remains with the Coastal Commission.

An LCP includes both a Land Use Plan (LUP) and an Implementation Plan (IP). The City has four certified LUPs for the subareas of Del Monte Beach, Cannery Row, Monterey Harbor, and Skyline. The LUP for Laguna Grande/Roberts Lake was never certified and an IP has not been certified for these areas.

The City has made significant progress towards finalizing a Draft Local Coastal Plan (Draft LCP) - one comprehensive plan that combines all subareas into one document and includes an Implementation Plan. The City’s aims to achieve certification from the Coastal Commission in 2025. The Draft LCP will first be reviewed by the Coastal Commission and then will be available for public review before being presented to the City Council for adoption. Planning will continue to provide updates on the progress of the LCP and opportunities for public outreach at the project website: https://haveyoursaymonterey.org/local-coastal-program Sea Level Rise Studies and Adaptation Plans
On October 7, 2023, the Governor signed into law SB 2721 requiring local governments to incorporate sea level rise plans as part of new or updated Local Coastal Programs. The City of Monterey and California Coastal Commission acknowledged that a more robust science and engineering-based sea level rise vulnerability assessment and adaptation plan is needed to support the city in the development of more detailed policies and programs on sea level rise adaptation and resilience. The Local Assistance grant would fund the preparation of an updated sea level rise vulnerability assessment and adaptation plan that would be prepared concurrently with the Draft LCP. Once the City’s LCP is certified, an LCP amendment will be needed to update the City’s LCP policies and programs related to sea level rise resilience and adaptation.

The study prepared under the LCP Local Assistance Grant would include two phases:
 First, to include a variety of data gathering, technical and policy analysis, and public outreach and engagement to inform development of draft documents  Second, to include finalization of an adaptation plan, including an adaptation plan with actionable next steps, and development and adoption of an LCP amendment informed by the project.

The overall goal of this project is to identify strategies and solutions designed to mitigate the impacts of sea level rise and climate change. The project will help the City create a roadmap to allocate resources to the right projects and programs at the appropriate time based on observed conditions and to navigate the challenges posed by sea level rise and climate change. It will focus on preserving and enhancing coastal habitat, protecting coastal-dependent development and resources, as well as providing and enhancing lower-cost visitor and recreational opportunities while ensuring public access for all. The work will also align with the Coastal Act goals of protecting coastal resources without creating new environmental burdens or exacerbating existing ones related to environmental justice.

More specifically, the proposed project includes the following tasks/deliverables:

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 4, Packet Page 81 №10/24
 Background Report – A variety of sea level rise studies and analyses have already been completed for the City and greater Monterey Bay Area. The City/consultant will evaluate and synthesize existing studies and develop a background report that compiles information on sea level rise vulnerabilities, assets that have been evaluated, and adaptation strategies that have been proposed or considered. The report will also identify current data gaps or information that needs to be updated to reflect newer science and best practices. This information will inform subsequent tasks so that work is not duplicated but rather integrated and expanded upon.  Vulnerability Assessment – The City/consultant will complete a draft and final vulnerability assessment that considers risks that the City, its assets, and its coastal resources are likely to encounter as the impacts of sea level rise and coastal hazards worsen over time. The assessment will address relevant gaps identified in the background report and impacts of sea level rise on historically marginalized communities as well as be consistent with the 2024 State Sea Level Rise Guidance. The assessment will divide the City coastline into transects/subareas based on similarities in land uses and coastal form to provide a clear framework for assessing localized impacts within each defined area.
 Adaptation Plan – The City/consultant will develop an Adaptation Plan through a phased approach that includes:
o Potential Adaptation Responses – The team will consider a wide array of possible adaptation options, including those already assessed (included in the Background Report), examples from around California and abroad, and innovative options. Up to three responses will be developed for each subarea.

Potential adaptation strategies will include near, mid, and long-term implementation projects for various adaptation strategies (accommodation, protection, retreat, hybrid), and it is assumed that strategies will differ for each of the City’s subareas. Strategies will be evaluated in terms of factors such as environmental impacts, recreational opportunities, flood reduction, habitat creation, and costs. Feasible alternatives will be further evaluated and refined. o Economic Analysis – An economic analysis will be prepared for the identified adaptation strategies. This will include assessment of the benefits, impacts, and costs (including estimated capital and maintenance) for each adaptation type (i.e., accommodate, protect, hybrid, or retreat) along the entire City’s coastline, including the option of taking no action. This assessment will include a detailed evaluation of the status of all the City’s coastal assets, both protected and unprotected, as well as coastal resources, coastal habitats, public access, and recreational resources.
o Final Adaptation Plan – Based on findings from the economic analysis and public feedback (discussed below) on the potential adaptation responses, a final adaptation plan will be developed. This will include a pathways approach that identifies near-term (1-5 years) and mid-term (6-15 years) strategies along with triggers and thresholds for changing adaptation options. Long-term options will also be identified, though with less detail. The Plan will identify Implementation Actions, including, as feasible, conceptual design plans (10% design for the mid and long-term strategies, and 30% for near-term strategies) and cost estimates.

The Plan will also evaluate and identify funding strategies and will include a monitoring and reporting plan.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 5, Packet Page 82 №10/24
 Public Outreach and Community Engagement – The City/consultant will develop a comprehensive community engagement strategy. To effectively engage the community, the team will identify a variety of participatory methods to ensure inclusive and equitable participation, actively involving community members in the planning process.

Engagement strategies will prioritize marginalized communities and perspectives and will include stipends for Environmental Justice (EJ) groups, focus group meetings, virtual reality storytelling, workshops, surveys, and pop-ups. This outreach will heavily inform the adaptation strategies and final adaptation plan as well as the subsequent LCP amendment.
 LCP Amendment – Separate from the proposed project, the City of Monterey is currently working on fully certifying its LCP and expects to do so concurrently with the early phases of this project. As part of the proposed grant work, the City will develop what it expects to be an amendment to, at that point, the recently certified LCP to incorporate the project findings. This will build on more general baseline sea level rise policies that are likely to be in the initial LCP certification, to more specifically address, allow for, and implement adaptation strategies identified in the Final Adaptation Plan.

In conclusion, staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing a Professional Services Agreement with GHD for a not to exceed amount of $818,600 to provide a Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment, Adaptation Plan, and Economic Analysis.

KC/LH/cs
Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution
e: Andrew Easterling, City Engineer, Deputy Public Works Director GHD, Aaron Holloway, Principal
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, 5/20/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 6, Packet Page 83 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№011/24
AUTHORIZING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH GHD, INC. FOR A NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT OF $818,600 TO PROVIDE A SEA LEVEL RISE VULNERABILITY

ASSESSMENT, ADAPTATION PLAN, AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
WHEREAS, the City is in the process of preparing the draft Local Coastal Plan (LCP) in preparation for California Coastal Commission and public review. In ultimately achieving certification of the LCP, the City will be required to comply with all portions of the Coastal Act; WHEREAS, the Coastal Act mandates the protection of public access and recreation along the coast, coastal habitats, and other sensitive resources, as well as providing priority visitor-serving and coastal dependent or coastal-related development while simultaneously minimizing risks from coastal hazards;
WHEREAS, the City and California Coastal Commission acknowledged that a more robust science and engineering-based sea level rise vulnerability assessment and adaptation plan is needed to support the city in the development of more detailed policies and programs on sea level rise adaptation and resilience;
WHEREAS, on September 19, 2023, the City Council directed staff to submit an LCP Local Assistance Grant to the Coastal Commission for an updated sea level rise vulnerability assessment and adaptation plan (Resolution No. 23-108 C.S.); WHEREAS, on November 5, 2024, the City Council authorized the City Manager to increase the FY25 budget to accept the awarded funds from the Coastal Commission for the LCP Local Assistance Grant in an amount not to exceed $1,640,000 and to appropriate funds from the Planning Division’s Professional Services account; and authorized the City Manager to enter into a contract with the California Coastal Commission for allocation of these funds (Resolution 24-166 C.S.);
WHEREAS, the grant agreement with the California Coastal Commission and the City was finalized on February 26, 2025 for Phase 1 of the project in the amount of $818, 600.

WHEREAS, on February 14, 2025, the City released a Request for Proposals (RFP) to firms that provide the desired services and also posted the RFP on the City’s e-Procurement Portal, OpenGov Procurement. The RFP included a scope of work for Phase I and Phase 2 of the project;
WHEREAS, on March 18, 2025, responses were received from three firms; a selection committee consisting of planning staff and public works staff reviewed and scored the responses; the selection committee held deliberations; and two firms were selected for the “short list”: ESA and GHD, Inc. Both firms were interviewed by the selection committee and GHD, Inc. was selected.

WHEREAS, the agreement will commence in May 2025 and run through December 31, 2027 for Phase 1 of the project with the option for the City to grant a written extension of time for Phase 2 of the project;
Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 7, Packet Page 84 WHEREAS, the City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15306, Class 6) because the project would fund activities, such as basic data collection, research, and resource evaluation activities, which do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource. These would be strictly for information gathering purposes. 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 activities would not cause a significant impact on the environment because they would involve basic data collection, research, and resource evaluation activities, which do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource.

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 activities would not cause a significant impact on the environment because they would involve basic data collection, research, and resource evaluation activities, which do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource.

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 activities would not cause a significant impact on scenic highways because they would involve basic data collection, research, and resource evaluation activities, which do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource.

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 activities would not cause a significant impact on hazardous waste sites because the project site is not included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 8, Packet Page 85 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. These activities would not cause a significant impact on historical resources because they would involve basic data collection, research, and resource evaluation activities, which do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby authorizes the City Manager, or designee, to execute the Professional Service Agreement with GHD to provide a Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment, Adaptation Plan, and Economic Analysis for an amount not to exceed $818,600 effective through December 31, 2027 for Phase 1 with the option to extend the term of the agreement for Phase 2 and amend the amount of the agreement to match the amount of additional grant funds received by the Coastal Commission.

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

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 9, Packet Page 86 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Andrea Renny, Public Works Director
Sara South, Engineering Programs Analyst
SUBJECT: Identify Cass and El Dorado Street Curb Ramp and Road Rehabilitation as the Project to be Funded by SB 1: The Road Repair and Accountability Act (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt the attached resolution
approving the Cass and El Dorado Street Curb Ramp
and Road Rehabilitation Project to be funded with
revenues from the Road Maintenance and
Rehabilitation Account (RMRA), created by SB 1: The
Road Repair and Accountability Act.

VALUE DRIVERS:

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

This Project is consistent with the City Council’s Value Drivers and Strategic Priorities of Quality of Life – “Respond effectively to neighborhood concerns,” Fiscal Stewardship – “Prioritize funding models and sources for facility rehabilitation, repair, and replacement,” and Active Mobility – “Maintain and repair core street, roadway, and storm drain infrastructure.” CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (SB 1 Beall) provides for the allocations of various funds to state and local agencies for transportation purposes. Among those funds are formula-based allocations from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA). The Agenda Report Highlights
 The City Council is recommended to
approve the Cass and El Dorado
Street Curb Ramp and Road
Rehabilitation Project funded by SB 1.
 The project is estimated to cost
$2,000,000, with $747,066 allocated
from RMRA funds for FY 2025-26.
 Repairs include curb ramp retrofitting,
pavement replacement, and
installation of curb bulb-outs, with an
estimated useful life of 20 years.
 The project aligns with City priorities
for transportation investment,
improving safety, reducing emissions,
and enhancing mobility.

Date: 5/20/2025
Item No.: 15.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 1, Packet Page 87 №10/24
City of Monterey is projected to receive RMRA funds in the amount of $747,066 for Fiscal Year 2025-26. The project is currently in design with a rough total estimate of $2,000,000.

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:

City Council could choose not to approve the Cass and El Dorado Street Curb Ramp and Road Rehabilitation as the project to be funded by SB 1; however, this is not recommended. Based on the City’s Pavement Management System, the reconstruction of the identified street segment of Cass and El Dorado Street is a high-priority, cost-effective project that meets the City’s priorities for transportation investment.

DISCUSSION:

Cities and counties own and operate more than 81 percent of streets and roads in California, and from the moment we open our front door to drive to work, bike to school, or walk to a bus station, people are dependent upon a safe, reliable local transportation network. Police, fire, and emergency medical services all need safe reliable roads to react quickly to emergency calls.

Maintaining and preserving the local street and road system in good condition will reduce drive times and traffic congestion, improve bicycle safety, and make the pedestrian experience safer and more appealing, which leads to reduced vehicle emissions helping the State achieve its air quality and greenhouse gas emissions reductions goals. Restoring roads before they fail also reduces construction time which results in less air pollution from heavy equipment and less water pollution from site run-off.

Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017) was passed by the Legislature and signed into law by the Governor in April 2017 in order to address the significant multi-modal transportation funding shortfalls statewide. SB 1 includes accountability and transparency provisions that will ensure the residents of the City of Monterey are aware of the projects proposed for funding in the community and which projects have been completed each fiscal year.

The City must include a list of all projects proposed to receive funding from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA), created by SB 1, which must include a description and the location of each proposed project, a proposed schedule for the project’s completion, and the estimated useful life of the improvement. The street segments are identified based on the City’s Pavement Management System.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 2, Packet Page 88 №10/24
Based on the City’s Pavement Management System, the Cass and El Dorado Street Curb Ramp and Road Rehabilitation, which includes, but is not limited to, the removal and replacement of pavement, is a high-priority and cost-effective project that also meets the City’s priorities for transportation investment. This project proposes installation of curb bulb-outs and retrofitting curb ramps at the intersections of Cass Street and Munras Avenue, Carmelito Avenue, and El Dorado Street, and pavement repair on El Dorado Street from Pacific Street to Munras Avenue. The estimated $747,066 in RMRA funding will be budgeted towards the completion of the project, which is estimated to begin construction in 2026. The repairs will have an estimated useful life of 20 years.

City Council will separately budget HUTA (Gas Tax) funds as part of the FY2025-26 CIP Budget for this project; however, SB 1 requires a specific Council action to identify where the RMRA funds will be utilized.

Therefore, Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving the Cass and El Dorado Street Curb Ramp and Road Rehabilitation, to be funded by SB 1: The Road Repair and Accountability Act.

AR/ss
Attachments: 1. Resolution
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 3, Packet Page 89 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

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

IDENTIFYING THE CASS AND EL DORADO STREET CURB RAMP AND ROAD REHABILITATION AS THE PROJECT TO BE FUNDED BY SB 1: THE ROAD REPAIR AND

ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017) was passed by the Legislature and signed into law by the Governor in April 2017 in order to address the significant multi-modal transportation funding shortfalls statewide;
WHEREAS, SB 1 includes accountability and transparency provisions that will ensure the residents of the City of Monterey are aware of the projects proposed for funding in our community and which projects have been completed each fiscal year; WHEREAS, the City must include a list of all projects proposed to receive funding from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA), created by SB 1 which must include a description and the location of each proposed project, a proposed schedule for the project’s completion, and the estimated useful life of the improvement; WHEREAS, the City will receive an estimated $747,066 in RMRA funding in Fiscal Year 2025-26 from SB 1;
WHEREAS, the City used a Pavement Management System to develop the SB 1 project list to ensure revenues are being used on the most high-priority and cost-effective projects that also meet the community priorities for transportation investment; WHEREAS, if the Legislature and Governor failed to act, city streets and county roads would have continued to deteriorate, having many and varied negative impacts on our community;
WHEREAS, cities and counties own and operate more than 81 percent of streets and roads in California, and from the moment we open our front door to drive to work, bike to school, or walk to the bus station, people are dependent upon a safe, reliable local transportation network;
WHEREAS, police, fire, and emergency medical services all need safe reliable roads to react quickly to emergency calls;
Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 4, Packet Page 90 WHEREAS, maintaining and preserving the local street and road system in good condition will reduce drive times and traffic congestion, improve bicycle safety, and make the pedestrian experience safer and more appealing, which leads to reduce vehicle emissions helping the State achieve its air quality and greenhouse gas emissions reductions goals; WHEREAS, restoring roads before they fail also reduces construction time which results in less air pollution from heavy equipment and less water pollution from site run-off; WHEREAS, the SB 1 project list and overall investment in our local streets and roads infrastructure with a focus on basic maintenance and safety, investing in complete streets infrastructure, and using cutting-edge technology, materials and practices, will have significant positive co-benefits statewide;
WHEREAS, based on the City’s Pavement Management System, the Cass and El Dorado Street Curb Ramp and Road Rehabilitation is a high priority and cost-effective project that also meets the City’s priorities for transportation investment. The estimated $747,066 in RMRA funding will be budgeted towards the completion of the project, which is estimated to begin construction in early 2026. The repairs include but are not limited to the removal and replacement of asphalt and will have an estimated useful life of 20 years; and WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines”), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 5, Packet Page 91

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby identifies the following project to be funded with Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) revenues:
 Cass and El Dorado Street Curb Ramp and Road Rehabilitation; Estimated Useful Life:
20 years; Anticipated Year of Construction: 2026.

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, 5/20/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 6, Packet Page 92 Council
Agenda Report
№10/24
FROM: Andrea Renny, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Jason Bradley, General Services Operations Manager SUBJECT: Award a Contract in the Amount of $131,928.00 to Alliance Environmental Group, LLC for Presidio of Monterey (POM) Kitchen Hoods and Exhaust Fans Cleaning ***IGSA*** (Categorically Excluded from NEPA 32 CFR, Part 651, Section II(g )(1))
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council:

1. Approves the Call for Bids for the POM Kitchen
Hoods and Exhaust Fans Cleaning (POM
Contractual Services) (“Project”), and granting the
Public Works Director, or their designee, the
authority to approve all amendments and
addenda thereto as necessitated by conditions in
the field;

2. Accepts all responsive, responsible bids;

3. Awards a Contract in the Amount of $131,928.00
to Alliance Environmental Group, LLC for POM
Kitchen Hoods and Exhaust Fans Cleaning (POM
Contractual Services) (“Project”);

4. Authorizes the City Manager, or their designee, to
execute the contract upon the receipt of
information required by the contract; and

5. Authorizes staff to expend up to an additional
10% for unforeseen contingencies for timely
completion of the Project.

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.

Agenda Report Highlights
 The City Council is recommended to
award a $131,928.00 contract to
Alliance Environmental Group, LLC
for cleaning kitchen hoods and
exhaust fans at the Presidio of
Monterey.
 The project is funded through POM
Contractual Services and will begin
on July 1, 2025, with sufficient
funding available for its term.
 Cleaning kitchen hoods and exhaust
fans is essential for fire prevention,
improved air quality, equipment
efficiency, and health and safety
compliance.
 Alliance Environmental Group, LLC
of San José, California was selected
as the lowest responsible bidder
after a second bid solicitation
process.

Date: 5/20/2025
Item No.: 16.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 16., Item Page 1, Packet Page 93 №10/24
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

This Project is consistent with the City Council’s Value Drivers and Strategic Priorities of Quality of Life – “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”, Fiscal Stewardship – “Support our military installations (U.S. Army Garrison Presidio of Monterey, Naval Support Activity Monterey, and U.S. Coast Guard Station Monterey) as significant economic drivers in the region, and Protecting Our Environment – “Protect the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary and our environmental assets from pollution.”
This action is consistent with the City’s policy to provide services to the U.S. Department of the Army through the Intergovernmental Support Agreement (IGSA) between the City of Monterey and the Federal Government.

This action is also consistent with Chapter 28-Purchasing of the City Code, which requires service contract awards exceeding $75,000 to be approved by City Council.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

On March 11, 2025, two (2) bids were received, and opened by the Finance Director’s designee as follows:

Bidder Total Bid
Alliance Environmental Group, LLC $131,928.00
Disaster Kleenup Specialists $141,065.80
Basis of award for this project is based on the Total Base Bid.

Engineer’s Estimate: $150,000
Total Project Estimate:

Contract (Total Base Bid) $131,928.00
Contingency, 10% $13,192.80
Total Construction Cost (This Authorization) $145,120.80 Funding Sources:

POM Contractual Services (650-310-3152-0000-4220)
This contract will be effective on July 1, 2025, when the 2025/2026 Fiscal Year begins and funding is renewed. The contract is funded by POM Contractual Services funds, and there will be sufficient funding during the contract term.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The proposed action has been reviewed in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and determined to qualify for a Categorical Exclusion (CX). The proposed action is categorically excluded under the provisions set forth in “Part II Department of Defense, Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 16., Item Page 2, Packet Page 94 №10/24
Department of the Army, 32 CFR Part 651 Environmental Analysis of Army Actions; (29 March 2002 Edition) Appendix B to Part 651-Categorical Exclusions” as follows:

II(g)(1) Routine repair and maintenance of buildings, airfields, grounds, equipment, and other facilities. Examples include, but are not limited to: Removal and disposal of asbestos-containing material (for example, roof material and floor tile) or lead-based paint in accordance with applicable regulations; removal of dead, diseased, or damaged trees; and repair of roofs, doors, windows, or fixtures (REC required for removal and disposal of ACM and LBP or work on historic structures).

All screening conditions in 32 CFR 651.29 have been met. No circumstances exist that would require an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement under NEPA.

CEQA applies to discretionary projects. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080, subd. (a).) CEQA does not apply to ministerial projects. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080, subd. (b)(1).) There is a recognized policy consideration underlying the distinction between ministerial and discretionary projects. The purpose of CEQA is to minimize the adverse effects of new construction on the environment. To trigger CEQA compliance, the discretion must be of a certain kind; it must provide the agency with the ability and authority to mitigate environmental damage to some degree. Unless a public agency can shape the project in a way that would respond to concerns raised in an EIR, or its functional equivalent, environmental review would be a meaningless exercise.

Here, the City does not have the power to deny or condition the permit, or otherwise modify the project in ways which would mitigate environmental problems an environmental impact report might conceivably have identified. The City does not have the authority to dictate changes to the Army’s project’s design or location in response to any impacts that an environmental review might reveal, the City’s authority under CEQA is essentially ministerial and therefore no further environmental review is required by the City.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

Council could choose not to award the contract for the Project; however, this is not recommended as the Project will be sufficiently funded and implements necessary maintenance critical to the Army’s Mission Objective.

DISCUSSION:

Overview
Under an Intergovernmental Support Agreement (IGSA), the City of Monterey provides services to the Department of the U.S. Army, which are fully reimbursed by the Federal government. The City coordinates a variety of projects on the Presidio of Monterey, Ord Military Community, and Camp Roberts, including this project to clean all kitchen hoods and exhaust fans located in various buildings throughout the Presidio of Monterey.

Project
Kitchen hood and exhaust fan cleaning serves the purpose of maintaining a clean and safe kitchen environment by safely removing grease, oil, and other contaminants that accumulate in the kitchen's ventilation system. With regular maintenance, this service assists in fire prevention, improved air quality, efficiency of equipment, and health and safety compliance. This is Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 16., Item Page 3, Packet Page 95 №10/24
essential for kitchen safety, equipment maintenance, and ensuring a healthy working environment.

This project initially went out to bid and received one (1) bid on November 26, 2024; however incorrect information was provided by the City in response to a question regarding the contractor’s license requirements, and all bids were rejected. A second bid solicitation was opened on March 11, 2025, and the City received two (2) bid proposals. The basis for determining the low bidder is the Total Base Bid, and Alliance Environmental Group, LLC, based in San José, California, is the low bidder, with a bid of $131,928.00.

Alliance Environmental Group, LLC has performed and successfully completed this kind of work for the Presidio of Monterey (POM). City of Monterey staff are comfortable with the ability of the contractor to perform the work successfully.

JB/cg
Attachments: 1. Resolution

2. Evaluation Tabulation
e: Alliance Environmental Group, LLC
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, 5/20/2025, Item No. 16., Item Page 4, Packet Page 96 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№011/24
AWARDING A CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $131,928.00 TO ALLIANCE

ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP, LLC FOR PRESIDIO OF MONTEREY (POM) KITCHEN HOODS AND EXHAUST FANS CLEANING AT PRESIDIO OF MONTEREY ***IGSA*** (CATEGORICALLY EXCLUDED FROM NEPA 32 CFR, PART 651, SECTION II(G )(1)) WHEREAS, on the 11th day of March 2025, at 2:00 p.m. the City of Monterey Finance Director’s designee received two (2) electronic bids through the City’s e-Procurement Portal, OpenGov Procurement, for the POM Kitchen Hoods and Exhaust Fans Cleaning (“Project”); WHEREAS, Alliance Environmental Group, LLC submitted a responsive, responsible bid for the Project;
WHEREAS, the basis of award for the project was the Total Base Bid; WHEREAS, Alliance Environmental Group, LLC submitted the lowest responsive, responsible bid in the amount of $131,928.00;
WHEREAS, the project is fully funded by the Department of the Army through the Intergovernmental Support Agreement (IGSA) and sufficient funding is available in the POM Contractual Services budget; and
WHEREAS, the proposed action has been reviewed in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and determined to qualify for a Categorical Exclusion (CX).

The proposed action is categorically excluded under the provisions set forth in “Part II Department of Defense, Department of the Army, 32 CFR Part 651 Environmental Analysis of Army Actions; (29 March 2002 Edition) Appendix B to Part 651-Categorical Exclusions” as follows:

All screening conditions in 32 CFR 651.29 have been met. No circumstances exist that would require an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement under NEPA.

CEQA applies to discretionary projects. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080, subd. (a).) CEQA does not apply to ministerial projects. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080, subd. (b)(1).) There is a recognized policy consideration underlying the distinction between ministerial and discretionary projects. The purpose of CEQA is to minimize the adverse effects of new construction on the environment. To trigger CEQA compliance, the discretion must be of a certain kind; it must provide the agency with the ability and authority to mitigate environmental damage to some degree. Unless a public agency can shape the project in a way that would Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 16., Item Page 5, Packet Page 97 respond to concerns raised in an EIR, or its functional equivalent, environmental review would be a meaningless exercise.

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

1. Approves the project specifications and grants the Public Works Director, or their designee, the authority to approve all amendments and addenda thereto as necessitated by conditions in the field;

2. Accepts all responsive, responsible bids;

3. Awards a Contract in the Amount of $131,928.00 to Alliance Environmental Group, LLC for POM Kitchen Hoods and Exhaust Fans Cleaning (POM Contractual Services) (“Project”);

4. Authorizes the City Manager, or their designee, to execute the contract effective July 1, 2025, utilizing FY 2025-26 funds, and upon the receipt of information required by the contract; and

5. Authorizes staff to expend up to an additional 10% for unforeseen contingencies for timely completion of the Project.

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

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 16., Item Page 6, Packet Page 98 City of Monterey
Finance Department
Rafaela King, Finance Director
580 Pacific Street, Monterey, CA 93940

EVALUATION TABULATION
General Solicitation - REBID: POM Kitchen Hoods and Exhaust Fans Cleaning

Page 1 ends

EVALUATION TABULATION
GEN No. TBD
REBID: POM Kitchen Hoods and Exhaust Fans Cleaning
RESPONSE DEADLINE: March 11, 2025 at 2:00 pm
Tuesday, March 11, 2025

SELECTED VENDOR TOTALS
Vendor Total
Alliance Environmental
Group, LLC
$131,928.00
Disaster Kleenup
Specialists
$141,065.80

BID SCHEDULE
Vendor Total
Alliance Environmental
Group, LLC
$131,928.00
Disaster Kleenup
Specialists
$141,065.80
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 16., Item Page 7, Packet Page 99 Council
Agenda Report
№11/25
FROM: Kimberly Cole, AICP, Community Development Director Prepared By: Janna Aldrete, Property Manager
SUBJECT: Appoint Agency Negotiators for Conference with Real Property Negotiators Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8; Property: Crematorium at El Encinal Cemetery, Fremont Street and Camino Aguajito; Agency Negotiators:

Kimberly Cole and Janna Aldrete; Negotiating Parties: Michelle Price (Keystone America, Inc., dba The Paul Mortuary, a subsidiary of Service Corporation International); Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment for Lease Amendment (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council appoint agency negotiators for a
conference with real property negotiators pursuant to
Government Code Section 54956.8 to discuss and
provide confidential direction regarding a lease
amendment for the crematorium located at El Encinal
Cemetery at the corner of Fremont Street and Camino
Aguajito.

VALUE DRIVERS:

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

City Council approval is required for this type of real estate transaction. Closed session confidential review
of real estate matters is allowed.

The Surplus Land Act does not apply since there is no
disposition as defined under the Act.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE
ACT) APPLIES: The Levine Act does not apply to the
act of appointing agency negotiators. The Levine Act
does apply to the underlying lease negotiations.

Agenda Report Highlights
 City Council is recommended to
appoint agency negotiators to
discuss a lease amendment for the
crematorium at El Encinal
Cemetery.
 Keystone America currently leases
the crematorium, with the lease set
to expire on June 30, 2026.
 Keystone is responsible for building
maintenance, structural repairs, and
retort replacement, and is
considered a tenant in good
standing.
 The proposed action is not subject
to CEQA as it has no potential for
environmental impact.
 Alternatives include not appointing
negotiators or appointing different
ones, but staff recommends
proceeding with the appointment.

Date: 5/20/2025
Item No.: 17.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 1, Packet Page 100 №10/24
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no fiscal implications related to the recommendation to appoint agency negotiators.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 CEQA Guidelines Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.

Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council could decide not to appoint negotiators or appoint different negotiators. This is not recommended by staff. It is appropriate that the Council appoint agency negotiators and authorize a confidential discussion regarding a lease extension.

DISCUSSION:

The City first leased the crematorium at El Encinal Cemetery in 1991 because it provided an economic and operational advantage to the City, which is still the case today. Keystone America (“Keystone”) currently leases the crematorium under a lease agreement dated July 1, 2011, and is scheduled to expire June 30, 2026. Keystone is responsible for the maintenance of the building and structural repairs. In addition, Keystone is responsible for the maintenance and repair of the retort, which is in need of replacement. Keystone is a tenant in good standing.

It is appropriate that the City Council discuss terms and conditions for a lease extension in closed session.

JA/ad
e: Michelle Price, The Paul Mortuary
Scott Connolly, Cemetery Coordinator, City of Monterey
c: Property File
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, 5/20/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 2, Packet Page 101 Council
Agenda Report
№11/25
FROM: Brette Neal, Human Resources Director
Prepared By: Gina Russo, Assistant Human Resources Director SUBJECT: Receive a Report on Compliance with Assembly Bill 2561/Government Code Section 3502.3 regarding Vacancies, Recruitment and Retention Efforts (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 report on the City of
Monterey’s vacancies, and recruitment and retention efforts.

VALUE DRIVERS:

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Information in this presentation follows Assembly Bill No. 2561, Chapter 409, an act to add Section 3502.3 to the
Government Code that was signed into law on September 22, 2024, and became effective January 1, 2025.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT)
APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no fiscal implications. This public hearing is being held for informational purposes.

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, Agenda Report Highlights
 The City Council will receive a
report on job vacancies,
recruitment, and retention efforts in
compliance with Assembly Bill 2561.
 AB 2561 mandates public hearings
on job vacancy status before
adopting the final budget.
 No bargaining units in the City of
Monterey have a vacancy rate
exceeding 20% as of May 1, 2025.

Date: 5/20/2025
Item No.: 18.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 1, Packet Page 102 №10/24
this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

There are no other alternatives considered.

DISCUSSION:

Assembly Bill (“AB”) 2561, which went into effect January 2025, requires public agencies to hold a public hearing to address the status of job vacancies prior to the adoption of the upcoming final budget. If the vacancy rate in each bargaining unit is below 20%, the requirement is to present the following information at a public hearing:

1. The status of vacancies at the City of Monterey.

2. Information on the City of Monterey’s recruitment and retention efforts.

3. Obstacles in the City of Monterey’s policies, procedures, and recruitment activities that may create challenges in the hiring process.

There are additional reporting obligations if the number of job vacancies within a single bargaining unit meets or exceeds 20%. As of May 1, 2025, there are no bargaining units with a vacancy rate exceeding 20%.

BN/gr
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, 5/20/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 2, Packet Page 103 Council
Agenda Report
№11/25
FROM: Kimberly Cole, AICP, Community Development Director Prepared By: Levi Hill, AICP, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Levy Assessments to Fund the Cannery Row, New Monterey, and North Fremont Business Improvement Districts (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) RECOMMENDATION:

If there is not a majority protest by affected business owners after the public hearing, the City Council should adopt the attached resolutions to levy the assessments
to fund the Business Improvement Districts (BIDs).

VALUE DRIVERS:

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

These BIDs were formed under the Parking and
Business Improvement Area Law of 1989, which
authorizes assessments against businesses (collected
with business license taxes) to finance activities and
improvements to specific business areas. These BIDs
must be renewed annually.

This is the second of two steps required to continue the Districts’ assessments for Fiscal Year 2025/2026. The
first step was the adoption of the Resolutions of Intent to Levy Assessment on May 6, 2025. The second step is
the public hearing.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The City of Monterey collects the BID assessment as part of the business license collection.

This money is passed directly to the business district. Each business district has adopted a different assessment rate.

Agenda Report Highlights
 City Council will hold a public
hearing to adopt resolutions for
levying assessments to fund
Cannery Row, New Monterey, and
North Fremont Business
Improvement Districts (BIDs).
 BIDs are funded through business
license fee surcharges, with annual
revenue ranging from $14,000 to
$140,000 depending on the district.
 Assessment funds are used for
promotions, beautification, business
recruitment, advertising, and
physical upgrades.
 Written protests from business
owners can halt the levy if they
represent 50% or more of the
proposed assessments.

Date: 5/20/2025
Item No.: 19.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 19., Item Page 1, Packet Page 104 №10/24
The Cannery Row BID was established in 2004, and it collects a 100% surcharge to the business license fee of each business up to a maximum assessment of $5,000 per business.

For businesses classified as professional services, the assessment is a 25% surcharge to the business license fee with a cap of $500. The amount of revenue collected annually is approximately $130,000 to $140,000.

The New Monterey BID was established in 1995, and it collects an annual assessment of 25% of the business license fee with a cap of $250. The amount of revenue collected annually is approximately $14,000.

The North Fremont BID was established in 2003, and it collects an annual assessment of 25% of the business license fee with a cap of $500. The amount of revenue collected annually is approximately $18,000.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey Planning Office determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Article 5, Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects 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, this is not a project because it does not cause a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not subject to CEQA. Subsequent projects resulting from this funding will be reviewed for their CEQA status.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council could decide not to adopt the resolutions. To disestablish the BIDs, the City Council would be required to adopt an ordinance after holding a public hearing on the disestablishment, as provided in Streets & Highways Code section 36550.

DISCUSSION:

The purpose of the hearing is to adopt Resolutions to levy the assessments for the next fiscal year. The New Monterey and North Fremont BIDs use the assessment funds for promotions, beautification, and business recruitment, as well as advertising. The Cannery Row BID is focused on physical and operational upgrades since the Cannery Row Marketing Council already does promotion.

Funds for each BID are collected primarily from the assessment of businesses within the district.

At the public hearing, oral and written protests will be accepted from any interested person.

California Streets and Highways Code sections 36524-36525 establish the process for protests to be considered. Any protest pertaining to the regularity or sufficiency of the proceedings shall be in writing and shall clearly set forth the irregularity or defect to which the objection is made.

Written protests shall be filed with the City Clerk at or before the time fixed for the public hearing. Written protests will not be counted if the person protesting is not the owner of the business. The City Council may waive any irregularity in the form or content of any written Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 19., Item Page 2, Packet Page 105 №10/24
protest and at the public hearing, may correct any minor defects in the proceedings. A written protest may be withdrawn in writing at any time before the conclusion of the hearing.

If written protests are received from the owners of businesses in the proposed area which pay 50 percent or more of the assessments proposed to be levied, and protests are not withdrawn so as to reduce the protests to less than 50 percent, no further proceedings to levy the proposed assessment shall be taken for one year from the date of the finding of a majority protest by the City Council. If the majority protest is only against the furnishing of a specified type or types of improvement or activity within the area, those types of improvements or activities shall be eliminated.

In conclusion, staff recommends that the City Council conduct a public hearing, receive public comment, and if there is not a majority protest, approve the resolutions levying the assessments and funding the Business Improvement Districts (BIDs).

KC/lh
Attachments: 1. Cannery Row BID Resolution

2. New Monterey BID Resolution

3. North Fremont BID Resolution
e: Bonnie Adams, Cannery Row Business Association
Christina Riddoch, New Monterey Business Association
Kelly Violini, North Fremont Business Association
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, 5/20/2025, Item No. 19., Item Page 3, Packet Page 106 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

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

CONFIRMING THE REPORT OF THE CANNERY ROW BUSINESS DISTRICT AND ADOPTING THE LEVY OF ASSESSMENT FOR THE 2025/2026 FISCAL YEAR WHEREAS, the Cannery Row Business Improvement District was established by the adoption of City Code section 18-60 et seq. in 2004;
WHEREAS, pursuant to Streets & Highways Code sections 36533 and 36534, on May 6, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution 25-032 C.S., approving the annual report and declaring its intention to hold a public hearing on May 20, 2025 to levy and collect assessments in the parking and business improvement area for the Cannery Row Business Improvement District;
WHEREAS, improvements and activities include advocating for and constructing traffic and parking improvements; establishing and meeting cleanliness standards (trash pickup, etc.); improving the area’s streetscape; coordinating with existing businesses and the Cannery Row Marketing Council to stimulate business through collaboration; advocating Cannery Row business needs to government agencies for infrastructure and service enhancements; improving public safety; and hiring management staff to represent Cannery Row business interests consistent with Parking and Business Improvement Area law of 1989; WHEREAS, pursuant to Streets & Highways Code section 36523(a), the City Clerk gave notice of the May 20, 2025 public hearing by causing Resolution 25-032 C.S. to be published once in a newspaper of general circulation in the city not less than seven days before the public hearing. The notice stated that written and oral protests may be made at the hearing; WHEREAS, the City of Monterey Planning Office determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Article 5, Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects 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, this is not a project because it does not cause a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not subject to CEQA. Subsequent projects resulting from this funding will be reviewed for their CEQA status.

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

1. It finds the foregoing recitals are true and correct have served, together with the supporting documents, as the basis for the findings and approvals set forth below.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 19., Item Page 4, Packet Page 107

2. It confirms the annual report approved with the adoption of Resolution 25-032 C.S.

This report is on file with the City Clerk, and it provides a full and detailed description of the improvements and activities to be provided for the 2025/2026 fiscal year and the assessments to be levied upon the businesses within the area for the 2025/2026 fiscal year. The report does not change boundaries or the work program.

3. A public hearing was held, and there was not a majority protest.

4. This action continues the annual assessment first established with the adoption of Monterey City Code section 18-62 in 2004, of 100% surcharge to the business license fee of each business, up to a maximum assessment of $5,000 per business per fiscal year. For businesses classified as professional services, the assessment shall be a 25% surcharge to the business license fee, up to a maximum of $500.

5. The adoption of this resolution constitutes the levy of assessments for the Cannery Row Business Improvement District for Fiscal Year 2025/2026.

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, 5/20/2025, Item No. 19., Item Page 5, Packet Page 108 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

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

CONFIRMING THE REPORT OF THE NEW MONTEREY BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT

DISTRICT AND ADOPTING THE LEVY OF ASSESSMENT
FOR THE 2025/2026 FISCAL YEAR
WHEREAS, the New Monterey Business Improvement District was established in 1995 with the adoption of Ordinance 3174;
WHEREAS, pursuant to Streets & Highways Code sections 36533 and 36534, on May 6, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution 25-034 C.S., approving the annual report and declaring its intention hold a public hearing on May 20, 2025, to levy and collect assessments in the parking and business improvement area for the New Monterey Business Improvement District;
WHEREAS, improvements and activities include funding various public improvements, administering the business improvement district, and undertaking promotional activities consistent with Parking and Business Improvement Area law of 1989; WHEREAS, pursuant to Streets & Highways Code section 36523(a), the City Clerk gave notice of the May 20, 2025 public hearing by causing Resolution 25-034 C.S. to be published once in a newspaper of general circulation in the city not less than seven days before the public hearing. The notice stated that written and oral protests may be made at the hearing; WHEREAS, the City of Monterey Planning Office determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Article 5, Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects 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, this is not a project because it does not cause a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not subject to CEQA. Subsequent projects resulting from this funding will be reviewed for their CEQA status.

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

1. It finds the foregoing recitals are true and correct have served, together with the supporting documents, as the basis for the findings and approvals set forth below.

2. It confirms the annual report approved with the adoption of Resolution 25-034 C.S.

This report is on file with the City Clerk, and it provides a full and detailed description Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 19., Item Page 6, Packet Page 109 of the improvements and activities to be provided for the 2025/2026 fiscal year and the assessments to be levied upon the businesses within the area for the 2025/2026 fiscal year. The report does not change boundaries or the work program.

3. A public hearing was held, and there was not a majority protest.

4. This action continues the annual assessment first established with the adoption of Ordinance 3174 in 1995, of 25% for each business located within the district, up to a maximum of $250 per business.

5. The adoption of this resolution constitutes the levy of assessments for the New Monterey Business Improvement District for Fiscal Year 2025/2026.

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, 5/20/2025, Item No. 19., Item Page 7, Packet Page 110 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

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

CONFIRMING THE REPORT OF THE NORTH FREMONT BUSINESS DISTRICT

OF MONTEREY AND ADOPTING THE LEVY OF ASSESSMENT
FOR THE 2025/2026 FISCAL YEAR
WHEREAS, the North Fremont Business District of Monterey was established in 2003 as set forth in Monterey City Code section 18-55 et seq. The boundaries of the district are described in City Code section 18-56 and remain unchanged; WHEREAS, pursuant to Streets & Highways Code sections 36533 and 36534, on May 6, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution 25-033 C.S., approving the annual report and declaring its intention to hold a public hearing on May 20, 2025 to levy and collect assessments in the parking and business improvement area for the North Fremont Business District; WHEREAS, improvements and activities include promotion, advocacy for increased public transportation opportunities to the North Fremont Business District area, improvement to streetscape appearance, and increasing the overall safety of the area consistent with Parking and Business Improvement Area law of 1989;
WHEREAS, pursuant to Streets & Highways Code section 36523(a), the City Clerk gave notice of the May 20, 2025 public hearing by causing Resolution 25-033 C.S. to be published once in a newspaper of general circulation in the city not less than seven days before the public hearing. The notice stated that written and oral protests may be made at the hearing; and WHEREAS, the City of Monterey Planning Office determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Article 5, Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects 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, this is not a project because it does not cause a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not subject to CEQA. Subsequent projects resulting from this funding will be reviewed for their CEQA status.

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

1. It finds the foregoing recitals are true and correct have served, together with the supporting documents, as the basis for the findings and approvals set forth below.

2. It confirms the annual report approved with the adoption of Resolution 25-033 C.S.

This report is on file with the City Clerk, and it provides a full and detailed description Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 19., Item Page 8, Packet Page 111 of the improvements and activities to be provided for the 2025/2026 fiscal year and the assessments to be levied upon the businesses within the area for the 2025/2026 fiscal year. The report does not change boundaries or the work program.

3. A public hearing was held, and there was not a majority protest.

4. This action continues the annual assessment first established with the adoption of City Code section 18-57 in 2003, of 25% for each business located within the district, up to a maximum of $500 per business.

5. The adoption of this resolution constitutes the levy of assessments for the North Fremont Business Improvement District for Fiscal Year 2025/2026.

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, 5/20/2025, Item No. 19., Item Page 9, Packet Page 112 Council
Agenda Report
№11/25
FROM: Andrea Renny, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Marissa Garcia, Engineering Assistant II
Nayeli Valencia, Intern
SUBJECT: Adopt the City of Monterey Crosswalk Policy (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt the attached resolution
adopting a Crosswalk Policy.

VALUE DRIVERS:

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

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The establishment of a crosswalk policy helps advance
the City’s Vision Zero goal of reducing fatalities and
severe injuries on City streets to zero, adopted by City Council on November 7, 2017 (Reso 17-191 C.S.).

Furthermore, establishing a uniform process for
crosswalk markings is aligned with the California Vehicle Code Section 21400, which prescribes uniform
standards and specifications for all official traffic control devices.

Agenda Report Highlights
 Adoption of the Crosswalk Policy
aims to improve pedestrian safety
and accessibility through
standardized evaluation criteria and
procedures.
 The policy supports the City’s Vision
Zero goal to eliminate fatalities and
severe injuries on streets, aligning
with state laws and best practices.
 Implementation may result in $3.6
million in crosswalk improvements,
including $2 million for ADA curb
ramp upgrades.
 The policy includes guidelines for
marking, enhancing, or removing
crosswalks, with flowcharts for
evaluation based on pedestrian
demand and site conditions.
 Special scenarios like decorative
crosswalks, recreation trail
crossings, and bicycle crossings are
addressed with additional policy
guidance.

Date: 5/20/2025
Item No.: 20.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 1, Packet Page 113 №10/24
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

Following the adoption of the policy, Staff will evaluate existing crosswalks to make the determination to preserve, enhance or remove crosswalks. This may result in approximately $3.6 million in improvements. It is anticipated that roughly $2 million of those enhancements would be necessary in any case to improve curb ramps as part of the City’s ADA Transition Plan.

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:

City Council could choose not to adopt a crosswalk policy; however, this is not recommended because it would leave the City ill-equipped to respond to requests for new crosswalks or crosswalk enhancements.

DISCUSSION:

The City of Monterey routinely receives requests from residents to install crosswalk markings or enhance crosswalks. However, designing a safe roadway crossing for pedestrians is a complex process, and the installation of a marked crosswalk does not necessarily constitute a safe pedestrian crossing. The purpose of adopting a crosswalk policy is to provide the City with standard evaluation criteria, policies, and improvement types for existing and new pedestrian crossings. The evaluation criteria for existing crosswalks provides direction on whether they should be unmarked, marked, enhanced, or removed. The evaluation criteria for new crosswalks provides direction on whether the proposed location is suitable for a crosswalk. This policy document establishes a data-driven, transparent, and uniform process for considering the installation, enhancement, or removal of crosswalk markings that can be referenced when designing future safety improvement projects.

In October 2023, Staff provided a presentation to Council to discuss the adoption of a crosswalk policy, and at that time Council directed staff to proceed with the development of the policy.

Staff worked with the City’s Traffic Engineering On-Call Consultant to review guidelines, best practices, and research publications.

This draft policy (“Exhibit A”) provides an overview of crosswalk fundamentals. The policy document can be categorized into three sections Policy Context and Existing Conditions Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 2, Packet Page 114 №10/24
(Chapters 1-4) Policy and Procedures for Crosswalks (Chapters 5-7) and Special Scenarios (Chapter 8-9).

Policy Context and Existing Conditions
Chapters 1-4 provides policy context, general background information about crosswalks and current conditions in the City of Monterey. Chapter 1, Introduction, provides the purpose and scope of the Crosswalk Policy It emphasizes pedestrian safety and accessibility as part of a comprehensive “four E’s” approach—Education, Enforcement, Engineering, and Emergency Response—and ties directly into the City’s Complete Streets, Vision Zero, and ADA goals by ensuring all decisions align with state law and best-practice standards .Chapter 2, Crosswalk Fundamentals, provides an overview of types of crosswalks, where it is legal to cross a street, explains why some crosswalks are marked while others are not. This foundational understanding ensures consistency in how crossings are treated across the City and prescribes steps to identifying candidate locations for marked crosswalks. Chapter 3, Existing Crosswalks, establishes a map of all uncontrolled crosswalks in the City. Uncontrolled crosswalks, require additional scrutiny and potentially additional safety treatments. Chapter 3, Existing Pedestrian Policies and where c Lastly, Chapter 4, summarizes all applicable Plans, policies and documents which could influence the Crosswalk Policy. This Chapter relates the policy to the General Plan, Move Monterey - Multimodal Plan for the City of Monterey, and City Council Vision, Mission, Value Drivers, and Strategic Priorities.

Policies and Procedures
Chapters 5-7 provide the context for recommendations for where crosswalks could be marked or should not be marked due to safety concerns, and where pedestrians should be directed to cross at alternative locations, which aims to improve pedestrian safety. The Chapters include flowcharts which provide a clear process for evaluation using qualitative and quantitative measures taking into consideration characteristics such as pedestrian demand and land use. A flow chart has also been developed for recommending additional enhancements to crosswalks, taking into consideration site conditions.

Special Scenarios
Chapter 8 Special Scenarios and 9, Decorative Crosswalk Guidelines Scenarios, This section provides additional policy guidance for unique conditions such as Recreation Trail crossings, decorative/creative crosswalks, and bicycle crossings, sometimes referred to as “crossbikes.” The recommendations in the policy reflect general knowledge of best practices in pedestrian design and safety, based on information currently available. This policy document may need to be updated over time as new data becomes accessible or innovations in traffic control devices are made. The policy is intended to guide City staff in the design process of City projects, but the policy may not incorporate all factors that may be relevant to a specific project or pedestrian safety issues in the City. The policy is not intended to be overly rigid and final implementation of these guidelines will involve engineering judgment. All design decisions will be made by an engineer, or an individual under the supervision of an engineer, who has the appropriate levels of experience and expertise to make the traffic control device decision.

AR/mg
Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 3, Packet Page 115 №10/24
Attachments: 1. Resolution

2. Exhibit A: Draft Crosswalk Policy
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, 5/20/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 4, Packet Page 116 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

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

ADOPTING THE CITY OF MONTEREY CROSSWALK POLICY
WHEREAS, the purpose of adopting a crosswalk policy is to provide the City with standard evaluation criteria, policies, and improvement types for existing and new pedestrian crossings;
WHEREAS, this policy document will establish a data-driven, transparent, and uniform process for considering the installation, enhancement, or removal of crosswalk markings that can be referenced when designing future safety improvement projects; WHEREAS, this policy is consistent with the City’s adopted Vision Zero goal of reducing fatalities and serious injuries to zero and the City’s adopted Move Monterey- Multimodal Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby adopts the City of Monterey Crosswalk Policy (“Exhibit A”).

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:

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 5, Packet Page 117 ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 6, Packet Page 118 Crosswalk Policy
City of Monterey, California
May 2025
Prepared for:

City of Monterey
Prepared by:

Kimley-Horn

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 7, Packet Page 119 Crosswalk Policy
City of Monterey, CA
2 Table of Contents
List of Figures .................................................................................................................................... 4 List of Appendices ............................................................................................................................. 4 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 5 Crosswalk Fundamentals .................................................................................................................. 5 Types of Crosswalks ...................................................................................................................... 5 Location: Intersection or Midblock .............................................................................................. 5 Control: Controlled or Uncontrolled............................................................................................ 6 Marking: Marked or Unmarked .................................................................................................... 7 Pedestrian Crossing Laws .............................................................................................................. 8 Intersection Crosswalks and Rights-of-Way ................................................................................ 8 Midblock Crosswalks and Rights-of-Way .................................................................................... 9 Existing Crosswalks .......................................................................................................................... 12 Existing Uncontrolled, Marked Crosswalk Preliminary Inventory ..................................................... 12 Existing Pedestrian Plans and Policies ............................................................................................... 14 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update ............................................................................................. 14 Circulation Element .................................................................................................................. 14 Move Monterey - Multimodal Plan for the City of Monterey .............................................................. 16 City Council Vision, Mission, Value Drivers, and Strategic Priorities ................................................ 16 ADA Transition Plan ...................................................................................................................... 17 Evaluating Existing Crosswalks ......................................................................................................... 18 When to Evaluate ......................................................................................................................... 18 Evaluation Criteria ........................................................................................................................ 18 Decision Outcomes ...................................................................................................................... 20 Meets Standard ........................................................................................................................ 20 Needs Improvement ................................................................................................................. 20 Consider for Removal ................................................................................................................ 22 New, Proposed Crosswalks .............................................................................................................. 25 Evaluating New, Proposed Crosswalks .......................................................................................... 25 When to Evaluate ......................................................................................................................... 25 Evaluation Criteria ........................................................................................................................ 25 Decision Outcomes ...................................................................................................................... 25 Meets Standard ........................................................................................................................ 26 Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 8, Packet Page 120 Crosswalk Policy
City of Monterey, CA
3 Needs Improvement ................................................................................................................. 26 Do Not Implement .................................................................................................................... 26 Special Scenarios ............................................................................................................................ 26 Trail crossings .............................................................................................................................. 27 Bicycle crossings .......................................................................................................................... 27 Decorative crosswalks .................................................................................................................. 28 Decorative Crosswalk Guidelines ..................................................................................................... 28 Design Parameters ....................................................................................................................... 29 CA MUTCD ............................................................................................................................... 29 FHWA Interpretation Letter 3(09)-24(I) ....................................................................................... 29 Cost/Maintenance ........................................................................................................................ 30 Implementation Guidelines ........................................................................................................... 30 Appendix ......................................................................................................................................... 31 Applicable Codes and Guidelines .................................................................................................. 31 California Vehicle Code (CVC) ................................................................................................... 31 Assembly Bill No. 413................................................................................................................ 34 Monterey City Code .................................................................................................................. 36 California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) ............................................. 36 Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way ................................ 43 Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG) ............................................................ 46 Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 9, Packet Page 121 Crosswalk Policy
City of Monterey, CA
4 List of Figures
Figure 1: Location of Crosswalks ........................................................................................................ 6 Figure 2: Crosswalks at Controlled Approaches .................................................................................. 6 Figure 3: Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Approaches .............................................................................. 7 Figure 4: Marked or Unmarked Crosswalks ......................................................................................... 7 Figure 5: Intersection Crosswalks and Rights of Way ........................................................................... 9 Figure 6: Marked Midblock Crossing Right of Way .............................................................................. 10 Figure 7: Allowable and Unallowable Unmarked Midblock Crosswalks (Per CVC 21955) ...................... 11 Figure 8: Unmarked Midblock Crosswalk Right of Way ....................................................................... 12 Figure 9: Preliminary Inventory of Uncontrolled, Marked Crosswalks .................................................. 13 Figure 10: Flowchart A –Crossing Evaluation Process for Existing and Proposed Marked Crosswalks .... 19 Figure 11: Flowchart B – Potential Improvements Review ................................................................... 21 Figure 12: Pedestrian Crossing Improvements by Roadway Configuration, Speed Limit and AADT ........ 22 Figure 13: Flowchart C - Removal of Existing Crossing ........................................................................ 24 Figure 14: Monterey Bay Coastal Recreational Trail Crossing .............................................................. 27 Figure 15: North Fremont Street Median Cycle Track Bike Exclusive Crossing ...................................... 28 Figure 16: Decorative Crosswalk in Cannery Row ............................................................................... 29 List of Appendices
Applicable Codes and Guidelines
California Vehicle Code (CVC)
Assembly Bill No. 413
Monterey City Code
California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG)
Flowchart D – Curb Ramps at T-intersections
Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 10, Packet Page 122 Crosswalk Policy
City of Monterey, CA
5 Introduction
The City of Monterey's Crosswalk Policy aims to enhance pedestrian safety and mobility. A holistic pedestrian safety plan integrates four key components: engineering, enhancement, enforcement, and education programs. This policy specifically emphasizes the engineering and enhancement components.

This document covers the following topics:

1. Pedestrian Crossing Types, Rights-of-Way, and Legal Context

2. City of Monterey’s Existing Pedestrian Safety and Mobility Policies

3. Existing Crosswalk Evaluation Criteria

4. New, Proposed Crosswalk Policies and Evaluation Criteria

5. Special Scenarios – Trail and Bicycle Crossings and Decorative Crosswalks The purpose of this Crosswalk Policy is to provide the City of Monterey with standard evaluation criteria, policies, and improvement types for existing and new pedestrian crossings. The evaluation criteria for existing crosswalks provides direction on whether they should be unmarked, marked or enhanced. The evaluation criteria for new crosswalks provides direction on whether the proposed location is suitable for a crosswalk. This document also provides crosswalk improvements that meet the City’s standards and describes the policy for crosswalk removals.

The decision to install, remove, or enhance a crosswalk should be made on the basis of engineering judgment. This policy provides a formal and transparent process for crosswalk applications, but it should not be considered a substitute for engineering judgment.

Crosswalk Fundamentals
Pedestrian crossings, also known as crosswalks, can occur in many different types and locations. The varied types of crosswalks and legal right-of-way attributed to different roadway users can cause confusion. This section reviews the different types and locations of crosswalks and who has the legal right-of-way at each type.

Types of Crosswalks
 Location: Intersection or Midblock
 Control: Controlled or Uncontrolled
 Marking: Marked or Unmarked
Location: Intersection or Midblock
Pedestrian crossings may occur at either intersection or midblock locations. Intersections consist of two or more roadways intersecting each other. The pedestrian path of travel along each roadway creates pedestrian crossings of the intersecting roadway. These crossings may be controlled or uncontrolled and marked or unmarked. Midblock pedestrian crossings occur between intersections. These crossings may also be controlled or uncontrolled and marked or unmarked. See Figure 1 for a representation of crosswalks at intersection and midblock locations.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 11, Packet Page 123 Crosswalk Policy
City of Monterey, CA
6 Figure 1: Location of Crosswalks
Control: Controlled or Uncontrolled
Crosswalks at intersections can have either controlled or uncontrolled approaches. Controlled approaches have either a traffic signal or a stop sign. Uncontrolled approaches have either a yield sign or no sign. See Figure 2 for a depiction of crosswalks at controlled approaches and Figure 3 for crosswalks at uncontrolled approaches.

Figure 2: Crosswalks at Controlled Approaches
Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 12, Packet Page 124 Crosswalk Policy
City of Monterey, CA
7 Figure 3: Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Approaches
Marking: Marked or Unmarked
Crosswalks may be marked with striping that is white or yellow, in school areas only, or may be unmarked with no striping delineating the pedestrian crossing. Figure 4 shows the difference between marked and unmarked crosswalks.

Figure 4: Marked or Unmarked Crosswalks
Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 13, Packet Page 125 Crosswalk Policy
City of Monterey, CA
8 Pedestrian Crossing Laws
Many laws in the California Vehicle Code (CVC) dictate the type, function and legality of pedestrian crossings. The CVC also states which road users have the right-of-way based on the location along a roadway and on the type of crosswalk, if present. The following is a summary of pertinent codes related to crosswalks:
 275 – Crosswalks exist at all intersections, marked or unmarked, and at midblock locations that are marked unless there is a signage prohibiting pedestrian crossings  21950 – Drivers of vehicles shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians at all intersection crosswalks, both marked and unmarked, and at marked midblock crosswalks  21954 – At all locations not covered by Section 21950 pedestrians shall yield the right-of-way to vehicles
 21955 – Pedestrians shall not cross a roadway segment that has traffic signals at the nearest intersections on both end of the roadway segment
The sections below further discuss and clarify the pedestrian crossing laws at intersection and midblock locations per the CVC.

Intersection Crosswalks and Rights-of-Way
Figure 5 depicts the legal locations of crosswalks per CVC 275 and the rights-of-way per CVC 21950. As shown in the figure, crosswalks #1 and #2 are marked and crosswalks #3 and #4 are unmarked. These all represent legal locations for pedestrians to cross. Drivers of vehicles and bicyclists shall yield the rightof-way to pedestrians at all four locations. All roadway users shall use due care at these locations for the safety of all users.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 14, Packet Page 126 Crosswalk Policy
City of Monterey, CA
9 Figure 5: Intersection Crosswalks and Rights-of-Way
Midblock Crosswalks and Rights-of-Way
The legal conditions regarding pedestrian crossings midblock, away from intersections, is more nuanced than at intersections. Midblock crosswalks, as defined by CVC 275, exist only when the crossing is marked. Drivers of vehicles are required to yield the right-of-way to pedestrians only at marked midblock crossing per CVC 21950. This type of crossing is illustrated in Figure 6.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 15, Packet Page 127 Crosswalk Policy
City of Monterey, CA
10 Figure 6: Marked Midblock Crossing Right-of-Way
However, pedestrians are also allowed to cross at unmarked midblock locations with due care under the following circumstances:
 The nearest intersections in both directions are both not controlled by traffic signals (CVC 21955) as shown in Figure 7.
 Pedestrians yield the right-of-way to drivers of vehicles and bicyclists (CVC 21954) as shown in Figure 8.

It is important to note that these codes do not relieve a pedestrian from the duty of using due care for their safety and do not relieve the driver of a vehicle from the duty to exercise due care for the safety of any pedestrian (CVC 21950).

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 16, Packet Page 128 Crosswalk Policy
City of Monterey, CA
11 Figure 7: Allowable and Unallowable Unmarked Midblock Crossings (Per CVC 21955) Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 17, Packet Page 129 Crosswalk Policy
City of Monterey, CA
12 Figure 8: Unmarked Midblock Crosswalk Right-of-Way
Existing Crosswalks
Monterey has many existing marked crosswalks throughout the City. These crosswalks are located on different roadway functional classification types and in proximity to differing types of land uses. To date existing crosswalks have been reviewed for compliance ad hoc and against varying technical criteria, since the City of Monterey has not had a formalized crosswalk policy.

This policy will outline when and against which criteria the City should evaluate existing crosswalks to determine if they meet current standards, need improvements or should be removed.

Existing Uncontrolled, Marked Crosswalk Preliminary Inventory Although a complete inventory of marked crosswalks has not yet been compiled, a preliminary inventory of uncontrolled, marked crosswalks has been compiled by City staff. An overview map of the preliminary inventory is shown in Figure 9.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 18, Packet Page 130 Crosswalk Policy
City of Monterey, CA
13 Figure 9: Preliminary Inventory of Existing Uncontrolled, Marked Crosswalks Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 19, Packet Page 131 Crosswalk Policy
City of Monterey, CA
14 Existing Pedestrian Plans and Policies
The City of Monterey has several existing pedestrian safety and mobility plans and policies that are pertinent to the Crosswalk Policy. The relevant portions of the following plans and policies are discussed in this section:
 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
 Move Monterey - Multimodal Plan for the City of Monterey  City Council Mission Statement
 ADA Transition Plan
Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
The City of Monterey’s current General Plan, Monterey 2031 General Plan Update, was adopted in July 2024. The following excerpts from the General Plan’s Circulation Element pertain to the City’s policies regarding pedestrian safety and mobility.

Circulation Element
Transportation and Land Use
Goal a. A transportation network that is complemented by land uses that are easily accessible by walking, bicycling, or utilizing transit.

Policy a.1. Continue to apply land-use planning tools and strategies that support the City's circulation goals and direct growth to areas best served by alternative modes of transportation.

Policy a.2. Continue to use land-use policies to concentrate development within walking distance of the transit system.

Policy a.3. Encourage transit/pedestrian-oriented (TOD/POD) designs in mixed-use neighborhoods.

Policy a.10. Require proposed developments to provide ADA improvements, sidewalks or pedestrian connections, bicycle facilities, or transit facilities which would provide active transportation access to the development.

Street System
Goal b. A safe and well-maintained roadway system that efficiently moves people and goods across all modes of transportation.

Policy b.1. Create and maintain a roadway system of “Complete Streets” that is safe and easy to use for all modes of transportation.

Policy b.2. Consider the needs of buses, bicyclists, and pedestrians when planning all road improvements.

Policy b.4. Prioritize bicycle and pedestrian mobility improvements over vehicle convenience.

Policy b.5. Implement the City’s multimodal plan to integrate and implement the circulation element policies and update as needed.

Policy b.6. Establish a list of guidelines and considerations for Complete Streets in the City’s multimodal plan, maximizing safety through design.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 20, Packet Page 132 Crosswalk Policy
City of Monterey, CA
15 Pedestrian
Goal d. A safe, accessible, connected and integrated pedestrian transportation network that encourages walking as a primary mode of transportation for residents, employees and visitors.

Policy d.1. Design pedestrian facilities that take into account users of all abilities and ages.

Policy d.2. Design intersections to improve pedestrian safety and mobility.

Policy d.3. Increase pedestrian connectivity between neighborhoods and major city and regional destinations.

Policy d.4. Establish and maintain a current list of pedestrian improvement projects in the City’s multimodal plan to create a continuous pedestrian network throughout the City.

Policy d.5. Establish Crosswalk Guidelines which provide standards for the strategic placement of pedestrian crossings throughout the City in the City’s multimodal plan, as well as the basis for relocating and eliminating crosswalks.

Policy d.6. Continue to identify and prioritize projects which would improve accessibility for all pedestrians, such as ADA ramps, audible pedestrian signals, sidewalk widenings or any other transportation infrastructure improvement that could improve accessibility.

Policy d.7. Require that development projects provide internal pedestrian connections and linkages to adjacent public streets, neighborhoods and community facilities. Ensure that projects are designed and/or retrofitted to be efficiently served by buses, bike routes and pedestrians connections.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 21, Packet Page 133 Crosswalk Policy
City of Monterey, CA
16 Vision Zero
Goal h. A transportation network supported by projects and programs that work towards zero collisions involving serious or fatal injuries.

Policy h.1. Prioritize safety over congestion.

Policy h.2. Prioritize transportation improvements that enhance pedestrian and bicycle safety.

Policy h.3. Prioritize transportation projects at locations which have been identified as high collision intersections/segments.

Policy h.6. Incorporate the five E’s of safety (Education, Engineering, Enforcement, Emergency Response, and Emerging Technology) when addressing safety concerns.

Policy h.8. Collaborate with Monterey Peninsula Unified School District (MPUSD), Monterey Fire Department (MFD) and Monterey Police Department (MPD) on education and enforcement programs, including promoting “Safe Routes to School” Programs.

Move Monterey - Multimodal Plan for the City of Monterey Move Monterey is the City of Monterey’s multimodal transportation plan document. The multimodal plan was last updated and adopted in May 2021. Move Monterey covers the following policies and topics:
 Complete Streets
 Pedestrians
 Bicycles
 Safe Routes to Schools
 Transportation Demand Management
 Vehicles Miles Traveled
 Vision Zero
 Implementation
The document provides tools for enhancing pedestrian mobility such as enhanced trail crossings, wider sidewalks, curb extension, curb return radius reduction, removal of free right turn slip lanes, pedestrian refuge islands, high-visibility crosswalk striping, and rectangular rapid-flashing beacons.

Move Monterey does not include an existing inventory of sidewalks or pedestrian crossings; however, it identifies the collecting of this data as two proposed projects. The plan also includes the continuation of the City’s ADA Transition Plan and other specific pedestrian improvements listed in the appendices.

City Council Vision, Mission, Value Drivers, and Strategic Priorities On December 7, 2021 the City of Monterey City Council established the following cascading goals:
 Vision is a description of Monterey’s “desired future”;  Mission identifies the role of the City of Monterey in pursuing the City’s Vision;  Value Drivers identifies what is important to the community to support the City’s Mission;  Strategic Priorities describes how the City can advance its goals in support of the Value Drivers; and the
 City Staff Work Program is a set of specific program, policy, or projects that support the City’s Strategic Priorities.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 22, Packet Page 134 Crosswalk Policy
City of Monterey, CA
17 Pedestrian mobility is addressed in the Active Mobility Strategic Priority and one of its underpinning goals is:

CONTINUE TO ENHANCE MOBILITY FOR PEOPLE OF ALL AGES AND ABILITIES.

Staff work program efforts to accomplish this goal include the following (status updates as of August 2023 in italics):
 Complete an update to the City’s ADA Transition Plan. o ADA Transition Plan work began in 2022 and is expected to conclude in late 2023 following a public engagement process.
 Continue the implementation of ADA-compliant curb ramps funded by Measure P/S. o Ongoing.
 Continue to implement APS (Audible Pedestrian Signal) installation at signalized intersections. o Ongoing.
 Continue to look for opportunities to enhance the transportation network to include pedestrian and bike facilities.
o Ongoing.
 Continue to procure grants in order to provide safety education and encourage programs such as Safe Routes to School to encourage more walking and biking. o Ongoing.

ADA Transition Plan
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 provides prohibits discrimination against people who have disabilities. Title II of the Act requires specifics accommodations within the public right-of-way.

Public agencies are required to develop a Program Access Plan, also known as a Transition Plan.

The City of Monterey is currently updating its ADA Transition Plan. The previous plan was completed March 11, 2013 and recently updated on December 17,2024.

The City’s ADA Transition Plan provides the following:
 Identifies physical obstacles in the public entity's facilities that limit the accessibility of its programs or activities to individuals with disabilities  Assesses the extent of architectural barriers to program accessibility in the public rights-of-way  Describes in detail the methods that will be used to make the facilities accessible  Estimates costs for mitigation solutions
 Specifies the steps necessary to achieve compliance
 Provides a schedule for barrier removal/mitigation
 Sets priorities for barrier elimination
 Indicates the official responsible for implementation of the plan Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 23, Packet Page 135 Crosswalk Policy
City of Monterey, CA
18 Evaluating Existing Crosswalks
This policy sets forth the standard process for evaluating existing controlled and uncontrolled pedestrian crossings.

When to Evaluate
In order to standardize the process for evaluating existing crosswalks, reviews of existing crosswalks should generally be limited to the following occasions:
 City capital improvement project
 City maintenance project involving pavement resurfacing or reconstruction  Public request
 Pedestrian-involved collision at uncontrolled crossing  City Traffic Engineer’s discretion
Once a review has been completed, the outcome of the review should be valid for until a substantial change in conditions has occurred. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires projects that may substantially change traffic conditions be evaluated for impacts. Projects that may conflict with this policy once adopted or that only substantially increase hazards will be required to evaluate locations which may be impacted and mitigate impacts if necessary. A log of all reviews should be maintained stating the date and outcome of the review.

Evaluation Criteria
After deciding if a crosswalk should be reviewed, see Flowchart A in Figure 10 for the evaluation flowchart to determine if the study crosswalk meets City standards, needs improvements or should be considered for removal. The evaluation is divided between controlled and uncontrolled approaches. The main criteria for marking crosswalks in Monterey is the pedestrian crossing’s proximity to major pedestrian generators, such as schools, libraries, parks, community centers, transit centers, hospitals, major retail areas and senior housing. These locations are expected to produce sufficient pedestrian usage to warrant marking the crosswalk to warn other road users of the expected presence of a pedestrian. Flowchart A outlines the decision-making flow and additional criteria to utilize during the crosswalk evaluation.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 24, Packet Page 136 Crosswalk Policy
City of Monterey, CA
19 Figure 10: Flowchart A –Crossing Evaluation Process for Existing and Proposed Marked Crosswalks Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 25, Packet Page 137 Crosswalk Policy
City of Monterey, CA
20 Decision Outcomes
The evaluation of existing crosswalks will yield the following three outcomes:
 Meets standards
 Needs improvement
 Remove
Meets Standard
If the evaluation of the crossing shows that the location and design are in compliance with current standards and City of Monterey guidelines, then no further action is required.

Needs Improvement
If the evaluation of the crossing shows that the location is in compliance with current standards and City of Monterey guidelines, but the design is not in compliance, then the crosswalk should be considered for modifications to meet compliance. See Flowchart B in Figure 11 to evaluate the need for improvements to the existing crossing.

Policy For Modifying Existing Crosswalks
Existing crosswalks, if meeting the criteria of Flowchart A, should be reviewed to see if any physical improvements are required per Flowchart B. Items to review for improvements include:
 ADA-compliance of curb ramps and adjacent sidewalk
 High-visibility crosswalk markings per the latest City standard detail.  Compliance with AB 413 Daylighting Law or any applicable City of Monterey Code Additional improvements may be considered at the crossing based on the roadway characteristics, i.e. number of lanes, speeds and vehicle volumes, adjacent land uses or the volume of pedestrians.

The typical improvements to be considered for uncontrolled crossings are the following:
 Marked crosswalk per latest City of Monterey Standard Detail  Marked crosswalk plus warning signs (W11-2 and W16-7P)  Marked crosswalk plus warning signs plus rectangular rapid-flashing beacon (RRFB) FHWA’s Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations (Figure 12) should be utilized to determine when the above treatments are recommended based on the roadway configuration.

FHWA’s Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations and Move Monterey may be consulted for additional improvements at the crossing location. Pedestrian hybrid beacons are not an approved treatment per this policy.

See the Special Scenarios section for guidance on multiuse trail crossings, bicycle crossings and decorative crosswalks.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 26, Packet Page 138 Crosswalk Policy
City of Monterey, CA
21 Figure 11: Flowchart B – Potential Improvements Review Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 27, Packet Page 139 Crosswalk Policy
City of Monterey, CA
22 Figure 12: Pedestrian Crossing Improvements by Roadway Configuration, Speed Limit and AADT Source: FHWA’s Guide for Improvement Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations Consider for Removal
If the evaluation of the existing crosswalk shows that the crosswalk location and design are not in compliance with current standards and City of Monterey guidelines and improvements are not elected, then the crosswalk should be removed.

Policy For Removal Of Existing Crosswalks
Conditions that contribute to the need for a crosswalk or crossing treatments may change over time, and an existing crosswalk or treatment may no longer be needed.

The potential removal of an existing crosswalk should be evaluated according to Flowchart C in Figure

13. If the use of a crosswalk does not meet current criteria, the crosswalk should be removed following the City of Monterey and CVC removal procedures.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 28, Packet Page 140 Crosswalk Policy
City of Monterey, CA
23 The California Vehicle Code, Section 21950.5, states the following:
(a) An existing marked crosswalk may not be removed unless notice and opportunity to be heard is provided to the public not less than 30 days prior to the scheduled date of removal. In addition to any other public notice requirements, the notice of proposed removal shall be posted at the crosswalk identified for removal.
(b) The notice required by subdivision (a) shall include, but is not limited to, notification to the public of both of the following:
(1) That the public may provide input relating to the scheduled removal. (2) The form and method of providing the input authorized by paragraph (1).

A public meeting shall precede the removal with the ability of the public to provide input via phone, email, or letter as well as attend the public meeting. Notice will be visibly posted for a minimum of 30 days prior at the crossing location to inform the public of the intent to remove them. City contact information will be provided on these notices.

The crossing slated for removal should have the crosswalk markings removed and should not be allowed to fade or wear away (CA MUTCD 3B.18.29). The crosswalk should be removed by grinding or approved equivalent method and then the road shall be resealed by slurry or fog seal until no crosswalk remnants or scaring is visible. Any pedestrian crossing signs, i.e. W11-2 or others, shall also be removed.

Consideration should be given to providing pedestrian barricades and/or guide signs to legally restrict crossings, if necessary, and to provide direction to the nearest crossing.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 29, Packet Page 141 Crosswalk Policy
City of Monterey, CA
24 Figure 13: Flowchart C - Removal of Existing Crosswalk Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 30, Packet Page 142 Crosswalk Policy
City of Monterey, CA
25 New, Proposed Crosswalks
The initial step in pinpointing potential sites for marked crosswalks involves identifying areas where people want to walk, also known as pedestrian desire lines, which are influenced by land uses such as homes, schools, parks, commercial areas, and transit stops. The ultimate aim is to establish a convenient, connected, and continuous walking environment.

This policy will outline when and against which criteria the City should evaluate the addition of new crosswalks to determine if the proposed location meets criteria for marking and/or additional improvements or should not be marked.

Evaluating New, Proposed Crosswalks
This policy sets forth the standard process for evaluating the proposed installation of a marked crosswalk at controlled and uncontrolled pedestrian crossings. The review of new, proposed crosswalks should generally follow the evaluation of existing crosswalks except that removal is not an outcome. See Flowchart A in Figure 10 for the overview evaluation process of proposed new crosswalks. See Flowchart D in the Appendix for the evaluation process for constructing curb ramps at t-intersections.

When to Evaluate
In order to standardize the process for evaluating crosswalks, reviews of proposed crosswalks should generally be limited to the following occasions:
 City capital improvement project
 City maintenance project involving pavement resurfacing or reconstruction  Private development with potential transportation impacts  Public request
 City Traffic Engineer’s discretion
Once a review has been completed, the outcome of the review should be valid for until a substantial change in conditions has occurred. A log of all reviews should be maintained stating the date and outcome of the review.

These locations are expected to produce sufficient pedestrian usage to warrant marking the crosswalk to warn other road users of the expected presence of a pedestrian. Flowchart A outlines the decisionmaking flow and additional criteria to utilize during the crosswalk evaluation.

Decision Outcomes
The evaluation of proposed marked crosswalks will yield the following three outcomes:

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 31, Packet Page 143 Crosswalk Policy
City of Monterey, CA
26  Meets standards
 Needs improvement
 Do not implement crosswalk
Meets Standard
If the evaluation of the proposed crosswalk shows that the location is in compliance with current standards and City of Monterey guidelines, then the crosswalk can remain as is or with improvements based on the guidelines in the following section.

Needs Improvement
Existing and proposed crosswalks, if meeting the criteria of Flowchart A, should be reviewed to see if any physical improvements are required per Flowchart B. Items to review for improvements include:
 ADA-compliance of curb ramps and adjacent sidewalk
 High-visibility crosswalk markings per the latest City standard detail.  Compliance with AB 413 Daylighting Law or any applicable City of Monterey Code Additional improvements may be considered at the crossing based on the roadway characteristics, i.e. number of lanes, speeds and vehicle volumes, adjacent land uses or the volume of pedestrians.

See the Special Scenarios section for guidance on multiuse trail crossings, bicycle crossings and decorative crosswalks.

Do Not Implement
If the evaluation of the proposed crosswalk shows that the crosswalk location is not in compliance with current standards and City of Monterey guidelines and improvements are not elected, then the crosswalk should not be implemented.

Special Scenarios
Several special scenarios, such as trail crossings, bicycle crossings and decorative crosswalks, may require different reviews or different improvement processes. Any application of a non-standard crosswalk striping or treatment shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 32, Packet Page 144 Crosswalk Policy
City of Monterey, CA
27 Trail crossings
Monterey has several multiuse trails, or Class I trails, with the most notable being the Monterey Bay Coastal Recreational Trail. Multiuse trail crossings represent a special type of crossing that may facilitate different active mode users, i.e. pedestrians, cyclists, skateboarders, roller skaters, walkers, joggers, etc.

Trail crossings, the same as other crossing types, may be at an intersection or midblock and across controlled or uncontrolled approaches.

Figure 14: Monterey Bay Coastal Recreational Trail Crossing Source: Kimley-Horn
All trail crossings should be marked with high-visibility crosswalk striping. All uncontrolled trail crossings should be accompanied by a trail crossing warning sign (W11-15) and diagonal downward pointing arrow sign (W16-7P). Due to the potential high crossing volumes, consideration should also be given for advanced warning signs, advanced yield markings and signs, raised crossing/continuous sidewalk and/or rectangular rapid-flashing beacons based on the context of the crossing per FHWA’s Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations.

Bicycle crossings
Bicycle crossings may be striped separately from other users based on the bicycle facility context. Bicycle lanes and cycle tracks may be striped across intersections to provide enhanced warning for vehicles crossing their path or to better direct cyclists across an intersection because of a shifting alignment. One current application of bicycle crossing striping is found along the North Fremont Street median cycle track. As seen in Figure 15, the cycle track crossing is striped through the intersection and the cyclist crossing areas are marked separate from the pedestrian crossing areas.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 33, Packet Page 145 Crosswalk Policy
City of Monterey, CA
28 Figure 15: North Fremont Street Median Cycle Track Bike Exclusive Crossing Source: Nearmap
Decorative crosswalks
The City of Monterey has several existing applications of decorative crosswalks such as Cannery Row and several Neighborhood and Community Improvement Programs.

The use of decorative, or creative, crosswalks should be limited based on the City Traffic Engineer’s discretion. See the Decorative Crosswalk Guidelines section for implementation guidelines.

Decorative Crosswalk Guidelines
Decorative, or creative, crosswalks are used to create a sense of place and designs tend to correlate with the specific district or community in which they are located. The design of decorative crosswalks often, but are not limited, to the following styles:
 Colored striping
 Colored pavement
 Textured surface – concrete, asphalt, brick
There are various existing instances of decorative crosswalks within Monterey. Most notably the Monterey Bay Coastal Recreational Trail is marked with decorative crosswalks in the Cannery Row area as seen in Figure 16.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 34, Packet Page 146 Crosswalk Policy
City of Monterey, CA
29 Figure 16: Decorative Crosswalk in Cannery Row
Source: Kimley-Horn
Decorative crosswalks have several limiting factors to their widespread use, including:
 Design parameters
 Cost
 Maintenance
Design Parameters

CA MUTCD
The design of decorative crosswalks must meet certain parameters in order to not be confused with other traffic markings. Decorative crosswalks shall maintain white, or yellow if in a school area, transverse lines on both sides of the crosswalk. The colors within the white, or yellow, stripes shall not be yellow or white and should not degrade the contrast with the crosswalk lines (CA MUTCD 3G.06).

FHWA Interpretation Letter 3(09)-24(I)
FHWA guidance (FHWA Interpretation Letter 3(09)-24(I)) recommends the following design parameters:
 Treatments
o Non-reflective paint
o Brick lattice pattern
o Paving bricks
o Paving stones
o Setts
o Cobbles
 Colors
o Red
Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 35, Packet Page 147 Crosswalk Policy
City of Monterey, CA
30 o Rust
o Brown
o Burgundy
o Clay
o Tan
o Or similar earth tones
 Uniform or consistent patterns as to avoid distraction  Consider buffer between color and transverse crosswalk marking Cost/Maintenance
Since decorative crosswalks may require enhanced maintenance compared to standard crosswalks, their use should be carefully considered. The cost of maintenance may need to be borne by the local business district, neighborhood association or other body. A maintenance agreement will be required as a Condition of Approval.

Implementation Guidelines
The location for any decorative crosswalk must meet the requirements in this policy. A request for a decorative crosswalk must be made by an organization, such as a business district or neighborhood association, that would be responsible for the cost of implementation and maintenance. The City Traffic Engineer will determine the acceptance of the crosswalk request.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 36, Packet Page 148 Crosswalk Policy
City of Monterey, CA
31 Appendix
Applicable Codes and Guidelines
California Vehicle Code (CVC)
DIVISION 1. WORDS AND PHRASES DEFINED [100 - 681]
(Division 1 enacted by Stats. 1959, Ch. 3.)
275. “Crosswalk” is either:
(a) That portion of a roadway included within the prolongation or connection of the boundary lines of sidewalks at intersections where the intersecting roadways meet at approximately right angles, except the prolongation of such lines from an alley across a street. (b) Any portion of a roadway distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by lines or other markings on the surface.

Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section, there shall not be a crosswalk where local authorities have placed signs indicating no crossing.
(Enacted by Stats. 1959, Ch. 3.)
DIVISION 11. RULES OF THE ROAD [21000 - 23336]
(Division 11 enacted by Stats. 1959, Ch. 3.)
CHAPTER 2. Traffic Signs, Signals, and Markings [21350 - 21468] (Chapter 2 enacted by Stats. 1959, Ch. 3.)
ARTICLE 1. Erection and Maintenance [21350 - 21376]
(Article 1 enacted by Stats. 1959, Ch. 3.)
21368. Whenever a marked pedestrian crosswalk has been established in a roadway contiguous to a school building or the grounds thereof, it shall be painted or marked in yellow as shall be all the marked pedestrian crosswalks at an intersection in case any one of the crosswalks is required to be marked in yellow. Other established marked pedestrian crosswalks may be painted or marked in yellow if either (a) the nearest point of the crosswalk is not more than 600 feet from a school building or the grounds thereof, or (b) the nearest point of the crosswalk is not more than 2,800 feet from a school building or the grounds thereof, there are no intervening crosswalks other than those contiguous to the school grounds, and it appears that the facts and circumstances require special painting or marking of the crosswalks for the protection and safety of persons attending the school. There shall be painted or marked in yellow on each side of the street in the lane or lanes leading to all yellow marked crosswalks the following words, “SLOW—SCHOOL XING,” except that such words shall not be painted or marked in any lane leading to a crosswalk at an intersection controlled by stop signs, traffic signals, or yield right-of-way signs. A crosswalk shall not be painted or marked yellow at any location other than as required or permitted in this section.
(Amended by Stats. 1976, Ch. 232.)
CHAPTER 5. Pedestrians’ Rights and Duties [21949 - 21971] (Chapter 5 enacted by Stats. 1959, Ch. 3.)
Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 37, Packet Page 149 Crosswalk Policy
City of Monterey, CA
32 21949. (a) The Legislature hereby finds and declares that it is the policy of the State of California that safe and convenient pedestrian travel and access, whether by foot, wheelchair, walker, or stroller, be provided to the residents of the state.
(b) In accordance with the policy declared under subdivision (a), it is the intent of the Legislature that all levels of government in the state, particularly the Department of Transportation, work to provide convenient and safe passage for pedestrians on and across all streets and highways, increase levels of walking and pedestrian travel, and reduce pedestrian fatalities and injuries. (Added by Stats. 2000, Ch. 833, Sec. 6. Effective January 1, 2001.) 21950. (a) The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.
(b) This section does not relieve a pedestrian from the duty of using due care for their safety. No pedestrian may suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard. No pedestrian may unnecessarily stop or delay traffic while in a marked or unmarked crosswalk.
(c) The driver of a vehicle approaching a pedestrian within any marked or unmarked crosswalk shall exercise all due care and shall reduce the speed of the vehicle or take any other action relating to the operation of the vehicle as necessary to safeguard the safety of the pedestrian. (d) Subdivision (b) does not relieve a driver of a vehicle from the duty of exercising due care for the safety of any pedestrian within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection.
(e) (1) A peace officer, as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2 of the Penal Code, shall not stop a pedestrian for a violation of this section unless a reasonably careful person would realize there is an immediate danger of a collision with a moving vehicle or other device moving exclusively by human power.
(2) This subdivision does not relieve a pedestrian from the duty of using due care for their safety. (3) This subdivision does not relieve a driver of a vehicle from the duty of exercising due care for the safety of any pedestrian within the roadway.
(Amended by Stats. 2022, Ch. 957, Sec. 8. (AB 2147) Effective January 1, 2023.) 21950.5. (a) An existing marked crosswalk may not be removed unless notice and opportunity to be heard is provided to the public not less than 30 days prior to the scheduled date of removal. In addition to any other public notice requirements, the notice of proposed removal shall be posted at the crosswalk identified for removal.
(b) The notice required by subdivision (a) shall include, but is not limited to, notification to the public of both of the following:
(1) That the public may provide input relating to the scheduled removal. (2) The form and method of providing the input authorized by paragraph (1). (Added by Stats. 2000, Ch. 833, Sec. 9. Effective January 1, 2001.) Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 38, Packet Page 150 Crosswalk Policy
City of Monterey, CA
33 21951. Whenever any vehicle has stopped at a marked crosswalk or at any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection to permit a pedestrian to cross the roadway the driver of any other vehicle approaching from the rear shall not overtake and pass the stopped vehicle. (Enacted by Stats. 1959, Ch. 3.)
21954. (a) Every pedestrian upon a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway so near as to constitute an immediate hazard.
(b) The provisions of this section shall not relieve the driver of a vehicle from the duty to exercise due care for the safety of any pedestrian upon a roadway.
(c) (1) A peace officer, as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2 of the Penal Code, shall not stop a pedestrian for a violation of subdivision (a) unless a reasonably careful person would realize there is an immediate danger of a collision with a moving vehicle or other device moving exclusively by human power.
(2) This subdivision does not relieve a pedestrian from the duty of using due care for their safety. (3) This subdivision does not relieve a driver of a vehicle from the duty of exercising due care for the safety of any pedestrian within the roadway.
(Amended by Stats. 2022, Ch. 957, Sec. 10. (AB 2147) Effective January 1, 2023.) 21955. (a) Between adjacent intersections controlled by traffic control signal devices or by police officers, pedestrians shall not cross the roadway at any place except in a crosswalk. (b) (1) A peace officer, as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2 of the Penal Code, shall not stop a pedestrian for a violation of subdivision (a) unless a reasonably careful person would realize there is an immediate danger of a collision with a moving vehicle or other device moving exclusively by human power.
(2) This subdivision does not relieve a pedestrian from the duty of using due care for their safety. (3) This subdivision does not relieve a driver of a vehicle from the duty of exercising due care for the safety of any pedestrian within the roadway.
(Amended by Stats. 2022, Ch. 957, Sec. 11. (AB 2147) Effective January 1, 2023.) 21956. (a) A pedestrian shall not walk upon a roadway outside of a business or residence district otherwise than close to the pedestrian’s left-hand edge of the roadway. (b) A pedestrian may walk close to their right-hand edge of the roadway if a crosswalk or other means of safely crossing the roadway is not available or if existing traffic or other conditions would compromise the safety of a pedestrian attempting to cross the road. (c) (1) A peace officer, as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2 of the Penal Code, shall not stop a pedestrian for a violation of this section unless a reasonably careful person would realize there is an immediate danger of a collision with a moving vehicle or other device moving exclusively by human power.
(2) This subdivision does not relieve a pedestrian from the duty of using due care for their safety.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 39, Packet Page 151 Crosswalk Policy
City of Monterey, CA
34 (3) This subdivision does not relieve a driver of a vehicle from the duty of exercising due care for the safety of any pedestrian within the roadway.
(Amended by Stats. 2022, Ch. 957, Sec. 12. (AB 2147) Effective January 1, 2023.) 21961. (a) This chapter does not prevent local authorities from adopting ordinances prohibiting pedestrians from crossing roadways at other than crosswalks. (b) (1) A peace officer, as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2 of the Penal Code, shall not stop a pedestrian for a violation of an ordinance adopted by a local authority pursuant to this section, unless a reasonably careful person would realize there is an immediate danger of a collision with a moving vehicle or other device moving exclusively by human power. (2) This subdivision does not relieve a pedestrian from the duty of using due care for their safety. (3) This subdivision does not relieve a driver of a vehicle from the duty of exercising due care for the safety of any pedestrian within the roadway.
(Amended by Stats. 2022, Ch. 957, Sec. 13. (AB 2147) Effective January 1, 2023.) Assembly Bill No. 413
22500. A person shall not stop, park, or leave standing any vehicle whether attended or unattended, except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic or in compliance with the directions of a peace officer or official traffic control device, in any of the following places:
(a) Within an intersection, except adjacent to curbs as may be permitted by local ordinance. (b) On a crosswalk, except that a bus engaged as a common carrier or a taxicab may stop in an unmarked crosswalk to load or unload passengers when authorized by the legislative body of a city pursuant to an ordinance.
(c) Between a safety zone and the adjacent right-hand curb or within the area between the zone and the curb as may be indicated by a sign or red paint on the curb, which sign or paint was erected or placed by local authorities pursuant to an ordinance.
(d) Within 15 feet of the driveway entrance to a fire station. This subdivision does not apply to any vehicle owned or operated by a fire department and clearly marked as a fire department vehicle. (e) (1) In front of a public or private driveway, except that a bus engaged as a common carrier, school bus, or a taxicab may stop to load or unload passengers when authorized by local authorities pursuant to an ordinance.
(2) In unincorporated territory, where the entrance of a private road or driveway is not delineated by an opening in a curb or by other curb construction, so much of the surface of the ground as is paved, surfaced, or otherwise plainly marked by vehicle use as a private road or driveway entrance, shall constitute a driveway.
(f) On a portion of a sidewalk, or with the body of the vehicle extending over a portion of a sidewalk, except electric carts when authorized by local ordinance, as specified in Section 21114.5. Lights, mirrors, or devices that are required to be mounted upon a vehicle under this code may extend from the body of the vehicle over the sidewalk to a distance of not more than 10 inches. (g) Alongside or opposite a street or highway excavation or obstruction when stopping, standing, or parking would obstruct traffic.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 40, Packet Page 152 Crosswalk Policy
City of Monterey, CA
35 (h) On the roadway side of a vehicle stopped, parked, or standing at the curb or edge of a highway, except for a school bus when stopped to load or unload pupils in a business or residence district where the speed limit is 25 miles per hour or less.
(i) Except as provided under Section 22500.5, alongside curb space authorized for the loading and unloading of passengers of a bus engaged as a common carrier in local transportation when indicated by a sign or red paint on the curb erected or painted by local authorities pursuant to an ordinance. (j) In a tube or tunnel, except vehicles of the authorities in charge, being used in the repair, maintenance, or inspection of the facility.
(k) Upon a bridge, except vehicles of the authorities in charge, being used in the repair, maintenance, or inspection of the facility, and except that buses engaged as a common carrier in local transportation may stop to load or unload passengers upon a bridge where sidewalks are provided, when authorized by local authorities pursuant to an ordinance, and except that local authorities pursuant to an ordinance or the Department of Transportation pursuant to an order, within their respective jurisdictions, may permit parking on bridges having sidewalks and shoulders of sufficient width to permit parking without interfering with the normal movement of traffic on the roadway. Local authorities, by ordinance or resolution, may permit parking on these bridges on state highways in their respective jurisdictions if the ordinance or resolution is first approved in writing by the Department of Transportation. Parking shall not be permitted unless there are signs in place, as may be necessary, to indicate the provisions of local ordinances or the order of the Department of Transportation.
(l) In front of or upon that portion of a curb that has been cut down, lowered, or constructed to provide wheelchair accessibility to the sidewalk.
(m) In a portion of a highway that has been designated for the exclusive use of public transit buses. (n) (1) (A) Within 20 feet of the vehicle approach side of any marked or unmarked crosswalk or within 15 feet of any crosswalk where a curb extension is present. (B) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), a local authority may establish a different distance if both of the following requirements are met:
(i) A local authority establishes the different distance by ordinance that includes a finding that the different distance is justified by established traffic safety standards. (ii) A local authority has marked the different distance at the intersection using paint or a sign. (2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a local authority may permit commercial vehicle loading or unloading within 20 feet of the vehicle approach side of any marked or unmarked crosswalk or within 15 feet of any crosswalk where a curb extension is present if both of the following requirements are met:
(A) A local authority authorizes the commercial vehicle loading and unloading by ordinance and identifies the crosswalk or crosswalks in the ordinance. (B) A local authority has marked the commercial loading and unloading areas with paint or signage. (3) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a local authority may permit parking for bicycles or motorized scooters within 20 feet of a crosswalk.
(4) Prior to January 1, 2025, jurisdictions may only issue a warning, and shall not issue a citation, for a violation unless the violation occurs in an area marked using paint or a sign.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 41, Packet Page 153 Crosswalk Policy
City of Monterey, CA
36 SEC. 2. If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.

Monterey City Code
Sec. 20-62. Establishment of crosswalks.
a. The Traffic Engineer is hereby authorized to establish and maintain crosswalks and to designate them by appropriate devices or painted signs upon the surface of the roadway. b. The Traffic Engineer may place signs at or adjacent to an intersection in respect to any crosswalk directing that pedestrians shall not cross in the crosswalk so indicated.

Sec. 20-63. Use of crosswalks required in certain areas.

No pedestrian shall cross a roadway other than by a crosswalk in any business district.

Sec. 20-64. Obedience to pedestrian signals and traffic signals.

Pedestrians shall obey the indication of special traffic signals installed for pedestrians only and shall disregard the indication of a vehicular traffic signal at any location where special pedestrian traffic signals are in place.

California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) Chapter 1A: General
Section 1A. 13 Definitions of Headings, Words, and Phrases in this Manual

11. Approach: all lanes of traffic moving toward an intersection or a midblock location from one direction, including any adjacent parking lane(s).

44. Crosswalk—(a) that part of a roadway at an intersection included within the connections of the lateral lines of the sidewalks on opposite sides of the highway measured from the curbs or in the absence of curbs, from the edges of the traversable roadway, and in the absence of a sidewalk on one side of the roadway, the part of a roadway included within the extension of the lateral lines of the sidewalk at right angles to the center line; (b) any portion of a roadway at an intersection or elsewhere distinctly indicated as a pedestrian crossing by pavement marking lines on the surface, which might be supplemented by contrasting pavement texture, style, or color. As per CVC 275, "Crosswalk" is either: (a) That portion of a roadway included within the prolongation or connection of the boundary lines of sidewalks at intersections where the intersecting roadways meet at approximately right angles, except the prolongation of such lines from an alley across a street. (b) Any portion of a roadway distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by lines or other markings on the surface. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section, there shall not be a crosswalk where local authorities have placed signs indicating no crossing.

45. Crosswalk Lines—white or yellow (in school areas per CVC 21368) pavement marking lines that identify a crosswalk.
140. Pedestrian Clearance Time—the time provided for a pedestrian crossing in a crosswalk, after leaving the curb or shoulder, to travel to the far side of the traveled way or to a median. 142. Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon— a special type of hybrid beacon used to warn and control traffic at an unsignalized location to assist pedestrians in crossing a street or highway at a marked crosswalk.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 42, Packet Page 154 Crosswalk Policy
City of Monterey, CA
37 241. Transverse Markings—pavement markings that are generally placed perpendicular and across the flow of traffic such as shoulder markings; word, symbol, and arrow markings; stop lines; crosswalk lines; speed measurement markings; parking space markings; and others.

CALIFORNIA MANUAL OF UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES
PART 3 MARKINGS
Chapter 3B: Pavement and Curb Markings
Section 3B. 15 Transverse Markings
Standard:
01 Transverse markings, which include shoulder markings, word and symbol markings, arrows, stop lines, yield lines, crosswalk lines, speed measurement markings, speed reduction markings, speed hump markings, parking space markings, and others, shall be white unless otherwise provided in this Manual.
01a Crosswalk markings near schools shall be yellow. Refer to CVC 21368 and Part 7.

Guidance:
02 Because of the low approach angle at which pavement markings are viewed, transverse lines should be proportioned to provide visibility at least equal to that of longitudinal lines.

Support:
03 Refer to Caltrans’ Standard Plans for pavement marking letters, numerals and symbols. See Section 1A.11 for information regarding this publication
Chapter 3B: Pavement and Curb Markings
Section 3B. 18 Crosswalk Markings
Support:
01 Crosswalk markings provide guidance for pedestrians who are crossing roadways by defining and delineating paths on approaches to and within signalized intersections, and on approaches to other intersections where traffic stops.
02 In conjunction with signs and other measures, crosswalk markings help to alert road users of a designated pedestrian crossing point across roadways at locations that are not controlled by traffic control signals or STOP or YIELD signs.
03 At non-intersection locations, crosswalk markings legally establish the crosswalk.

Standard:
04 When crosswalk lines are used, they shall consist of solid white lines that mark the crosswalk.

They shall not be less than 6 12 inches or greater than 24 inches in width.

Guidance:
05 If transverse lines are used to mark a crosswalk, the gap between the lines should not be less than 6 feet. If diagonal or longitudinal lines are used without transverse lines to mark a crosswalk, the crosswalk should be not less than 6 feet wide.
06 Crosswalk lines, if used on both sides of the crosswalk, should extend across the full width of pavement or to the edge of the intersecting crosswalk to discourage diagonal walking between crosswalks (see Figures 3B-17 and 3B-19).
07 At locations controlled by traffic control signals or on approaches controlled by STOP or YIELD signs, crosswalk lines should be installed where engineering judgment indicates they are needed to direct pedestrians to the proper crossing path(s).
08 Crosswalk lines should not be used indiscriminately. An engineering study should be performed before a marked crosswalk is installed at a location away from a traffic control signal or an approach controlled Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 43, Packet Page 155 Crosswalk Policy
City of Monterey, CA
38 by a STOP or YIELD sign. The engineering study should consider the number of lanes, the presence of a median, the distance from adjacent signalized intersections, the pedestrian volumes and delays, the average daily traffic (ADT), the posted or statutory speed limit or 85th-percentile speed, the geometry of the location, the possible consolidation of multiple crossing points, the availability of street lighting, and other appropriate factors.
09 New marked crosswalks across uncontrolled roadways should include alone, without other measures designed to reduce traffic speeds, shorten crossing distances, enhance driver awareness of the crossing, and/or provide active warning of pedestrian presence, should not be installed across uncontrolled roadways where the speed limit exceeds 40 mph and either:

A. The roadway has four or more lanes of travel without a raised median or pedestrian refuge island and an ADT of 12,000 vehicles per day or greater; or
B. The roadway has four or more lanes of travel with a raised median or pedestrian refuge island and an ADT of 15,000 vehicles per day or greater.
09a If a marked crosswalk exists across an uncontrolled roadway where the speed limit exceeds 40 mph and the roadway has four or more lanes of travel and an ADT of 12,000 vehicles per day or greater, advanced yield lines with associated Yield Here to Pedestrians (R1-5, R1-5a) signs should be placed 20 to 50 ft in advance of the crosswalk, adequate visibility should be provided by parking prohibitions, pedestrian crossing (W11-2) warning signs with diagonal downward pointing arrow (W16- 7p) plaques should be installed at the crosswalk, and a high-visibility crosswalk marking pattern should be used (See Figure 3B-17(CA)).

Support:
10 Chapter 4F contains information on Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons. Section 4L.03 contains information regarding Warning Beacons to provide active warning of a pedestrian’s presence. Section 4N.02 contains information regarding In-Roadway Warning Lights at crosswalks. Chapter 7D contains information regarding school crossing supervision.

Guidance:
11 Because non-intersection pedestrian crossings are generally unexpected by the road user, warning signs (see Section 2C.50) should be installed for all marked crosswalks at non-intersection locations and adequate visibility should be provided by parking prohibitions.

Support:
12 Section 3B.16 contains information regarding placement of stop line markings near crosswalk markings.

Option:
13 For added visibility, the area of the crosswalk may be marked with white diagonal lines at a 45-degree angle to the line of the crosswalk or with white longitudinal lines parallel to traffic flow as shown in Figure 3B-19.
14 When diagonal or longitudinal lines are used to mark a crosswalk, the transverse crosswalk lines may be omitted
Guidance:
14a This type of marking should be used at locations where substantial numbers of pedestrians cross without any other traffic control device, at locations where physical conditions are such that added visibility of the crosswalk is desired, or at places where a pedestrian crosswalk might not be expected. 15 If used, the diagonal or longitudinal lines should be 12 to 24 inches wide and separated by gaps of 12 to 60 inches. The design of the lines and gaps should avoid the wheel paths if possible, and the gap between the lines should not exceed 2.5 times the width of the diagonal or longitudinal lines.

Option:
16 When an exclusive pedestrian phase that permits diagonal crossing of an intersection is provided at a traffic control signal, a marking as shown in Figure 3B-20 may be used for the crosswalk.

Guidance:

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 44, Packet Page 156 Crosswalk Policy
City of Monterey, CA
39 17 Crosswalk markings should be located so that the curb ramps are within the extension of the crosswalk markings.

Support:
18 Detectable warning surfaces mark boundaries between pedestrian and vehicular ways where there is no raised curb. Detectable warning surfaces are required by 49 CFR, Part 37 and by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) where curb ramps are constructed at the junction of sidewalks and the roadway, for marked and unmarked crosswalks. Detectable warning surfaces contrast visually with adjacent walking surfaces, either light-on-dark, or dark-on-light. The “Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities (ADAAG)” (see Section 1A.11) contains specifications for design and placement of detectable warning surfaces.

Standard:
19 Crosswalk markings near schools shall be yellow as provided in CVC 21368. See Part 7.

Option:
20 Pedestrian crosswalk markings may be placed at intersections, representing extensions of the sidewalk lines, or on any portion of the roadway distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing. Refer to CVC 275.

Guidance:
21 In general, crosswalks should not be marked at intersections unless they are intended to channelize pedestrians. Emphasis is placed on the use of marked crosswalks as a channelization device. 22 The following factors may be considered in determining whether a marked crosswalk should be used:

A. Vehicular approach speeds from both directions.

B. Vehicular volume and density.

C. Vehicular turning movements.

D. Pedestrian volumes.

E. Roadway width.

F. Day and night visibility by both pedestrians and road users.

G. Channelization is desirable to clarify pedestrian routes for sighted or sight impaired pedestrians.

H. Discouragement of pedestrian use of undesirable routes.

I. Consistency with markings at adjacent intersections or within the same intersection.

Option:
23 Crosswalk markings may be established between intersections (mid-block) in accordance with CVC 21106(a).

Guidance:
24 Mid-block pedestrian crossings are generally unexpected by the motorist and should be discouraged unless, in the opinion of the engineer, there is strong justification in favor of such installation. Particular attention should be given to roadways with two or more traffic lanes in one direction as a pedestrian may be hidden from view by a vehicle yielding the right-of-way to a pedestrian.

Option:
25 When diagonal or longitudinal lines are used to mark a crosswalk, the transverse crosswalk lines may be omitted.

Standard:
26 However, when the factor that determined the need to mark a crosswalk is the clarification of pedestrian routes for sight-impaired pedestrians, the transverse crosswalk lines shall be marked.

Option:
27 At controlled approaches, limit lines (stop lines) help to define pedestrian paths and are therefore a factor the engineer may consider in deciding whether or not to mark the crosswalk. 28 Where it is desirable to remove a marked crosswalk, the removal may be accomplished by repaving or surface treatment.

Guidance:
29 A marked crosswalk should not be eliminated by allowing it to fade out or be worn away.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 45, Packet Page 157 Crosswalk Policy
City of Monterey, CA
40 Support:
30 The worn or faded crosswalk retains its prominent appearance to the pedestrian at the curb, but is less visible to the approaching road user.

Standard:
31 Notification to the public shall be given at least 30 days prior to the scheduled removal of an existing marked crosswalk. The notice of proposed removal shall inform the public how to provide input related to the scheduled removal and shall be posted at the crosswalk identified for removal.

Refer to CVC 21950.5
Option:
32 Signs may be installed at or adjacent to an intersection directing that pedestrians shall not cross in a crosswalk indicated at the intersection in accordance with CVC 21106(b). 33 White PED XING pavement markings may be placed in each approach lane to a marked crosswalk, except at intersections controlled by traffic signals or STOP or YIELD signs.

Chapter 3C: Roundabout Markings
Section 3C. 05 Crosswalk Markings at Roundabouts
Standard:
01 Pedestrian crosswalks shall not be marked to or from the central island of roundabouts.

Guidance:
02 If pedestrian facilities are provided, crosswalks (see Section 3B.18) should be marked across roundabout entrances and exits to indicate where pedestrians are intended to cross. 03 Crosswalks should be a minimum of 20 feet from the edge of the circulatory roadway.

Support:
04 Various arrangements of crosswalks at roundabouts are illustrated in the figures in this Chapter.

CHAPTER 3G. COLORED PAVEMENTS
Section 3G.01 General
Support:
01 Colored pavements consist of differently colored road paving materials, such as colored asphalt or concrete, or paint or other marking materials applied to the surface of a road or island to simulate a colored pavement.
02 If non-retroreflective colored pavement, including bricks and other types of patterned surfaces, is used as a purely aesthetic treatment and is not intended to communicate a regulatory, warning, or guidance message to road users, the colored pavement is not considered to be a traffic control device, even if it is located between the lines of a crosswalk.

Standard:
03 If colored pavement is used within the traveled way, on flush or raised islands, or on shoulders to regulate, warn, or guide traffic or if retroreflective colored pavement is used, the colored pavement is considered to be a traffic control device and shall be limited to the following colors and applications:

A. Yellow pavement color shall be used only for flush or raised median islands separating traffic flows in opposite directions or for left-hand shoulders of roadways of divided highways or one-way streets or ramps.

B. White pavement color shall be used for flush or raised channelizing islands where traffic passes on both sides in the same general direction or for right-hand shoulders. 04 Colored pavements shall not be used as a traffic control device, unless the device is applicable at all times.

Guidance:

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 46, Packet Page 158 Crosswalk Policy
City of Monterey, CA
41 05 Colored pavements used as traffic control devices should be used only where they contrast significantly with adjoining paved areas.
06 Colored pavement located between crosswalk lines should not use colors or patterns that degrade the contrast of white crosswalk lines, or that might be mistaken by road users as a traffic control application.

CHAPTER 4D. TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL FEATURES
Section 4D. 01 General
Standard:
05 A traffic control signal shall control traffic only at the intersection or midblock location where the signal faces are placed.
06 Midblock crosswalks shall not be signalized if they are located within 300 feet from the nearest traffic control signal, unless the proposed traffic control signal will not restrict the progressive movement of traffic.

Guidance:
07 A midblock crosswalk location should not be controlled by a traffic control signal if the crosswalk is located within 100 feet from side streets or driveways that are controlled by STOP signs or YIELD signs. 08 Engineering judgment should be used to determine the proper phasing and timing for a traffic control signal. Since traffic flows and patterns change, phasing and timing should be reevaluated regularly and updated if needed.
09 Traffic control signals within 1/2 mile of one another along a major route or in a network of intersecting major routes should be coordinated, preferably with interconnected controller units. Where traffic control signals that are within 1/2 mile of one another along a major route have a jurisdictional boundary or a boundary between different signal systems between them, coordination across the boundary should be considered.

Support:
10 Signal coordination need not be maintained between control sections that operate on different cycle lengths.
11 For coordination with grade crossing signals and movable bridge signals, see Sections 4D.27, 4J.03, 8C.09, and 8C.10
PART 7 TRAFFIC CONTROL FOR SCHOOL AREAS
CHAPTER 7C. MARKINGS
Section 7C. 02 Crosswalk Markings
Standard:
00a When transverse crosswalk lines are used, they shall be solid white or yellow, marking both edges of the crosswalk, except as noted in the Option. Refer to CVC 21368. They shall be not less than 12 inches nor greater than 24 inches in width.

Guidance:
00b If transverse crosswalk lines are used to mark a crosswalk, the gap between the lines should not be less than 6 feet. If diagonal or longitudinal lines are used without transverse lines to mark a crosswalk, the crosswalk width should not be less than 6 feet.
00c Crosswalk lines on both sides of the crosswalk should extend across the full width of pavement or to the edge of the intersecting crosswalk to discourage diagonal walking between crosswalks. 01 Crosswalks should be marked at all intersections on established routes to a school where there is substantial conflict between motorists, bicyclists, and student movements; where students are encouraged to cross between intersections; where students would not otherwise recognize the proper place to cross; or where motorists or bicyclists might not expect students to cross (see Figure 7A-1).

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 47, Packet Page 159 Crosswalk Policy
City of Monterey, CA
42 02 Crosswalk lines should not be used indiscriminately. An engineering study considering the factors described in Section 3B.18 should be performed before a marked crosswalk is installed at a location away from a traffic control signal or an approach controlled by a STOP or YIELD sign. 03 Because non-intersection school crossings are generally unexpected by the road user, warning signs (see Sections 7B.11 and 7B.12) should be installed for all marked school crosswalks at non-intersection locations. Adequate visibility of students by approaching motorists and of approaching motorists by students should be provided by parking prohibitions or other appropriate measures.

Support:
04 Section 3B.18 contains provisions regarding the placement and design of crosswalks, and Section 3B.16 contains provisions regarding the placement and design of the stop lines and yield lines that are associated with them. Provisions regarding the curb markings that can be used to establish parking regulations on the approaches to crosswalks are contained in Section 3B.23.

Support:
05 Examples of school area signing, markings, flashing beacons and overhead school signs are shown in Figures 7B-1(CA), 7B-5(CA), 7B-4 through 7B-6 and Figures 7B-101(CA) through 7B-104(CA). 06 Refer to CVC 21368 for crosswalks near schools.

Standard:
07 Whenever a marked pedestrian crosswalk has been established in a roadway contiguous to a school building or school grounds, it shall be yellow. If any one of the crosswalks is required to be yellow at an intersection, then all other marked pedestrian crosswalks at that intersection shall also be yellow. Refer to CVC 21368.

Option:
08 A marked pedestrian crosswalk may be yellow if the nearest point of the crosswalk is not more than 600 feet from a school building or school grounds. Refer to CVC 21368. 09 A marked pedestrian crosswalk may be yellow if the nearest point of the crosswalk is not more than 2800 feet from a school building or school grounds and there are no intervening crosswalks other than those contiguous to the school grounds, and it appears that the facts and circumstances require special marking for the protection and safety of persons attending the school. Refer to CVC 21368.

Guidance:
10 Diagonal or longitudinal markings should be used when a crosswalk is marked at an uncontrolled crossing location. The diagonal or longitudinal lines should be 12 to 24 inches wide and spaced 12 to 60 inches apart. The spacing design should avoid the wheel paths.

Option:
11 For added visibility, the area of a crosswalk may be marked with white or yellow diagonal lines at a 45- degree angle to the line of the crosswalk or with white or yellow longitudinal lines parallel to traffic flow.

Refer to CVC 21368. When diagonal or longitudinal lines are used to mark a crosswalk, the transverse crosswalk lines may be omitted.

Section 7C. 03 Pavement Word, Symbol, and Arrow Markings Standard:
06 The SLOW SCHOOL XING marking shall be used in accordance with the provisions of CVC 21368 in advance of all yellow school crosswalks (see Figure 7C-101(CA)). They shall not be used where the crossing is controlled by stop signs, traffic signals, or yield signs. They shall be yellow, with the word XING at least 100 feet in advance of the school crosswalk.

Option:
07 The SCHOOL XING marking and crosswalks may be used at remote locations outside of the school zone.

Support:
08 Remote crosswalk locations are locations near schools, which are not included in CVC 21368 criteria.

Also refer to Section 7C.03.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 48, Packet Page 160 Crosswalk Policy
City of Monterey, CA
43 Standard:
09 If the SCHOOL XING marking and crosswalks are used at remote locations outside of the school zone, they shall not be yellow (Refer to CVC 21368), but white.

Guidance:
10 The SCHOOL XING marking should be used in advance of all white school crosswalks.

Option:
11 The SCHOOL marking may be used with the School Assemblies A(CA) or C(CA), except at locations where SLOW SCHOOL XING markings are required.

Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way SUMMARY: The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board or Board) issues its final rule that provides minimum guidelines for the accessibility of pedestrian facilities in the public right- of-way. These guidelines, once adopted, would ensure that facilities used by pedestrians, such as sidewalks and crosswalks, constructed or altered in the public right-of-way by Federal, state, and local Governments are readily accessible to and usable by pedestrians with disabilities. When the guidelines are adopted, with or without modifications, as accessibility standards in regulations issued by other Federal agencies implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Architectural Barriers Act, compliance with those enforceable accessibility standards is mandatory.

DATES: The final rule is effective September 7, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Scott Windley, Office of Technical and Information Services, Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, 1331 F Street NW, Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004–1111.

Telephone (202) 272–0025 (voice) or (202) 272–0028 (TTY). Email address [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Executive Summary
The U.S. Access Board issues its final rule for accessibility guidelines for pedestrian facilities in public rights-of- way (PROWAG or guidelines). These guidelines are issued under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 (ABA). Title II of the ADA applies to State and local government facilities, among others.

The ABA applies to facilities constructed or altered by or on behalf of the Federal Government, facilities leased by Federal agencies, and some facilities built with Federal funds. The purpose of these guidelines is to ensure that pedestrian facilities located in the public right-of-way are readily accessible to and usable by pedestrians with disabilities. Despite on-going efforts to improve access, pedestrians with disabilities throughout the United States continue to face major challenges in public rights-of-way because many sidewalks, crosswalks, and other pedestrian facilities are inaccessible. Equal access to pedestrian facilities is of particular importance because pedestrian travel is the principal means of independent transportation for many persons with disabilities.

Key accessible features of pedestrian facilities specified in these guidelines include:

Pedestrian Access Routes: Sidewalks, shared use paths and other pedestrian circulation paths must contain a ‘‘pedestrian access route,’’ which is required to be accessible to and traversable by individuals with disabilities. The portions of these sidewalks and paths that comprise the pedestrian access route Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 49, Packet Page 161 Crosswalk Policy
City of Monterey, CA
44 must be wide enough to minimize the possibility of a pedestrian using a mobility device falling into a roadway when passed by another pedestrian. Pedestrian access routes have specified cross slopes and running slopes so that they are traversable by pedestrians using manual wheelchairs or other mobility aids without exhaustive effort. Surfaces of paths in the pedestrian access route must be firm, stable, and slip resistant, without large openings or abrupt changes in level. Objects may not hazardously protrude onto sidewalks, shared use paths, or other pedestrian circulation paths.

Alternate Pedestrian Access Routes: When an entity closes a pedestrian access route for construction, it must provide a temporary alternate pedestrian access route with basic accessible features. Alternate pedestrian access routes ensure that construction in the public right-of-way does not prevent pedestrians with disabilities from reaching their destinations.

Accessible Pedestrian Signals: All new and altered pedestrian signal heads installed at crosswalks must include ‘‘accessible pedestrian signals’’ (APS), which have audible and vibrotactile features indicating the walk interval so that a pedestrian who is blind or has low vision will know when to cross the street.

Pedestrian push buttons must be located within a reach range such that a person seated in a wheelchair can reach them. The walk speed used to calculate the crossing time allows pedestrians with disabilities sufficient time to cross.

Crosswalks: Curb ramps and detectable warning surfaces are required where a pedestrian circulation path meets a vehicular way. Crosswalks at multilane roundabouts and channelized turn lanes must have additional treatments that alert motorists to the presence of pedestrians or slow or stop traffic at those crosswalks.

Transit Stops: Boarding and alighting areas at sidewalk or street level, as well as elevated boarding platforms, must be sized and situated such that a person with a disability can board and alight buses and rail cars. Pedestrian access routes must connect boarding and alighting areas and boarding platforms to other pedestrian facilities. Transit shelters must have clear space for use by a person in a wheelchair.

On-Street Parking: On-street non-residential parking must have designated accessible parking spaces sized so that a person with a disability may exit a parked vehicle and maneuver to the sidewalk without entering a vehicular way. Standard size designated accessible on-street parking spaces must be situated near an existing crosswalk with curb ramps.

These minimum guidelines will become enforceable once they are adopted, with or without modifications, as mandatory standards under the ADA by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), or the four Federal agencies that set standards for the Federal Government under the Architectural Barriers Act—the U.S. Postal Service (USPS), General Services Administration (GSA), U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)).

II. Legal Authority and Need for Rulemaking
These guidelines are issued pursuant to the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act, which provide statutory authority for the Access Board to issue minimum accessibility guidelines to ensure that transportation facilities are usable by persons with disabilities. See 29 U.S.C. 792(b)(3)(B), 42 U.S.C. 12204. These guidelines serve as the minimum requirements for enforceable standards issued by other agencies pursuant to their responsibilities under the ADA and the ABA. 29 U.S.C. 792(b)(3)(B); 42 U.S.C. 4151 et seq., 12134(c), 12149(b).

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 50, Packet Page 162 Crosswalk Policy
City of Monterey, CA
45 As described in the Rulemaking History section below, these final guidelines have been long awaited, particularly by state and local governments subject to Title II of the ADA. Both the Access Board’s 2004 Americans with Disabilities Act and Architectural Barriers Act Accessibility Guidelines (2004 ADAAG/ABAAG), and the Board’s initial 1991 Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines, were developed primarily for buildings and facilities on sites. 36 CFR part 1191; 56 FR 35408 (July 26, 1991). While some of the requirements can be readily applied to pedestrian facilities in the public rightof-way, others need substantial modification, and many issues specific to public rights-of-way were simply not addressed. Further, the magnitude of existing physical constraints in public rights-of-way poses unique considerations that are not present in the context of buildings and sites.

In the absence of final technical requirements for accessibility of pedestrian facilities, state and local governments have been left to determine on their own how to comply with the ADA’s existing mandate to make public pedestrian transportation facilities accessible. The lack of final Federal standards has contributed to uncertainty about the relevant standards, which has resulted in courts determining technical requirements for accessibility, in some cases applying requirements for buildings and sites to public rights-of- way, although public rights-of-way are, for the most part, not specifically addressed by these standards (see e.g., Kirola v. City & Cty. of S.F., 860 F.3d 1164 (9th Cir. 2017) (finding that ADAAG applies to public rights-of- way); Fortyune v. City of Lomita, 766 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2014) (applying the 2010 ADA Standards to diagonal
See 29 U.S.C. 792(b)(3)(B); 42 U.S.C.4151 et seq.

R203 Pedestrian Access Routes This section contains scoping requirements that explain where pedestrian access routes are required, and scoping requirements that point to the technical requirements in Chapters 3 and 4 applicable to each component of pedestrian access routes.

Pedestrian access routes are a portion of the traversable pedestrian facilities in a public right-of-way that must comply with the accessibility requirements in these guidelines. In new construction, there will be a continuous network of pedestrian access routes that connect all accessible elements, spaces, and pedestrian facilities (R203.2). In alterations, a continuous network of pedestrian access routes will be established piece-by-piece as pedestrian facilities are altered and brought into compliance with PROWAG. A pedestrian access route exists within or is connected by each newly constructed or altered traversable pedestrian facility: pedestrian circulation paths (including shared use paths) (R203.3); crosswalks (R203.4); pedestrian at-grade rail crossings (R203.5); curb ramps and blended transitions (R203.6); pedestrian overpasses and underpasses (R203.7); ramps (R203.8); elevators and limited use/limited application elevators (R203.9); platform lifts (R203.10); and doors and gates (R203.11).10 Again, the goal, over time, is a continuous accessible pathway through all traversable facilities in the public right- of-way. The structure of section R203 Pedestrian Access Routes in the final rule has been revised from the proposed section R204 of the NPRM (as modified by the SNPRM). First, with edits to R203.1 General, the Board has clarified that the facilities listed in R203 either ‘‘contain’’ or ‘‘connect’’ a pedestrian access route. In the years since the NPRM was published, Access Board technical staff have received inquiries related to whether each piece of sidewalk or pedestrian facility is expected to be part of a pedestrian access route, or whether, for example, a pedestrian access route could be provided on one side of the street and not the other. This confusion stems from a requirement in the 2004 ABA and ADA Accessibility Guidelines that at least one accessible route connect buildings, sites, elements, and spaces, but does not require that each route between these locations be accessible. See 36 CFR part 1191, App. A, Ch. 2,206.2.2. The public right-of-way in this aspect is not analogous to buildings and sites.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 51, Packet Page 163 Crosswalk Policy
City of Monterey, CA
46 Every new or altered pedestrian facility must be made accessible. Thus, the Access Board clarifies that the requirements for pedestrian access routes are applicable to every newly constructed or altered pedestrian circulation path, crosswalk, pedestrian at-grade rail crossing, and pedestrian overpass and underpass, and the curb ramps, ramps, elevators, platform lifts, and doors and gates that connect pedestrian facilities with pedestrian access routes must also comply with the accessibility requirements of PROWAG. Second, the Board has moved the scoping for crosswalks (referred to as pedestrian street crossings in the proposed rule at NPRM R206) and the scoping for curb ramps and blended transitions (NPRM R207) into the final rule’s scoping section for pedestrian access routes at R203. The Board made this change to further clarify that crosswalks, curb ramps, and blended transitions are pedestrian facilities that comprise part of the continuous network of pedestrian access routes present in the public right-of-way. Third, in response to numerous technical assistance inquiries over the years since the NPRM was published, in the final rule the Board has added detailed scoping as to the required placement of curb ramps. The scoping clarifies when curb ramps are required at intersection crosswalks, midblock and roundabout crosswalks, on-street parking, and passenger loading zones. It further clarifies that when alterations are made to crosswalks, missing curb ramps must be added as part of the alteration. This added scoping is discussed in greater detail below.

Pedestrian Circulation Paths (R203.3)
In response to the proposed rule (NPRM 204.2), some commenters requested that the Access Board explicitly require that jurisdictions provide sidewalks, while others requested that the Board clarify that the PROWAG rule does not require sidewalks. The final rule requires that pedestrian access routes connect accessible elements, spaces, and pedestrian facilities (R203.2). A pedestrian access route is comprised primarily of conforming portions of a pedestrian circulation path, which are defined as ‘‘a prepared exterior or interior surface provided for pedestrian use in the public right-of-way’’ (R104.3). It does not matter under the rule whether the pedestrian access route runs through a sidewalk, shared use path, shoulder intended for pedestrian use, or other type of prepared surface, as long as it meets the technical requirements for pedestrian access routes. Jurisdictions may meet the requirements of PROWAG using any of the available options.

In the final rule the Board has revised this provision to indicate that transitional segments, as defined in R104.3, may be used to connect new or altered pedestrian access routes to existing pedestrian circulation paths. Transitional segments appeared in the proposed rule at NPRM R202.3.2.

Crosswalks (R203.4)
As noted above, in the final rule, the Board has relocated the scoping for crosswalks to the scoping section for pedestrian access routes to reinforce that crosswalks have a pedestrian access route within them and are part of the continuous network of accessible pedestrian facilities required through public rights-of-way. In addition, the Board has substituted the MUTCD- defined term ‘‘crosswalk,’’ with minor revisions to the MUTCD definition, for the term ‘‘pedestrian street crossing’’ that was used in the proposed rule (NPRM R204.3). In doing so the Board clarifies that there is no distinction between the places the Access Board expects pedestrian crossings to occur and the industry understanding of the places where crosswalks are located. The main impact of the use of the MUTCD-defined term ‘‘crosswalk’’ in place of ‘‘pedestrian street crossing’’ is to further clarify the places where curb ramps are required. This is detailed below in the discussion of R203.6.

Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG)
R306 Crosswalks
Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 52, Packet Page 164 Crosswalk Policy
City of Monterey, CA
47 R306.1 General
Crosswalks shall comply with R306.

R306.2 Pedestrian Signal Phase Timing
Where a traffic control signal with pedestrian signal indications is provided at a crosswalk, pedestrian signal phase timing shall be based on a pedestrian clearance time that is calculated using a pedestrian walking speed of 3.5 ft/s (1.1 m/s) or less from the location of the pedestrian push button to a pedestrian refuge island or the far side of the traveled way. The walk interval shall be 7 seconds minimum. Where the pedestrian clearance time is calculated to a pedestrian refuge island, an additional pedestrian push button or passive detection device shall be provided on the pedestrian refuge island.

EXCEPTION: If a passive pedestrian detection device is used to automatically adjust the pedestrian clearance time based on the pedestrian’s actual clearance of the crosswalk, a faster walking speed may be used.

R306.3 Accessible Walk Indication
An accessible walk indication complying with R308.2 shall have the same duration as the walk interval.

EXCEPTION: Where the pedestrian signal rests in walk, the accessible walk indication may be limited to the first 7 seconds of the walk interval. If the pedestrian signal is resting in walk and there is sufficient time remaining to provide an accessible walk interval before the beginning of the pedestrian change interval, the accessible walk indication may be recalled by a button press.

R306.4 Roundabouts
Where pedestrian circulation paths are provided at roundabouts, they shall comply with R306.4.

R306.4.1 Edge Detection
The street side edge of the pedestrian circulation path at the approach and along the circulatory roadway of the roundabout shall comply with R306.4.1.1 where not attached to the curb, or R306.4.1.2 where attached to the curb. Detectable warning surfaces shall not be used for roundabout edge detection.

R306.4.1.1 Separation
Where pedestrian crossing is not intended, the pedestrian circulation path shall be separated from the curb, crosswalk to crosswalk, with landscaping or other nonprepared surface 24 inches (610 mm) wide minimum.

R306.4.1.2 Vertical Edge Treatment
Where pedestrian crossing is not intended, a curb-attached pedestrian circulation path shall have a continuous and detectable vertical edge treatment along the street side of the pedestrian circulation path, from crosswalk to crosswalk. The bottom edge of the vertical edge treatment shall be 15 inches (380 mm) maximum above the pedestrian circulation path.

R306.4.2 Crosswalk Treatments
Each multi-lane segment of the roundabout containing a crosswalk shall provide a crosswalk treatment consisting of one or more of the following: a traffic control signal with a pedestrian signal head; a pedestrian hybrid beacon; a pedestrian actuated rectangular rapid flashing beacon; or a raised crossing.

R306.5 Channelized Turn Lanes
Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 53, Packet Page 165 Crosswalk Policy
City of Monterey, CA
48 Crosswalks at multi-lane channelized turn lanes shall provide treatments consisting of one or more of the following: a traffic control signal with a pedestrian signal head; a pedestrian hybrid beacon; a pedestrian actuated rectangular rapid flashing beacon; or a raised crossing.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 54, Packet Page 166 Guidelines for curb ramps at t-intersections
Are there sidewalks or
pedestrian facilities on the other
side of the t-intersection?
No
T-Intersection Curb Ramp
Hold Public Meeting
Yes
Are there multiple tintersections in close
proximity?1
Yes
Consolidate crossings by
creating one joint crossing or
placing two crossings at the far
ends of the offset intersection.

No
Are there R/W design
constraints or safety
concerns?
No
Is there high pedestrian
activity on all corners of the
intersection?
No
Build one crossing
across the major
road2
Yes
Build crossings on
all legs of tintersection
Yes
Is there another
preferable crossing
within a reasonable
distance?
Yes
No crossing needed
for the through
street
No
Can a compliant crossing be
reasonably accommodated? Yes
Build one crossing
across the major
road2
No
No crossing needed
for the through
street
Notes:

1. Close proximity is approximately less than 300 feet, or 150 feet in Downtown, from the nearest location on the same roadway.2. Select crossing based on R/W constraints, obstructions, technical feasibility, pedestrian desire paths and pedestrian travel distance.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 55, Packet Page 167 Council
Agenda Report
№11/25
FROM: Rafaela T. King, Finance Director
SUBJECT: Receive a Presentation on Various Financing Options to Address the Infrastructure Needs and Provide Direction (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council receive a presentation on various financing options for infrastructure needs and provide
direction.

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.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Receiving a presentation on various financing options to address the infrastructure needs would be consistent with City practice and policy.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE
ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There is no cost to receive this presentation. The purpose of this update is to educate the City Council on the various financing options available and to get feedback and
direction on steps moving forward.

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 Agenda Report Highlights
 City Council will review financing
options to address $340M in
infrastructure needs over 30 years,
with $105M required in the next five
years.
 Measure S sales tax revenue
currently covers maintenance costs
for streets, storm drains, and
sewers but sunsets in March 2027,
requiring renewal or expansion.
 Parking and Harbor funds face
challenges in sustaining
infrastructure needs because of
their reliance on subsidies to
support other City funds.
 Internal funding options include
repurposing NCIP revenue,
restructuring the Parking Fund, and
selling underutilized city assets.
 External funding options include
grants, general obligation bonds,
parcel taxes, and a potential sales
tax increase, all requiring voter
approval and community
engagement.

Date: 5/20/2025
Item No.: 25.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 25., Item Page 1, Packet Page 168 №10/24
the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council could elect not receive this presentation on the various financing options, however, this is not recommended.

DISCUSSION:

On May 6, 2025, Council received an presentation on the State of Our City’s Infrastructure Funding Needs. The presentation included a breakdown of the needs in particular areas, further separated by Immediate Needs within the next one to five years and Long-Range needs of six years and beyond.

The total amount for existing structures is $340,894,561 over the next 30 years. Of that amount $105,915,946 is expected to be needed within the next five years and the remaining $234,978,615 over the remaining twenty-five years.

Other areas where funding is needed was broken down into Right of Way (ROW), Parking, Harbor, Existing Facilities, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan, New Facilities, and Other. Signals were included in ROW and have been segregated out to present a separate discussion point.

Each area is presented below. Each section presents the subtotal of the amount needed in years 1 – 5 and 6+ years. It further breaks out the average cost per year over 5 years for the immediate needs and over 25 years for the long-range needs. The average amount is not representative of actual needs, and is illustrated as a digestible amount that can be worked into current and future funding options to be more easily planned for and managed.

Rights of Way
Asset Immediate Needs
(1-5 yr)
Long Range Needs
(6+ yr)
Streets $36,623,800 $32,781,700
Storm Drains $1,000,000 $5,856,956
Sewer $5,482,808 $25,652,899
ROW Subtotals1 $43,106,608 $64,291,555
Avg cost per year2 $8,621,322 $2,571,662
1 Does not include traffic signals
2 Based on 25 years of payments/costs
Rights of Way assets are comprised of Streets, Storm Drains, and Sewer. Traffic signals will also fall into this category. Traffic signals have been removed from these totals and will be discussed later in the report. The 1% sales tax approved by the voters, Measure S (which was a Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 25., Item Page 2, Packet Page 169 №10/24
renewal of Measure P), generates approximately $12M per year in revenue for the sole purpose of maintaining Streets, Storm Drains and Sewers. The average cost per year for the next five years is $8.6M. The maintenance costs of streets, storm drains, and sewers can be covered by the existing revenue source. While this is true today, we must be reminded that Measure S sunsets in March of 2027. We must be diligent to ensure that Measure S is renewed (at a minimum in its current state or expanded to release restrictions to continue the revenue source, perhaps on a permanent basis by the November 2026 election cycle).

In addition, the Sewer Fund implemented a phased fee increase which will generate additional funds to contribute to maintenance. Currently there is a study underway to assess the fees and needs of the storm drains. As with the sewer fees, it is anticipated the fees to be adjusted to reflect the current recovery costs needed to contribute to the maintenance costs.

Parking Infrastructure
Asset Immediate
Needs (1-5 yr)
Long Range
Needs (6+ yr)
Parking $7,495,250 $9,032,350
Avg cost/yr.1 $1,499,050 $361,294
1 Assumes 25 years
The Parking Fund operates as an Enterprise Fund. The revenues and expenses are accounted for separately outside of the General Fund. Enterprise funds are expected to recover all costs and operate at a profit. Currently, the Parking Fund generates an approximate annual net profit of $3M from operations. There is sufficient available funding to cover the maintenance needs of parking facilities within the current revenue structure. Caution must be given to address the fact that the City sometimes leans on this fund to subsidize shortfalls in other funds, inclusive of the General Fund. Continued practice of leaning on the Parking Fund will not allow for funding needs for parking infrastructure rehabilitation to be easily met.

Harbor Infrastructure
Harbor Asset Immediate
Needs (1-5 yr)
Long Range
Needs (6+ yr)
Wharf I $6,165,307
Wharf II $12,000,000 $50,670,000
Marina $950,000 $7,074,000
Total $19,115,307 $57,744,000
Avg cost/yr.1 $3,823,061 $2,309,760
1 Assumes 25 years
The Marina Fund and the Tidelands Funds are generally the funding source for the maintenance of the Harbor assets. are stretched thin. The Marina Fund in consideration of the current fund balance and amount already committed to Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects is in a negative position. It is not recommended to add additional CIP obligations unless current projects are re-evaluated. The Tidelands Fund, at the current rate revenues, expenses and contributions to the sea level rise reserve account, is projected to be at a deficit by the year 2030. These are very preliminary numbers, they are subject to change each year. Accordingly, the funding from existing resources from these funds is not a reliable source.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 25., Item Page 3, Packet Page 170 №10/24
Traffic Signals
Asset Immediate
Needs (1-5 yr)
Long Range
Needs (6+ yr)
Signals $12,740,000 $12,740,000
Avg cost/yr1 $2,548,000 $509,600
1 Assumes 25 years
Some signals can be included other ROW projects as part of maintenance depending of the nature of the project. For now, it is pulled out in its entirety to project the amounts needed from a different funding source. The above cost for Signals and the below itemized lists for Existing Facilities, New facilities and Other are the areas for consideration for funding options discussed later in the report. This is where the prioritization has to be discussed in determining what avenue to pursue for funding options.

Existing Buildings, Facilities, and ADA Transition Plan Needs Asset Immediate Needs
(1-5 yr)
Long Range Needs
(6+ yr)
Existing Facilities Monterey Sports
Center
$2,098,285 $22,295,048
Monterey
Conference Ctr
$2,173,340 $14,620,922
Library $2,863,583 $2,995.434
City Offices $3,301,997 $10,751,314
Rec Centers $1,636,732 $5,617,453
City Rental Facilities $2,285,000 $5,000,000
Fire Stations $2,083,684 $5,971,463
Police Station $1,016,160 $3,000,000
Gordon House $700,000 $219,076
Historic Facilities $500,000 $2,000,000
Restrooms $800,000 $5,000,000
Parks & Open space Not Included Not Included
Subtotals $19,458.781 $77,470,710
Avg cost/yr1 $3,891,756 $3,098,828
ADA Transition
Plan
City Buildings $2,000,000 $6,900,000
Parks $2,000,000 $6,800,000
$4,000,000 $13,700,000
Avg cost/yr1 $800,000 $548,000
1 Assumes 25 years
Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 25., Item Page 4, Packet Page 171 №10/24
Other Infrastructure Needs and New Facilities
Considering and adopting possible restructuring ideas listed later in the report can help the prioritization efforts of determining where to allocate any funding that currently exists or can be generated from one-time sources.

Asset Immediate
Needs (1-5 yr)
Long Range
Needs (6+ yr)
Other Sea Level Rise $5,000,000 $60,000,000
Specific Plans $1,050,000 $120,000,000
Utility
Undergrounding
$ $720,000,000
Electrification $2,375,000 $158,998,000
Total Other $8,425,000 $1,058,998,000
Asset Immediate
Needs (1-5 yr)
Long Range
Needs (6+ yr)
New Facilities Central Public
Safety Facility
$160,000,000
Fire Station –
Hwy 68 Corridor
$20,000,000
New Library $48,000,000
Pacific Biological
Lab (ADA)
$2,800,000
Total New $230,800,000
Internal Funding Options
Selling underutilized and high maintenance burdened buildings and assets is an option that would result in one-time sources. The City owns an excess of 90 facilities. An assessment to usefulness, annual cost and the maintenance of any historical architecture could be considered.

Repurposing current revenue sources must be considered as part of the conversation. A few examples include the NCIP Fund and Parking Fund. Currently the NCIP generates nearly $6M per year in tax and interest revenue. For example, repurposing 50% percent of that revenue for debt service would use a currently available funding that does not create an need to increase taxes elsewhere. This option still leaves $3M per year for the funding of neighborhood projects.

However, utilizing NCIP for debt service eliminates another option for fiscal relief during fiscal crises.

Restructuring the parking fund is another option for consideration. As noted earlier, the Parking Fund is currently operated as an enterprise fund and accounted separately from the General Fund. This is not a legal requirement. A restructuring could be to absorb the Parking Fund into the General Fund. The fund would become a division of the General Fund and the $3M of profit would be merged into the General Fund. Or a portion of the funds could be pledged as a repayment source as well in its current structure. If the Parking Fund is merged into the General Fund, it would be important to allocate a portion of parking revenues towards a Parking Facility Reserve.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 25., Item Page 5, Packet Page 172 №10/24
All the options presented require council support and have both obstacles and benefits associated with the choices. Staff would be committed to analyzing the pros and cons and following any necessary steps, inclusive of charter, ordinance and city code amendments where necessary if that is the choice.

External Funding Options
Grants. City staff and consultants are consistently applying for available grants. We are often awarded grants that either can be directly applied to facilities maintenance and capital improvements or can free other resources. However, the City does not often qualify for grant funding or the amount awarded is a mere fraction of what is needed, and this is not a long term solution that can be relied upon. It is clear, for example, that little to no state or federal grant funding that is available for the construction or maintenance of police stations, fire stations, and other facilities.

Ballot measures for the issuance of bonds. Other external options come in the form of bonds.

The options are issuance of General Obligation Bonds or Parcel tax. Both of these must go to the voters for an approval rate of 67%.

A general obligation bond is a type of municipal bond backed by the full faith, credit, and taxing power of the issuing government, rather than by revenues from a specific project.

This means the government pledges to repay the bond by raising taxes if necessary, ensuring bondholders are repaid.

A parcel tax is a type of property tax levied on individual parcels of land, typically used to fund specific local services. They are not based on the assessed value of the property. It can be a flat fee per parcel or vary based on factors like parcel size (square footage, acreage), number of dwelling units, or land use.

An example is that an issuance of $115.75M in bonds generates a maximum debt service limit of $8.35M. The City would either need a new revenue source to secure the debt service or a restructuring of our current resources as a pledge for repayment, such as a portion of NCIP revenues as discussed earlier.

It is worth mentioning that during the November 2024 election, there were 18 measures on the ballot involving sales tax/property tax increases in the Monterey County, and not a single city was able to pass their measure. Only school district measures were successful.

Bringing it to the attention of Council at this stage is to remind that there must be full support of the City Council, significant community engagement, including polling of voters, public safety involvement, as well as business community involvement in order to get the ballot passed. In addition, how the issuance is structured is extremely important as most issuance requires spending within three years.

Sales tax increase. The current sales tax rate for the City is currently at 9.25%. It was last increased in 2020. We are essentially at the maximum allowable rate (see table below).

However, with the Measure X Countywide Sales Tax Rate of 0.375% that is not subject to the limit, the City of Monterey has a very small wiggle room for an additional sales tax measure of up to 0.375% before the City would need State legislative approval and fiscal justification for an increase. Of note, the tax increase would need a majority approval by voters.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 25., Item Page 6, Packet Page 173 №10/24
Breakdown of 9.25% Sales Tax Rate, Effective July 1, 2020 Source: HdL Companies
Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts (EIFDs) and Community Revitalization Investment Areas (CRIAs) are an infrastructure financing tool recommended in the City’s Draft Economic Development Strategy presented to the City Council in March 2025. EIFDs and CRIAs utilize property tax increment revenues generated within a specific geographic area to fund public capital facilities such as roads, transit facilities, libraries, parks, recreational facilities, harbor infrastructure, and other physical improvements. Climate Resilience Districts (CRDs) is an emerging tool that help fund sustainable infrastructure, green spaces, and renewable energy solutions to mitigate climate risks such as flooding, heat waves, and sea level rise. EIFDs, CRIAs, and CRDs are potential tools that could help fund economic development efforts in key geographic areas, including North Fremont Street, Alvarado Street, Calle Principal, and Lighthouse Avenue business corridors.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 25., Item Page 7, Packet Page 174 №10/24
Other Revenue Generating Opportunities
Other revenue-generating opportunities available are being researched and considered include increasing parking revenues through parking meters and extended paid parking hours, longterm loan agreements, increasing property transfer taxes, parking tax, Payments-in-Lieu of Taxes (PILOTs), and additional cost recovery for contracted services provided. A vacancy tax is not a viable revenue generating opportunity at this time due to pending court cases, including San Francisco’s voter-approved Empty Homes Tax which was held to be unconstitutional and in violation of the Ellis Act, and is pending appeal. All potential revenue-generating opportunities are also on the table for continued discussion.

Next Steps
We look forward to a robust discussion on evaluating the available options and receiving initial feedback from the City Council. Staff is eager for this initial discussion, which will also pave the way for continued engagement with Council and the community on the topic of infrastructure financing and its connection with the City’s operating budget.

RTK
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, 5/20/2025, Item No. 25., Item Page 8, Packet Page 175 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Karen Larson, Parks and Recreation Director
Prepared by: Shannon Leon, Recreation Manager and
Reginald Paulding, P.E., Senior Engineer
SUBJECT: Receive Parks and Recreation Commission Recommendation and Approve the Preferred Concept for the Old Capitol Site Future Park Plan Development (Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15306, Class 6) RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council receive a presentation on the Old Capitol Site Park Plan and approve a preferred concept
consisting of a long-term approach to developing the Old Capitol Site based on the City’s budget realities and staff capacity, as well as its consistency with the Parks and Recreation Master Plan (PRMP) and the Parks and
Recreation Commission recommendation.

VALUE DRIVERS:

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

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.

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Per Monterey City Code Chapter 2, Article 6, Sec. 2-6.01, the Parks and Recreation Commission shall be empowered to:

Agenda Report Highlights
 The Parks and Recreation
Commission is recommending the
City Council approve the preferred
concept for the Old Capitol Site
Future Park Plan Development.
 This long-term development
concept for the Old Capitol Site,
aligns with budget realities, staff
capacity, and the Parks and
Recreation Master Plan (PRMP).
 City has spent over $1 million on the
site since 2019, with future costs
estimated at $12 million for the
preferred concept. Maintenance
costs will increase over time.
 The preferred concept includes 4.5
miles of trails, ADA-accessible
paths, a gravel parking lot,
interpretive loops, and minimal
environmental impact by
repurposing existing fire roads.
 The plan emphasizes passive
recreation, environment,
accessibility, and engagement.

Date: 5/20/2025
Item No.: 26.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 26., Item Page 1, Packet Page 176 №10/24
a. Carry out the policies established by the City Council in acting on all matters pertaining to the use, development, and improvement of the City’s recreational projects and park facilities.
b. Make recommendations to the City Council on the acquisition, design, and development of park facilities.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The City owns and operates hundreds of miles of streets, sewer and storm drain pipes, sidewalks plus almost 100 facilities/buildings, including three fire stations, four community centers, Sports Center, Library, Conference Center, a tunnel, harbor and marina facilities, parking lots and parking garages, 29 public restrooms, over 800 acres of parks, beaches and open space with 37 parks, four ballfields, more than a dozen playgrounds and sports courts, several historic buildings, and numerous office buildings.

For FY25, the City started a coordinated approach to communicate with our residents the urgent need to focus on our critical infrastructure, as many facilities that are aging or are in disrepair.

The State of the City address, an article in the City Focus, as well as a City Council study session on May 29, 2024, were used to inform residents and businesses alike about Monterey’s need to focus on preserving our existing infrastructure assets. Facility upgrade needs city-wide are currently estimated at $288 million in the next six years and beyond.

The City has contributed significant staff time and City resources since the Old Capitol Site was transferred in 2019. Approximately $702,000 in General Fund revenues and $250,000 in Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program (NCIP) funds for the Old Capitol Site have been expended by the City in the Parks Division, Forestry Division, and/or Police Department over the past five years. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention (CAL FIRE) has also funded $100,000 in fuel reduction and contributed approximately 5,057 crew hours. Green Cadre has provided an additional 678 crew hours. These contributions from CAL FIRE and Green Cadre have been significant and are not guaranteed in future years. The City would be challenged to make up for these resources if support from these organizations was lost. An additional $115,000 in funding for the Old Capitol Site Plan was provided by the NCIP in FY23.

The CEQA, permits process, environmental mitigation and implementation of projects and ongoing operations and maintenance and capital improvement for new facilities will require identification of significant funding sources. (Attachment 4.) Therefore, the preferred concept plan addresses the needs of residents and key stakeholders and does the most good for all residents. This includes a long-term approach to developing the Old Capitol Site based on the City’s budget realities and resource capacity.

Table 1. Old Capitol Site Concept Options and Estimated Fiscal Implications Site Options Description Activities/Amenities *Estimated Costs Existing
Condition
Maintain Open Space Current Forest Management and
Site Maintenance
Ongoing Costs ~
$300,000 Annually
Limited Public
Access
Hiking Trails Utilizing
Existing Fire Roads
CEQA Studies, Environmental
Permits and Limited Site
Improvements
Additional $1 Million
(est.)
Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 26., Item Page 2, Packet Page 177 №10/24
Preferred
Concept
Additional Loop Trails
and Accessible
Connector Trails
Trail Construction and Site Mitigation Additional $12
Million (est.)
*Annual estimate based on current costs and are subject to change. Annual costs occur in perpetuity and will increase over time.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15306, Class 6) because the proposed study would involve information collection and research for the preparation of a preferred alternative concept for the Old Capitol Site Future Park Plan Development.

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 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. Exception a – Location – does not apply to projects which are exempt under Class 1.

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. There would be no cumulative impact because the study would not involve implementation of a project, but rather information collection, research, and preparation of an alternative concept to a plan.

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 preparation of an alternative study would involve basic information collection and research that will not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource. No unusual circumstances would result from the preparation of this study.

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 location of the study would not be visible from a scenic highway.

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 preparation of this study would involve information collection and research; therefore, there would be no impacts to historic or archeological resources.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 26., Item Page 3, Packet Page 178 №10/24
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council could choose several alternatives. However they, are not recommended.

Possible alternatives include:

1. Maintain the Old Capitol Site in its existing condition, as permanent open space and closed to the public without approving a preferred concept;

2. Consider a concept with limited public access to the Old Capitol Site with hiking access utilizing previously established fire roads only; or

3. Consider a different concept with greater public access to the Old Capitol Site, creating and opening more trails including shared-use trails, bicycle facilities, and additional on-going mitigation efforts.

DISCUSSION:

Background
In 2019, the Pebble Beach Company dedicated and transferred the 135-acre Old Capitol Site property to the City of Monterey for parkland purposes. The Old Capitol Site permanently preserves one of the few remaining Monterey Pine Forests, a critically important ecological resource. One of the Monterey City Council’s Value Drivers is to “protect and preserve our natural environment by addressing climate change through ecologically responsible and pragmatic solutions. The City Council recognizes the necessity of bold, pragmatic, and thoughtful solutions to protect our natural environment for future generations. Community decisions on transportation, land use, sea level rise, coastal protection, forestry, and city government operations can have a positive impact on our environment locally, regionally, and globally.”
Old Capitol Site Plan Development
As an NCIP project, the City began the process of developing an open space and parkland plan for the Old Capitol Site with BFS Landscape Architects in January 2024. The Old Capitol Site Plan process evaluated various options, including elements such as walking/hiking trails, mixed use trails including biking trails, dry camping area, camping area with limited access to water through wells, picnic area, nature discovery, community garden, art in nature, and environmental education elements.

Design options evaluated included traditional park space and took into consideration the Special Attention Areas, as well as natural barriers such as ravines and lack of access to water. Each design concept included an estimated cost for implementation and annual ongoing maintenance costs.

The Old Capitol Site property is comprised of three parcels and is generally located south of Highway 1. Several streets bisect the property, including Barnet Segal Lane as well as Viejo, Sylvan, and Iris Canyon Roads. Upon the transfer, the City re-designated the property in the General Plan Map from Very Low Density Residential to Parks and Open Space, and the Zoning Map designation from Planned Community to Open Space. Since the transfer, the City of Monterey has overseen significant clean-ups and fire fuel removal efforts on the property.

Included in the transfer agreement are two Special Attention Areas (SAAs) providing permanent preservation and management of Monterey Pine Forest, Yadon’s Rein Orchid and supported habitat in perpetuity. In addition to the two SAAs, other areas of the property may have limited development potential due to, but not limited to, the topography, protected plants found on the property and limited water access.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 26., Item Page 4, Packet Page 179 №10/24
While the three parcels consist of 135-acres total, the two SAAs restrict use over 14.5 acres.

The Yadon’s Rein Orchid is known to occur over 70.4 acres, which is considered the minimum extent that could potentially expand during CEQA-level surveying, and there are slopes exceeding 30% over 25 acres. Understanding that any disturbance to environmentally sensitive habitat should be limited, less than 6% total (approximately eight non-contiguous acres) of the site is suitable for the development of trails and trail supporting amenities.

The Old Capitol Site Plan process was divided into four main phases:

PHASE I: Project Kickoff and Familiarity with Site
During Phase 1, the City’s consultant, BFS Landscape Architects, engaged several subconsultants to perform initial site assessments to document existing conditions. These assessments included a topographic survey, a boundary and easement survey, the review of a previously completed plant survey for the Yadon’s Rein Orchid, the review of the previously completed archeological sensitivity map, and the documentation of existing fire access roads created by City of Monterey and CAL FIRE for both vegetation management to reduce fire risk and for firefighting access.

The Consultant Team prepared preliminary slope and soil maps utilizing local GIS data and met with City staff from Parks and Recreation, Fire, Police and other departments that support the Old Capitol Site. It was determined through the existing site assessments that the Old Capitol Site is a rich resource of Monterey Pine Forest, and its habitat contains archeologically sensitive areas, three (3) drainage corridors including one (1) significant drainage corridor for the local watershed, a high risk for wildfire, and lacks suitable accessibility for emergency vehicles due to steep topography. All three (3) drainage corridors are on the National Wetlands Inventor Mapper as either Riverine or Freshwater Emergent Wetland. The Consultant Team and City staff had preliminary conversations regarding CEQA and environmental permitting, noting that there will be a number of required initial studies for the CEQA preparation and would require several permits and approvals from state and federal agencies. Based on the site resources, the aim of any introduction of public access to this site via a preferred vision/plan is to preserve and protect to the fullest extent the environmentally sensitive habitat areas with the anticipation that the proposed improvements be eligible for consideration of a mitigated negative declaration during the CEQA studies.

PHASE II: Public Engagement
Regarding a shared vision and goals for open space and natural parkland, it is important to the City that the park design represents a general consensus of the Monterey community and key stakeholders including neighboring residents, CAL FIRE, La Mesa Village due to its proximity to the site, and Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula (CHOMP) due to its Westland House facility as an enclave within the Old Capitol Site. It is equally important that the plan engages community members who are not typically well-represented in public forums and discussions.

The City engaged in three in-person public engagement events and conducted two virtual online surveys. Beginning in February 2024, the first engagement event collected community input for site programming and allowed community members to voice their priorities for the Old Capitol Site. The meeting was attended by 27 individuals, materials were provided in English and Spanish, and a Spanish interpreter was present to provide translation. The follow-up online survey included the same materials presented at the in-person meeting and was accessible for Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 26., Item Page 5, Packet Page 180 №10/24
three weeks. The online survey was available in both English and Spanish and received over 221 unique responses.

The second engagement event presented to the community the findings of the initial site assessments, the input received from the previous engagement events and presented two programming suitability study plans for consideration and review by the community. The second event was attended by 12 community members and materials were provided in both English and Spanish and a Spanish interpreter was available to provide translation services. As a follow up to the second engagement event, an online survey was made available to the community in both English and Spanish, providing access to the materials shared during the in-person engagement event. The online survey was made available for one month. This second online survey received responses from 433 unique respondents.

The last in-person engagement was in July 2024 and was conducted as a learning session with the Parks and Recreation Commission. At this Commission meeting, City staff and the consultant team presented the materials, research and findings to the Commission and public.

The public provided input and comment on the overall draft concepts, and commissioners asked questions and provided comments as well.

In addition to the engagement events, project materials and documents were uploaded to the City’s Have Your Say Monterey Website and the City regularly distributed project updates and meeting notices via their social media pages and email listserv, which reached over 20,000 unique email addresses.

PHASE III: Design Options and Cost
Following Phases I and II, City staff and BFS Landscape Architects reviewed not only community input but also the findings of the initial site assessments including the site boundaries, utilities, easements, and mapping of the two SAAs that are to be preserved from development. The City and BFS also reexamined the preliminary plant studies locating the known occurrences of the federally listed, endangered Yadon’s Rein Orchid (Attachment 5), identification of the Critical Habitat for the Yadon’s Rein Orchid and other environmentally sensitive habitat occurring within the site. They also reviewed the current forestry and vegetation management practices by City of Monterey and CAL FIRE to reduce wildfire risk, identification of drainages, regional context and connectivity, slope and soils analyses, and identification of archaeologically sensitive areas. Literature reviews of several site-specific topics were also conducted in the preparation of the design options. In addition to the plans, BFS Landscape Architects also prepared preliminary estimates of costs for the implementation of multiple plan alternatives.

Design options provided considered site factors, City resources, community engagement, input from internal and external stakeholders, suitability of programming based on best design practices and typical program requirements, and the CEQA review process which narrowed the focus of activities and amenity options.

PHASE IV: Final Presentations
After review and coordination with City staff, the team selected a final recommended concept document, which includes implementation and ongoing costs to be presented to the community during Parks and Recreation Commission and City Council meetings.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 26., Item Page 6, Packet Page 181 №10/24
Old Capitol Site Park Plan Recommended Concept
The Old Capitol Site preferred concept plan includes a trail system that balances public access with the unique environmental sensitivity of this site by overlapping uses on the existing fire roads to minimize new trail generation. Of the approximately 4.5 miles of trails, which include about one mile of ADA-accessible paths, most of the arterial and destination trails utilize the existing fire road network, while the connector trails provide safe, accessible connection between the three separate parcels. Although any new access established by the plan will be viewed as an environmental impact by regulatory agencies during the future CEQA process, the aim of repurposing the existing fire roads is to reduce environmental impacts to the greatest extent possible. (Attachments 2 and 3)
The recommended concept for the Old Capitol Site Park Plan integrates with the 2016 City of Monterey Parks and Recreation Master Plan (PRMP). It also takes into consideration the best use of the space to complement existing parks and recreation services. The preferred concept incorporates significant community feedback, input from key stakeholders including adjacent property owners and staff recommendations from City of Monterey’s Fire, Police, Community Development, Parks and Recreation (including Forestry), and Finance (including Risk Management) departments. It also takes into account the recommendations and findings of BFS Landscape Architects and its subconsultants determined by the existing site assessments that the Old Capitol Site is a rich resource of Monterey Pine Forest, and its habitat contains archeologically sensitive areas, three (3) drainage corridors, at high risk for wildfire, and lacks suitable accessibility for emergency vehicles due to steep topography.

Site access is established via a new, nine-car capacity gravel parking lot that includes a paved ADA-accessible space encompassed by a security gate and fencing on central Parcel 2. From the gravel parking lot, users can access the main trailhead with an area that includes a screened waterless restroom since there is no water to the site, bicycle parking, trash receptacles, and entry wayfinding signage. The trailhead leads to the Discovery Loop, an educational, interpretive loop to serve multigenerational interests and highlight the existing meadow area. From the central parcel’s Discovery Loop, the trail system connects to the other two parcels via new, accessible connector trails, along which are two, existing Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST) bus stops at Iris Canyon Road that can provide additional site access points. Via the new, safe street crossings, the western Parcel 1 includes a double loop trail totaling nearly ¾ mile and provides access to the site’s vistas and challenging topography, as well as the most pristine Monterey Pine forests across the site. To the east, Parcel 3 includes a triple-looped trail that then follows an existing road to the riparian willow habitat, showcased by a boardwalk system with viewpoints to observe this unique habitat that likely supports diverse bird species.

As part of the trail system, the preferred concept maximizes amenities through lower-impact design strategies such as spreading out interactive features, public art, single picnic tables, and viewpoints along the trails in nodes, thereby reducing their overall footprint, and through recommending the use of low-impact design like helical piles for the boardwalk. The preferred concept also prioritizes locating nodes in the few areas outside of known Yadon’s Rein Orchid occurrences where possible and will have protective fencing along any public access in the areas with the endangered orchid, a standard requirement by regulatory agencies that will help preserve this open space long-term for the enjoyment of future generations.

During the public engagement process, strong support for bicycle access at Old Capitol Site was voiced during in-person events as well as the online survey. Close to 70 of the respondents to the first online survey reported biking as an outdoor activity they enjoyed. A second online survey to review the two (2) draft concept options yielded over 433 unique responses with 100 Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 26., Item Page 7, Packet Page 182 №10/24
responses from City of Monterey residents. While the second online survey overwhelmingly supported concept two, over 40 responses provided supplemental input about the inclusion of bike specific amenities such as a bike park facility and bike only trails. The learning session with the Parks and Recreation Commission was also attended by 10 representatives and members of the local mountain biking community in support of creating a plan with bicycle-focused amenities.

Following the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting, City staff worked with BFS Landscape Architects to determine the feasibility of adding bicycle amenities to the Old Capitol Site. The Team researched regional bicycle facilities, met with bicycle facility designers and discussed with the environmental consultant the impacts of expanded development within the Old Capitol Site.

The recommendation from the Consultant Team to City staff is that bicycle-only trails and a bicycle skills facility would not be feasible due to the following reasons:

1. Disturbance and displacement of the Yadon’s Rein Orchid, a federally listed endangered species in part due to habitat loss, beyond what is shown on the preferred concept that would require additional, successful habitat mitigation resulting in spatial constraints and in higher costs for project implementation and management.

2. Disturbance and displacement of the Monterey Pine Forest, a historically sensitive habitat and native tree species on the CRPR 1B.1 list also considered during CEQA, beyond what is shown on the preferred concept that would require additional mitigation resulting in higher costs for project implementation and management.

3. Disturbance of archeologically sensitive areas beyond what is shown on the preferred concept that would require additional monitoring and impact studies resulting in higher costs for project implementation.

4. Limited site suitability, including steep slopes with highly erosive soils, for building and maintaining bike only trails and a bike skills facility, including the required supporting amenities.

5. Increased level of maintenance for City staff including both time and costs to maintain trails and facilities due to increased level of use and ensuring facilities are kept safe for bicycle users.

6. Increased time and costs for emergency responders due to bicycle facilities and trails.

7. Lack of support by adjacent neighbors and property owners due to concerns about trespassing and property disruption.

It is important for the City to consider all new parks projects within the guidelines set forth in the PRMP. The preferred concept plan aligns with the PRMP’s goals and guiding definition of open space as a natural area to be used for passive recreation activities like walking and hiking that require minimal improvements. By viewing the natural beauty and ecology as the site’s defining asset, the plan builds upon the PRMP’s goals of creating a unique sense of place that serves a diverse community, aims for economic and environmental sustainability, and maximizes accessibility. (Attachment 2 and 3)
To achieve a unique sense of place, the plan follows the PRMP’s recommendations to celebrate the natural landscape, incorporate art in focal and interactive ways that are educational and promote community-building through the incorporation of history and cultural elements. The preferred concept also responds to the diverse community by providing multiple opportunities for the public to have their voice heard and by supporting intergenerational health for the most people possible in the resulting design. In addition to intergenerational health, the preferred concept centers accessibility to maximize access for all to the site and its three, distinct parcels Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 26., Item Page 8, Packet Page 183 №10/24
while utilizing the topography to include opportunities for physical challenge. By overlaying the trail system on the existing fire roads, the preferred concept achieves this while reducing impacts to this sensitive, endemic ecosystem. In addition to environmental sustainability, the preferred concept takes into account economic sustainability via an achievable plan that works within City capacity and goals to preserve and maintain existing rather than new facilities.

On February 12, 2025, the Parks and Recreation Commission, after listening to the staff presentation and significant public comment, took these considerations into account and made the decision to recommend the preferred concept for the Old Capitol Site to City Council on a unanimous vote.

Staff recommends that the City Council receive a report, listen to public comment, and review and approve the preferred concept for the Old Capitol Site. The preferred concept if approved will serve as a guiding document for any future CEQA review, permitting process and park development of the Old Capitol Site. This includes a long-term approach to developing the Old Capitol Site based on the City’s budget realities and staff capacity.

KL/sl
Attachments: 1. Resolution

2. Preferred Concept Plan for Old Capitol Site

3. Old Capitol Site Preferred Concept Plan – Sections and Images

4. Old Capitol Site – Estimate of Probable Costs

5. Site Ecology Fact Sheet
e: Chinyere Ogbonna, NCIP Committee Chair
Dennis Duke, NCIP Committee Vice Chair
Business Associations
Neighborhood Associations
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, 5/20/2025, Item No. 26., Item Page 9, Packet Page 184 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

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

APPROVING THE PREFERRED CONCEPT FOR THE OLD CAPITOL SITE FUTURE PARK

PLAN DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the Old Capitol site encompasses 135 acres and is generally located south of Highway 1. Several City streets bisect the property including Barnet Segal Lane, Viejo, Sylvan, and Iris Canyon Roads;
WHEREAS, the Pebble Beach Company proposed to dedicate the 135-acre Old Capitol Site to the City of Monterey for parkland purposes;
WHEREAS, to support the dedication efforts, the City Council adopted a negative declaration for the Old Capitol Site (Resolution No. 19-178 C.S.); WHEREAS, City Council amended the General Plan Map land use designation from Very Low Density Residential to Parks and Open Space (Resolution No. 19-179 C.S.); WHEREAS, City Council amended the Zoning Map designation from Planned Community to Open Space (Ordinance No. 3604);
WHEREAS, City Council authorized the City Manager to sign the agreement to accept the dedication and transfer of the Old Capitol Site to the City of Monterey for parkland purposes and authorized $15,000 from general fund ending balance to property management professional services budget to cover real estate closing costs, trash receptacles and environmental filing fees (Resolution No. 19-180 C.S.);
WHEREAS, an agreement for dedication and transfer of property by and between the Pebble Beach Company and the City of Monterey for the Old Capitol Site was effective November 19, 2019;
WHEREAS, the Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program Old Capitol Site Master Plan project (nip2322) was approved by City Council on September 20, 2022 (Resolution No. 22-131 C.S.);
WHEREAS, on July 18, 2023, City Council determined a new agreement with BFS Landscape Architects was necessary to provide an essential baseline assessment of the current state of the Old Capitol Site and make recommendations for future needs and priorities for the Old Capitol Site;
WHEREAS, City Council awarded a Professional Services Agreement for preparation of the Old Capitol Site Master Plan (“Project”) to BFS Landscape Architects in the Amount Not-toExceed $115,000 (Resolution No. 23-077 C.S.); WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Department and BFS Landscape Architects engaged in an extensive site review and evaluation process of the Old Capitol Site with Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 26., Item Page 10, Packet Page 185 substantial community engagement and input beginning in January 2024 through February 2025;
WHEREAS, on February 12, 2025, the Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed and recommended a preferred concept for City Council consideration by unanimous vote; and WHEREAS, the City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15306, Class 6) because the proposed study would involve information collection and research for the preparation of a preferred alternative concept for the Old Capitol Site Future Park Plan Development. 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 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. Exception a – Location – does not apply to projects which are exempt under Class 1.

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. There would be no cumulative impact because the study would not involve implementation of a project, but rather information collection, research, and preparation of an alternative concept to a plan.

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 preparation of an alternative study would involve basic information collection and research that will not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource. No unusual circumstances would result from the preparation of this study.

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 location of the study would not be visible from a scenic highway.

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 Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 26., Item Page 11, Packet Page 186 preparation of this study would involve information collection and research; therefore, there would be no impacts to historic or archeological resources.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby approve a preferred concept, attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Exhibit A, for the Old Capitol Site future park plan development, consisting of a long-term approach to developing the Old Capitol Site based on the City’s budget realities and staff capacity, as well as, its consistency with the Parks and Recreation Master Plan (PRMP) and the Parks and Recreation Commission recommendation.

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, 5/20/2025, Item No. 26., Item Page 12, Packet Page 187

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 26., Item Page 13, Packet Page 188

ARTERIAL TRAIL
NODE
NODE
NODE

MAIN SITE ENTRY

SITE ENTRY

CONNECTOR TRAIL
NODE
NODE

I R I S C A N YON RD

B ARN E T S EGA L L N
H W Y 1
FEBRUARY 2025

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 26., Item Page 14, Packet Page 189 NODE
NODE
NODE

NODE NODE
NODE

DESTINATION TRAIL

CONNECTOR TRAIL
ARTERIAL TRAIL - 0.5 MI LOOP
ARTERIAL TRAIL - 0.1 MI LOOP
NODE
NODE
NODE
NODE
NODE

DESTINATION TRAIL

B ARN E T S EGA L L N
H W Y 1

V I E JO RD
FEBRUARY 2025

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 26., Item Page 15, Packet Page 190

ARTERIAL TRAIL
NODE

CONNECTOR TRAIL
NODE
NODE

MAIN SITE ENTRY

SITE ENTRY

CONNECTOR TRAIL
NODE
NODE

I R I S C A N YON RD

B ARN E T S EGA L L N
H W Y 1
FEBRUARY 2025

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 26., Item Page 16, Packet Page 191 H W Y 1

WESTLAND HOUSE

LA MESA VILLAGE
ARTERIAL TRAIL = 0.7 LOOP
NODE
NODE
NODE
NODE

SITE ENTRY
NODE
NODE

ARTERIAL TRAIL
NODE
NODE

CONNECTOR TRAIL
NODE
NODE
FEBRUARY 2025

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 26., Item Page 17, Packet Page 192 Sensitive Ecology
Protective Fencing (Standard
Requirement for Endangered Species)
J

CONCEPT SECTION - ARTERIAL TRAIL

OLD CAPITOL SITE

MONTEREY, CA
FEBRUARY 2025

23.042
3'-0"
Compacted
Earth Shoulder
6-0"
Stabilized DG Trail
14' -0"
Anticipated Impact per Standard
Environmental Regulations
3'-0"
Compacted
Earth Shoulder
Sensitive Ecology
Protective Fencing (Standard
Requirement for Endangered Species)
I
BFS

LANDSCAPE

ARCHITECTS
Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 26., Item Page 18, Packet Page 193 Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 26., Item Page 19, Packet Page 194 Sensitive Ecology
Protective Fencing (Standard
Requirement for Endangered Species)

CONCEPT SECTION - DESTINATION TRAIL

OLD CAPITOL SITE

MONTEREY, CA
FEBRUARY 2025

23.042
6'-0"
Stabilized DG Trail
6'-0"
Anticipated Impact per Standard
Environmental Regulations
I
BFS

LANDSCAPE

ARCHITECTS
Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 26., Item Page 20, Packet Page 195 Sensitive Ecology/ Drainage Corridor 6'-0"
Boardwalk Crossing with
Low-Impact Piles
2'-0"
Anticipated Impact per
Standard Environmental
Regulations
2'-0"
Anticipated Impact per
Standard Environmental
Regulations

CONCEPT SECTION - BOARDWALK CROSSING AT IRIS CANYON ROAD

OLD CAPITOL SITE

MONTEREY, CA
FEBRUARY 2025

23.042
Sensitive Ecology/ Drainage Corridor
I
BFS

LANDSCAPE

ARCHITECTS
Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 26., Item Page 21, Packet Page 196 Sensitive Ecology

CONCEPT SECTION - BOARDWALK

OLD CAPITOL SITE

MONTEREY, CA
FEBRUARY 2025

23.042
8'-0"
Boardwalk System with
Low-Impact Piles
2'-0"
Anticipated Impact per
Standard Environmental
Regulations
2'-0"
Anticipated Impact per
Standard Environmental
Regulations
Sensitive Ecology/ Drainage Corridor
I
BFS

LANDSCAPE

ARCHITECTS
Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 26., Item Page 22, Packet Page 197 Steep Adjacent
Hill Slope
3 '-0"
Compacted Earth
Shoulder
Protective Fencing
(For Public Safety)
6'-0"
Stabilized DG Trail

CONCEPT SECTION - ARTERIAL TRAIL AT STEEP ADJACENT HILLSLOPE

OLD CAPITOL SITE

MONTEREY, CA
FEBRUARY 2025

23.042
Compacted Earth
Shoulder
Adjacent Landscape
(No Sensitive Ecology)
I
BFS

LANDSCAPE

ARCHITECTS
Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 26., Item Page 23, Packet Page 198

CONCEPT IMAGES

OLD CAPITOL SITE

MONTEREY, CA
FEBRUARY 2025

23.042

PARKING & TRAILS
I
BFS

LANDSCAPE
. ARCHITECTS
Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 26., Item Page 24, Packet Page 199

CONCEPT IMAGES
- SITE AMENITIES

OLD CAPITOL SITE

MONTEREY, CA
FEBRUARY 2025

23.042
I
BFS

LANDSCAPE
. ARCHITECTS
Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 26., Item Page 25, Packet Page 200

CONCEPT IMAGES
- SIGNAGE

OLD CAPITOL SITE

MONTEREY, CA
FEBRUARY 2025

23.042
I
BFS

LANDSCAPE
. ARCHITECTS
Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 26., Item Page 26, Packet Page 201 Client City of Monterey
Proj. #: 23.042
Issuance: Preferred Concept Plan
Date: February 2025
Prepared By: CT Checked By: NL/BM
item description quantity unit cost item total subtotal ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITTING $330,000
CEQA - Preparation of CEQA documents and Initial Study 1 LS $100,000.00 $100,000 Environmental Regulatory Permitting Applications - Includes preparation of wetland assessment, applications for state and federal agency permits, including CDFW, RWQB, USACE, response and refinement of plans and documents
1 AL $120,000.00 $120,000
Environmental Permitting Application Fees 1 AL $110,000.00 $110,000 CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS $445,473
Construction Document Preparation - Includes finalization of design, coordination with staff, obtaining of building permits, bid award. 1 AL $370,472.50 $370,473
Construction Building Permit Fees 1 AL $75,000.00 $75,000 CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION $2,815,591
Construction Administration - Includes design team construction review coordination of submittals, rfis, change orders, site progress reviews. 1 AL $222,283.50 $222,284
Construction Management, Testing & Inspections 1 AL $1,852,362.50 $1,852,363 10% Construction Contingency 1 AL $740,945.00 $740,945
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MEASURES* $1,050,000
Yadons Rein Orchid Mitigation - Assumes dedication of habitat, development of mitigation plans and implementation including planting, irrigation, invasives eradication, excludes long-term monitoring, see Annual City Costs. Assumes 2:1 mitigation ratio (6 acres)
1 AL $450,000.00 $450,000
Monterey Pine Tree Mitigation - Assumes 2:1 tree replacement ratio 1 AL $100,000.00 $100,000 Tribal Construction Monitoring - Assumes (2) tribal monitors onsite during all ground disturbing activities
1 AL $200,000.00 $200,000
Mitigation Contingency 1 AL $300,000.00 $300,000
PRECONSTRUCTION TOTAL $4,641,064
MOBILIZATION & DEMOLITION $45,000
Contractor Mobilization - Includes bonds, site fencing, traffic controls, signage, staking and project administration
1 AL $30,000 $30,000
Demolition - Includes removal of dead trees, site fencing, trash, clearing and grubbing
1 AL $15,000 $15,000
TRAILS AND PARKING $194,100
Gravel Parking Lot - (8) car gravel parking lot w/ (1) concrete paved ADA parking stall, includes stormwater, signage, striping and infrastructure (5,000 SF)
1 LS $125,000.00 $125,000
Arterial Trail (Formalized Fire Road) - 12' wide compacted earth trail (1150 LF)
13,800 SF $2.00 $27,600
Connector Trail - 6' wide compacted earth trail (664 LF) 4,000 SF $2.00 $8,000 Boardwalk - 6' wide wood boardwalk with helical anchor piles (30 LF) 180 SF $175.00 $31,500 Compacted Earth at Trail Nodes 1,000 SF $2.00 $2,000
FENCING, GATES & SCREENS $103,500
Stake & Cable Protection Fence (Required at Sensitive Areas) - 2' tall galvanized eye-bolt stake with metal cable, includes tensioning system, posts 4' o.c.
3,700 LF $20.00 $74,000
Split Rail Fence at Parking Lot - 4' tall redwood posts and rails, rough split, pile driven posts
175 LF $100.00 $17,500
Security Gate at Parking Lot - 24' wide double swing pipe gate, galvanized gate and posts
1 EA $12,000.00 $12,000
WAYFINDING SIGNAGE $45,000
Entry Wayfinding Signage at Trailhead 1 EA $30,000.00 $30,000 Directional Wayfinding Signage 2 EA $7,500.00 $15,000
SITE FURNISHINGS $37,500
Bench - timber harvested from on-site forest management 3 EA $7,600.00 $22,800 Bicycle Racks at Trailhead 1 LS $6,500.00 $6,500
Picnic Table 2 EA $2,500.00 $5,000
Trash Receptacles 1 EA $3,200.00 $3,200
ITEMIZED CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $425,100
8% Escalation (Annual, Assumes 3 Years) $102,024
30% Design Contingency $127,530
PHASE 1 CONSTRUCTION TOTAL $654,654
PHASE 1 CONSTRUCTION COSTS

OLD CAPITOL SITE - ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE COSTS

PRECONSTRUCTION COSTS
andscape Architects Page 1 of 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 26., Item Page 27, Packet Page 202 item description quantity unit cost item total subtotal MOBILIZATION & DEMOLITION $375,000
Contractor Mobilization - Includes bonds, site fencing, traffic controls, signage, staking and project administration
1 AL $250,000.00 $250,000
Demolition - Includes removal of dead trees, site fencing, trash, clearing and grubbing
1 AL $125,000.00 $125,000
TRAILS AND PARKING $2,832,900
Arterial Trail (Formalized Fire Road) - 6' wide decomposed granite with aggregate base, 2/4 section (8200 LF)
49,200 SF $15.00 $738,000
Arterial Trail (Formalized Fire Road) - 6' wide compacted earth shoulder (8,200 LF)
49,200 SF $2.00 $98,400
Connector Trail - 6' wide decomposed granite with aggregate base, 2/4 section (3,000 LF)
18,000 SF $15.00 $270,000
Destination Trail - 6' wide compacted earth (2000 LF) 12,000 SF $2.00 $24,000 Boardwalk - 8' wide wood boardwalk with helical anchor supports (500 lf)
4,000 SF $175.00 $700,000
Wood Steps at Steep Trailslopes - 6x6 PTDF (700 LF) 700 LF $90.00 $63,000 Viewing Platforms - wood platform view point 500 SF $175.00 $87,500 Decomposed Granite at Nodes 4,300 SF $18.00 $77,400
Street Crossings - includes signage, striping, warning light system 3 EA $6,500.00 $19,500 FENCING, GATES & SCREENS $520,000
Stake & Cable Protection Fence (Required at Sensitive Areas) - 2' tall galvanized eye-bolt stake with metal cable, includes tensioning system, posts 4' o.c.
18,750 LF $20.00 $375,000
Split Rail Protection Fence (Required at Sensitive Areas) - 4' tall redwood posts and rails, rough split. Pile driven posts
1,250 LF $100.00 $125,000
Portable Restroom Screen - 8' tall redwood screen fence with posts 1 LS $20,000.00 $20,000 WAYFINDING SIGNAGE $87,500
Trail Identity Wayfinding Signage 5 EA $7,500.00 $37,500 Directional Wayfinding Signage 10 EA $5,000.00 $50,000
SITE FURNISHINGS $98,100
Bench - timber harvested from on-site forest management 10 EA $7,600.00 $76,000 Picnic Table 5 EA $2,500.00 $12,500
Trash Receptacles 3 EA $3,200.00 $9,600
SITE INTERPRETATIVE ELEMENTS $445,000
Interpretive Signage - HDPL sign panel with custom pedestal and base 13 EA $10,000.00 $130,000 Interactive, Nature-Themed Elements at Nodes 1 LS $75,000.00 $75,000 Public Art at Nodes 8 EA $30,000.00 $240,000
ITEMIZED CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $4,358,500
8% Escalation (Annual, Assumes 5 Years) $1,743,400
30% Design Contingency $1,307,550
PHASE 2/FULL CONCEPT CONSTRUCTION TOTAL $7,409,450
PRECONSTRUCTION + CONSTRUCTION GRAND TOTAL $12,705,168
ANNUAL CITY COSTS* $300,000
Daily Staff Maintenance - Assumes daily monitoring via (2) new ATVs, walking through fascilities to monitor conditions, trash maintenance, twicedaily parking security gate operation, emergency response 1 AL $80,000.00 $80,000
Materials and Repairs - Assumes repairs for all fencing and gates, signage, furnishings
1 AL $30,000.00 $30,000
Vegetation Maintenance - Assumes fire and public safety risk mitigation, excludes continued CAL FIRE assistance
1 AL $120,000.00 $120,000
Portable Restroom Rental - Assumes (1) ADA portable restroom and (1) standard portable restroom with weekly maintenance
1 AL $50,000.00 $50,000
Yadons Rein Orchid Mitigation Monitoring 1 AL $20,000.00 $20,000 The above items, amounts, quantities, and related information are based on BFS Landscape Architects' judgment at this level of document preparation and is offered only as reference data. BFS has no control over construction quantities, costs, and related factors affecting costs, and advises the client that significant variations may occur between this estimate of probable construction costs and actual construction prices.

PHASE 2/FULL CONCEPT CONSTRUCTION COSTS
* Annual estimate based on current costs and are subject to change. Annual costs occur in perpetuity and will increase over time. andscape Architects Page 2 of 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 26., Item Page 28, Packet Page 203 SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES:

Endangered
LOCALLY ENDEMIC:

Native only to 5 areas of
northern Monterey County
(approx. Monterey Peninsula to
Moss Landing}
CRITICAL HABITAT:
(required for species survival}
Monterey Pine Forest,
Maritime Chaparral
#1 THREAT:

Development
(Habitat Loss & Fragmentation}
cific Grove
Monterey
Council Regular Meeting, 5/20/2025, Item No. 26., Item Page 29, Packet Page 204

Monterey City CouncilMay 20, 2025

Monterey City Council
May 20, 2025