Agenda packet — Monterey City Council, June 17, 2025

Council Chamber
580 Pacific St.

Monterey, California

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Council Regular Meeting
and
Ocean View Community
Services District Board
Meeting

AMENDED AGENDA
Tuesday, June 17, 2025
4:00 PM
Mayor
Tyller Williamson
Councilmembers
Kim Barber, District 1
Ed Smith, District 2
Jean Rasch, District 3
Gino Garcia, District 4
City Manager
Hans Uslar
City Attorney
M. Christine Davi
HOW TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING:
 In-Person: At the meeting location listed above.
 Remotely via ZoomGov webinar:
o On a computer or smartphone: https://monterey-org.zoomgov.com/j/1607729333 Zoom software must be up-to-date. For help, please use our Zoom Meeting Instructions. o By telephone dial 833-568-8864 (Toll Free), 669-254-5252 (CA) or 646-828-7666 (NY). If one number doesn’t work, please try another. Enter Webinar ID: 160 772 9333 # If asked for participant ID, press #. To raise your hand: dial *9. Once called upon, dial *6 to unmute.  This meeting will also stream live for viewing only on youtube.com/cityofmonterey (~10 second delay) and on Comcast Channel 25 (up to 90 second delay).  Written comment: Emailed comments to [email protected] sent no later than ½ hour before the start of the meeting (sooner preferred) are not read aloud but are made available to the Council and public at monterey.gov/submitted-comments.

PUBLIC COMMENT PROCEDURES AND TIME LIMITS:

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

1. Up to three minutes per speaker.

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

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

CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION DISCLOSURE: Pursuant to the Levine Act (Govt. Code §84308), any party to a permit, license, contract, or other entitlement before the Council is required to disclose on the record any contribution, including aggregated contributions, of more than $500 made by the party or the party's agents within the preceding 12 months to any City official. Participants and agents are requested to make this disclosure as well. The disclosure must include the name of the June 17, 2025
2 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.

AFTERNOON SESSION (4:00 p.m.)
Call to Order
Presentations (Afternoon)

1. Recognition of Defense Language Institute Quarterly Joint Service Awards Second Quarter FY25 (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

2. Recognize City Employees for Milestone Anniversaries in 2025 (Not a project under CEQA 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: Proclamations

3. Proclamation Recognizing Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST) General Manager and CEO Carl Sedoryk for his 25 years at MST (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Consent: Approval of Minutes

4. May 20, 2025 Regular Meeting (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

5. June 3, 2025 Regular Meeting (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) 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 of an Ordinance Adopting an Administrative Remedies Procedure for Challenges to Fees, Charges, and Assessments (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

7. 1st Reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 25, Article 3, Section 25-3.03(d)(3) to Authorize the Assistant City Manager to Delegate Investigation Duties Related to Harassment / Discrimination / Retaliation / Abusive Conduct / Bullying Policy Complaints (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

8. 1st Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the Sidewalk Repair and Maintenance Ordinance to Repeal Requirement for Inspection and Repair Verification Upon Change June 17, 2025
3 in Property Ownership (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
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.

9. Authorize a $1 License Agreement with Sunflower Star Laboratory for Use of East Mooring Blocks for Sunflower Sea Star Research and Restoration (Exempt from CEQA, Article 19, Section 15306, Class 6)

10. Distribute Awards of $199,132 in State of California Department of Housing and Community Development Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) Grant Funds and Authorize the City Manager to Enter into Agreements with Downtown Streets, Inc., Gathering for Women - Monterey, and Community Human Services to Assist Persons Experiencing Homelessness (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

11. Authorize Appropriating $270,227.46 in Donated Funds to the Library Trust Fund Budget (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

12. Authorize the City of Monterey Cemetery El Encinal to Buy Back Cemetery Lot 11 in Block 63 for $2,872.75 payable to Mr. Eugene Balance and Cemetery Lots 36 and 37 in Block 217 for $5,745.50 payable to Mr. Scott Hutchins. (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061

13. Authorize the City Manager to Enter into a New Agreement to Provide Fire and Ambulance Services to the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, and Amend the FY 25-26 Position Control List and FY25-26 Adopted Budget (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Consent: Other

14. Approve the City of Monterey’s Response Letter to the 2024-2025 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury Final Report “Monterey’s Deteriorating Wharves: A Concern for Public Safety” (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 Appearance (Afternoon)
Public Appearance items are on non-routine issues that might stimulate public interest and comments.

15. Proclamation Apologizing to the Dutra Street Indigenous Residents and their Descendants in Monterey and Acknowledgement of Historic Injustices Towards Native American Populations (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) – Continued from June 3, 2025 Recess
Reconvene
June 17, 2025
4 EVENING SESSION AGENDA (Approximately 7:00 p.m.)
No discussion of a new item will be started after 10:30 p.m. unless agreed upon by Council.

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

Evening Session Items
Public Hearing (Evening)
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.)

16. Approve Ruby Falls Fund, LLC’s Request to Extend Expiration of the Vesting Tentative Map for Ocean View Plaza Project Located at 457, 465, 470, 484, 565 and 570 Cannery Row for One (1) Year (Map is a component of and implements a Project previously analyzed in an Environmental Impact Report)
Adjourn to Ocean View Community Services District Meeting: Consent Agenda This is a separate legal body of the City that oversees the operations of the Ocean View Community Services District desalinization plant. All matters listed under Consent Agenda are routine and will be adopted by one motion unless a member of the CSD or the public requests discussion or a separate vote.

17. Receive Ocean View Community Services District Quarterly Report (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Adjourn to City Council Meeting
Public Appearance (Evening)
Public Appearance items are on non-routine issues that might stimulate public interest and comments.

18. Provide Direction on: (1) the Process for Appointments to Boards, Commissions and Committees; (2) Whether to Combine the Architectural Review Committee with the Planning Commission; and (3) Whether to Combine the Historic Preservation Commission with the Museums and Cultural Arts Commission (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) -- Tabled from May 28, 2025

19. Approve Changes to Rental Assistance Program (RAP) Guidelines (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
June 17, 2025
5 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
№11/25
FROM: Hans Uslar, City Manager
Prepared By: Hayley Goodwein, Administrative Assistant
SUBJECT: Recognition of Defense Language Institute Quarterly Joint Service Awards Second Quarter FY25 (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council recognize the winners of the
Second Quarter FY25 Joint Enlisted Board (JEB)
Awards.

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:

It is within the City Council’s scope and authority to
acknowledge and recognized members of the Monterey
community, including members of our Nation’s military
who are stationed at the U.S. Garrison Presidio of
Monterey, located within Monterey’s city limits.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE
ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

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 Agenda Report Highlights
 The recommendation to City
Council is to recognize the winners
of the Second Quarter Fiscal Year
2025 Joint Enlisted Board (JEB)
Awards as a way to highlight and
acknowledge the members of the
Monterey community who are
stationed at the U.S. Army Garrison
Presidio of Monterey.
 The Defense Language Institute,
Foreign Language Center (DLIFLC)
conducts a quarterly Joint Enlisted
Board (JEB) at the Presidio of
Monterey to evaluate the motivation,
knowledge, and leadership potential
of enlisted service members from all
branches across various military
subjects.
 The recognition is part of the longstanding relationship between the City of Monterey and the Presidio of
Monterey.
 The three winners of are all
members of the U.S. Marine Corps.

Date: 6/17/2025
Item No.: 1.

Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 1., Item Page 1, Packet Page 6 №10/24
CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council could choose not to recognize the winners of the Second Quarter FY25 JEB Awards.

DISCUSSION:

The Defense Language Institute, Foreign Language Center (DLIFLC), located in the U.S. Army Garrison Presidio of Monterey, trains military service members in all military branches. DLIFLC conducts a protocol known as the JEB each quarter to assess the motivation, knowledge, and ability to go above and beyond that of the average Soldier, Marine, Sailor, and Airman.

Noncommissioned officers, petty officers, and junior enlisted from each branch compete by displaying their knowledge in a variety of joint service subjects, including History of the Presidio of Monterey and DLIFLC, Current Affairs and World Events, Customs and Courtesies, Uniform Code of Military Justice, Military Leadership, and more. The service member's many weeks of studying and competing in unit boards culminate with an appearance before the DLIFLC JEB.

As part of the City of Monterey’s longstanding relationship with the DLIFLC and Presidio of Monterey, the City Council frequently recognizes and honors these dedicated award recipients.

The Mayor and City Council will recognize the winners of the Second Quarter FY25 DLIFLC Quarterly Joint Service Awards at its meeting on June 17, 2025:
 Lance Corporal Ashton Ellzey, from the U.S. Marine Corps  Sergeant Samuel Garcia, from the U.S. Marine Corps
 Sergeant Jocelyn Matta, from the U.S. Marine Corps
 Seaman Elise Risen, from the U.S. Navy
HU/hg
Attachments: 1. Proclamations
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, 6/17/2025, Item No. 1., Item Page 2, Packet Page 7 Proclamation Honoring
The Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center's Quarterly Joint Service Award Recipient
Lance Corporal Ashton Ellzey
WHEREAS, the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center (DLIFLC) has established the Quarterly Joint Service Noncommissioned Officer/Petty Officer and Junior Enlisted Board; and,
WHEREAS, as a recipient of the Board award, Lance Corporal Ashton Ellzey, has demonstrated extraordinary personal abilities, leadership skills, and knowledge of the history of the Presidio of Monterey and DLIFLC, Chain of Command, World Events, Customs and Courtesies, First Aid, Code of Conduct, Uniform Code of Military Justice, Military Leadership, and the Armed Forces Insignia; and, WHEREAS, the Monterey Community is proud of the Country's service members as well as its outstanding relationship with DLIFLC.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED that I, Tyller Williamson, Mayor of the City of Monterey, on behalf of our City Council and citizens, hereby recognize Lance Corporal Ashton Ellzey, United States Marine Corps, for a job well done, and thank them for their continuing contributions to the Armed Services and to our Nation.

June 17, 2025 ______________________
Tyller Williamson, Mayor
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 1., Item Page 3, Packet Page 8 Proclamation Honoring
The Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center's Quarterly Joint Service Award Recipient
Sergeant Samuel Garcia
WHEREAS, the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center (DLIFLC) has established the Quarterly Joint Service Noncommissioned Officer/Petty Officer and Junior Enlisted Board; and,
WHEREAS, as a recipient of the Board award, Sergeant Samuel Garcia, has demonstrated extraordinary personal abilities, leadership skills, and knowledge of the history of the Presidio of Monterey and DLIFLC, Chain of Command, World Events, Customs and Courtesies, First Aid, Code of Conduct, Uniform Code of Military Justice, Military Leadership, and the Armed Forces Insignia; and, WHEREAS, the Monterey Community is proud of the Country's service members as well as its outstanding relationship with DLIFLC.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED that I, Tyller Williamson, Mayor of the City of Monterey, on behalf of our City Council and citizens, hereby recognize Sergeant Samuel Garcia, United States Marine Corps, for a job well done, and thank them for their continuing contributions to the Armed Services and to our Nation.

June 17, 2025 ______________________
Tyller Williamson, Mayor
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 1., Item Page 4, Packet Page 9 Proclamation Honoring
The Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center's Quarterly Joint Service Award Recipient
Sergeant Jocelyn Matta
WHEREAS, the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center (DLIFLC) has established the Quarterly Joint Service Noncommissioned Officer/Petty Officer and Junior Enlisted Board; and,
WHEREAS, as a recipient of the Board award, Sergeant Jocelyn Matta, has demonstrated extraordinary personal abilities, leadership skills, and knowledge of the history of the Presidio of Monterey and DLIFLC, Chain of Command, World Events, Customs and Courtesies, First Aid, Code of Conduct, Uniform Code of Military Justice, Military Leadership, and the Armed Forces Insignia; and, WHEREAS, the Monterey Community is proud of the Country's service members as well as its outstanding relationship with DLIFLC.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED that I, Tyller Williamson, Mayor of the City of Monterey, on behalf of our City Council and citizens, hereby recognize Sergeant Jocelyn Matta, United States Marine Corps, for a job well done, and thank them for their continuing contributions to the Armed Services and to our Nation.

June 17, 2025 ______________________
Tyller Williamson, Mayor
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 1., Item Page 5, Packet Page 10 Proclamation Honoring
The Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center's Quarterly Joint Service Award Recipient
Seaman Elise Risen
WHEREAS, the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center (DLIFLC) has established the Quarterly Joint Service Noncommissioned Officer/Petty Officer and Junior Enlisted Board; and,
WHEREAS, as a recipient of the Board award, Seaman Elise Risen, has demonstrated extraordinary personal abilities, leadership skills, and knowledge of the history of the Presidio of Monterey and DLIFLC, Chain of Command, World Events, Customs and Courtesies, First Aid, Code of Conduct, Uniform Code of Military Justice, Military Leadership, and the Armed Forces Insignia; and, WHEREAS, the Monterey Community is proud of the Country's service members as well as its outstanding relationship with DLIFLC.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED that I, Tyller Williamson, Mayor of the City of Monterey, on behalf of our City Council and citizens, hereby recognize Seaman Elise Risen, United States Navy, for a job well done, and thank them for their continuing contributions to the Armed Services and to our Nation.

June 17, 2025 ______________________
Tyller Williamson, Mayor
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 1., Item Page 6, Packet Page 11 Council
Agenda Report
№11/25
FROM: Hans Uslar, City Manager
Prepared By: Hayley Goodwein, Administrative Assistant
SUBJECT: Recognize City Employees for Milestone Anniversaries in 2025 (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council recognize City employees for
their milestone anniversaries and retirements for the
second quarter of 2025.

VALUE DRIVERS:

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

It is within the City Council’s scope and authority to
acknowledge and recognize employees of the City at
City Council meetings.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT
(LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

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.

Agenda Report Highlights
 The City Council will recognize
employees for milestone
anniversaries in the second
quarter of 2025.
 Recognizing employees supports
workforce development,
retention, and recruitment efforts.
 Employees with 20, 25, 30, or 35
years of service and retirees with
20+ years of service are honored
as part of this practice. This
particular recognition highlights
numerous 20-year anniversaries.
 The City Council has the
authority to acknowledge
employees at meetings, with no
fiscal implications for this action.
 The City appreciates its
dedicated staff members for their
public service.

Date: 6/17/2025
Item No.: 2.

Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 2., Item Page 1, Packet Page 12 №10/24
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council could choose not to recognize City employees; however, this is not recommended.

DISCUSSION:

The City of Monterey is fortunate to have many retirees and staff who are career employees and have served the community for decades. The Mayor and City Council will recognize City employees who have retired with 20 years of service or greater, in addition to employees who have reached their work anniversary with 20, 25, 30, or 35 years of service.

Milestone Anniversaries in 2025 Second Quarter
 Baltazar Garcia, Parks and Recreation Department, Parks Division, Park Maintenance Leadworker, 20 years of service
 Brendon Hamilton, Fire Department, Fire Engineer, 20 years of service*  Jeffrey Welch, Police Department, Police Sergeant, 20 years of service*  Jose Bonilla, Public Works Departments, Building Maintenance Division, Custodian, 20 years of service
 Michael Nehme, Police Department, Police Services Assistant, 20 years of service The staff members marked with an asterisk (*) have declined to be verbally recognized at the Monterey City Council meeting on June 17, 2025.

HU/hg
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, 6/17/2025, Item No. 2., Item Page 2, Packet Page 13 Council
Agenda Report
№11/25
FROM: Hans Uslar, City Manager
Prepared By: Hayley Goodwein, Administrative Assistant
SUBJECT: Proclamation Recognizing Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST) General Manager and CEO Carl Sedoryk for his 25 years at MST (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council recognize Carl Sedoryk for his 25 years at Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST) as the General
Manager and CEO.

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:

The City of Monterey recognizes and celebrates Carl
Sedoryk and his work over the last 25 years with MST.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE
ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no costs incurred in connection with
supporting this action.

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 that 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 Agenda Report Highlights
 Carl Sedoryk has served MontereySalinas Transit (MST) for 25 years, starting as Assistant General
Manager in 2000 and becoming
General Manager and CEO in 2005.
 He has led numerous infrastructure
and technology initiatives, including
the Marina Transit Exchange, JAZZ
bus rapid transit, RealTime bus
arrival system, and contactless fare
payments.
 Carl implemented popular transit
services like the Monterey Trolley
and expanded routes to south county
cities, enhancing public
transportation access.
 He played a key role in emergency
management coordination during
events like the COVID-19 pandemic,
fires, and floods in Monterey County.
 Carl secured over $200 million in
grant funding for MST projects,
benefiting Monterey County residents
and improving transportation
services.

Date: 6/17/2025
Item No.: 3.

Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 3., Item Page 1, Packet Page 14 №10/24
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 recognize Carl Sedoryk; however, that is not recommended.

DISCUSSION:

Carl Sedoryk began his career with
Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST) in June of
2000 as the Assistant General Manager and
in September 2005 became the General
Manager and CEO. Throughout his career,
Carl has upheld MST’s mission of
advocating and delivering quality public
transportation by becoming a widely
respected advocate for public transportation
services for our communities and
communities nationally.

Over the 25 years Carl has overseen many
MST infrastructure and technology initiatives
like the Marina Transit Exchange, JAZZ bus
rapid transit (BRT), RealTime bus arrival
system, contactless fare payments, and the
future SURF! Busway and BRT. Another of Carl’s innovative transit services is the popular Monterey Trolley, a free service that partners with the City of Monterey that runs from Memorial Day to Labor Day between downtown Monterey and Cannery Row. Carl also implemented new services to south county cities on line 23 Salinas-King City, the Grapevine Express MontereyCarmel Valley, line 55 Monterey-San Jose Express, line 84 King City-Paso Robles, and line 59 Salinas-Gilroy.

During the 25 years, Carl and MST have been called to assist and coordinate with the Monterey County Department of Emergency Management during emergency events. Recently these events included the COVID-19 pandemic and emergency evacuations from fires and floods across Monterey County.

Carl has also been instrumental in securing over $200 million in federal, state, and local grant funding for infrastructure, technology, and service initiatives that benefit the citizens of the City of Monterey and the larger Monterey County.

The City Council congratulates Carl on his milestone anniversary of 25 with MST and his tireless commitment to the customers and communities of Monterey County.

HU/hg
Attachments: 1. Proclamation
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
Carl Sedoryk, Monterey-Salinas Transit CEO leads a tour of an electric bus for mayors from Japan
Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 3., Item Page 2, Packet Page 15 Office of the Mayor
Mcfaterey; California 93940
Proclamation Recognizing
Montery-Salinas Transit (MST) General
Manager and CEO Carl Sedoryk for his
25th Year at MST
Tyller Williamson
WHEREAS, Carl G. Sedoryk began his career with Monterey-Salinas Transit in June 2000 as the Assistant General Manager and transitioned into the role of General Manager and CEO in September 2005; and,
WHEREAS, Carl has overseen many successful MST infrastructure and technology initiatives to better serve passengers and the community including the construction of the Marina Transit Exchange, JAZZ bus rapid transit (BRT), RealTime bus arrival system, Mobility Services Center, contactless fare payments, and future SURF! Busway and BRT; and, WHEREAS, Carl implemented new transit servicesfor the popular Monterey Trolley, sen1ice to south county cities on line 23 Salinas-King City, the Grapevine Express Monterey-Carmel Valley, line 55 Monterey-San Jose Express, line 84 King City-Paso Robles, line 59 SalinasGilroy, military serving lines, and a major overhaul of the entire transit system; and, WHEREAS, during Carl's 25 years, MST has been called up to respond to several emergency events and coordinate with the Monterey County Department of Emergency Management including the CO VID-19 pandemic and emergency evacuations from fires and floods; and, WHEREAS, Carl has secured over $200 million in federal, state, and local grant funding for infrastructure, technology, and service initiatives, managed a budget that contributed $1.5 billion to the local economy through direct and induced spending, and served more than 100 million pa$sengers; and,
WHEREAS, Carl is widely respected as a passionate advocate for public transportation serving our communities and nationally, as a spirited and principled leader, consistently demonstrating a sense of responsibility for the ·well-being ofMST employees and passengers, while championing • •
safety and fairness as core values; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT I, Tyller Williamson Mayor of the City of Monterey, on behalf of the City Council and citizens, congratulate Carl Sedoryk on his milestone 25 years of service to MST and his tireless commitment to the customers and communities of Monterey County.

Dated: June 2025
Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 3., Item Page 3, Packet Page 16

MINUTES

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING

CITY OF MONTEREY
Tuesday, May 20, 2025
4:00 PM 7:00 PM
COUNCIL CHAMBER, 580 PACIFIC ST.

MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
Councilmembers

Present: Barber*, Garcia (left at 6:03 p.m.), Rasch, Smith, Williamson

Absent: None
* Attended remotely in the evening session 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, Police Chief, Parks and Recreation Director, Human Resources Director, Library & Museums Director, Public Works Director, City Clerk, Capital Programs Coordinator, Engineering Assistant, Parking Superintendent, Recreation Manager, Acting Assistant Fire Chief, Assistant Human Resources Director, Parks Supervisor, Planning Manager, Senior Public Works Inspector, General Services Superintendent, Streets & Utilities Operations Manager, Deputy Public Works Director/City Engineer, Administrative Assistants (Public Works Engineering) (2), General Services Field Operations Manager, Administrative Assistant (Recreation), Recreation Coordinators (2), Accounting Specialist (Parking), Management Analyst (Parks and Recreation), Senior Building Inspector, Harbor Marina Assistant, Senior Administrative Analyst (Fire), Acting Harbormaster, Sign Craftsworker, Recreation Supervisor, Division Chief (Cooper), Administrative Assistant (Library & Museums), Senior Engineer, Chief of Inspection Services/Building Official, Street Maintenance Lead Worker, Field Sports Coordinator, Recreation Specialist, Park Operations Manager, Park Maintenance Worker, Fitness Supervisor, Aquatics Coordinator, Guest Services Specialist (Monterey Sports Center), Fitness Assistant and Specialty Class Instructor, Senior Facility Specialist, Senior Aquatics Specialist, Assistant Parking Superintendent, Harbor Security Worker, Engineering Projects Manager, Administrative Services Technician, Building Maintenance Supervisor, Parking Superintendent, Parking Enforcement Supervisor, Building Maintenance Craftsworker, Parking Enforcement Officers (5), Parking Services Representative 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 4:00 p.m. City Clerk Klein called the roll with the Council present as indicated above.

Date: 6/17/2025
Item No.: 4.

Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 1, Packet Page 17 City Council Minutes May 20, 2025
2 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) Action: Congratulated and recognized Parks and Recreation Director Larson City Manager Uslar spoke in celebration of Parks and Recreation Director Larson's tenure at the City, and Parks and Recreation Director Larson made remarks thanking her family and colleagues for their partnership over the years.

Public comment was received from Wendy Brickman, who thanked Ms. Larson for her dedication to the City, and Tom Reeves, who commended Ms. Larson for her kindness and hard work.

The Council discussed Ms. Larson and complimented her on her excellent work, dedicated public service, professionalism, listening skills, and kindness, and the impact she had made on others during her years working for the City.

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) Action: Recognized National Public Works Week
Mayor Williamson read the proclamation, and Public Works Director Renny with Sign Craftsworker Huerta, Assistant Parking Superintendent Bradley, and Harbor Security Worker Dalton jointly gave the staff presentation celebrating National Public Works Week.

Public comment was received from: Wendy Brickman, and Kelly Violini of Monterey Fairgrounds, who both commended Public Works staff.

General Public Comments
Public comment on non-agendized matters was received from: Wendy Brickman, Kelly Violini of Monterey Fairgrounds, Devon Wardlow of Embarc, Taryn Cadena, and Nina Beety.

Consent Agenda
The Council requested to pull Items 6, 7, and 11. A member of the public requested to pull Items 6, 9, 10, 11, and 13. Public comment on the Consent Items was not received.

On a motion by Councilmember Smith, seconded by Councilmember Barber, and carried by the following vote, the City Council approved the Consent Agenda except Items 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 13:

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

4. May 6, 2025 Regular Meeting (Not a project under CEQA per Article 20 Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5 Section 15061)
Action: Approved
Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 2, Packet Page 18 City Council Minutes May 20, 2025
3 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*** Action: Adopted Resolution No. 25-039 C.S.

Consent: Ordinances

6. 1st 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) Action: Pulled from Consent; Passed ordinance to a second reading The Council stated that it was important for the public to receive a presentation on the matter.

Division Chief Cooper gave a verbal staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions with input from City Attorney Davi.

Public comment was received from Nina Beety, who questioned the benefit to the City and asked whether the City was required to adopt the updated Fire Hazard Severity Zones.

On question, Division Chief Cooper confirmed that the City was required to adopt the zones.

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

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

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)
Action: Pulled from Consent; Adopted Ordinance No. 3703 C.S. (3-2, Councilmembers Rasch and Smith voting no)
Public comment was received from Nina Beety, who urged the Council not to pass the ordinance.

The Council expressed the desire not to pass the ordinance, citing current fiscal difficulties and a recent increase for the Mayor and Council within the last couple of years, and suggesting that waiting a few more years would make sense. It was stated that the current compensation and benefits were very generous, that a small increase in compensation was unlikely to motivate more individuals to run for office, and that community members were not in support of the increase.

On the other hand, in favor of the ordinance, the Council expressed that increasing the Mayor and Council's compensation would encourage participation from residents of diverse and financially less privileged backgrounds that could otherwise struggle to serve, and that establishing a process now for future increases would avoid the potential to wait decades for adjustments, as had happened previously. It was stated that it should not take a longer period of time to update compensation and it was noted that waiting longer periods of time could result in greater increases that could alarm constituents. It was noted that the proposed increase was relatively small and would be unlikely to affect the budget in any significant way, and that it would go into effect in Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 3, Packet Page 19 City Council Minutes May 20, 2025
4 2027 thereby affecting the Mayor and Council in place at that time and not necessarily this particular group of members.

On a motion by Councilmember Barber, seconded by Councilmember Garcia, and carried by the following vote, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 3703 C.S.:

AYES: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Williamson
NOES: 2 COUNCILMEMBERS: Rasch, Smith
Consent: Resolutions

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)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 25-040 C.S.

9. 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) Action: Pulled from Consent; Adopted Resolution No. 25-041 C.S.

City Manager Uslar gave a brief verbal presentation. Public comment was received from Nina Beety, who alleged that CTC had a bias and conflict of interest due to its involvement in the wireless industry.

On a motion by Councilmember Barber, seconded by Councilmember Smith, and carried by the following vote, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 25-041 C.S.:

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

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) Action: Pulled from Consent; Adopted Resolution No. 25-042 C.S. (4-1, Councilmember Rasch voting no)
City Manager Uslar gave a brief verbal presentation.

Public comment was received from Nina Beety, who said that the work should be done in-house and that Rincon Consultants had a bias toward wireless applicants.

The Council discussed the matter. The opinion was expressed that the City should do the work inhouse and should be more thorough in looking at the matters for which the City contracts out, with concern expressed about a potential loss of local knowledge and self-reliance when relying on consultants instead of staff. On the other hand, it was stated that the City needed to have specific expertise on standby, and clarification was provided around the budgeting process for on-call consultant services.

On question, City Manager Uslar said that the wireless ordinance would need amending in order to have wireless facility permit application processes done in-house and that at the time the Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 4, Packet Page 20 City Council Minutes May 20, 2025
5 ordinance was adopted it had been explained to both the public and the Council that due to the complexity of the ordinance the City would have to rely on consultants. City Manager Uslar and Planning Manager Hill explained that the City would only be required to use the contract if wireless facility applications were to be received, and confirmed that the costs of the contract would be passed along to any applicant(s).

On a motion by Mayor Williamson, seconded by Councilmember Smith, and carried by the following vote, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 25-042 C.S.:

AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Smith, Williamson NOES: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Rasch

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)
Action: Pulled from Consent; Adopted Resolution No. 25-043 C.S.

The Council said that members of the community had misunderstood the matter and interpreted it falsely, believing that a total of $9M would be spent by the City, but that actually the contracts would only be used on an as-needed basis, and the costs could be charged back to applicants.

City Manager Uslar and Community Development Director Cole provided further context on both the City's use of specialized consultants to support work in specialized matters, which they explained were recovered through developer costs or recovered through the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) or Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program (NCIP), and on the variation of expertise required to produce specialized Planning reports. It was stated that the Council should discuss the work plan and the projects.

Public comment was received from Nina Beety, who asked whether in-house costs were also recouped and expressed concerns about the firms and their work, and Lori Mazzuca, who expressed concern about the quality of consuiltant work and suggested the City look to in-house employment and artificial intelligence (AI) as a solution.

The Council discussed the matter. Concern was expressed about the process and outsourcing. It was suggested to think about needs for specialty expertise from a regional collaboration perspective. It was suggested that City staff prepare a list of the roles from which they sought assistance from contractors, in the interest of transparency. It was stated that it would be helpful to have more information in the agenda report for matters such as this, such as the criteria and scoring used for requests for proposals (RFPs). In terms of City staff's capacity, it was stated that it was understood and agreed that the current City staff was at its limit.

On a motion by Councilmember Smith, seconded by Councilmember Barber, and carried by the following vote, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 25-043 C.S.:

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

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 Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 5, Packet Page 21 City Council Minutes May 20, 2025
6 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) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 25-044 C.S.

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)
Action: Pulled from Consent; Adopted Resolution No. 25-045 C.S.

Public comment was received from Nina Beety, who said this was another example of more outsourcing of staff work and asked for its justification.

The Council stated that the service agreements were used only when needed and that expenses were recovered. It was noted that the rigorous and changing requirements of the modern building codes for various types of buildings helped to create the necessity to augment the City's abilities with those of a qualified contractor.

City Manager Uslar explained that the City had run two different recruitments for a plan checker and had not been able to hire one, and that the City therefore needed a consultant for these services in order to complement staff.

On a motion by Mayor Williamson, seconded by Councilmember Rasch, and carried by the following vote, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 25-045 C.S.:

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

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) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 25-046 C.S.

15. 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) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 25-047 C.S.

16. 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)) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 25-048 C.S.

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) Action: Appointed negotiators Cole and Aldrete
Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 6, Packet Page 22 City Council Minutes May 20, 2025
7 End of Consent Agenda
Councilmember Garcia left the meeting at 6:03 p.m.

Afternoon Session Items
Public Hearing (Afternoon)

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) Action: Received report
Human Resources Director Neal gave the staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions.

A verbal presentation was received from General Employees of Monterey (GEM) representatives Laura Pratt and Shay Balesteri, who expressed concerns about the City's hiring practices, methods and alleged lack of motivation for filling vacant positions, and the resulting impacts on employees' morale and productivity. Specific allegations included: that GEM had many vacant fulltime positions, some unfilled for years with no recruitment efforts; that a fire vehicle maintenance position added to the 2024 budget had never been filled, with the City instead having outsourced the work at higher costs; that the Public Employee Relations Board (PERB) had issued a complaint against the City after GEM's filing of an unfair labor practice charge against the City for outsourcing work without consulting the union; that lower-level employees were taking on higherlevel responsibilities without proper pay due to unfilled senior roles; and that the City’s "hiring chill" resulted in reduced internal promotions and recruitment efforts. It was stated that the City and its residents would be better served by making a strong effort to fill vacant positions and when possible using promotional recruitments.

Public comment was not received.

The Council discussed the matter. On question, Human Resources Director Neal said that in the current fiscal year 32% of recruitments had been promotional, and the Council requested that this detail be included in the annual report in the future.

The Council requested more transparency about when positions were being intentionally held vacant, and said that a discussion about outsourcing was in order, citing a feeling of vulnerability associated with outside parties doing important work such as repairing fire trucks. On question, City Manager Uslar said that outsourcing of fire engine repairs had been done in order to complete the repairs expeditiously. City Attorney Davi expressed concern that the discussion about fire engine repairs was straying from the agendized topic and requested that this particular line of conversation end.

The Council expressed interest in holding a deeper conversation about the City's use of contractors, and about when contractors were appropriate to perform City work instead of inhouse staff members. It was asked whether a solution to the need for occasional niche expertise could be to collaborate with regional partners.

Mayor Williamson said that he would continue Items 19 and 20 to the evening session.

Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 7, Packet Page 23 City Council Minutes May 20, 2025
8 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)
Action: Continued to Evening Session; Adopted Resolution Nos. 25-049, 25-050, and 25-051 C.S. (4-0-1, Councilmember Garcia absent)
This item was heard first in the evening session. Community Development Director Cole gave the staff presentation and announced that neither she nor the City Clerk had received any protests.

Public comment was not received.

On a motion by Councilmember Smith, seconded by Councilmember Barber, and carried by the following roll call vote, the City Council adopted Resolution Nos. 25-049, 25-050, and 25-051 C.S.:

AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Rasch, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Garcia
Public Appearance (Afternoon)

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) Action: Continued to Evening Session; Adopted Resolution No. 25-051 C.S. (4-0-1, Councilmember Garcia absent)
This item was heard second in the evening session. Engineering Assistant II Garcia gave the staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions.

Public comment was received from: Esther Malkin, of Del Monte Grove/Laguna Grande Neighborhood Association, who requested that the City review traffic safety on Casanova Avenue and consider placing a crosswalk there; and Chinyere Ogbonna, who asked whether the safety of the crosswalk at Cannery Row and Hoffman Avenue could be reevaluated.

On question from the Council, Engineering Assistant II Garcia explained that sidewalk placement recommendations were often covered by the General Plan and that suggestions for individual crosswalks would be handled by staff according to the policy.

On a motion by Councilmember Smith, seconded by Councilmember Barber, and carried by the following roll call vote, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 25-051 C.S.:

AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Rasch, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Garcia
Adjourn to Closed Session
Mayor Williamson said that Items 21 and 22 would be continued to the special meeting on May 23, 2025. Public comment was not received on the closed session.

Closed Session (Afternoon)

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 Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 8, Packet Page 24 City Council Minutes May 20, 2025
9 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)
Action: Continued to May 23, 2025 special meeting

22. 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) 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
Action: Continued to May 23, 2025 special meeting

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
Action: On a roll call vote of 4-0-1, with Councilmember Garcia absent, confidential direction was given to labor negotiators

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)
Action: In the matter of Caniglia v. the City, on a roll call vote of 4-0-1, with Councilmember Garcia absent, confidential direction was given to legal counsel; In the matter of Perkins v. the City, on a roll call vote of 3-0-1-1, with Councilmember Garcia absent and Councilmember Smith recused, confidential direction was given to legal counsel
Recess
The Council recessed at 7:12 p.m.

Reconvene
The Council reconvened at 7:26 p.m.

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

Mayor Williamson announced that Councilmember Barber was attending the evening session remotely by teleconference.

Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 9, Packet Page 25 City Council Minutes May 20, 2025
10 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.

Pledge of Allegiance
Councilmember Rasch led the Pledge.

General Public Comments, Continued
Public comment on non-agendized matters was received from Keith Rootsaert.

Announcements from Closed Session
Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira reported out from the closed session as indicated in the actions recorded for closed session items 21, 22, 23, and 24, above.

The Council then took up Items 19 and 20 that had been continued from the afternoon session.

Evening Session Items
Public Appearance (Evening)

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)
Action: Received presentation, Provided direction
This item followed Item 20 in the evening session. Finance Director King and City Manager Uslar gave the staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions. Topics of conversation during the Council's question period included the suggestions to increase the City's sales tax and to utilize an interactive tool that would allow public interaction with the process so residents could see what impact decisions would have; questions about what to bond, including a statement that bonding would make sense for a public safety facility; how to free up revenue to make it available every year; use of an incremental approach in infrastructure repairs; and what a better formula would be for the Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program (NCIP). During the question period, Councilmember Smith left the Chamber from 9:12 p.m. to 9:13 p.m.

Public comment was received from: Lori Mazzuca, who spoke in opposition to reducing the NCIP allocation or repurposing its funds for debt service, and said that special purpose funds should require voter approval; Curt Tipton, who spoke in support of increasing Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) without including NCIP's portion in the increase; Tom Reeves, who suggested removing self-funding funds like sewer and stormwater from discussion and proposed exploring a Charter amendment to allow NCIP funds to be spent on debt-financed projects; Corey Madden of the Monterey Museum of Art, who suggested the creation of an arts and cultural district that would extend down Calle Principal; and Keith Rootsaert, who stressed the importance of addressing climate change and sea level rise.

The Council discussed the subjects outlined by City staff. Regarding rights-of-way infrastructure, the Council requested a detailed breakdown of what types of projects could be funded by Measure S versus other revenue sources. Regarding parking infrastructure, concern was expressed about using parking funds for other uses than parking infrastructure needs. Regarding harbor Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 10, Packet Page 26 City Council Minutes May 20, 2025
11 infrastructure, it was requested to learn more about when funding decisions would be made on an existing grant application for Wharf II repairs, and whether Wharf II repair funding could be provided, and work performed, incrementally over a five-year period without including it in a potential bond measure.

Regarding existing buildings, facilities, and ADA Transition Plan needs, the importance was stressed of fully implementing the ADA Transition Plan and ensuring accessibility beyond minimum requirements while balancing costs, with the goal to make Monterey a highly accessible tourist destination. There was discussion about reducing costs by remodeling the existing public safety (Police and Fire) facilities rather than building new. Clarity was requested on the Monterey Public Library's needs, specifically for more information and cost estimates for essential upgrades or remodeling versus a major expansion. Regarding other infrastructure needs and new facilities, the Council identified a public safety facility as a high priority and said that robust community engagement was needed to determine residents' willingness to support a tax measure to fund it.

Discussion about internal funding mechanisms included interest expressed in considering restructuring NCIP funding, including to incorporate the ability to bond against consistent revenue sources while maintaining community engagement; considering the sale of any assets that would be feasible and would generate sufficient profit; and in learning more about Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD) and Community Revitalization Investment Area (CRIA) options and how they could offset expendtures from the CIP. Discussion about external funding mechanisms included interest expressed in increasing the sales tax; considering Curt Tipton's proposal for increasing the TOT; and using bond measures to fund major infrastructure projects, with a focus on identifying consistent revenue sources to anchor debt obligations. The importance was emphasized of planning for the renewal of Measure S following its sunset in 2027, and potentially expanding its scope to include infrastructure funding. It was stressed that it was crucial to engage with the community to learn how they feel about funding options and the Council's priorities.

Requests for further information, in addition to those notated above, were made by the Council for:
a list of city-owned buildings and assets, including their estimated value, to explore potential sales or repurposing; the City Manager to identify areas where costs could be reduced to address budget shortfalls; estimates of potential revenue from funding sources such as EIFDs and CRIAs; estimates for remodeling existing facilities like the public safety center and library instead of building new ones; detailed estimates for immediate and long-term needs for the police station, library, and other facilities; timing of when Measure G and Measure S would sunset and when their potential extensions would come to the Council for consideration; and greater transparency, including more data and spreadsheets, to be made available to the public to give them the ability to dig in and better understand the City’s costs.

City Manager Uslar thanked the Council for their input and said that it helped to begin to see and formulate a path forward.

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)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 25-052 C.S. (4-0-1, Councilmember Garcia absent) Recreation Manager Leon gave the staff presentation together with Beth Matz of BFS Landscape Architects, and they answered Councilmembers' questions. During the presentation, Councilmember Smith left the Chamber from 10:50 p.m. to 10:51 p.m.

Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 11, Packet Page 27 City Council Minutes May 20, 2025
12 Public comment was received from: Mike Dawson and Lee Whitney, who both spoke in favor of the preferred concept and against biking at the site; Daniel Armendariz, who said that there was water in wells at the site and suggested that the City look into its water rights; and Esther Malkin, who asserted that when the City had acquired the site, a representative from the County had stated it could be used for housing but that the Council had chosen not to look into the possibility.

City Attorney Davi provided historic and legal context as to why the property could only be used for parkland purposes in perpetuity.

Despite the legal guidance, interest was expressed in exploring housing opportunities on a small portion of the land but it was acknowledged that there was a lack of support from colleagues and that challenges posed by the deed restriction would be significant. Regarding interest by some in allowing bicycles on the land, it was noted that City staff and consultants recommended against it due to environmental concerns and that nearby regional parks already provided plentiful biking opportunities. Support was expressed for a phased approach to developing the land for hiking and preserving it as open space, with funding and implementation to come later, including developing ADA-accessible trails as feasible to ensure inclusivity. The importance of prioritizing fire safety and fuel management in the meanwhile was emphasized.

On a motion by Councilmember Rasch, seconded by Councilmember Smith, and carried by the following roll call vote, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 25-052 C.S.:

AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Rasch, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Garcia
Council Comments
Mayor Williamson said he would shortly be visiting Monterey's Sister City of Isola delle Femmine, in Sicily, Italy, and would share more when he returned.

City Manager Reports
None made.

Adjournment
The Council adjourned at 11:43 p.m. in memory of former Councilmember Alvin Andrus, who served the City from 1979 to 1983 and had passed away on April 19, 2025 in Washington State.

Respectfully Submitted, Approved,
Clementine Bonner Klein Tyller Williamson
City Clerk Mayor
Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 12, Packet Page 28

MINUTES

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING

CITY OF MONTEREY
Tuesday, June 3, 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, Fire Chief, Library & Museums Director, Public Works Director, City Clerk, Engineering Assistant, Recreation Manager, Acting Assistant Fire Chief, Sports Center Manager, Division Chief, Assistant Police Chief, Housing Manager, Deputy Public Works Director/City Engineer, Library and Museums Director, Assistant Library Director, Police Lieutenant, Senior Engineer, Assistant Human Resources Director, Chief Information Officer, Streets & Utilities Operations Manager, Finance Analyst, Facility Worker (Monterey Sports Center) 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
Vice Mayor Garcia called the meeting to order at 4:01 p.m. City Clerk Klein called the roll with the Council present as indicated above.

Mayor Williamson confirmed that he could hear the meeting proceedings, gave a brief description of the circumstances relating to his need to appear remotely pursuant to the just cause clause (travel on official business), and stated that nobody over the age of 18 was present in the room with him during the meeting.

Presentations (Afternoon)

1. Recognize June 2025 as Pride Month (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Recognized June 2025 as Pride Month
Mayor Williamson read the proclamation and made brief remarks.

Public comment was received from: Ruth Krotzer, who asked when there would be a month of recognition for veterans; and Melanie Zaragoza of Monterey Peninsula Pride, who explained the tradition, meaning, and importance of Pride Month. During public comments, technical and sound issues caused the Council to take a recess from 4:19 p.m. to 4:32 p.m. When the sound was Date: 6/17/2025
Item No.: 5.

Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 5., Item Page 1, Packet Page 29 City Council Minutes June 3, 2025
2 restored, comment was received from: Lori Mazzuca, who remarked on the sound issues; Lorna Moffat and Tammy Jennings, who both expressed satisfaction with the proclamation but said that other groups should also be recognized; Cicada Swarm, who noted the months that were already dedicated to the other groups that had been mentioned; and Stephanie Spross, who spoke in favor of the proclamation, thanking the Council for the recognition.

Melanie Zaragoza of Monterey Peninsula Pride was invited to say a few words regarding the proclamation. She spoke briefly and reflected on the feeling of harm that her community had experienced with recent events in Monterey City Council meetings.

General Public Comments
Public comment on non-agendized matters was received from Erica Walker, Nina Beety, Lorna Moffat, and Bryan Rosen.

Consent Agenda
Public comment on the Consent Items was not received.

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

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

2. 2nd 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) Action: Adopted Ordinance No. 3704 C.S.

Consent: Resolutions

3. Establish the 2025-26 Appropriation Limit (Gann Initiative) (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 25-054 C.S.

4. Authorize the Purchase of 31 Rugged Network Communication Switches From Western Systems, Inc. in the Amount of $94,038.88 (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 25-055 C.S.

Consent: Other

5. Appoint Agency Negotiators for Conference with Real Property Negotiators Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8; Property: 45 Municipal Wharf No. 2; Agency Negotiators: Kimberly Cole and Janna Aldrete; Negotiating Parties: Joseph Cricchio III (Joe's); Antonino Favaloro and Anthony Favaloro (Café Solé); Miguel Melendez (Archie's Eatery); Mohamad Tabib (El Tabib & Sons, Inc.) 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 Negotiators Cole and Aldrete
Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 5., Item Page 2, Packet Page 30 City Council Minutes June 3, 2025
3 6. Appoint Agency Negotiators for Conference with Real Property Negotiators Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8; Property: 1400 Veterans Drive (Veteran's Memorial Park Cabin); Agency Negotiators: Kimberly Cole and Janna Aldrete; Negotiating Parties:

Chris Tautphaeus; Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment for New License Agreement (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Appointed Agency Negotiators Cole and Aldrete
End of Consent Agenda
Afternoon Session Items
Public Hearing (Afternoon)

7. Open a Public Hearing to Receive Protests Related to the Collection of Sewer Service Charges on the Property Tax Roll for Fiscal Year 2025-26, Approve the Annual Rate Report of Sewer Charges for FY 2025-26, and Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the Collection of FY 2025-26 Sewer Charges on the Tax Roll if a Majority Protest Does Not Exist (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 25-056 C.S.

City Engineer/Deputy Public Works Director Easterling gave a verbal staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions.

Public comment was received from Tammy Jennings, who asked a question, and from an unidentified person who opposed placing the sewer service charges on the property tax roll, citing an alleged lack of transparency.

On question from the Council, City Engineer/Deputy Public Works Director Easterling said that the rates were not being raised through this action and had been approved the previous year. City Manager Uslar and Mayor Williamson explained that property tax payments could be paid as annual, biannual, or month-to-month payments with a service fee. Mayor Williamson said that there was the same level of transparency provided through this charge collection process.

City Clerk Klein performed the count of written protests and announced that there was not a majority protest.

The Council noted that it was possible that having the bill on the tax roll might result in less of an impact to tenants. It was stated that this process would be beneficial to customers already, and would continue to be if in the future Monterey One Water placed its portion of the charges onto the tax roll as well.

On a motion by Mayor Williamson, seconded by Councilmember Rasch, and carried by the following roll-call vote, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 25-056 C.S.:

AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 5., Item Page 3, Packet Page 31 City Council Minutes June 3, 2025
4 Public Appearance (Afternoon)

8. Approve Installation of Rainbow Crosswalk(s) to Express the City's Support of the LGBTQ+ Community and Update the Crosswalk Policy (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) -- continued from May 23, 2025
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 25-057 C.S., as amended to approve the installation of one rainbow crosswalk at the entrance to Alvarado Street at Pearl Street, whether permanent or temporary, contingent on the City's receipt of sufficient private contributions (4-1, Councilmember Smith voting no) Management Analyst Ackermann gave a brief verbal staff presentation. Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira provided an update regarding the Old Monterey Business Association's input about the matter of a potential rainbow crosswalk in their district, saying that individual feedback had been fairly split and that the association had deferred the matter to the City Council for a decision.

Based on the number of people expressing interest in speaking, Vice Mayor Garcia said that he would limit the public comment to one minute per speaker. The Council discussed various factors and Vice Mayor Garcia settled on one minute per person.

City Manager Uslar said that staff had conducted a tally of written public comments, which had come out at 143 individuals expressing support for the installation of a rainbow crosswalk, and 94 individuals expressing opposition.

Public comment in favor of the proposal was received from: Cora Panturad, Cheryl Fraenzl of the Diversity Center, Vanessa Diffenbaugh, Briana Sanford, Brian Sanford, Nic Coury, Fable Moncure, Christa Camarillo, Suzy Worcester, Jackie Atchison of Arts Council for Monterey County, Paul Richmond, Rebecca Perry, Dr. Ri Chang, Kyndace Safa, Melanie Zaragoza, Sarah Epperson, Taryn Cadena, Ellen Martin, Bill Lewis, Michel McMahan, Meganne Yeoman, Chinyere Ogbonna, Stephanie Spross, and Beth Walker. Reasons given for supporting the proposal included the importance of: visibility and representation, acknowledging communities that have been marginalized, the mental health and safety benefits it could provide, demonstrating inclusivity, fostering public art and community pride, and preventing bullying and suicide. It was stressed that rainbow crosswalks were common in other cities, and that a generous amount of private funding had been collected for the installation of one in Monterey.

Public comment in opposition to the proposal was received from: Two different unidentified speakers, Fred Menezes, David Canepa, Cathy Giammanco, Heidi Sullivan, Vicki Nohrden, Carrie Griffin, Carina Powers, Katrina Hintze, Ruth Krotzer, Graziella Cardinalli, Lorna Moffat, Nina Beety, Bryan Rosen, and Tammy Jennings. Reasons given in opposition included: an allegation that the Mayor had a conflict of interest due to his membership in the Peninsula Pride organization, safety concerns, budget concerns, personal religious beliefs, and an assertion that other groups should also get consideration for crosswalks. Concern was expressed that the matter was a distraction from important City issues, and suggestions were made for alternative ways to acknowledge the LGBTQ+ community.

Public comment that was neutral was received from Rick Aldinger, who said that any special interest group crosswalk should be funded with private funds. During public comments, Councilmember Barber left the Chamber from 5:52 p.m. to 5:55 p.m, Councilmember Smith left from 6:02 p.m. to 6:04 p.m., and Councilmember Rasch left from 6:04 p.m. to 6:06 p.m.

The Council discussed the matter. It was stated that the Council had done a decent job of trying to find middle ground.

Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 5., Item Page 4, Packet Page 32 City Council Minutes June 3, 2025
5 A motion was introduced by Mayor Williamson, and seconded by Councilmember Barber, to approve installation of a rainbow crosswalk at mouth of Alvarado St., whether permanent or temporary, contingent on private contributions and on staff finding the design consistent with the established standards, and adopt Resolution No. 25-057 C.S. approving the crosswalk policy.

On question about any potential conflict of interest held by the Mayor due to his participation in Peninsula Pride, City Attorney Davi said that she had reviewed public comments and other information and that they had not given rise to any conflict of interest because in reviewing and deciding on the matter the Council would be acting in its legislative capacity, where it was expected that individuals would have strong views and opinions and exercise the power of their office for the benefit of the public. She provided plentiful examples of other examples of legislative acts that she described as expressions of government speech.

On question, City Manager Uslar said that the initial installation would last about one year and that for legal and safety reasons, City staff would need to do the painting.

The Council discussed the motion.

In opposition to the motion, it was stated that crosswalks should be for safety and not public art. It was stated that voting in opposition would not express any derogatory feelings toward the community. Appreciation was expressed that staff had made the effort to reach out to the business communities. Concern was expressed about ensuring fairness for other groups who might request recognition. It was expressed that there was a lot of community feedback and that this was appreciated.

In support of the motion, reference was made to discussion and comments made by the Council at the May 23, 2025 special meeting and it was stated that members' views in favor remained consistent. The importance of inclusivity was stressed. It was noted that allowing the rainbow crosswalk was a government speech policy by the Council, not a free speech policy for future proposals or considerations of crosswalk art.

It was stated by the Council that the process had been flawed and ideally would have been done with more time for the community to have more input. It was stated that the motion could be supported because it was for one crosswalk paid for with private funds.

On question, City Manager Uslar provided information for how the Pride organization and any other interested organization would be able to contribute financially.

The motion passed by the following roll-call vote:

AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Williamson NOES: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Smith

9. Proclamation Apologizing to the Esselen and Rumsien First Peoples in Monterey and Acknowledgement of Historic Injustices Towards Native American Populations (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Continued to June 17, 2025
On the recommendation of City Manager Uslar, the Council took up Item 9 before Item 8. He said that he recommended that the Council continue the item to June 17, 2025 in order to make a few more edits to the proclamation.

Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 5., Item Page 5, Packet Page 33 City Council Minutes June 3, 2025
6 Public comment was received by Rudy Rosales, tribal leader, who thanked the Council for the apology and for being willing to continue the item to the next meeting for the purposes of making minor tweaks to the document; Melanie Zaragoza, who spoke in favor of the proclamation; Ruth Krotzer, who asked about recognition of other ethnicities; Nina Beety, who said the document did not go into sufficient depth regarding the devastating harm done to indigenous peoples and their cultures and traditions; and Louise Ramirez of the Ohlone Costanoan Esselen Nation, who spoke about tribal and family lineages and expressed interest in participating in edits to the proclamation.

During public comments, Councilmember Smith left the Chamber from 5:14 p.m. to 5:15 p.m.

On a motion by Councilmember Barber, seconded by Councilmember Rasch, and carried by the following roll-call vote, the City Council continued the matter to June 17, 2025:

AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
Adjourn to Closed Session
Public comment on the closed session was not received. Vice Mayor Garcia said that the evening session would start around 7:15 p.m.

Closed Session (Afternoon)

10. Closed Session Conference with Real Property Negotiators Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8
Property: 1400 Veterans Drive (Veteran's Memorial Park Cabin) Agency Negotiators: Kimberly Cole and Janna Aldrete
Negotiating Parties: Chris Tautphaeus
Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment for New License Agreement (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: On a unanimous roll call vote, confidential direction was given to property negotiators

11. Closed Session Conference with Real Property Negotiators Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8;
Property: 45 Municipal Wharf No. 2; Agency Negotiators: Kimberly Cole and Janna Aldrete;
Negotiating Parties: Joseph Cricchio III (Joe's); Antonino Favaloro and Anthony Favaloro (Café Solé); Miguel Melendez (Archie's Eatery); Mohamad Tabib (El Tabib & Sons, Inc.); 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: On a unanimous roll call vote, confidential direction was given to property negotiators

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

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

2. Paul Soares v. City of Monterey (United States District Court, Northern District of California Case No. 24-CV-05131-EJD)
Action: On a unanimous roll call vote, confidential direction was given to legal counsel
Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 5., Item Page 6, Packet Page 34 City Council Minutes June 3, 2025
7 Recess
The Council recessed at 7:21 p.m. and reconvened at 7:31 p.m.

EVENING SESSION AGENDA: 7:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m.

Pledge of Allegiance – Councilmember Barber led the Pledge.

General Public Comments, Continued – None received.

Announcements from Closed Session
Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira reported out from the closed session as indicated in the actions recorded for closed session items 10, 11, and 12, above.

Evening Session Items
Public Appearance (Evening)

13. Adopt the Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-26 Operating Budget and Adopt a Resolution for the FY 2025-26 Salary Schedules for Regular Full-Time, Regular Part-Time and PartTime/Seasonal Employees Effective July 1, 2025 (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Adopted Resolution Nos. 25-058 and 25-059 C.S., as amended to provide $50,000 for the Special Events Support Program (SESP), set the salary for Police Recruit to 15% below the first step for Police Officer, set the salary for Reserve Police Officer to be in line with the salary for Police Officer, and to adjust MEMEA positions as approved in closed session
Finance Director King gave the staff presentation and noted a handful of recommended changes relating to salaries and positions that she asked the Council to make in an eventual motion. She answered Councilmembers' questions with additional input from Public Works Director Renny.

The Council expressed interest in discussing further, on a different occasion, their expectations for the future Economic Development Manager position.

Public comment was received from: Tom Reeves, who asked questions; and Esther Malkin, who said that the priority for the economic developer's focus should be the North Fremont area.

On question, City Manager Uslar explained the City had long ago made a determination not to hire employees on a contract basis, in order to ensure that all employees receive the same benefits and equitable treatment. He noted that NCIP funding was not included in the table of 2025-26 CIP project funding because NCIP had not yet allocated funding to CIP projects. Finance Analyst Olsen answered that the listing of special revenue fund salaries included staff who were permanently assigned to the NCIP fund.

On question, Public Works Director Renny provided an update on the status of the North Fremont Rule 20A undergrounding project. She said that there was not yet a clear timeline because Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) would be designing the project and would not begin this phase until they had gotten through other projects on their list. She assured the Council that City staff had a good relationship with the PG&E team and had been actively in touch with them to monitor progress.

She added that PG&E was working with other cities that might not be ready to implement their projects, and that if a few other projects fell through then the City’s project would move up in priority. She explained that the City needed to build up its funding in order to cover the difference between the PG&E credits and total cost so that it did not lose the credits.

Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 5., Item Page 7, Packet Page 35 City Council Minutes June 3, 2025
8 The Council discussed the use of contract services to support City staff in specific matters due to staffing shortages, and it was explained that when needed it was crucial to have these contracts in place.

On question, City Manager Uslar said that keeping the Special Event Support Program (SESP) active and funded was a decision for the Council. He provided context on the staff recommendation regarding First Night Monterey, explaining that the program consumed a lot of resources from the City and that most money was returned to the City in the form of revenues such as Monterey Conference Center rental fees.

A motion was introduced by Councilmember Barber, and seconded by Councilmember Rasch, to adopt Resolution Nos. 25-058 and 25-059 C.S.

A potential friendly amendment to the motion was broached that would keep the SESP active instead of discontinuing it, whether by pausing it or reducing its funding. The Council discussed various funding levels with which the SESP could continue to support community events. During this discussion a suggestion was made, and rejected by the mover, to reduce the Rental Assistance Program by $25,000.

The mover amended her motion to provide $50,000 for the Special Events Support Program (SESP), set the salary for Police Recruit to 15% below the first step for Police Officer, set the salary for Reserve Police Officer to be in line with the salary for Police Officer, and to adjust MEMEA positions as approved in closed session, and the seconder agreed to the amendments. The motion carried by the following roll-call vote:

AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
It was proposed to reduce the Rental Assistance Program allocation from $250,000 to $200,000, citing financial constraints. City Attorney Davi advised that this would need to be in the form of a motion of reconsideration of the previous successful vote.

A motion was introduced by Councilmember Smith to reconsider the previous vote in order to reduce funding for the Rental Assistance Program to $200,000 for Fiscal Year 2025-26. The motion for reconsideration died for lack of a second.

14. Approve the Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan, Authorize the Finance Director to Make Any Necessary Administrative Budget Transfers for Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Projects for FY 2025/26, and Reappropriate Capital Improvement Program Closeout Project Budget Savings in the Amount of $11,295,940 to Various Active Capital Improvement Program Projects (Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15301, 15302, 15306, Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061 or Initial Study Mitigated Negative Previously Prepared and Certified)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 25-060 C.S.

Public Works Director Renny gave the staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions. Public comment was received from Esther Malkin, who spoke about the serious need for allocation of funds to the Rental Assistance Program.

On a motion by Councilmember Smith, seconded by Councilmember Barber, and carried by the following roll-call vote, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 25-060 C.S.:

AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 5., Item Page 8, Packet Page 36 City Council Minutes June 3, 2025
9 NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)

15. Provide Guidance Concerning 2025/26 Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program (NCIP) Objectives and Priorities ***NCIP*** (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Provided guidance to approve City staff’s recommendations, through a series of separate votes based on Councilmembers’ abstentions on specific projects
City Manager Uslar provided a verbal introduction, after which Senior Engineer Paulding gave the staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions with additional input from Public Works Director Renny. Councilmember Barber left the Chamber from 9:26 to 9:27 p.m., Councilmember Smith left from 9:28 to 9:29 p.m., Vice Mayor Garcia left from 9:37 to 9:38 p.m., and Councilmember Rasch left from 10:19 to 10:20 p.m.

Public comment was received from Tom Reeves, who said it was time to reconsider the future of Wharf II and stressed that the Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program (NCIP) Committee had always valued projects that supported public health, safety, and essential maintenance; Esther Malkin, who said that the City's public bathrooms needed serious attention; and Ann Pagan, who spoke in favor of updates to park centers, and asked why the City would consider taking on a new recreational facility when it had one that was currently underutilized.

On question, City Manager Uslar explained that an idea for the use of 205 Montecito Avenue was still developing and would be brought to the Council, but shared in a preliminary way that staff was currently investigating an option to develop a facility adjacent to Montecito Park across the street from Fire Station 13 and partner with the Boys and Girls Club for program to share the facility. City Attorney Davi noted that she had not had time to provide legal review on the matter and cautioned the Council that NCIP-funded tenant improvements may not be recommended from a legal standpoint because typically NCIP funds were not used to pay for private property.

City Attorney Davi identified the following 500-foot conflict areas relating to NCIP projects and said that the members were disqualified under the Political Reform Act from participating on these projects: Councilmember Barber: Citywide Restroom Remodels for Oak Newton Park, and ADA Improvements to Facilities at Oak Newton Park and Cypress Park; and Councilmember Smith:

ADA Improvements to Facilities at Don Dahvee Park. For Mayor Williamson and Councilmember Garcia, she explained that there were projects within 1,000 feet of their properties that might impact their decision-making, but that these did not require automatic disqualification and these members would need to consider certain factors and choose whether to recuse themselves. She said that these projects were: Mayor Williamson: Citywide Restroom Remodels at Larkin Park, and ADA Improvements to Facilities at Larkin Park; and Councilmember Garcia: Citywide Restroom Remodels at Casanova Oak Knoll Park, and ADA Improvements to Facilities at Casanova Oak Knoll Park. She suggested that the Council begin with the 500-foot conflict areas.

Councilmember Barber left the Chamber.

On a motion by Mayor Williamson, seconded by Councilmember Rasch, and carried by the following roll-call vote, the Council approved “Citywide Restroom Remodels” for Oak Newton Park, and “ADA Improvements to Facilities” at Oak Newton Park and Cypress Park:

AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
RECUSED: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber
Councilmember Barber returned, and Councilmember Smith left the Chamber.

Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 5., Item Page 9, Packet Page 37 City Council Minutes June 3, 2025
10 On a motion by Mayor Williamson, seconded by Councilmember Barber, and carried by the following roll-call vote, the Council approved “ADA Improvements to Facilities” at Don Dahvee Park:

AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
RECUSED: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Smith
Councilmember Smith returned to the Chamber. Mayor Williamson and Councilmember Garcia stated that having reviewed the factors they had determined that they did not have conflicts for the identified projects and would not disqualify themselves.

The Council discussed the remaining projects for which there had been no recusals.

Regarding “Wharf II Repairs”, concern was expressed about investing further in Wharf II without a clear long-term strategy for its future. On the other hand, the importance of Wharf II for both commerce and recreation was stressed, and support was expressed for using NCIP funds for essential and regular maintenance needs while the City worked on a longer-term plan.

Regarding “Citywide Public Restroom Remodels,” support was expressed, noting that restroom improvements would benefit both locals and tourists alike. It was suggested to prioritize restrooms that were in the most urgent need of repair. Regarding “Replace Failing Sections of Rec Trail Retaining Wall,” support was expressed and it was suggested to explore the possibility of incorporating public art into the project. Regarding “ADA Upgrades,” the importance was stressed of pursuing these improvements across City facilities and parks.

Regarding “Rule 20A Utility Undergrounding,” support was expressed, stating that it aligned with the Council's prior direction to prioritize undergrounding utilities on North Fremont Street, and seemed to have support from the NCIP Committee. Regarding “205 Montecito Avenue Tenant Improvements,” it was suggested to put the project on hold until legal counsel could clarify whether the use of NCIP funds would be allowed for tenant improvements on private property.

Regarding “El Estero Park Center Facility Improvements,” support was expressed in extending the life of the center, noting that the center was actively used by residents and provided value to the community. Specific comment was not made regarding the “Scholze Park Center Facility Improvements” project.

Support was expressed for public art in general, not only as tied to any individual project. The importance of public safety was stressed and it was noted that many of the projects did fall into this category, particularly the ADA improvements. Support was expressed for spending NCIP funds in ways that would have the greatest impact in the long run. Trust and support were expressed for the NCIP committee's ability to prioritize projects, and gratitude was expressed for their history of supporting the City's infrastructure needs.

Overall, the projects were stated to align well with the City's priorities and the NCIP Committee was stated to be trusted to review them thoroughly and make informed decisions.

On a motion by Councilmember Smith, seconded by Councilmember Barber, and carried by the following roll-call vote, the Council accepted the staff recommendation to make the remaining nonconflicted projects a priority for NCIP funding, with all comments offered by the Council during the discussion to be considered as the NCIP process moved forward:

AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 5., Item Page 10, Packet Page 38 City Council Minutes June 3, 2025
11 Council Comments
Councilmember Smith said that the discussion on the rainbow crosswalks had been vibrant and engaging and said he was disappointed that a commenter had accused a political party of making the matter political. He said that the City should always be open to hear from people in all segments of the community.

City Manager Reports
City Manager Uslar announced that the Monterey Public Library's summer reading program had begun and would run through July. He shared that the recent reopening of the swimming pool (natatorium) at the Monterey Sports Center had been a success.

Adjournment
The Council adjourned at 10:29 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted, Approved,
Clementine Bonner Klein Tyller Williamson
City Clerk Mayor
Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 5., Item Page 11, Packet Page 39 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Christine Davi, City Attorney
SUBJECT: 1
st Reading of an Ordinance Adopting an Administrative Remedies Procedure for Challenges to Fees, Charges, and Assessments
(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 1st reading of an
ordinance adopting an administrative remedies
procedure for customer challenges to City fees, charges, and assessments on real property.

VALUE DRIVERS:

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

AB 2257, effective January 1, 2025, added Government
Code sections 53759.1 and 53759.2 making two helpful
changes to the Proposition 218 Omnibus Implement Act.

These statutes establish a clearly defined process to
contest a new or increased fee or assessment that the
ratepayer must follow to be eligible to bring a lawsuit contesting the fee or assessment. The benefit of this new law only applies if the City adopts a policy triggering its application.

According to the author of AB 2257,0F
1 Assemblymember
Lori Wilson,
AB 2257 would build upon Proposition 218’s
existing procedural requirements by creating a clear and robust mechanism for customers to raise questions, concerns, comments, and criticisms of a proposed rate structure. The agency’s governing body would have the benefit of hearing 1 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB2257 Agenda Report Highlights
 City Council is recommended to
approve the first reading of an
ordinance establishing an
administrative remedies procedure
for challenges to City fees, charges,
and assessments.
 AB 2257 provides a clear process
for contesting property-related water
and sewer fees, enhancing
transparency and defensibility of
rates.
 The ordinance broadens AB 2257's
scope to include all City fees,
charges, and assessments, not just
property-related water and sewer
fees.
 Adoption of the ordinance reduces
litigation costs by limiting legal
challenges to the administrative
record and strengthens fiscal
transparency.

Date: 6/17/2025
Item No.: 6.

Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 6., Item Page 1, Packet Page 40 №10/24
the evidence, which would include objections and the agency’s responses, and apply its reasoned discretion and expertise. This is especially valuable in ratemaking cases in which evidence and policies are highly technical. The process would serve to foster betterinformed administrative decisions, which benefit the objector, the public agency, and ratepayers that the agency serves. It would also help agencies develop more defensible rates and build rapport and trust with their ratepayers.

In addition, although AB 2257 applies to property-related water and sewer fees and assessments, the proposed ordinance is intentionally broader than AB 2257, while still applying its procedures, to capture all fees, charges, and assessments levied by the City.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no fiscal implications associated with the adoption of this ordinance. The ordinance does increase the defensibility of the City’s rates, fees, and assessments, such as sewer fees, waste disposal fees, and Landscape and Lighting Act assessments. If the conditions imposed by this ordinance are met, legal challenges will be limited to the administrative record, thereby reducing litigation costs and preventing independent claims regarding the City’s responses.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey determined that the adoption of this ordinance is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines”), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. The adoption of this ordinance is an organizational and administrative activity of the City, does not have the potential to result in either a direct or reasonably foreseeably indirect physical change in the environment, and is therefore not a project of purposes of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15061(b)(3); 15378(b)(5).

Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. In the event adoption of this ordinance does constitute a project, it is categorically exempt under the Class 20 (Changes in the Organization of Local Governments) categorical exemption (State CEQA Guidelines section 15320) and pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3), the so-called “common sense” exemption. Further, none of the exceptions to exemptions found in State CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2 apply.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council could choose not to implement the administrative remedies procedure for challenges to fees, charges, and assessments.

DISCUSSION:

Proposition 218, the Right to Vote on Taxes Act, was enacted by the voters in 1996 to provide procedural and substantive requirements for the imposition of property-related fees. (Cal. Const. art. XIIID, § 6(a), (b).) The intent of Proposition 218 is, in part, to enhance taxpayer consent.

Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 6., Item Page 2, Packet Page 41 №10/24
AB 2257 establishes a mechanism for customers to raise questions, concerns, comments, and criticisms of a proposed rate structure. Consistent with AB 2257, this ordinance creates the process the City must follow to limit legal challenges to the administrative record. The City must:

1. Make the proposed fee, charge, or assessment publicly available at least 45 days before the deadline for submitting written objections;

2. Post a written basis for the proposed fee, charge, or assessment on the City’s website and include a link to that website on public hearing notices sent to ratepayers or property owners;

3. Mail the written basis for the proposed fee, charge, or assessment to ratepayers or property owners upon request;

4. Provide at least 45 days for ratepayers or property owners to submit written objections to the fee, charge, or assessment;

5. Respond in writing to any timely submitted objections with an explanation for keeping or changing the proposed fee, charge, or assessment;

6. Present any timely submitted objections and responses thereto to the City Council for its consideration, either before or during the public hearing on the proposed fee, charge, or assessment;

7. Include on its public hearing notices a statement in bold-faced type of 12 points or larger:
a. That all written objections must be submitted to the City Clerk by the end of public comment period at the hearing, that a failure to timely object in writing bars any right to challenge that fee, charge, or assessment in court, and that any such action will be limited to issues identified in such objections; and b. All substantive and procedural requirements for submitting an objection to the proposed fee, charge, or assessment.

AB 2257 only pertains to “fees or assessments”, defined to mean “the amount of any propertyrelated water or sewer fee or charge, or any special assessment levied, or the methodology used to develop and levy the fee, charge, or assessment.” (Gov. Code, § 53759.1, subd. (a)(2).) But there are other fees, such as solid waste fees, that are not covered by AB 2257. The attached ordinance was intentionally drafted to be broader than AB 2257, while applying AB 2257’s procedures, to capture all fees, charges, and assessments levied by the City.

Attachments: 1. Draft 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, 6/17/2025, Item No. 6., Item Page 3, Packet Page 42 ORDINANCE NO. ____ C.S.

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

ADOPTING AN ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES PROCEDURE FOR CHALLENGES TO

FEES, CHARGES, AND ASSESSMENTS
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY DOES ORDAIN, as follows:

SECTION 1:

WHEREAS, AB 2257, effective January 1, 2025, added Government Code sections 53759.1 and 53759.2 making two helpful changes to the Proposition 218 Omnibus Implement Act. These statutes establish a clearly defined process to contest a new or increased fee or assessment that the ratepayer must follow to be eligible to bring a lawsuit contesting the fee or assessment. The benefit of this new law only applies if the City adopts a policy triggering its application.

WHEREAS, According to the author of AB 2257,1 Assemblymember Lori Wilson, the intent of AB 2257 is to
“…build upon Proposition 218’s existing procedural requirements by creating a clear and robust mechanism for customers to raise questions, concerns, comments, and criticisms of a proposed rate structure. The agency’s governing body would have the benefit of hearing the evidence, which would include objections and the agency’s responses, and apply its reasoned discretion and expertise. This is especially valuable in ratemaking cases in which evidence and policies are highly technical. The process would serve to foster better informed administrative decisions, which benefit the objector, the public agency, and ratepayers that the agency serves. It would also help agencies develop more defensible rates and build rapport and trust with their ratepayers.

WHEREAS, the City agrees with the intent as stated by Assemblymember Wilson, and intentionally drafted this ordinance to be broader than AB 2257, while applying AB 2257’s procedures, to capture all fees, charges, and assessments levied by the City; and 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 1 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB2257 Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 6., Item Page 4, Packet Page 43 2 project of purposes of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15061(b)(3); 15378(b)(5).

NOW THEREFORE, the Monterey City Council declares as follows:

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

SECTION 3: Monterey City Code, Chapter 1, Article 1, sections 1-1 through 1-8.3 are hereby recodified as Monterey City Code, Chapter 1, Article 1, sections 1-1.00 through 1-1.10.

SECTION 4: Monterey City Code, Chapter 1, Article 2, Division 1, Administrative Citations, Sections 1-9 through 1-9.12 are hereby recodified as Monterey City Code, Chapter 1, Article 2, Division 1, Administrative Citations, Section 1-2.00 Through 1-2.13.

SECTION 5: Monterey City Code, Chapter 1, Article 2, Division 2, Administrative Orders, Sections 1-9 through 1-9.12 are hereby recodified as Monterey City Code, Chapter 1, Article 2, Division 2, Administrative Orders, Section 1-2.14 Through 1-2.34.

SECTION 6: Monterey City Code, Chapter 1, Article 3, Uniform Lien and Special Assessment Procedures, Sections 1-12 through 1-12.3 are hereby recodified as Monterey City Code, Chapter 1, Article 3, Uniform Lien and Special Assessment Procedures, Section 1-3.00 through 1-3.03.

SECTION 7: Monterey City Code, Chapter 1, Article 4, Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies for Challenges to Fees, Charges, and Assessments on Real Property is added to read as follows:
“Sec. 1-4.00 Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
A. Scope. The duty to exhaust administrative remedies imposed by this section extends to:

1. any fee or charge subject to articles XIII C or XIII D of the California Constitution,

2. any assessment on real property levied by the City, and

3. the methodology used to develop and levy such a fee, charge, or assessment.

B. “Hearing” as used in this section means the hearing referenced in paragraph 4 of subsection D of this section.

C. Duty to Exhaust Issues. No person may bring a judicial action or proceeding alleging noncompliance with the California Constitution or other applicable law for any new, increased, or extended fee, charge, or assessment levied by the City, unless that person submitted to the Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 6., Item Page 5, Packet Page 44 City Clerk a timely, written objection to that fee, charge, or assessment specifying the grounds for alleging noncompliance. The issues raised in any such action or proceeding shall be limited to those raised in an objection unless a court finds the issue could not have been raised by objection by those exercising reasonable diligence.

D. Procedures. The City shall:

1. Make available to the public any proposed fee, charge, or assessment to which this section is to apply no less than 45 days before the deadline for a ratepayer or assessed property owner to submit an objection pursuant to paragraph 4 of this subsection D.

2. Post on its internet website a written basis for the fee, charge, or assessment, such as a cost of service analysis or an engineer’s report, and include a link to the internet website in the written notice of the Hearing, including, but not limited to, a notice pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 4 or paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 6 of Article XIII D of the California Constitution.

3. Mail the written basis described in paragraph 2 of this subsection D to a ratepayer or property owner on request.

4. Provide at least 45 days for a ratepayer or assessed property owner to review the proposed fee or assessment and to timely submit to the City Clerk a written objection to that fee, charge, or assessment that specifies the grounds for alleging noncompliance. Any objection shall be submitted before the end of the public comment portion of a Hearing on the rate, charge or assessment.

5. Include in a written notice of the Hearing, a statement in bold-faced type of 12 points or larger that:
a. All written objections must be submitted to the City Clerk by the end of public comment period at the Hearing and that a failure to timely object in writing bars any right to challenge that fee, charge, or assessment in court and that any such action will be limited to issues identified in such objections.
b. All substantive and procedural requirements for submitting an objection to the proposed fee, charge, or assessment such as those specified for a property-related fee under California Constitution, article XIII D, section 6(a) or for an assessment on real property under California Constitution, article XIII D, section 4(e).

E. Council Consideration; City Responses. Before or during the Hearing, the City Council shall consider and the City shall respond in writing to, any timely written objections. The City Council may adjourn the Hearing to another date if necessary to respond to comments received after the agenda is posted for the meeting at which the Hearing occurs. The City’s responses shall explain the substantive basis for retaining or altering the proposed fee, charge, or assessment in response to written objections, including any reasons to reject requested amendments.

F. City Council Determinations. The City Council, in exercising its legislative discretion, shall determine whether:

1. The written objections and the City’s response warrant clarifications to the proposed fee, charge, or assessment.

2. To reduce the proposed fee, charge or assessment.

Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 6., Item Page 6, Packet Page 45 4 3. To further review the proposed fee, charge, or assessment before determining whether clarification or reduction is needed.

4. To proceed with the Hearing, to continue it, or to abandon the proposal.” SECTION 8. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance or its application to any person or circumstance is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or its application to other persons and circumstances. The City Council declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof despite the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional and, to that end, the provisions hereof are hereby declared to be severable.

SECTION 9: All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

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

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

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 6., Item Page 7, Packet Page 46 Council
Agenda Report
№11/25
FROM: Nat Rojanasathira, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: 1
st Reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 25, Article 3, Section 25-

3.03(d)(3) to Authorize the Assistant City Manager to Delegate Investigation Duties Related to Harassment / Discrimination / Retaliation / Abusive Conduct / Bullying Policy Complaints (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 first reading of an ordinance amending Chapter 25, Article 3, Section 25-3.03(d)(3)
Relating to Investigatory Roles in the Harassment /
Discrimination / Retaliation / Abusive Conduct / Bullying Policy.

VALUE DRIVERS:

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Chapter 25 of the City Code, prohibits harassment,
discrimination, retaliation, abusive conduct, and bullying.

From time to time, it is necessary to update the policy for clarification purposes.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE
ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no direct fiscal impacts as a result of this action. Although there may be additional costs for the use of private investigators or outside counsel, it is not an effective use of public funds to have the Assistant City Manager conduct the investigation himself or herself. Any costs for investigations are already included in the budget process. There should be no need to include additional “what if” when it’s already factored into the budget.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

3.03(d)(3) to clarify investigatory
roles in harassment, discrimination,
retaliation, abusive conduct, and
bullying cases.
 The proposed changes would allow
the Assistant City Manager to
delegate investigative
responsibilities to private
investigators or outside counsel.
 The policy reaffirms the City’s
commitment to a workplace free of
harassment, discrimination, and
retaliation, ensuring prompt,
impartial investigations.

Date: 6/17/2025
Item No.: 7.

Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 7., Item Page 1, Packet Page 47 №10/24
CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council could choose not to introduce this ordinance, but that is not recommended.

DISCUSSION:

The City’s Harassment/Discrimination/Retaliation/Abusive Conduct/Bullying Policy is codified in Section 25-3.03 of the City Code. The policy reaffirms the City’s commitment to providing all current and prospective employees with a work environment that is free of discrimination and harassment, prohibits retaliation of any kind against individuals who report a violation of the policy. The Code also outlines how investigations and disciplinary actions are handled.

The City Code states that the City will investigate all reported violations of the policy in a timely and impartial manner. The investigation must be prompt, full, and fair.

In most cases, the Code states that the “Human Resources Director is responsible for administering the complaint procedure, conducting the investigation, documenting and tracking the progress of the investigation, and reporting the results to the City Manager. The Human Resources Director may delegate these duties to a qualified City employee, private investigator, or outside counsel.”
In the case of a complaint regarding Department Heads, the investigatory role is assigned to the Human Resources Director and in the case of a complaint regarding the Human Resources Director, the investigatory role is assigned to the Assistant City Manager. In these situations, however, the City Code does not currently provide flexibility for Assistant City Manager to delegate investigative responsibilities to a private investigator or outside counsel, which is standard practice for investigations. The recommended changes to the City Code provide clarity that investigative responsibilities may be delegated to a private investigator or outside counsel.

It is the intent of the proposed ordinance to grant the same power and flexibility held by the Human Resources Director to the Assistant City Manager, which is to delegate to a private investigator. Allowing the Assistant City Manager to delegate investigative duties will improve efficiency of the investigative process, especially in complex cases.

All labor groups have been notified of this proposed change and had the opportunity to meet and confer on its impacts. All labor groups have confirmed they do not have concerns with this change.

NR
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, 6/17/2025, Item No. 7., Item Page 2, Packet Page 48 ORDINANCE NO. ____ C.S.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№09/24
AMENDING CHAPTER 25, ARTICLE 3, SECTION 25-3.03(d)(3)

TO AUTHORIZE THE ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER TO DELEGATE INVESTIGATION

DUTIES RELATED TO HARASSMENT/DISCRIMINATION/RETALIATION/ABUSIVE

CONDUCT/BULLYING POLICY COMPLAINTS
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY DOES ORDAIN, as follows:

SECTION 1:

WHEREAS, on September 2, 2008, the Monterey City Council adopted Ordinance No. 3416, amending City Code Section 25-3.03 to Update the Harassment Policy; WHEREAS, Section 25-3.03 affirms the City of Monterey’s commitment to providing all current and prospective employees with a work environment that is free of discrimination and harassment, prohibits retaliation of any kind against individuals who report a violation of the Harassment/Discrimination/Retaliation/Abusive Conduct/Bullying Policy, and outlines how investigations and disciplinary actions are handled;
WHEREAS, the proposed ordinance authorizes the Assistant City Manager to delegate investigation duties to a private investigator or outside counsel. The Human Resource Director is authorized to delegate investigative duties pursuant to City Code section 25-3.03(e), and it is the intent of the City to grant the same power and flexibility to the Assistant City Manager.

Allowing the Assistant City Manager to delegate investigative duties will improve efficiency of the investigative process, especially in complex cases; WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project.

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

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

SECTION 3: Monterey City Code, Chapter 25, Article 3, 25-3.03(d)(3) is hereby amended to read as follows:

Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 7., Item Page 3, Packet Page 49 “Complaint Regarding Human Resources Director. Any time the Human Resources Director is the accused perpetrator of an incident of discrimination, harassment, abusive conduct/bullying or retaliation under the definitions of this policy, the complaint shall be made to the department head or Assistant City Manager, who shall assume the investigatory role and may delegate the duties described in subsection (e) to a private investigator or outside counsel, who shall make recommendations to the City Manager for the disposition of the complaint.”
SECTION 4: All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

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, 6/17/2025, Item No. 7., Item Page 4, Packet Page 50 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Andrea Renny, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Christine Davi, City Attorney
SUBJECT: 1st Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the Sidewalk Repair and Maintenance Ordinance to Repeal Requirement for Inspection and Repair Verification Upon Change in Property Ownership (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council pass a first reading to repeal
Section 32-29 of the City’s Sidewalk Repair and
Maintenance ordinance to remove the sidewalk
inspection certification provision when real property is transferred from one owner to another. Other
provisions of the ordinance will remain in effect.

VALUE DRIVERS:

To maintain and repair core street, roadway, and
storm drain infrastructure.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

State law and the City Code recognize that it is
important to have safe and well-maintained sidewalks
and that property owners are generally in the best
position to inspect and repair sidewalks that abut their property.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT
(LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

State law and the City Code provide a mechanism for
the City to recover the cost of sidewalk repairs from adjacent property owners.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey determined that the adoption of this ordinance is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines”), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the Agenda Report Highlights
 The City Council is considering
repealing the requirement for
sidewalk inspection certification
during property ownership transfers
due to administrative challenges.
 Property owners remain responsible
for maintaining and repairing
sidewalks adjacent to their
properties.
 Notification of sidewalk
maintenance obligations will still be
included in the City’s real property
inspection form.
 The idea of in-person sidewalk
inspections may be revisited when
staffing levels in the Public Works
Department improve.

Date: 6/17/2025
Item No.: 8.

Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 8., Item Page 1, Packet Page 51 №10/24
activity is not subject to CEQA. The adoption of this ordinance is an organizational and administrative activity of the City, does not have the potential to result in either a direct or reasonably foreseeably indirect physical change in the environment, and is therefore not a project of purposes of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15061(b)(3); 15378(b)(5).

Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. In the event adoption of this ordinance does constitute a project, it is categorically exempt under the Class 20 (Changes in the Organization of Local Governments) categorical exemption (State CEQA Guidelines section 15320). Further, none of the exceptions to exemptions found in State CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2 apply.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

Council could choose not to amend the sidewalk maintenance and repair ordinance. This is not recommended as the procedure has not functioned as intended. The idea could be revisited once the City has adequate staffing to conduct in-person sidewalk inspections upon real property transfers of ownership.

DISCUSSION:

Earlier this year the City updated its sidewalk ordinance and among the updates was a provision adding a real property transfer inspection and compliance provision. The intention was to require the seller to provide certification to the City that the sidewalk is in good condition. The update also included an option for the owner to transfer this obligation to the buyer/transferee.

The purpose of this process was to ensure that sidewalks are maintained and repaired in a safe condition, and that new owners will be made aware of the obligation to maintain and repair sidewalks. The hope was that this process could function like real property inspections conducted by the City’s Building Division upon real property transfers. However, given short staffing in the Public Works Department, in lieu of an in-person inspection, the real property owner could send in a photograph to obtain confirmation that the condition of the sidewalk was acceptable or a list of needed repairs. This concept has proven difficult to administer by photograph as City staff still need to quickly respond to real estate brokers/agents with the information needed to repair sidewalks. The timing is also challenging for brokers/agents to obtain cost estimates and properly disclose to buyers the status and cost of any needed repairs.

Consequently, it is recommended that notification to the property owner of the requirement to repair and maintain sidewalks will remain on the City’s real property inspection form that is generated by the City’s Building Division. The City could revisit this idea and require in-person inspections of sidewalks upon real property ownership transfers once the Public Works Department has adequate staffing to implement such a program.

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, 6/17/2025, Item No. 8., Item Page 2, Packet Page 52 ORDINANCE NO. ____ C.S.

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

AMENDING THE SIDEWALK REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE ORDINANCE TO REPEAL THE

REQUIREMENT FOR INSPECTION AND REPAIR VERIFICATION UPON CHANGE IN

PROPERTY OWNERSHIP
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY DOES ORDAIN, as follows:

SECTION 1:

WHEREAS, Streets and Highways Code section 5600 et seq. provides that the responsibility for maintenance of sidewalks rests on the abutting property owner, regardless of who created the sidewalk defects;
WHEREAS, earlier this year the City updated its sidewalk ordinance and among the updates was a provision adding a real property transfer inspection and compliance provision.

This concept has proven difficult to administer due to short staffing in the Public Works Department. The intention of this ordinance is to repeal the process set forth in Section 32-29 without changing the duty of real property owners to inspect and repair sidewalks consistent with the other provisions of Chapter 32, Article 4;
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the adoption of this ordinance is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines”), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. The adoption of this ordinance is an organizational and administrative activity of the City, does not have the potential to result in either a direct or reasonably foreseeably indirect physical change in the environment, and is therefore not a project of purposes of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15061(b)(3); 15378(b)(5).

NOW THEREFORE, the Monterey City Council declares as follows:

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

SECTION 3: Chapter 32, Article 4, Section 32-29 is hereby repealed.

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 Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 8., Item Page 3, Packet Page 53 2 circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of these amendments and the application of such provisions to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

SECTION 6: This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days from and after its final passage and adoption.

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

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 8., Item Page 4, Packet Page 54 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Andrea Renny, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Nichole Rodriguez, Acting Harbormaster
SUBJECT: Authorize a $1 License Agreement with Sunflower Star Laboratory for Use of East Mooring Blocks for Sunflower Sea Star Research and Restoration (Exempt from CEQA, Article 19, Section 15306, Class 6)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt the attached resolution
authorizing the City Manager to enter into a $1 license agreement with Sunflower Star Laboratory, a nonprofit
corporation, for use of East Mooring Blocks for
sunflower sea star research and restoration.

VALUE DRIVERS:

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

This action is consistent with Council policy to approve agreements with outside agencies or non-profit
corporations. Council approval is required to waive fees for this license agreement.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE
ACT) APPLIES Yes.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The requesting organization is a non-profit entity, and standard mooring fees of $144.50-$191.50 per month will be waived in support of its research and conservation efforts. The mooring blocks that will be used for this project have been decommissioned from the East Mooring Program for the past twelve years. As such, there is no loss of potential revenues.

Agenda Report Highlights
 The City Council is recommended to
approve a $1 license agreement with
Sunflower Star Laboratory for research
and restoration of the critically
endangered sunflower sea star.
 The sunflower sea star, a critically
endangered keystone predator, has
suffered significant population losses,
impacting kelp forest ecosystems.
 Sunflower Star Laboratory has
successfully cultured sunflower sea
stars in captivity and has requested to
conduct limited in-ocean trials using
temporary cages attached to the City’s
decommissioned mooring blocks
between June and October 2025.
 The City’s decommissioned mooring
blocks have been inactive since 2013,
generating no revenue, and their
temporary use for research aligns with
the City's environmental and
conservation goals.

Date: 6/17/2025
Item No.: 9.

Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 9., Item Page 1, Packet Page 55 №10/24
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 consists of basic data collection, research, and resource evaluation activities which would not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource. Specifically, the project involves research of the sunflower star on some of the decommissioned East Mooring blocks in Monterey. The research is 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 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. Research for this project would be conducted on some of the decommissioned East Mooring blocks in Monterey, which are not considered a particularly sensitive environment.

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 involves research, which would be strictly for information gathering purposes.

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 the project strictly being conducted for research and information gathering purposes.

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 only involve research; no improvements are proposed and therefore would not result in impacts to scenic highways.

Exception e - Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. 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 project would involve research for information gathering purposes; therefore, there would be no impacts to historic or archeological resources.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council may choose to not approve the short-term license agreement with Sunflower Star Laboratory or choose not to reduce fees for the license agreement; however, this is not Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 9., Item Page 2, Packet Page 56 №10/24
recommended, as the project aligns with the City's Value Drivers and supports research and conservation efforts for a keystone species.

DISCUSSION:

Background
The City of Monterey’s East Mooring Program provides seasonal moorings for recreational vessels in Monterey Harbor from April 1 through October 31. Managed by the Harbor Division, the program offers affordable monthly rates based on vessel size, ranging from 20- feet to 40-feet. This initiative supports the City's broader waterfront management goals, offering expanded recreational access.

Two rows of mooring blocks within the East Mooring Field have been decommissioned since 2013 and currently do not have mooring systems or tackle attached. These blocks are inactive and are not in use for vessel mooring operations therefore, generate no revenues.

Sunflower Star Laboratory Background and Request
The Sunflower Star Laboratory in Moss Landing, California, is a nonprofit research and conservation facility focused on the recovery of the critically endangered sunflower sea star (Pycnopodia helianthoides). Once abundant along the West Coast, this keystone predator suffered catastrophic population losses due to Sea Star Wasting Disease and marine heatwaves. Their decline has had significant ecological impacts, particularly the unchecked spread of purple sea urchins, which have devastated kelp forest habitats.

The laboratory has been successfully culturing sunflower sea stars as part of an ongoing research and restoration initiative. This marks the first cohort of sunflower sea stars ever reared in a laboratory setting within California. The stars have demonstrated strong growth and viability in captivity, and the project team has been working in collaboration with other partners to explore the feasibility of conducting early in-ocean trials.

To support this next phase of research, the lab is requesting permission to temporarily utilize a portion of the decommissioned mooring blocks in the East Mooring Field between June 1 and October 31, 2025. The research would involve attaching small, removable cages to the existing eyes on several mooring blocks to house sunflower sea stars for a limited in-ocean deployment period. The research team would conduct periodic dives to deploy, monitor, feed, and retrieve the stars and cages over a period of a few months.

Staff Recommendation
Because of the unique nature and limited duration of the proposed research activity, staff recommends City Council authorize the temporary use of select decommissioned mooring blocks in the East Mooring Field by the Sunflower Star Laboratory for summer 2025. This approval is contingent on a short-term $1 license agreement outlining the terms and conditions of use.

AR/nr
Attachment: 1. Resolution
Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 9., Item Page 3, Packet Page 57 №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, 6/17/2025, Item No. 9., Item Page 4, Packet Page 58 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№011/24
AUTHORIZING A $1 LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH THE SUNFLOWER STAR

LABORATORY FOR USE OF EAST MOORING BLOCKS FOR SEA STAR RESEARCH AND

RESTORATION
WHEREAS, the Harbor Division of the Public Works Department manages the East Mooring Field, a seasonal mooring field, and two rows of mooring blocks have been decommissioned since 2013;
WHEREAS, the Sunflower Star Laboratory in Moss Landing, California, is a nonprofit research and conservation facility focused on the recovery of the critically endangered sunflower sea star;
WHEREAS, the lab is requesting permission to temporarily utilize a portion of the decommissioned mooring blocks in the East Mooring Field between June 1 and October 31, 2025;
WHEREAS, a $1 license agreement would allow utilization of the decommissioned mooring blocks to conduct sunflower star research and restoration; 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 consists of basic data collection, research, and resource evaluation activities which would not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource.

Specifically, the project involves research of the sunflower star on some of the decommissioned East Mooring blocks in Monterey. The research is 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; 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 project consists of basic data collection, research, and resource evaluation activities which would not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource.

Specifically, the project involves research of the sunflower star on some of the decommissioned East Mooring blocks in Monterey. The research is 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.

Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 9., Item Page 5, Packet Page 59 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 involves research, which would be strictly for information gathering purposes.

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 enter into a $1 License Agreement with Sunflower Star Laboratory for use of East Mooring Blocks for sunflower sea star research and restoration.

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, 6/17/2025, Item No. 9., Item Page 6, Packet Page 60 ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 9., Item Page 7, Packet Page 61 Council
Agenda Report
№10/24
FROM: Kimberly Cole, AICP, Community Development Director Prepared By: Anastacia Wyatt, Housing Manager
SUBJECT: Distribute Awards of $199,132 in State of California Department of Housing and Community Development Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) Grant Funds and Authorize the City Manager to Enter into Agreements with Downtown Streets, Inc., Gathering for Women - Monterey, and Community Human Services to Assist Persons Experiencing Homelessness (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt a resolution to distribute
awards of $199,132 in Permanent Local Housing
Allocation (PLHA) grant funds to Downtown Streets
Team, Gathering for Women, and Community Human
Services to assist persons experiencing homelessness,
and authorize the City Manager to enter into grant
agreements for this funding.

VALUE DRIVERS:

Address homelessness through programs and
partnerships such as the Multidisciplinary Outreach
Team (MDOT) and continued support of homeless
service agencies through the City’s Community
Development Block Grant program such as but not
limited to Gathering for Women and Community Human
Services.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The State of California PLHA program provides funding
to local governments for housing related projects and
programs that assist in addressing unmet housing needs
of their local communities. The grant funds will support the City Council goals regarding affordable housing and supporting housing services for its residents, including the City Council value driver of “working to improve the quality of life of our residents…ensuring that Monterey remains a safe and welcoming place to live, work, and
visit.”
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: Yes.

Agenda Report Highlights
 The City Council is recommended to
distribute $199,132 in grant funds to
Downtown Streets Team, Gathering for
Women, and Community Human
Services to assist people experiencing
homelessness.
 The funds are part of the City’s
Permanent Local Housing Allocation
(PLHA) Plan, which aims to address
unmet housing needs and
homelessness through activities such
as rapid rehousing, rental assistance,
and emergency shelters.
 The City released a Notice of Funding
Availability for PLHA funds in October
2024, with applications rated and
ranked by City staff from multiple
departments.
 The proposed distribution is $67,100 to
Downtown Streets Team, $33,000 to
Gathering for Women, and $89,075.40
to Community Human Services, and
$9,956.60 to the City for administrative
costs.

Date: 6/17/2025
Item No.: 10.

Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 1, Packet Page 62 №10/24
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The City’s 5-Year PLHA Plan period is from Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 - FY 2024. The City expects to receive funds in the amount of $672,805 over the 5-year planning period. The City would expend funds that would be offset by grant funds. Funds are dependent on State finances and revenues received from a $75 recording fee per property collected from the sale of properties statewide. The City is allowed to apply 5% of the grant award for Administrative Costs. The grant funds are expenditures under the following PLHA Expenditure Account: 101-400-4305- 0000-4703.

The following are PLHA funds available to the City (Activity #6 refers to homeless services described in more detail in the discussion section below):

FY 2019-2020: $116,419 (Awarded to MidPen Housing for Predevelopment Costs) FY 2020-2021: $180,952 (Activity #6) – to be expended in FY 2024-2025 (Awarded to Gathering for Women ($50,000) and Community Human Services ($121,904.40))
FY 2021-2022: $199,132 (Activity #6) – to be expended in FY 20252026 FY 2022-2023: $99,805 (Activity #6) – to be expended in FY 2026-2027 FY 2023-2024: $76,497 (Activity #6) – to be expended in FY 2027-2028 Total $672,805
Agreements to expend grant funds for the amount of $199,132 must be submitted to the state to meet the request for funds deadline of April 30, 2026 and were appropriated in the City’s FY 2025-2026 budget. Grant funds in the approximate amount of $199,132 will be expended in the FY 2025-2026 budget year. The table below shows the proposed distribution of grant funds to local homeless services providers in accordance with the City’s adopted PLHA 5-Year Plan. The City is allowed to take Five Percent in administrative fees ($9,956.60).

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey Planning Division 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 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. The appropriate level of CEQA review will be conducted on the future project prior to the City taking any action and on any future development of City property. No decision is considered by the City Council at this time that could be analyzed through the CEQA process.

Request for Funds Deadline 4/30/25Request for Funds Deadline 4/30/26 PLHA
Subgrantee
Requested Amount by
Subgrantee FY 20-21 FY 21-22 Downtown Streets Team Downtown Streets Team $ 67,090.00 $ - $ 67,100.00 Gathering for Woman Expanding Hope $ 32,170.00 $ 50,000 $ 33,000 Community Human Services Casa De Noche Buena & Shuman HeartHouse Homeless Shelter $ 100,000.00 $ 121,904.40 $ 89,075.40 City Admin $ 9,047.60 $ 9,956.60
Total $ 199,260.00 $ 180,952.00 $ 199,132.00
Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 2, Packet Page 63 №10/24
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City must provide executed agreements to expend FY 2021-2022 funds ($199,132) by April 30, 2026, and therefore, it is recommended that the City enter into grant agreements with local homeless services providers for use of these PLHA funds. Staff recommends entering into agreements with Downtown Streets Team ($67,100), Gathering for Women ($33,000), and Community Human Services ($89,075.40).

DISCUSSION:

The City Council is asked to distribute funds for homeless services in compliance with the Council-adopted five-year PLHA plan.

Background
The City created a 5-Year Plan for Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) funding based on eligible activities under PLHA. The purpose of PLHA is to provide a permanent source of funding to all local governments in California to help cities and counties implement plans to increase the affordable housing stock, specifically:
 increase the supply of housing for households at or below 60% of area median income;  increase assistance to affordable owner-occupied workforce housing;  assist persons experiencing or at risk of homelessness;  facilitate housing affordability, particularly for lower- and moderate-income households;  promote projects and programs to meet the local government’s unmet share of regional housing needs allocation; and
 ensure geographic equity in the distribution of the funds.

The City Council adopted Resolution 24-104 approving its five-year PLHA plan and allocating money to homeless services (Activity #6). Activity #6 allows funds to be utilized to assist persons who are experiencing or at risk of homelessness, including, but not limited to, providing rapid rehousing, rental assistance, supportive/case management services that allow people to obtain and retain housing, operating and capital costs for navigation centers and emergency shelters, and the new construction, rehabilitation, and preservation of permanent and transitional housing.

Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 3, Packet Page 64 №10/24
2 nd Amendment to 5-Year PLHA Plan
On June 18, 2024, Resolution 24-104, the City adopted the second amendment to PLHA funding for Fiscal Years 2020-2024. This amendment dedicated funds starting in FY 20-21 toward Activity #6 (homeless services) of the PLHA program.

Resolution Number 25-014 C.S. appropriated FY 20-21 funding to Gathering for Women ($50,000) and Community Human Services ($121,904.40) in the City’s FY 24-25 budget.

Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for PLHA funds
The City released a NOFA for PLHA grant funding on October 9, 2024 with a deadline for submitting completed applications on December 13, 2024. The City hosted a mandatory online application meeting on October 21, 2024. A rating and ranking committee consisting of members of the Housing Division, Planning Division, a member of the Planning Commission, and a member of the Police Department’s Mutli-Disciplinary Outreach Team (MDOT), rated and ranked applications for award. The rating and ranking committee heard presentations from applicants on January 10th and finalized rating and ranking on February 10, 2025. The organizations that applied for funding included Downtown Streets Team, Gathering For Women, and Community Human Services. To meet the request for funding expenditure deadline of April 30, 2026, it is recommended that the City enters into agreements with Downtown Streets Team ($67,100), Gathering for Women ($33,000), and Community Human Services ($89,075). These agencies will provide homeless services in the City.

Conclusion
Staff recommends the City Council distribute $199,132 in PLHA funds in order to award funding for vital homeless programs and that the City Manager be authorized to enter into agreements with Downtown Streets Team, Community Human Services, and Gathering For Women.

KC/aw
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, 6/17/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 4, Packet Page 65 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№011/24
DISTRIBUTING AWARDS OF $199,132 IN STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PERMANENT LOCAL HOUSING

ALLOCATION (PLHA) PROGRAM GRANT FUNDS AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENTS WITH DOWNTOWN STREETS, INC.,

GATHERING FOR WOMEN - MONTEREY, AND COMMUNITY HUMAN SERVICES TO

ASSIST PERSONS EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS
WHEREAS, the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is authorized to provide up to $296 million under the SB 2 PLHA Program Formula Component from the Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund for assistance to Cities and Counties as described in Health and Safety Code section 50470 et seq. (Chapter 364, Statutes of 2017 (SB 2));
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey is an eligible local government who has applied for program funds to administer one or more eligible activities, or a Local or Regional Housing Trust Fund to whom an eligible Local government delegated its PLHA formula allocation; WHEREAS, the City of Monterey completed the first Amendment to its 5-Year PLHA Plan on February 20, 2024, Resolution 24-023, to dedicate 95% of FY 2019-2020 funds to MidPen housing for predevelopment costs for an affordable housing development; WHEREAS, the City of Monterey completed its second Amendment to its 5-Year PLHA Plan on June 18, 2024, Resolution 24-104, dedicating the remainder of the funds in the 5-Year Plan to Activity #6 eligible activities (homeless services); WHEREAS, the City of Monterey awarded Gathering for Women $50,000 and Community Human Services $121,904.40 for FY 2020-2021 PLHA funds that were utilized in FY 2024-2025 through Resolution 25-014;
WHEREAS, Activity #6 allows the following activities: assisting persons who are experiencing or at risk of homelessness, including, but not limited to, providing rapid rehousing, rental assistance, supportive/case management services that allow people to obtain and retain housing, operating and capital costs for navigation centers and emergency shelters, and the new construction, rehabilitation, and preservation of permanent and transitional housing.

Applicants must provide rapid rehousing, rental assistance, navigation centers, emergency shelter, and transitional housing activities in a manner consistent with the Housing First practices described in 25 CCR, Section 8409, subdivision (b)(1)-(6) and in compliance with WIC Section 8225(b)(8);
WHEREAS, the City’s value drivers address homelessness through programs and partnerships such as the Multidisciplinary Outreach Team (MDOT) and continued support of Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 5, Packet Page 66 homeless service agencies through the City’s Community Development Block Grant program such as but not limited to Gathering for Women and Community Human Services; WHEREAS, the City released a Notice of Funding Availability on October 9, 2024 with a deadline for submitting completed applications on December 13, 2024; WHEREAS, the City hosted a mandatory online application meeting on October 21, 2024. A rating and ranking committee consisting of members of the Housing Division, Planning Division, a member of the Planning Commission, and a member of the Police Department’s Mutli-Disciplinary Outreach Team (MDOT), rated and ranked applications for award. The rating and ranking committee heard presentations from applicants on January 10th and finalized rating and ranking on February 10, 2024. It was determined that enough funds could be awarded to three organizations who applied for funding. The organizations that applied for funding included Downtown Streets Team, Gathering For Women, and Community Human Services; and WHEREAS, the City of Monterey Planning Division 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 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. The appropriate level of CEQA review will be conducted on the future project prior to the City taking any action and on any future development of City property. No decision is considered by the City Council at this time that could be analyzed through the CEQA process;

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

1. Distributes PLHA Program grant funds from the Expenditure Account of 101-400- 4305-0000-4703 in the amount of $199,132;

2. Awards $67,100 to Downtown Streets, Inc., $33,000 to Gathering For Women - Monterey, and $89,075.40 to Community Human Services for the provision of homeless services and $9,956.60 for City administration of the grant (administration is allowed at five percent of the grant); and
Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 6, Packet Page 67

3. Authorizes the City Manager to enter into agreements with Downtown Streets Team, Gathering For Women, and Community Human Services for expenditure of the grant funds in FY 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, 6/17/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 7, Packet Page 68 Council
Agenda Report
№11/25
FROM: Brian Edwards, Library & Museums Director
Prepared By: Francesca Garibaldi, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT: Authorize Appropriating $270,227.46 in Donated Funds to the Library Trust Fund Budget (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council authorize the appropriation of
$270,227.46 to the Library Trust Fund budget as
requested by the Board of Library Trustees.

VALUE DRIVERS:

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Article 7 of the Monterey City Charter states:

There shall be maintained a library trust fund
which shall consist of the present library trust
fund together with all gifts, devises or bequests
received for the use of the library hereafter and
all miscellaneous revenues of the library, except
fines. Expenditures from said fund shall be made
by the Council for such library purposes as are
requested by the Library Board and as are in
conformity with the conditions of any such gifts,
devises, or bequests.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

During the 2023-24 and 2024-25 fiscal years, the City has received and recorded donations into the Library Trust Fund. The recommended appropriation of $270,227.46 in donated funds collected over the past two years to the Library Trust Fund budget will provide supplemental funds to support Monterey Public Library (MPL) programs, services, and material and equipment purchases and is included in the FY25-26 proposed budget.

Agenda Report Highlights
 City Council is recommended to
approve the appropriation of
$270,227.46 in donated funds to the
Library Trust Fund budget.
 Donations were raised through
community support, including
campaigns by the Monterey Public
Library Friends & Foundation.
 Funds will support library programs,
materials, digitization projects,
public art, and the 2025 Summer
Reading Program.
 The donations supplement services
provided by the City’s General Fund
and are restricted for specific
purposes.

Date: 6/17/2025
Item No.: 11.

Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 11., Item Page 1, Packet Page 69 №10/24
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

None.

DISCUSSION:

Through the generous support of community members and dedicated volunteers of the Monterey Public Library Friends & Foundation, a combined total of $270,227.46 over the past two years has been raised for materials, programs and services, and Monterey County Gives! projects.

The Monterey Public Library Friends & Foundation has gifted the Monterey Public Library a combined $108,640 to support library programs, library materials, online resources, furniture, and supplies. These funds supplement library services provided by the City’s General Fund.

The MPL Friends & Foundation’s Monterey County Gives! campaign raised $63,368.62 for the Memories of Monterey project that will increase digitization and access to Monterey Public Library’s collection as well as create a memory lab for the public and staff to use. The I HeART MPL campaign raised $73,218.84 from generous community members to support access to art and increase public art at the library. These funds are restricted for the specific purposes of these projects.

A local couple has generously gifted $25,000 for the 2025 Summer Reading Program. Funds will be allocated to support free library programs, game boards, and materials for the public.

The MPL Friends & Foundation, Board of Library Trustees, staff, and community members are incredibly grateful for the immense support reflected in these donations to supplement the programs and services of the Monterey Public Library.

The Board of Library Trustees requests allocating the foregoing donation funds to the Library Trust Fund budget.

BE/fg
Attachment: 1. Resolution
Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 11., Item Page 2, Packet Page 70 №10/24
e: Board of Library Trustees
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, 6/17/2025, Item No. 11., Item Page 3, Packet Page 71 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№011/24
AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATING $270,227.46 IN DONATED FUNDS

TO THE LIBRARY TRUST FUND
WHEREAS, the Monterey Public Library Friends & Foundation, through the generous donations and support of community members, has gifted the Monterey Public Library $108,640 to supplement the Library Trust Fund budget for purchases of materials, programs, and services;
WHEREAS, through the Monterey County Gives! Campaign, the Monterey Public Library Friends & Foundation raised $63,368.62 for the Memories of Monterey project and $73,218.84 for the I HeART MPL project;
WHEREAS, a local couple has generously provided support for Monterey Public Library’s Summer Reading Program with a gift of $25,000; WHEREAS, the Board of Library Trustees requested that the Council of the City of Monterey authorizes the appropriation of these donated funds; 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.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby authorizes the appropriation of $270,227.46 from the Library Trust Fund as noted:
810-550-5510-ADMN-4285 MPL Friends & Foundation Wish List Donations $108,640 Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 11., Item Page 4, Packet Page 72 810-550-5530-REFE-4285 Monterey County Gives! I HeART MPL $73,218.84 810-550-5540-REFE-4285 Monterey County Gives! Memories of Monterey $63,368.62 810-550-5530-REFE-4240 Donation for the MPL Summer Reading Program $25,000 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, 6/17/2025, Item No. 11., Item Page 5, Packet Page 73 Council
Agenda Report
№11/25
FROM: Nat Rojanasathira, Assistant City Manager
Prepared By: Scott Connolly, Cemetery Coordinator
SUBJECT: Authorize the City of Monterey Cemetery El Encinal to Buy Back Cemetery Lot 11 in Block 63 for $2,872.75 payable to Mr. Eugene Balance and Cemetery Lots 36 and 37 in Block 217 for $5,745.50 payable to Mr. Scott Hutchins. (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 the City of Monterey Cemetery El Encinal to buy back
Cemetery Lot 11 in Block 63 for $2,872.75 payable to Mr.

Eugene Balance; and Cemetery Lots 36 and 37 in Block
217 for $5,745.50 payable to Mr. Scott Hutchins.

VALUE DRIVERS:

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

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

No new policy implications are associated with this
transaction.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE
ACT) APPLIES: Yes.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The current policy is to buy back a lot for 50% of the current lot sales price or issue a full refund of the original purchase price, whichever is greater. Here, the current lot purchase price is $5,745.50 and 50% of that amount is $2,872.75 each.

By refunding the purchase amount of $8,618.25, these lots would then be returned to inventory Agenda Report Highlights
 The City of Monterey Cemetery El
Encinal plans to buy back three
unoccupied cemetery lots for
$8,618.25 from two customers.
 The buyback policy ensures either a
50% refund of the current lot price
or a full refund of the original
purchase price, whichever is
greater.
 Reselling the lots at current market
rates, including burial fees, will
generate additional revenue for the
Cemetery Fund.
 Choosing not to buy back the lots
could result in lost revenue and
prolonged unoccupied inventory.

Date: 6/17/2025
Item No.: 12.

Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 1, Packet Page 74 №11/24
to be resold at the current market price including endowments and burial fees. .

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

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

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council could choose not to buy back the three (3) cemetery lots. This alternative is not recommended because the City could resell these three lots at the current market price including any burial costs for additional revenue to the City. Additionally, these lots could remain unoccupied for many years to come if not repurchased and resold, thus losing potential revenue for the Cemetery Fund.

DISCUSSION:

The Cemetery received a letter from two separate customers requesting the City to buy back three (3) individual lots that are unoccupied in the amount of $8,618.25. If approved by Council, these lots would be placed back into the inventory to be resold. Revenue from a future purchase of these lots would be then included into the Cemetery Fund at the current market rate.

Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City of Monterey’s Cemetery, Cementerio El Encinal to buy back three (3) cemetery lots in the amount of $8,618.25 as described in the recommendation section.

NR/sc
Attachments: 1. Resolution

2. Letter dated May 5, 2025 requesting buy back

3. Letter dated May 30, 2025 requesting buy back
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, 6/17/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 2, Packet Page 75 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

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

AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF MONTEREY CEMETERY EL INCINAL TO BUY BACK THREE (3) CEMETERY LOTS FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF $8,618.25 WHEREAS, the City received two separate requests to repurchase three (3) individual cemetery lots that are no longer needed;
WHEREAS, the current policy is to buy back a lot for 50% of the current lot sales price or issue a full refund of the original purchase price, whichever is greater. Here, the current lot purchase price is $5,745.50 and 50% of that amount is $2,872.75 for each; WHEREAS, by refunding the purchase amount, these lots would then be returned to inventory to be resold at the current market price including endowments and burial fees; WHEREAS, these lots could remain unoccupied for many years to come if not repurchased and resold, thus losing potential revenue for the Cemetery Fund, 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.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby authorizes and directs the City of Monterey Cemetery El Encinal Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 3, Packet Page 76 to buy back Lot 11 in Block 63 for $2,872.75 payable to Mr. Eugene Balance; and Lots 36 and 37 in Block 217 for $5,745.50 payable to Mr. Scott Hutchins.

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, 6/17/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 4, Packet Page 77 ATTACHMENT 2
May 5, 2025
City of Monterey
Cementerio El Encinal
798 Fremont Street
Monterey, CA 93940
RE: City to buy back Lot 11 in Block 63
Dear Cemetery Coordinator,
I, Eugene Balance, am requesting the cemetery buy back lot 11 in block 63, which I am the indenture holder. This lot was originally purchased by my mother, Pearl Newlin in the 1940s for approximately $20 dollars. The city cemetery has no original indenture on file. I requested the lot transfer of ownership to me in October of 2021.

Since the lot has appreciated in value over the years, I would ask the City to possibly return to me a fair price for the lot. My intention is to be buried near my mother and use the proceeds from this sale to cover the burial fees. Please let me know your decision in writing. I can be reached at the address below.

Respectfully,
Eugene Balance
762 S. Governor St.

Evansville, IN 47713
Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 5, Packet Page 78 ATTACHMENT 3
May 30, 2025
City of Monterey
Cementerio El Encinal
798 Fremont St.

Monterey, CA 93940
RE: City to buy back lot(s) 36 and 37 in Block 217
Dear Cemetery Coordinator,
I, Scott Hutchins, am requesting the cemetery buy back lots 36 and 37 in block 217. These lots were originally purchased by my parents Charles and Janet Hutchins in 1994 for approximately $2,050.00.

I have the original indenture and receipts and have provided copies. I have also enclosed a copy of my executor role in my father’s estate. I am responsible of liquidating my father’s assets and carrying out his wishes.

The unoccupied lots will not be used. My father, Charles has passed away and will be interred on June 10, 2025 in your cemetery. Since the lot has appreciated in value over the years, I would ask the City to possibly return to me a fair price for the lots.

Please let me know your decision in writing. I can be reached at the address below.

Respectfully,
Scott C. Hutchins, (a true representation of my signature) POA & Executor of the Hutchins Estate
Scott Hutchins
124 Seafoam Ave.

Monterey, CA 93940
Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 6, Packet Page 79 Council
Agenda Report
№11/25
FROM: Andrew Miller, Fire Chief
Prepared By: Cheryl Kouretas, Senior Administrative Analyst SUBJECT: Authorize the City Manager to Enter into a New Agreement to Provide Fire and Ambulance Services to the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, and Amend the FY 25-26 Position Control List and FY25-26 Adopted Budget (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 to authorize the City Manager to enter into a new agreement to provide
fire and ambulance services to the City of Carmel-bythe-Sea, approve related agreements with employee labor organizations, amend the position control list to add six (6) firefighter positions and amend the FY 25-26 adopted budget for the increased costs of the positions and the corresponding increase in offsetting revenue.

VALUE DRIVERS:

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The City of Monterey has two (2) current agreements
with the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea:

1. Ag-1790 to Provide Fire Services to the City of
Carmel-by-the-Sea

2. Ag-456 to Provide Interim Ambulance
Administration Services to the City of Carmel-bythe-Sea The proposed new agreement would be for the City of
Monterey to provide both Fire and Ambulance services
to the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea under one agreement
and also include the provision of direct ambulance services beyond ambulance administration services.

In transitioning from providing interim ambulance administration services to providing ambulance services, the City of Monterey would provide staffing for the ambulance. All of the current Firefighter/Paramedics employed by the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea would be given Agenda Report Highlights
 Monterey proposes a new
agreement to provide both fire and
ambulance services to Carmel-bythe-Sea under one contract.  Six firefighter positions will be
added, with corresponding budget
amendments for increased costs
and offsetting revenue.
 Carmel will reimburse Monterey for
all direct costs plus a 16%
administrative fee for ambulance
services.
 Monterey will offer employment to
current Carmel ambulance staff,
subject to pre-employment
requirements.
 The agreement enhances public
safety, operational efficiency, and
regional resilience while paving the
way for future service consolidation.

Date: 6/17/2025
Item No.: 13.

Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 13., Item Page 1, Packet Page 80 №11/24
conditional job offers to transition to work for City of Monterey.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea would reimburse the City of Monterey for all direct costs associated with providing Fire and Ambulance services plus an Administrative Charge to help offset indirect administration costs including Fire Administration personnel, Human Resources, Finance/Payroll, Risk, and other administrative services provided. The ambulance services administrative fee is proposed at 16% based on the Fire Services contracts study conducted by Baker Tilly in 2023. One-time costs associated with the implementation of ambulance services including radios, equipment and appropriate PPE for Carmel will also be covered under the terms of the contract. The fees for services under the current model and proposed model are outlined below.

Current projected revenue from City of Carmel-by-the-Sea:

FY 26 Fire Services $3,405,640
FY 26 Interim Ambulance Administration $26,777
TOTAL: $3,432,417
Proposed projected revenue from City of Carmel-by-the-Sea:

FY 26 Fire Services $3,405,640
FY 26 Ambulance Services $2,140,071
TOTAL: $5,545,711
The contract includes the addition of six firefighters positions at an average fully burdened total cost of $272,000 each per year. The position control list should be amended to add the six additional positions. The FY 25-26 adopted budget should be amended to include the corresponding increase in salaries and benefits and the offsetting increase in revenues from the proposed projected new contract of $2,113,294.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

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

Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 13., Item Page 2, Packet Page 81 №11/24
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council could decide not to authorize the City Manager to enter into a new agreement to provide fire and ambulance services to the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea. This is not recommended as the City of Monterey is best suited to fully staff the Carmel Fire Ambulance, which benefits the residents and visitors of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea to receive emergency services.

DISCUSSION:

The City of Monterey Fire Department (MFD) has provided contractual fire and emergency response services to the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea (Carmel) since January 1, 2012. These services include response to fire, medical, hazardous conditions and other emergency situations. MFD has also provided Interim Ambulance Administration Services to Carmel since January 1, 2012. These services include operational supervision of personnel, training coordination with personnel, management of emergency incident operations and emergency relief staffing.

In 2022, Carmel approached the City of Monterey to explore the potential to provide ambulance services, to include full staffing of the ambulance, in addition to fire services. The Monterey City Council authorized the City Manager to submit a proposal to provide fire and ambulance services to the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea in response to their request in March 2023 (Reso 23- 033).

In February 2025, the City of Monterey submitted a proposal to Carmel. Carmel brought the proposal to their City Council in May 2025 and received direction from Council to begin negotiations.

History
Discussions regarding the merits and interest of consolidating fire services within Monterey, Pacific Grove and Carmel-by-the-Sea began back in 2005. A feasibility analysis study was conducted by Citygate Associates, LLC in 2007 and it was concluded that the consolidation of the three cities was both operationally and fiscally feasible as well as offering a mutually advantageous, cost-effective solution to improve the coordination, command and control of fire and emergency services with significant operational and service-level benefits. The study recommended a two-phase implementation beginning with a contractual model followed by a full consolidation under a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) governance model. Below is a brief history of services provided between the three cities:
 2008 – Monterey began contractual fire and emergency services to Pacific Grove  2012 – Monterey began contractual fire and emergency services to Carmel  2012 – Monterey began contractual interim ambulance administration services to Carmel
 2025 – Monterey, at the request of Carmel, submitted a proposal for Monterey to provide ambulance services to Carmel under contract
 Ongoing and Future – Exploration of a Peninsula-wide Joint Powers Authority model Transitioning the contractual ambulance administration services to ambulance services, including staffing is a potential next step moving towards a full consolidation of fire and emergency services model.

Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 13., Item Page 3, Packet Page 82 №11/24
New Agreement Term
With the proposed ambulance services, it is proposed to create one new agreement between Carmel and Monterey that encompasses both fire and ambulance services. The term of the proposed agreement is five (5) years with automatic renewal for an additional five (5) years unless either party provides written notification to the other of intent to allow the agreement to lapse within twelve months of the scheduled expiration. A provision would be included to allow either party to terminate either or both fire and ambulance services, if desired.

Scope of Services
Monterey would provide all-risk Advanced Life Support (ALS) emergency response on Carmel’s fire ambulance including medical emergencies, trauma, fire, rescue, vehicle accidents, hazardous material mitigation, public service calls, and emergency incident management.

Monterey would also provide ambulance administration and support including personnel services, assistance with budget administration, training, records management and monthly response summaries.

Carmel would retain all responsibility for ambulance billing and revenue collection. All revenues collected shall belong to Carmel.

Carmel-by-the-Sea Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment
The proposed Agreement provides for Carmel-by-the-Sea to retain ownership of all real property, building(s), vehicles and equipment associated with the Carmel-by-the-Sea fire station, which are specifically itemized in an exhibit to the current Fire Services Agreement.

Carmel-by-the-Sea will also retain fiscal responsibility for the maintenance, repair, and replacement of those building(s), vehicles, and equipment as necessary. Carmel-by-the-Sea authorizes use of those facilities, vehicles, and equipment by Monterey employees to provide services pursuant to the Agreement.

Staffing
Staffing of the Carmel-by-the-Sea fire ambulance would remain unchanged at two (2) Firefighters. Monterey will also have a Fire Division Chief on duty 24 hours per day and physically located within Monterey Fire’s jurisdiction, ready to respond immediately to an emergency and provide immediate incident command and control.

Transfer of Employment
Monterey proposes to offer employment to all current Carmel-by-the-Sea ambulance employees, subject to their passing a standard Monterey Fire Department pre-employment medical examination and signing an agreement authorizing transfer of their personnel, training, and medical files to Monterey. Concurrent with implementation of the proposed Agreement, Monterey proposes to bring on Carmel-by-the-Sea employees in a similar classification as they held in Carmel-by-the-Sea. The City of Monterey has met and conferred with the Monterey Firefighters Association (MFFA) and the Monterey Fire Chief Officers’ Association (MFCOA) regarding this transition.

Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 13., Item Page 4, Packet Page 83 №11/24
Insurance
The agreement will ensure that both cities provide and maintain specified liability and property insurance throughout the term of the agreement. It further provides for Carmel-by-the-Sea to be financially responsible for any damages to Carmel-by-the-Sea-owned real property, buildings(s), equipment, apparatus and vehicles, and for Monterey to be financially responsible for all thirdparty liability caused by negligent or wrongful acts of Monterey employees, including use and/or operation of Carmel-by-the-Sea-owned property, buildings(s), equipment, apparatus and vehicles
The agreement will also contain provisions regarding workers’ compensation. Carmel will be responsible for workers’ compensation claims and benefits for past injuries. The City of Monterey would be responsible for workers’ compensation benefits and claims for future injuries of City of Monterey workers assigned to staff Carmel ambulances.

Summary
Monterey providing ambulance services to Carmel offers several key benefits that enhance public safety, service quality, operational efficiency and additional revenues to offset Monterey’s administration costs. MFD already delivers fire and emergency services to Carmel, and integrating ambulance services and staffing under the same agency would streamline emergency response and improve coordination. With a larger staffing model and greater depth of resources, MFD can offer more consistent and reliable coverage, especially during high-call volumes or major incidents. Additionally, utilizing MFD’s existing systems would be more costeffective for Carmel than operating a separate service. MFD also maintains strong data reporting and quality control practices, ensuring transparency, accountability, and continuous improvement. This increased partnership would strengthen regional resilience and continue the path towards full consolidation of regional fire and emergency services in the future.

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into a new agreement to provide fire and ambulance services to the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, to approve related agreements with employee labor organizations, amend the position control list to add six (6) firefighter positions, amend the FY25-26 adopted budget to include the increase in revenues and expenses of $2,113,294 (the difference between current contract and projected contract changes).

AM/ck
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, 6/17/2025, Item No. 13., Item Page 5, Packet Page 84 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

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

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A NEW AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE

FIRE AND AMBULANCE SERVICES TO THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, AMEND THE FY 25-26 POSITION CONTROL LIST AND FY25-26 ADOPTED BUDGET WHEREAS, since January 1, 2012, Carmel has continuously contracted with Monterey for the provision of Fire Services within its jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, since January 1, 2012, Carmel has continuously contracted with Monterey for the provision of Interim Administration of Ambulance Services within Carmel; and WHEREAS, Carmel has determined that the most effective method of providing fire and ambulance services within its jurisdiction is through a contract for services model; and WHEREAS, Monterey and Carmel desire to continue the provision of Fire Services, terminate the provision of Interim Administration of Ambulance Services and begin the provision of Ambulance Services; 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. 2 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 authorizes the City Manager to enter into a new agreement to provide fire and ambulance services to the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea and to approve related agreements with employee organizations.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby amends the FY 25-26 Position Control List to add six firefighter positions, and amends the FY 25-26 Adopted budget to increase the revenues and salaries and benefits expenses by $2,113,294.

Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 13., Item Page 6, Packet Page 85 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, 6/17/2025, Item No. 13., Item Page 7, Packet Page 86 Council
Agenda Report
№11/25
FROM: Hans Uslar, City Manager
Prepared By: Kim Cole, AICP, Community Development Director Andrea Renny, P.E., PTOE, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Approve the City of Monterey’s Response Letter to the 2024-2025 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury Final Report “Monterey’s Deteriorating Wharves: A Concern for Public Safety.” (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council authorize the Mayor and City
Manager to sign the attached correspondence in
response to the 2024-2025 Monterey County Civil Grand
Jury Final Report “Monterey’s Deteriorating Wharves: A
Concern for Public Safety.”
VALUE DRIVERS:

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

In 2024-2025 the Monterey County Civil Grand Jury
produced a final report pertaining to the condition and maintenance of the City of Monterey’s Municipal
Wharves (Attachment 1). The report contains findings
and recommendations regarding the City of Monterey.

The City Council is required to respond within 90 days of publication, and staff have prepared a recommended
response (Attachment 2).

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE
ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The response to the Civil Grand Jury does not have
fiscal implications.

Agenda Report Highlights
 The Monterey County Civil Grand
Jury released a recent report
highlighting concerns about the
structural condition and public
safety of the City’s two wharves.
 Both wharves are rated in "Poor"
condition by engineering standards,
but the City emphasizes that this
does not significantly reduce their
load-bearing capacity, and repairs
are prioritized based on urgency.
 Wharf lessees are responsible for
maintaining their structures,
conducting inspections every three
years, and addressing deficiencies,
with repairs currently underway.
 The City has invested over $3M in
wharf repairs over the past six
years and allocated over $11M
million in its five-year Capital
Improvement Plan for inspections,
repairs, and upgrades.
 The City Council must respond to
the Grand Jury report within 90
days, and staff recommends
authorizing the response letter.

Date: 6/17/2025
Item No.: 14.

Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 1, Packet Page 87 №11/24
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 revise the correspondence.

DISCUSSION:

The 2024-2025 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury (“CGJ”) released a report titled "Monterey's Deteriorating Wharves: A Concern for Public Safety" ("CGJ Report") on April 16, 2025. The CGJ Report contains findings and recommendations regarding the City of Monterey's wharves. The City Council is required to respond to the findings and recommendations within 90 days of the CGJ Report's publication. Staff has prepared a recommended response for City Council consideration (Attachment 1).

The CGJ Report focuses on the structural condition of Old Fisherman's Wharf (Wharf 1) and Municipal Wharf No. 2 (“Wharf 2”), maintenance responsibilities, repair challenges, and funding.

The CGJ Report asserts that both wharves are in "Poor" structural condition and that the City has neglected to restore their integrity for several years. It also raises concerns about public safety, the City's historic structures, and leaseholder assets.

The City of Monterey acknowledges the age of its wharves. Wharf 1 is over 100 years old, and Wharf 2, originally built in 1926 to service the commercial fishing industry, is also approaching 100 years. The City cyclically inspects and repairs the wharves, typically on a 3-5 year cycle.

The wharves are currently maintained through a programmatic repair program which prioritizes repairs based on urgencies identified through periodic structural assessments. An inspection and assessment of Wharf 1 was performed in spring 2024.

While the "Poor" condition rating by American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) standards is noted for both wharves, the City emphasizes that this rating signifies: "Major deterioration or overstressing observed on widespread portions of the structure but does not significantly reduce the load-bearing capacity of the structure. Repairs may need to be carried out with moderate urgency". The City expedites repairs when a condition is found to potentially compromise a structure's safety. Based on the report, repairs continue to be scheduled and budgeted.

It is also important to note that Wharf 1 and Wharf 2 ground leases require the tenants to be responsible for maintaining their structure. Under the Wharf 1 and Wharf 2 ground leases, lessees own and maintain all improvements from the sand to the roof, including pilings and substructure. Lessees are obligated to have structural inspections every three years, provide the structural report to the City, and repair any noted deficiencies. Lessees are currently in various stages of obtaining the required permits and constructing the repairs to their structures.

Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 2, Packet Page 88 №11/24
The City has also made significant investments in wharf repairs. Over the past six years, the City has invested over $3 million in the programmatic repairs program, including $1.3 million for emergency deck repairs to Wharf II in 2024. The City's proposed five-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) reflects ongoing commitment to the maintenance and structural integrity of the wharves, allocating over $11 million from various funding sources from FY 24-30 for inspections, repairs and upgrades. The City is committed to the ongoing maintenance and safety of its wharves and will continue to address the challenges identified, balancing immediate repair needs with long-term strategic planning and funding pursuits.

In summary, staff recommends the City Council authorize the Mayor and City Manager to sign the attached correspondence in response to the 2024-2025 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury Final Report “Monterey’s Deteriorating Wharves: A Concern for Public Safety.” Attachments: 1. Monterey County Civil Grand Jury Final Report

2. City of Monterey Grand Jury Response
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, 6/17/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 3, Packet Page 89 MONTEREY’S DETERIORATING WHARVES:

A CONCERN FOR PUBLIC SAFETY
Entrance to the Monterey Wharves
Source: Photograph by Civil Grand Juror

SUMMARY
During its 2023-2024 term, the Monterey County Civil Grand Jury (CGJ) received a condition survey report conducted by an international structural engineering consulting firm. This 2017 report revealed that both wharves are in “Poor” structural condition and identified extensive repairs needed to ensure the integrity of the wharves and to provide for the safety of all users. Two 2024 reports assessed that the structural condition of the wharves remains “Poor.” Recognizing the urgency of these reports, the 2024-2025 Civil Grand Jury began this investigation. On December 23, 2024, a significant portion of the City of Santa Cruz’s wharf collapsed into Monterey Bay, further emphasizing the timeliness of this investigation.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 4, Packet Page 90 The Monterey Wharves are a symbol of the City’s unique charm and contribute to the community’s financial well-being. However, people may not be aware that the cost of repairing the necessary structural elements and maintaining these intricate structures far exceeds the income generated from them. To date, no clear funding plan addresses these critical expenses.

The CGJ found that the City of Monterey has neglected to restore the integrity of its wharves for at least seven years. Several structural elements remain in disrepair despite spending significant tax dollars on at least five reports. The structural deterioration of the Wharves worsens with each passing storm.

The City of Monterey has initiated changes to address several of the issues in this report.

The CGJ maintains that its recommendations remain relevant.

BACKGROUND
For more than 130 years, Monterey’s Wharves, comprising Old Fisherman’s Wharf (Wharf 1) and Commercial Wharf (Wharf 2), have been pivotal landmarks in the City’s development, serving as vital fishing, commercial, and historical sites. In 1868, the State granted the City of Monterey title to its waterfront, designating this area as the Monterey Bay Tidelands. These are held in public trust and regulated by the State of California. The Tidelands area uses are restricted to those that benefit the public trust, such as commerce, fisheries, navigation, and recreation. Monterey’s wharves are situated within this tideland area.

By 1870, the Pacific Coast Steamship Company operated from the wharf, shipping goods and passengers. Over time, fishermen and merchants began leasing the wharf, leading to ongoing repairs and improvements prompted by public demand.

As fishing and maritime industries flourished, settlers devised innovative techniques to harvest abalone, squid, salmon, and other seafood, making the wharf an important hub for trade. In the early 20th century, the demand for a municipal wharf surged, prompting the City of Monterey to acquire ownership in 1913 and rename it Fisherman’s Wharf in 1916. After a storm partially collapsed the wharf in 1923, major repairs and a significant ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 5, Packet Page 91 extension were undertaken. In 1926, the City of Monterey constructed Wharf 2 to support the growing fishing industry.

By the 1950s, the decline of sardine fishing transformed the wharves’ primary focus to tourism. Over time, debates emerged regarding maintenance, expansion, and oversight.

In 1939, the City of Monterey implemented a Master Plan that mandated self-sustaining wharf maintenance, leading to lessees assuming greater responsibility by 1940.

As a popular destination for millions of visitors annually, Monterey's Fisherman's Wharf provides a diverse array of activities, such as dining, boating, shopping, marine wildlife viewing, and strolling in a picturesque setting overlooking Monterey Bay. Today, the citizens of Monterey rely on the City and leaseholders to collaborate to maintain and ensure the safety of the wharves.

METHODOLOGY
The CGJ interviewed representatives from various City of Monterey departments and a lessee, examined documents related to the operation and maintenance of the Monterey Wharves and reviewed recordings of relevant Monterey City Council meetings. The CGJ received detailed information from multiple wharf structural engineering inspection reports prepared by four licensed engineering firms: COWI North America, Inc., Mayone Structural Engineering, ProView Property Inspection, and Foth & Van Dyke and Associates. Three of these firms specialize in both above-water and underwater inspections of structures.

Key reviewed documents include:
 Wharf 1 and Wharf 2 Condition Survey Report by COWI (November 2017)  Wharf 1 Inspection & Assessment Report of Findings by Foth (July 31, 2024)  Wharf 2 Condition Survey Report by COWI (March 2024)
 Monterey Wharves I and II – Structural Maintenance Program by Environmental Science Associates (ESA) (April 2019)
 Reports from Mayone and ProView covering 2017 through 2024 ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 6, Packet Page 92 Additionally, the CGJ reviewed the City of Monterey multiple-year budget, wharf leases, building permits for wharf maintenance, the City’s internal structural repairs tracking sheet, and City-issued building Notice of Completion reports. This investigation focused solely on the structural integrity of the wharves, including pilings and supporting structures under the walkways, driveways, and buildings, rather than their aesthetic appeal.

DISCUSSION
The Current Condition of the Monterey Wharves
The City of Monterey commissioned internationally recognized marine engineering firms to inspect and assess the wharves. COWI completed an assessment of Wharves 1 and 2 in 2017. In 2024, Foth inspected Wharf 1, and COWI reinspected Wharf 2. These Wharf 1 Substructure. Pyramid piling showing vertical crack, allowing seawater intrusion to deteriorate interior rebar core support. Source: Photograph by Civil Grand Juror ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 7, Packet Page 93 reports rated both wharves as being "Poor" overall based on the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Condition Assessment Rating scale, which includes "Critical, Serious, Poor, Fair, Satisfactory, and Good." ASCE defines "Poor" as "Advanced deterioration or overstressing observed on widespread portions of the structure but does not significantly reduce the load-bearing capacity of the structure. Repairs may need to be carried out with moderate urgency."
Foth’s 2024 report focused solely on Wharf 1, Old Fisherman’s Wharf, concluding that half of the leased portions remain in "Poor" or "Serious” condition.

Condition Assessment of Wharf 1 Leased Properties
Foth 2024

ASCE CONDITION

ASSESSMENT RATING

NUMBER OF
LEASED

PREMISES
Good 0
Satisfactory 4
Fair 11
Poor 9
Serious 6
Critical 0
Source: Wharf 1 Inspection & Assessment Report of Findings by Foth (July 31, 2024) Both the COWI and Foth reports provided detailed information about the necessary repairs, including individual structural components such as piles, pile caps, and stringers.

Each damaged pile is identified and assessed as “moderate,” “major,” or “severe.” The engineers evaluated the condition of the structural members and the extent of the damage resulting in an overall “Poor” condition rating for each wharf. (See diagram on page 8.) ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 8, Packet Page 94 The Responsibility for Maintenance
The City of Monterey is solely responsible for ensuring the safety of all visitors and businesses on Wharves 1 and 2. This includes maintaining common areas such as public restrooms, decks, roadways, and parking, as well as the structures supporting them. The responsibility for structures under the leased buildings varies based on lease type and Pile under Wharf 1. Deteriorating railroad steel piling attached to timber pile with U-bolts. The concrete
encasement has cracked at its crown allowing seawater
intrusion resulting in the rebar to corrode and eventually failing. Source: Photograph by Civil Grand Juror
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 9, Packet Page 95 age. However, the City of Monterey remains responsible for ensuring that all structures are properly maintained.

The City of Monterey negotiates two types of leases with wharf tenants: premise leases and ground leases.

Fender pile along Wharf 1. Timber pile has lost most of its diameter at the water line.

Source: Photograph by Civil Grand Juror
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 10, Packet Page 96 Decking
Stringers
 The 12 premise leaseholders maintain the buildings above the wharf decking.

Through their rent, they collectively contribute 60% of the common area maintenance costs, including the structural elements under their buildings. The City covers the remaining 40% and determines necessary maintenance, repairs, and improvements.
 The 21 ground leaseholders are fully responsible for maintaining and repairing all structures above the sand, including structures below the decking and buildings above.

Most ground leases were signed in 1991 and extended until 2042. These ground leases obligate leaseholders to conduct engineering inspections every three years and complete repairs within six months. Notably, these 1991 ground leases require leaseholders to make the repairs identified during their inspections, but not additional repairs identified by inspections commissioned by the City of Monterey.

In contrast, more recent ground leases, signed in the 2020s, exclude the requirement for leaseholder structural inspections and repairs. Under these new ground leases, the City of Monterey, as the landlord, holds the sole responsibility for determining what structural repairs are required.

The Underlying Structure of a Wharf
Source: Drawing by Civil Grand Juror
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 11, Packet Page 97 Wharf 1 substructure. Old railroad steel piling is highly deteriorated. Timber pile is attached by multiple corroded U-bolts, indicating original wood piling lacking structural integrity.

Source: Photograph by Civil Grand Juror
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 12, Packet Page 98 Maintenance Needs
The COWI 2017 and Foth/COWI 2024 reports identified eight locations on Wharf 1 requiring immediate repairs. Structural integrity concerns escalated from five cases in 2017 to seven in 2024. Some issues flagged in 2017 remained unresolved, while new problems emerged. Notably one location experienced a deterioration in bearing pile condition, with 70% requiring repairs in 2017 and 81% in 2024. Moreover, the CGJ found no evidence of major structural repairs having been conducted between inspections at that specific location.

The City of Monterey supplied all ground leaseholders with excerpts of the COWI and Foth inspections for the leaseholders’ engineer’s consideration. Significant repairs were not undertaken when the leaseholder’s engineer disagreed with the COWI and Foth assessments. In such cases, the City cannot require the leaseholder to undertake the additional repairs recommended in the COWI and Foth reports.

Pile under Wharf 1. Rotted core piling with galvanized through bolt supporting numerous wooden joists.

Source: Photograph by Civil Grand Juror
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 13, Packet Page 99 Pile under Wharf 1. Deteriorating railroad steel piling attached to timber pile with U-bolts.

Source: Photograph by Civil Grand Juror
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 14, Packet Page 100 Substructure of Monterey Wharf 1. Deteriorating railroad steel piles supported by their concrete bases. Timber piles have been fastened to the steel with U-bolts. The substructure consists of varying materials, hardware and repair techniques.

Source: Photograph by Civil Grand Juror
Wharf 2, which has been rated as being in "Poor" condition since 2017, is experiencing widespread timber, concrete, and asphalt deterioration. The City of Monterey is responsible for most of the maintenance of Wharf 2.

Completed Maintenance
Between April 2017 and November 2024, the City of Monterey issued seven building permits for structural work on Wharf 1 by leaseholders and one for work on Wharf 2.

Three permits expired without any work being completed, three were finalized with the work completed, and one remains issued but the work unfinished, according to the City’s reports.

It is important to note that work conducted by the City’s Public Works Department is not reflected in these permit records. A search of the California Coastal Commission permit ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 15, Packet Page 101 applications revealed only two Coastal Development permit applications for wharf repairs between 2017 and 2024, one from the City of Monterey and one from a leaseholder.

The Maintenance Challenges
Repairing the wharves involves coordination among City agencies, leaseholders, and multiple regulatory bodies. The permitting process requires approval from the City of Monterey’s Building and Safety Division, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the California Coastal Commission, and adherence to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Understanding the delays inherent with getting multiple permits, the City has allowed extensions to its tenants to complete the repairs.

Exposed Wharf 1 pile. Concrete sleeve is not continuous above the high-water line, allowing seawater to contact the wood pile, which is suffering from serious deterioration.

Source: Photograph by Civil Grand Juror
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 16, Packet Page 102 The City of Monterey’s wharf maintenance obligations exceed the revenues generated from the wharves. California law mandates that revenue from the wharves can only be used to fund operations, construction, and upkeep in the Tidelands area, which extends beyond the wharves in both directions. To comply with this law, the City of Monterey maintains a dedicated “Tidelands Fund.” In 2024, the city’s Tidelands Fund received $3.3 million, mainly from wharf lease revenues, yet Monterey’s five-year budget projects a need of an additional $17 million for wharf maintenance funding beyond current operating expenses.

Maintenance Plans, Actions, and Funding by the City of Monterey On January 21, 2020, the Monterey City Council secured and adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the wharves, satisfying the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements for structural repairs. An MND is a document that states that a project will not have a significant negative environmental impact when adopting recommended mitigation measures and is an approval method with regulating agencies.

It is typically issued after an Initial Study is concluded. However, the City has not informed all leaseholders about the availability of this tool.

Additionally, the City of Monterey contracted with Environmental Science Associates (ESA) to draft a maintenance plan for Wharf 1 and Wharf 2. The plan proposed a threeyear cycle of inspections, planning, and construction. This draft plan was presented to the City of Monterey in 2019. The CJG could not find evidence that this plan was adopted or implemented.

The City of Monterey recognizes that significant repairs are required to maintain the wharves and has established two capital improvement program funding lines, one for each wharf. Current funding levels fall well short of the millions of dollars the City of Monterey estimates are necessary to repair the portions of the wharves that are the City’s responsibility.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 17, Packet Page 103 Monterey Wharf 1
Source: Photograph by Civil Grand Juror

CONCLUSION
The Monterey wharves, still in “Poor” structural condition, require repairs that have yet to be addressed. Ultimately, the City of Monterey is responsible for maintenance, while leaseholders share the responsibility for repairs. Multiple inspections and reports have documented the necessary repairs at significant cost to the taxpayers. Discrepancies between evaluations by certified engineers for the leaseholders and the City have hindered progress. Additionally, a complex permitting process has further hindered the completion of those repairs. At the June 4, 2024, Monterey City Council meeting, staff reported that $17 million is needed over the next five years to finish just the City’s identified portion of the work. However, the current funding projections are significantly less than this amount, further complicating repair efforts. While the City has taken steps to address maintenance challenges, substantial repairs are needed, and long-term solutions remain unidentified.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 18, Packet Page 104

FINDINGS
F1. The City of Monterey has failed to maintain the structural integrity of its wharves for many years, resulting in the wharves’ classification as being in “Poor” condition, according to ASCE standards. Several structural elements have been identified as requiring immediate repair, yet little action has been taken. This neglect poses serious risks to public safety, the City’s historic structures, and the assets of leaseholders.

F2. Under the 1991 leases, the City of Monterey cannot require leaseholders to undertake structural repairs identified by the City’s inspection reports unless the leaseholder’s engineer agrees those repairs are necessary. This allows the leaseholders to avoid making immediate and critical repairs identified in the Citycommissioned wharf-wide inspections.

F3. The six-month timeframe for repair completion specified in the 1991 ground leases is unrealistic in today’s regulatory environment. Currently, the permits alone, required from the City of Monterey, Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and California Coastal Commission, cannot all be obtained in six months. Consequently, the City allows the leaseholders to delay these repairs without a required completion date or a penalty for noncompliance.

F4. The City of Monterey has not informed all ground leaseholders regarding their ability to use the City’s Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), which could significantly expedite the permitting process. This has resulted in delays in leaseholder-initiated repairs. By employing the MND, leaseholders can streamline the permitting process, reduce costs associated with delayed repairs, and ultimately shorten the time required to mitigate risks to the public.

F5. In 2019, the City of Monterey commissioned a consulting firm at significant expense to create an ongoing maintenance program. This was intended to streamline structural repairs to the wharves, replacing the less efficient project-by-project method. The City of Monterey has yet to implement the Program, delaying work by at least three years, which is equivalent to the length of one maintenance cycle, jeopardizing public safety.

RECOMMENDATIONS
R1. The City of Monterey prepare and publish a report analyzing the discrepancies between leaseholder inspection reports and the 2024 COWI/Foth findings of “immediate” or “critical” repairs. The report must specify the necessity of each repair in accordance with ASCE standards and shall be made public by December 31, 2025.

R2. The City of Monterey include any necessary repairs identified by the City’s analysis of discrepancies between leaseholder inspection reports and the 2024 COWI/Foth findings (as specified in R1) in the Capital Improvement Programs by February 28, 2026.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 19, Packet Page 105 R3. The City of Monterey repeat the analysis of discrepancies between leaseholder inspection reports and the 2024 COWI/Foth findings and incorporation of discrepancies into the Capital Improvement Programs (as specified in R1 and R2) every three years.

R4. The City of Monterey develop a policy to provide a reasonable timeframe for leaseholders to complete repairs, accommodating the current permitting demands, instead of the six months as specified in the 1991 ground leases. The policy shall be implemented by December 31, 2025.

R5. The City of Monterey develop, communicate, and implement a more proactive process for monitoring and enforcing required leaseholder repairs in a reasonable timeframe for leaseholders to complete repairs, accommodating the current permitting demands (as specified in R4), by February 28, 2026.

R6. The City of Monterey notify leaseholders of the existing Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for use in expediting repair permits by September 30, 2025.

R7. The City of Monterey update and publish a wharves maintenance plan that prioritizes and schedules “immediate” and “critical” repairs in accordance with ASCE standards.

R8. The City of Monterey identify funding sources to ensure ongoing structural integrity of the wharves as outlined in the report developed by ESA in 2019 by March 31, 2026.

R9. The City of Monterey complete triennial comprehensive structural inspection schedule for both wharves by November 30, 2025, and share resulting findings with all ground leaseholders within two months of receipt.

REQUEST FOR RESPONSES
The following responses are required pursuant to Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05:

From the following governing bodies within 90 days of the publication of this report:
 Monterey City Council
o Findings: F1 to F5
o Recommendations: R1 to R9

DISCLAIMER
Reports issued by the Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code section 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Grand Jury.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 20, Packet Page 106

GLOSSARY AND ACRONYMS
ASCE Condition Assessment Ratings
Rating Description
Good
No visible damage or only minor damage noted. Structural elements may show very minor deterioration, but no overstressing observed. No repairs are required.

Satisfactory
Limited minor to moderate defects or deterioration observed but no overstressing observed. No repairs are required.

Fair
All primary structural elements are sound but minor to moderate defects or deterioration observed. Localized areas of moderate to advanced deterioration may be present but do not significantly reduce the loadbearing capacity of the structure. Repairs are recommended, but the priority of the recommended repairs is low.

Poor
Advanced deterioration or overstressing observed on widespread portions of the structure but does not significantly reduce the loadbearing capacity of the structure. Repairs may need to be carried out with moderate urgency.

Serious
Advanced deterioration, overstressing, or breakage may have significantly affected the load-bearing capacity of primary structural components. Local failures are possible, and loading restrictions may be necessary. Repairs may need to be carried out on a high-priority basis with urgency.

Critical
Very advanced deterioration, overstressing, or breakage has resulted in localized failure(s) of primary structural components. More widespread failures are possible or likely to occur, and load restrictions should be implemented as necessary. Repairs may need to be carried out on a very high-priority basis with strong urgency.

Source: Waterfront Facilities Inspection and Assessment, ASCE Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice No. 130, edited by Ronald E. Heffron, as developed by the ASCE Technical Procedures Committee, July 1930, and revised March 1935, February 1962, and April 1982 ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CGJ Civil Grand Jury
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 21, Packet Page 107 MND Mitigated Negative Declaration, a document that states that a project will not have a significant negative environmental impact when adopting recommended mitigation measures and is an approval method with regulating agencies.

Pile A post-like structure that supports a wharf.

Pile Cap A concrete mat or wood beam placed on top of several piles to distribute the weight of a wharf to the piles.

Stringers A structural member supporting the wharf decking.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Wharf 1 and Wharf 2 Condition Survey Report Prepared by COWI, dated November 2017 Wharf I Inspection and Assessment Report of Findings by Foth dated July 31, 2024 Wharf II Condition Survey Report prepared by COWI dated March 2024 Concession 1 ProView Property Inspection Report, dated February 18, 2021 Concession 2 Mayone Report, dated July 20, 2023
Concession 2 ProView Property Inspection Report, dated October 28, 2021 Concession 3 Mayone Report, dated November 10, 2023
Concession 3 ProView Property Inspection Report, dated October 28, 2021 Concession 4 Mayone Report, dated October 30, 2023
Concession 4 ProView Property Inspection Report, dated February 18, 2021 Concession 6 Property Condition Inspection Results, dated July 27, 2017 Concessions 5 and 6 Mayone Report, dated September 25, 2017 Concessions 5 and 6 Mayone Report, dated August 21, 2023 Concessions 5 and 6 Mayone Structural Report Photos, dated November 27, 2023 Concession 8 Mayone Report, dated August 21, 2023
Concession 8 Property Condition Inspection Results, dated April 9, 2018 Concession 9 Mayone Report, dated September 18, 2023
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 22, Packet Page 108 Concession 9 Property Condition Inspection Results, dated April 9, 2018 Concession 10 Mayone Report, dated June 19, 2023
Concession 10 Piling Report from Jared Berg, dated November 30, 2023 Concession 10 Property Condition Inspection Results, dated June 14, 2018 Concession 15 Mayone Report, dated September 18, 2023
Concession 15 Property Condition Inspection Results, dated April 9, 2018 Concession 16 Property Condition Inspection Results, dated May 8, 2018 Concession 17 Mayone Report, dated October 31, 2023
Concession 17 Property Condition Inspection Results, dated May 8, 2018 Concession 18 Mayone Final Letter and Observation, dated December 30, 2017 Concession 18 Mayone Plans Sheets S1, S2, and S3, received April 20, 2017 Concessions 19-24-25-26 Mayone Structural Report, dated November 30, 2023 Concession 21 Mayone Report, dated November 6, 2023
Concession 21 Property Condition Inspection Results, dated May 8, 2018 Concession 23/30 Property Condition Inspection Results, dated June 28, 2019 Concession 25 Property Condition Inspection Results, dated April 9, 2018 Concession 28 Mayone Report, dated November 10, 2023
Concession 28 Property Condition Inspection Results, dated May 23, 2018 Concession 28 ProView Property Inspection Report, dated October 3, 2023 Concession 29 Mayone Report, dated September 6, 2023
Concession 29 Property Condition Inspection Results, dated May 23, 2018 Concession 31 Mayone Report, dated September 4, 2023
Concession 31 Property Condition Inspection Results, dated June 4, 2018 Concession 32 Mayone Report, dated August 21, 2023
Concession 32 Property Condition Inspection Results, dated June 4, 2018 ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 23, Packet Page 109 Concession 33 Property Condition Inspection Results, dated June 4, 2018 Concession 33 ProView Property Inspection Report, dated February 17, 2021 Concession 34 Mayone Report, dated October 30, 2023
Concession 34 ProView Property Inspection Report, dated September 26, 2023 Lou Lou's Griddle in the Middle Mayone Report, Dated December 8, 2023 Lou Lou's Griddle in the Middle Mayone Report, dated October 2, 2017 Lou Lou's Griddle in the Middle ProView Property Inspection Report, dated June 12, 2024 Monterey Peninsula Yacht Club Mayone Report, dated November 20, 2017 Monterey Peninsula Yacht Club Mayone Report, dated October 29, 2020 Monterey Peninsula Yacht Club Mayone Report, dated October 31, 2023 Sandbar & Grill Mayone Report, dated February 15, 2018
Sandbar & Grill Mayone Report, dated November 6, 2023
Sandbar & Grill ProView Corrected Action Letter, dated August 29, 2024 Sandbar & Grill ProView Property Inspection Report, dated April 24, 2024 ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 24, Packet Page 110 ATTACHMENT 2
June 17, 2025
The Honorable Judge Stephanie E. Hulsey
Judge of the Superior Court
c/o Office of the County Counsel
Attention: Sandra Ontiveros
168 W. Alisal Street, 3rd Floor
Salinas, CA 93901
Re: 2024-2025 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury Final Report – “Monterey’s Deteriorating Wharves: A Concern for Public Safety”
Dear Honorable Judge Hulsey,
This letter is in response to the Monterey County Civil Grand Jury Final Report – “Monterey’s Deteriorating Wharves: A Concern for Public Safety” pursuant to Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05. The responses contained in this correspondence were approved by the Monterey City Council at its regular meeting on June 17th, 2025.

On behalf of the Monterey City Council, I would like to assure you that the City of Monterey is committed to ensuring the safety and continued investment in our infrastructure. The City of Monterey appreciates the Civil Grand Jury’s work and responds to the report’s findings and recommendations below. The actual report language is displayed in bold type for readability.

The City Council disagrees with this finding. Wharf I is over 100 years old, and Wharf No. II is approaching 100. The City cyclically inspects and repairs the wharves targeting a 3 to 5 year cycle. While the wharves are rated as being in “poor condition,” that does not mean the structures do not have structural integrity. A “Poor condition” rating is defined as “Major deterioration or overstressing observed on widespread portions of the structure but does not significantly reduce the load-bearing capacity of the structure. Repairs may need to be carried out with moderate urgency.” When a condition is found to potentially compromise the structure’s safety, the City takes action and expedites these repairs. The City has invested over $6 million in the wharf programmatic repairs program over the last six (6) years, including 2018 Wharf II critical repairs, 2021/22 Municipal Wharves Structural Repairs, and 2024/25 Wharf II Deck Repairs.

The current condition of the wharves does not pose an immediate or serious risk to public safety (See table below). There are no historically designated buildings or properties (H1, H2 or HD) present at Wharf I or Wharf II.

Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 25, Packet Page 111 Condition Assessment Rating (CAR) from ASCE, Table 2-14:

Condition Rating Description
6 Good
No visible damage or only minor damage noted. Structural elements may show very minor deterioration, but no overstressing observed. No repairs are required.
5 Satisfactory Limited minor to moderate defects or deterioration observed but no overstressing observed. No repairs are required.
4 Fair
All primary structural elements are sound but minor to moderate defects or deterioration observed. Localized areas of moderate to advanced deterioration may be present but do not significantly reduce the load-bearing capacity of the structure. Repairs are recommended, but the priority of the recommended repairs is low
3 Poor
Advanced deterioration or overstressing observed on widespread portions of the structure but does not significantly reduce the load-bearing capacity of the structure. Repairs may need to be carried out with moderate urgency. 2 Serious
Advanced deterioration, overstressing, or breakage may have significantly affected the load-bearing capacity of the primary structural components. Local failures are possible, and loading restrictions may be necessary. Repairs may need to be carried out on a high-priority basis with urgency. 1 Critical
Very advanced deterioration, overstressing, or breakage has resulted in localized failure(s) of primary structural components. More widespread failures are possible or likely to occur, and load restrictions should be implemented as necessary. Repairs may need to be carried out on a very high-priority basis with strong urgency
F2. Under the 1991 leases, the City of Monterey cannot require leaseholders to undertake structural repairs identified by the City’s inspection reports unless the leaseholder’s engineer agrees those repairs are necessary. This allows the leaseholders to avoid making immediate and critical repairs identified in the City commissioned wharf-wide inspections.

The City Council disagrees with this finding. The “1991 leases” are ground leases, in which all of the improvements from the sand to the top of the roof, are owned and maintained by the lessee.

This includes the pilings, substructure and decking. The lease only obligates the lessee to pay for a structural inspection and report every 3 years and to repair any defects noted in the report in accordance with the ground lease. Generally, the professional conducting the structural inspection is a registered engineer, structural or civil, with experience in wharves and wharf construction.

The Civil Grand Jury insinuates in this finding that the leaseholders’ engineers are poised to oppose findings from inspection reports. The Civil Grand Jury ignores the fact that professional Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 26, Packet Page 112 engineers are licensed by the State of California and are bound by the highest technical and ethical standards.

Multiple qualified engineers can look at the same structure and form different professional opinions about the severity of damage and the recommended course of action to repair it.

Fortunately, there is some level of redundancy automatically built into the calculations and the design. For example, an existing pile could completely fail, and the decking, joists, cap beams and other remaining piles can re-distribute the load such that the structure remains stable. That does not mean that necessary repairs can be neglected or unnecessarily delayed, but it does afford the means to navigate the permitting process without fearing imminent failure. Should a wharf deteriorate to the extent that failure is likely, the qualified engineers would be obligated to inform the City that the structure is unsafe and cannot be occupied. No such determination has been made in the case of Monterey’s wharves.

While the City Council agrees with the first two sentences of this finding, it does not agree with the conclusion. The regulatory landscape has changed considerably since the City entered the Fisherman’s Wharf ground leases in 1991, and the City recognizes that it can be difficult for lessees to obtain all required permits within the 6 month period required in the lease. Therefore, in order to ensure compliance with the intent of the lease, the City has demonstrated both patience and practicality while the lessees continue to work through the process of applying for and securing the numerous required permits. The City carefully tracks the lessees permitting and repair progress, following up with lessees if progress appears stalled. Should the lessee fail to act diligently in obtaining all necessary permits and scheduling work, the City may take action as afforded in the lease agreement.

The City Council acknowledges that it did not provide the lessees with a copy of the City’s Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) at the time it was adopted. The MND was formally adopted by the City Council on January 20, 2020, during a publicly noticed and conducted meeting. This adoption occurred mid-cycle of the lessees’ three-year reporting period, which could explain why the lessees neglected to be aware of it.

Moving forward, the City shall inform all ground leaseholders if, and when, they may be able to use the City’s MND for streamlining the permitting process.

Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 27, Packet Page 113 Reference:
https://isearchmonterey.org/publicaccess/api/Document/ARw5M3Tmy66%C3%89tUELg%C3%8 1uwJw%C3%81vxmTStGAlaoeUTUmgD4JhpGIbseZ3MQJFpUvzsI5gUgxJESJnGC4K0k9BMCt 2XWk%3D/
F5. In 2019, the City of Monterey commissioned a consulting firm at significant expense to create an ongoing maintenance program. This was intended to streamline structural repairs to the wharves, replacing the less efficient project-by-project method. The City of Monterey has yet to implement the Program, delaying work by at least three years, which is equivalent to the length of one maintenance cycle, jeopardizing public safety.

The City Council does not agree with this finding and it has not delayed any work, nor has public safety been jeopardized. The effort to implement a structural maintenance program began in 2017. With consultant support, the City worked to obtain “programmatic” permits that covered all maintenance activities on the wharves, regardless of ownership, for a 10-year duration. This effort included the 2017 condition assessments to develop a “menu” of anticipated construction activities. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study was undertaken and required biological and cultural assessments of the project areas.

Mitigation measures were developed to offset environmental impacts to the lifeforms and habitat of Monterey Bay resulting from potential construction activities.

The City adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration (Reso 20-009 C.S.) on January 21, 2020, in order to provide CEQA compliance for any future programmatic repair activity. Permit applications for the jurisdictional agencies (California Coastal Commission, United States Army Corps of Engineers and CA State Water Resources Control Board) were submitted. This was a lengthy, iterative process to ensure that the wide range of maintenance and repair work was properly accounted for and appropriately conditioned/regulated to minimize impacts.

During permitting efforts, it was determined that the City could not be the permit holder for work it cannot control. In other words, the City could not provide its permits to the tenants for any work that they had to perform, and tenants must obtain their own permits. The City acquired the final required permit to perform City work in July 2021 for a 5-year duration on City owned properties only (not leased).

Once the MND was approved and all necessary permits were obtained, the first cycle of repairs was put out to bid in late 2021 and the work was completed in 2022. The project implemented the necessary repairs to ensure public safety. The City has and will continue to prioritize and implement necessary repairs as identified in the assessment reports to ensure public safety.

Timelines:
2017: Conception of the Program and “Notice to Proceed” for consultant support, including the Condition Assessment; commencement of planning efforts (including Biological and Cultural work) and permitting correspondence
2018: Completion of the “Wharf 2 Critical Repairs Project” (separate project from the Program with its own project specific permits)
Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 28, Packet Page 114 2019: November 20, received Water Quality Cert. No 32719WQ07 for “Municipal Wharves I and II Structural Maintenance Program Project” (Permit with the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board authorization)
2020: January 21, City Council adopted a “Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Municipal Wharves I And II Structural Maintenance Program” (CEQA).

November 6, received Coastal Development permit (CDP) 3-20-0127 for “Monterey Wharves Maintenance” (California Coastal Commission authorization) 2021: July 7, received Regional General Permit (RGP 32) for “Monterey Municipal Wharves I and II Structural Maintenance Program” (Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers authorization)
December 21, received bids for “Municipal Wharves Structural Repairs FY 2021/2022” project. 2022: November 18, completed “Municipal Wharves Structural Repairs FY 2021/2022” project.

The recommendation will not be implemented as the City is unable to compile such a report. As mentioned earlier, different qualified engineers may observe the same elements and develop differing opinions and recommendations in accordance with ASCE Standards. In order to “analyze the discrepancies between leaseholder inspection reports and the 2024 COWI/Foth findings,” a fourth qualified professional engineering opinion would be required to perform this task, causing even further expense, delays, and inaction. The City already has authority to approve and vet qualifications for preparers of lessee inspections and will continue to do so.

The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. Please see response to R1. Lessees are required to obtain a structural inspection report and to make the necessary repairs pursuant to their lease agreement. The City provided a copy of the 2017 COWI findings to each lessee so that their engineer could consider these findings in their inspection and report. Lessees are at various stages of completing these improvements. The City will not include the lessee's repairs in the Capital Improvement Program, as the repair areas are located on leased land.

R3. The City of Monterey repeat the analysis of discrepancies between leaseholder inspection reports and the 2024 COWI/Foth findings and incorporation of discrepancies into the Capital Improvement Programs (as specified in R1 and R2) every three years.

Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 29, Packet Page 115 The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted, as noted in the City’s response to R2. above, lessees are required to obtain a qualified structural inspection report and to make the necessary repairs pursuant to their lease agreement. The City provided a copy of the 2017 COWI findings to each lessee so that their engineer could consider these findings in their inspection and report. Lessees are at various stages of completing these improvements.

Therefore, it would be impractical, unnecessary, and in conflict with the ground leases for the City to add the lessee repairs to the City’s Capital Improvement Program.

The recommendation has been implemented. The City has granted extended timeframes for tenants to obtain the necessary permits and complete required structural repairs. The City is not using the lease provision as a punitive measure against our tenants, but rather remains focused on supporting them through the permitting and construction phases. The City remains committed to supporting these efforts by closely monitoring tenant progress on a weekly basis and proactively reaching out to those whose repair projects appear to be stalled, ensuring continued communication and assistance throughout the process. Our approach prioritizes collaboration and flexibility, recognizing the challenges involved in completing the structural repairs. By providing extended timeframes and maintaining open lines of communication, the City continues to assist tenants in meeting their obligations without undue hardship.

The City Council accepts this recommendation and will implement it during the next 3-year cycle. The lessees have the contractual obligation to provide the City with a structural report every three years, and it is up to each individual lessee to track this due date and provide the structural report to the City pursuant to the lease agreement. Although the City currently has a proactive process for monitoring and enforcing leaseholder repairs, it is up to each lessee to perform the repairs to not be in breach of contract. All lessees that are required to make repairs under the current reporting cycle have initiated the permit process, and repairs should commence once building permits are issued. Please see response to R4 above.

In the past 12 months, 10 building permits have been processed and three have been finalized for structural repairs completed pursuant to lease agreements on Wharf I and Wharf II.

R6. The City of Monterey notify leaseholders of the existing Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for use in expediting repair permits by September 30, 2025 Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 30, Packet Page 116 The City Council accepts this recommendation and will provide a copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration to all Wharf I and Wharf II ground lessees by September 30, 2025.

R7. The City of Monterey update and publish a wharves maintenance plan that prioritizes and schedules “immediate” and “critical” repairs in accordance with ASCE standards.

The recommendation has been implemented. The maintenance plan is in place and involves cyclical, structural inspections every 3-5 years and prioritized repair projects based on the assessments. Interim inspections are also performed as necessary in the event of new or increased damage to ensure public safety. The City has and will continue to publish and present the reports to City Council and the public for full transparency. Maintenance plans are developed from the assessment reports and approved by City Council prior to construction.

Plans are published online during the bidding process and available in the Office of the Engineer at Room 7 in City Hall.

R8. The City of Monterey identify funding sources to ensure ongoing structural integrity of the wharves as outlined in the report developed by ESA in 2019 by March 31, 2026.

The City Council accepts this recommendation. The City has invested over $6 million in the wharf programmatic repairs program over the last six (6) years including over $4 million in recent deck repairs. The City has used General Funds, Marina Funds, and Tidelands Funds for the wharf programmatic repairs program. Additionally, the City of Monterey regularly applies for grant funding opportunities to supplement local funds for infrastructure projects. The City is actively preparing a Port Infrastructure Development Program grant application for Wharf II strengthening and upgrades.

The City recently secured $818,600 Coastal Commission LCP Local Assistance Grant to prepare a Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment, Adaptation Plan, and Economic Analysis Project. As a part of this project, the City will evaluate funding strategies which include mechanisms such as establishing Hazard Abatement Districts and Climate Resilience Districts to support regional climate adaptation and resilience efforts. Hazard Abatement Districts and Climate Resilience Districts could provide on-going revenues to fund wharves maintenance without reliance on General Funds, Tidelands Funds, or grant funding.

The City Council agrees with this recommendation and this was already implemented prior to the Civil Grand Jury’s report. The condition assessments were recently performed in 2024 for both wharves; another assessment is planned for 2027. Findings from the reports have been incorporated into projects that are scheduled for construction in 2025 and 2026. Future findings from condition assessments will be published and shared with all Wharf I and Wharf II ground leaseholders within two months of receiving the final assessment report.

Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 31, Packet Page 117 The City of Monterey appreciates the opportunity to respond to the Monterey County Civil Grand Jury’s Report.

Respectfully,

Tyller Williamson
Mayor
Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 32, Packet Page 118 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Hans Uslar, City Manager
Nat Rojanasathira, Assistant City Manager
Prepared by: Brian Edwards, Library & Museums Director
SUBJECT: Proclamation Apologizing to the Dutra Street Indigenous Residents and their Descendants in Monterey and Acknowledgement of Historic Injustices Towards Native American Populations (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) – continued from June 3, 2025
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council issues a proclamation apologizing to the Dutra Street Indigenous Residents and their
Descendants in Monterey and Acknowledgement of
Historic Injustices Towards Native American Populations.

VALUE DRIVERS:

Preserve, promote, and maintain our City’s historic and cultural resources through responsible stewardship and
historic preservation that highlights the contributions and perspectives of all people who are a part of Monterey’s diverse history.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The City of Monterey apologizes to the indigenous
residents of Dutra Street and their descendants in
Monterey and acknowledges historic injustices towards
Native American populations.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE
ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no fiscal implications in connection to
supporting this action.

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
Agenda Report Highlights
 The City Council plans to issue a
proclamation apologizing to the
Dutra Street Indigenous residents
and their descendants for historic
injustices.
 Indigenous populations in Monterey
have lived on their ancestral lands
for thousands of years and continue
to contribute to the community.
 Displacement of Indigenous families
occurred through land grants,
treaties, and eminent domain, with
compensation varying widely and no
alternative housing provided.
 The construction of the Monterey
Police and Fire Public Safety
Complex in 1959 disrupted the
communal village of Indigenous
families on Dutra Street.
 The City of Monterey acknowledges
its role in these injustices and aims
to preserve and highlight the
contributions of Indigenous
communities in its history.

Date: 6/17/2025
Item No.: 15.

Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 1, Packet Page 119 №10/24
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.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council could choose not to make this apology, however, that is not recommended.

DISCUSSION:

Ancestral Lands of the Indigenous Tribes
Most representations of early California portray the indigenous narrative as only existing until the arrival of Spanish colonization beginning in 1769; however, indigenous people have lived on their ancestral lands for thousands of years, and continue to live and contribute to the Monterey Peninsula.

During the era of New Spain, the colonialism beginning in 1769-1770 led to the formation of the California Missions and the goal to convert indigenous populations across California. Initially, the Spanish government had planned to stay for 10 years in Alta California and to return land and resources to the indigenous populations. This land transfer did not ever take place, and by 1821 Mexico won independence from Spain and took over Alta California, along with claiming all lands taken from the First Peoples.

Indigenous Displacement: Treaties, Laws, and Land Grants Beginning in 1821, lands that had been previously recognized for Indigenous families were deeded as “ranchos” to large land grants across California for Mexican and Californio families.

These land grants, or Diseños, used naturally occurring boundaries of rivers, mountains, trees, or other natural markers to signify land ownership.

In 1848, the United States and Mexico signed the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ceding land to the United States, setting the new boundary and extended property and civil rights of Mexican nationals in California. The United States Congress passed the Land Act in 1851 creating the Board of Land Commissioners which set out to review Mexican land grants and survey these maps. At the height of the Gold Rush the United States government authorized a special commission to negotiate treaties with Indigenous Tribes across the state to cede their lands to the United States in exchange for compensation and 7.5 million acres of reservation land.

However, these treaties by the United States Government were unratified by the United States Senate, kept confidential and not released to the public, leaving native land titles and tribes unrecognized. Many of the Mexican land grants, or Diseños, were not ratified due to language interpretation and lengthy legal processes. Lands were then claimed by the United States government as public lands. The State commission to negotiate treaties did not negotiate with the Central Coast leading to further issues related to land ownership and tribal recognition.

Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 2, Packet Page 120 №10/24
Although the 1849 California State Constitutional Convention has been looked at as progressive in the addition of women’s rights to property and excluding slavery from the State of California; it purposely excluded indigenous populations from citizenship or the right to vote. This differed from the Mexican rule in Alta California which allowed indigenous populations to vote. In 1850 the California State Act for the Government and Protection of Indians removed the legal rights for California Indians to represent themselves or be witnesses at court, be arrested for vagrancy, and allowed any white person to pay the bond for any incarcerated indigenous person and in return be compelled to indentured labor. Originally titled An Act for the Relative to the Protection, Punishment, and Government of Indians, this California State Act further removed the rights of Indigenous families and facilitated removal from their homelands by allowing any white person to contact a Justice of the Peace to obtain Indian children for indenture, or to remove and Indians from land in a white person’s possession. The historic jail records of the Old Monterey Jail holds records of indigenous men being bonded for labor. The California State Act for the Government and Protection of Indians was not fully repealed until 1937.

On June 2, 1924 United States Congress enacted the Indian Citizenship Act, which finally allowed First Peoples the right to vote and to be citizens in the lands that they had occupied for thousands of years. Prior to this, many indigenous populations identified publicly as Mexican to be allowed to vote. The Indian Citizenship Act allowed indigenous populations to be United States citizens without denying their tribal citizenship or connection. In Monterey, indigenous families continue to live and contribute to their communities.

Displacement of Indigenous Peoples of Dutra Street
These villages of indigenous families continued to live in Monterey and contribute to the complex history of our city. One of the culture bearers, Isabel Meadows (1846-1939), traced her Ohlone heritage to the village of Ensen and shared the stories of the Rumsien and Esselen families at Mission San Carlos. In 1932, Meadows met linguist and ethnographer John P.

Harrington and spent the remainder of her years living in Washington D.C.; during this time she shared oral histories, Rumsien culture and traditions, family relationships, and Rumsien language. From these records and recordings tribal scholars have continued to piece together precious cultural knowledge. The work of Harrington for the American Bureau of Ethnology was later contributed to the Smithsonian Institute.

One of the communities that has been impacted by the historic land lived on what was once the 600 block of Dutra Street, but since 1959 have called El Cuartel, or the Monterey Police & Fire Public Safety Complex. In 1835 the Diseño land grant from the Mexican government located by the Hartnell Gulch and South Gulch was owned by Gualterio (Walter) Duckworth. By 1884, the property had been divided during the American period of land ownership and the public safety complex property was largely owned by the Boronda family, with several families living on the site. By 1913, the single land parcel was split into 14 parcels with multiple working-class families working at this site in industries such as landscaping and fishing industries. In 1939 the City of Monterey adopted the Emerson Knight City Master Plan and identified the 14 properties between Pacific, Madison, Dutra and Hartnell Gulch, along with several others nearby, for acquisition to develop as a downtown city complex. At the time, the Monterey Police Department operated out of the first floor (now Planning Office) of Colton Hall.

At the May 7, 2024 City Council Meeting, Councilmember Barber recommended that the public comment “Dutra Street: the Last Monterey Native American Village Destroyed” be referred to staff for further discussion. At the October 23rd, 2024 City Council meeting more information was shared related to the Dutra Street history by Library & Museums Director.

Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 3, Packet Page 121 №10/24
Staff conducted preliminary anthropological research on the Dutra Street area. John Steinbeck wrote Tortilla Flat in 1935, and the basis of many of his stories reflected those he heard from the neighborhoods in Monterey and Carmel Woods especially through the recollection of Susan Gregory. Steinbeck dedicated the book to Gregory; she was a Monterey teacher and storyteller herself and lived at 506 Dutra Street before moving up to Johnson Street. She lived among the families of Californio and Rumsen/Esselen ancestry on Dutra Street including Machados, Sotos, Marcelinas, Rosales, Escobars, and Marquasas.

In 1849, the streets of Monterey were not the same as they were today and were known by Spanish language names. Within Block 114A: Madison was known as 9th Calle de Oeste, Pacific Street was Estrada, and Pierce Street was known as Calle del Norte. Hartnell Gulch ran up the hillside, and a South Fork intersected near the current site. The site of the former Dutra Street south of Madison Street, which is the current Public Safety Complex, was owned by the Boronda family since it was first assessed in 1849. This parcel of land was owned by Juan de Mata Boronda and later transferred to Jose Boronda. By 1891, the parcel of land was split into four parcels to the following families: Gonzalez, Escolle, Chaine, and Wohler. In 1891, the parcel was surrounded by Gordon (Dutra), Madison Street, and Hartnell Gulch. Pacific Street had not been developed at this space yet.

Within this parcel stood an old oak tree that was said to be seeded from the original Vizcaino and Father Serra oak tree. Prior to 1956, the Monterey Police Department operated out of the bottom floor of Colton Hall, and the Old Jail was still in operation. The Monterey Public Library was in the process of building a new library at the current site on Pacific Street, and the old library at Van Buren Street was investigated as a site for the new police station and jail. The costs for retrofitting the Carnegie Library building into a public safety building was deemed too substantial. During this period, the City was also in negotiations with the State of California to sell or give Colton Hall to the state as a historic resource. At this time, the City Council referred back to a 1940 Master Plan that identified the area between Pacific Street, Van Buren, Madison Street, and Hartnell Gulch as an expansion of a Monterey Civic Center.

In 1956, Monterey Voters approved Measure A with a tally of 3,785 ‘Yes’ votes to 1,688 ‘No’ votes, and allocated $350,000 in bonds towards acquiring property and building the new public safety complex. The parcels included the 600 block of Dutra Street, 300 block of Madison Street, and 600 block of Pacific Street and Hartnell Gulch. Included within these parcels were vacant lots, single-family homes, multi-family residences, and lots with multiple single-family residences. Multiple indigenous families lived on this block of Dutra Street in a communal village, and continued the traditions of the First Peoples. Payment for properties varied, with records stating that the City paid “just compensation” for the properties per the State of California’s constitution and eminent domain statutes. The new public safety complex was called “El Cuartel” after the Old Mexican building that once stood as the center of Alta California.

The “El Cuartel” Public Safety building was opened on May 10, 1959, at a cost of $612,820, with $172,590 used towards purchasing properties on the parcel. The oak tree was incorporated into the landscaping of the complex. The Old Jail which had once bonded indigenous men for labor finally closed, and by 1960 it had turned into a museum. The construction of the Monterey Police and Fire Public Safety complex at the 600 block of Dutra, Madison and Pacific Streets through eminent domain separated the communal village and compensation for the parcels varied widely between $4,499 and up to $29,499. Families were dispersed throughout the region as no alternative housing was identified. However, the descendants continued the oral traditions and cultural traditions of the indigenous community through recreating the arts and language of the First Peoples.

Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 4, Packet Page 122 №10/24
The Indigenous families of Monterey continue to live and contribute to the Monterey community today in their ancestral lands, and the City of Monterey apologizes to the indigenous residents of Dutra Street and their descendants in Monterey and acknowledges historic injustices towards Native American populations
Next Steps
Staff recommends the City Council issues the proclamation. If approved, the proclamation apologizing to the indigenous residents of Dutra Street and their descendants in Monterey and acknowledges historic injustices towards Native American populations would be published as a full-page advertisement in the Monterey Herald.

NR/be
Attachment: Proclamation
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, 6/17/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 5, Packet Page 123

ATTACHMENT
Proclamation Apologizing to the Dutra Street
Indigenous Residents and their Descendants in Monterey and Acknowledgement of Historic Injustices Towards Native American Populations
WHEREAS, prior to the Spanish colonization beginning in 1769 the Indigenous tribes had lived on their ancestral lands for thousands of years;
WHEREAS, during the Spanish colonial period beginning in 1770 the California Missions were to “convert” indigenous populations within 10 years and return land and resources to the indigenous populations, with indigenous families directly affected; WHEREAS, during the Mexican period beginning in 1821, lands that had been previously recognized for Indigenous families were deeded as “ranchos” to large land grants across California for Mexican and Californio families;
WHEREAS, the United States and Mexico signed the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, ceding land to the United States and identifying boundaries and extended property and civil rights of Mexican nationals in California;
WHEREAS, the 1849 California State Constitutional Convention excluded indigenous populations from citizenship or the right to vote;
WHEREAS, in 1850, the State of California’s “Act for the Government and Protection of Indians” removed the legal rights for California Indians to represent themselves or be witnesses at court, be arrested for vagrancy, and allowed any white person to pay the bond for any incarcerated indigenous person and in return be compelled to indentured labor; WHEREAS, the State of California’s Act for the Government and Protection of Indians removed the rights for Indigenous families and facilitated removal from their homelands by allowing any white person to contact a Justice of the Peace to obtain Indian children for indenture, or to remove and Indians from land in a white person’s possession; WHEREAS, during the Gold Rush the United States government authorized a special commission to cede land to the United States in exchange for compensation and reservation land; these 1851 to 1852 treaties by the United States Government were unratified by the United States Senate and placed in an injunction of secrecy, leaving native land titles unrecognized; WHEREAS, the Old Monterey Jail holds justice and incarceration records of indigenous men being bonded for labor;
WHEREAS, on June 2, 1924, the United States Congress enacted the Indian Citizenship Act, which finally allowed Indigenous first peoples the right to vote; Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 6, Packet Page 124

ATTACHMENT
WHEREAS, the California State “Act for the Government and Protection of Indians” was not fully repealed until 1937;
WHEREAS, these institutional and legislative barriers led to indigenous families identifying publicly as Mexican to access the same rights as their community; WHEREAS, villages of indigenous families continued to live in Monterey and contribute to the complex history of our city;
WHEREAS, on Dutra Street there was the last indigenous village, where five to seven indigenous extended families had lived on land owned by several indigenous landowners since the beginning of the 20th century or earlier, and;
WHEREAS, through the years, Dutra Street was home to workers who had helped to build Monterey, consultants to anthropologists, and visited by other important guests, such as John Steinbeck, and;
WHEREAS, comments from staff and City Council members at time reveal racism and classism, and;
WHEREAS, the construction of the Monterey Police and Fire departments’ Public Safety complex at Dutra, Madison and Pacific streets led to use of eminent domain and the removal of these family networks;
WHEREAS, there was no other land designated for Dutra Street residents and they were left to disperse throughout the area, making transmission of cultural traditions and gatherings of the tribe extremely difficult, and;
WHEREAS, the village residents were dispersed after the use of eminent domain of the property at Dutra, Madison, and Pacific streets and whose compensation may have fallen short; WHEREAS, despite these challenges, the Indigenous families of Monterey continue to live and contribute to the Monterey community today in their ancestral lands; and WHEREAS, culture bearer Isabelle Meadows, and descendants of Tomas Torres and Salvador Mucjai among others continued the oral traditions and cultural traditions of the indigenous community;
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey recognizes the Monterey region as the ancestral home of the Indigenous peoples.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT I, Tyller Williamson Mayor of the City of Monterey, on behalf of the City Council and citizens, apologizing to the Dutra Street Indigenous Residents and their Descendants in Monterey and acknowledges historic injustices towards Native American populations.

Dated: June 17, 2025 _____________________
Tyller Williamson, Mayor
Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 7, Packet Page 125 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Kimberly Cole, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Approve Ruby Falls Fund, LLC’s Request to Extend Expiration of the Vesting Tentative Map for Ocean View Plaza Project Located at 457, 465, 470, 484, 565 and 570 Cannery Row for One (1) Year (Map is a component of and implements a Project previously analyzed in an Environmental Impact Report) RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution approving Ruby
Falls Fund, LLC’s request to extend expiration of the vesting tentative map for the Ocean View Plaza Project by one (1) year.

VALUE DRIVERS: Quality of Life.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Extension of the Ocean View
Plaza vesting tentative map is discretionary. It would grant the Project the continued right to develop the project in substantial compliance with the City laws that were in effect when the Project application was originally deemed
complete in 2004. If the map is allowed to expire, a new application would need to be filed and the map and Project could be subject to current City laws.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE
ACT) APPLIES: Yes.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: A Draft
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Ocean View
Plaza project was completed in April 2001. A draft
Supplemental EIR was prepared in December 2001 to
address changes to circulation and traffic impacts. On
October 15, 2002, the City Council certified the Final EIR, including the 2002 Final Supplemental EIR. Following
litigation, the City Council vacated the certification of the EIR and prepared a 2004 Supplement to the EIR with a
broader range of project alternatives.

The April 2001 Draft EIR, the August 2001 Final EIR, the December 2001 Draft Supplement, the March 2002 Final
Supplement, the March 2004 Draft Supplement, and the
Agenda Report Highlights
 Owner Ruby Falls Fund, LLC
requested a one-year extension
for the vesting tentative map of the
Ocean View Plaza project, which
is discretionary and subject to City
Council approval.
 The Ocean View Plaza project
includes retail, restaurant,
coastal/community use spaces,
market-rate condominiums,
inclusionary housing units, and
parking, approved in 2004 after
litigation over a prior concept.
 The vesting tentative map has
been extended multiple times
since its original expiration in
2006, with statutory and
discretionary extensions totaling
19 years, now set to expire on
June 1, 2025.
 Denying the extension would
require a new application and use
permit, triggering additional
environmental review under
CEQA and compliance with
current City laws.
 Approval of the extension would
allow the project to proceed under
the City laws in effect when the
application was deemed
complete in 2004.

Date: 6/17/2025
Item No.: 16.

Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 16., Item Page 1, Packet Page 126 №10/24
May 2004 Final Supplement all constitute the Final EIR for the Ocean View Plaza project. The Map remains unchanged from what was analyzed in the EIR. The requested extension implements the Project that was analyzed in the EIR and does not trigger any further analysis under CEQA Guideline 15162.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The Council could choose not to extend the Map and instead allow it to expire. This would require the developer to apply for and obtain a new map before proceeding with the current or alternative proposed development. Denial of the request to extend the Map would also cause the Use Permit to expire, which would require a new use permit to be filed for development.

That discretionary action would in turn require the City to do additional review of the new proposal’s environmental impacts under the CEQA, and its compliance with current City laws and standards.

DISCUSSION:

The Ocean View Plaza is a 3.5-acre project located on Cannery Row, consisting of 87,362 square foot retail and restaurant use, 30,000 square feet of restaurant, 8,408 square feet of Coastal/Community use, 38 market rate condominiums, 13 inclusionary housing units, and 377 parking spaces. The City Council approved the project June 1, 2004, following litigation over a prior project concept. The project includes a vesting tentative map (the “Map”). Under Government Code § 65943, a vesting tentative map secures the right to proceed with development in substantial compliance with the City ordinances, policies, and standards that were in effect at the time that the application for the vesting tentative map was deemed complete.

A vesting tentative map has a fixed term that can be extended in a variety of ways: mandatory extensions as a result of specific triggering facts and circumstances, statutory extensions enacted by the State Legislature, and extensions approved by the local agency. • The Map was approved on June 1, 2004 and was originally valid for two years to June 1, 2006;
• The City granted two 1-year extensions under Government Code § 66452.6(e), one in 2006 and one in 2018, for a total of two years;
• 1-year statutory extension under Government Code § 66452.21; • 2-year statutory extension under Government Code § 66452.22; • 2-year statutory extension under Government Code § 66452.23; • 2-year statutory extension under Government Code § 66452.24; • 5-year development moratorium extension under Government Code § 66452.6(b)(1); and
• 5-year litigation extension under Government Code § 66452.6(c).

These prior extensions total 19 years from the original expiration date of June 1, 2006, and the City recognized that they extended the expiration date to June 1, 2025. In addition to these extensions, the owner of the property can request up to four more years of extensions under Government Code § 66452.6(e).

On April 10, 2025, attorneys for the property owner, Ruby Falls Fund, LLC, asked the City to approve a one-year extension to the Map. Under Government Code § 66452.6(e), the April 10, 2025 request for a one-year extension of the Map extends the life of the Map “for 60 days or until the application for extension is approved, conditionally approved, or denied, whichever Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 16., Item Page 2, Packet Page 127 №10/24
occurs first.” Under Government Code § 66452.6(e), approval or denial of the requested oneyear extension is discretionary, meaning that the City Council has no legal obligation to approve or deny the request.

Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution

2. Letter Requesting Extension
cc: Save Our Waterfront, 781 Terry Street, Monterey, CA 93940 Cannery Row Association
LAFCO of Monterey County – Local Agency Formation Committee, POB 1369, Salinas, CA 93902 New Monterey Neighborhood Association
David Balch, Esq.

Anne Mudge, Esq.

Neill Brower, Esq.

Stephanie Lai, Esq.

Aaron Gruber, Esq.

Bob Faulis
William Coffee, Esq.

David Bowie, Esq.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№011/24
APPROVING RUBY FALLS FUND, LLC’S REQUEST TO EXTEND EXPIRATION OF THE VESTING TENTATIVE MAP FOR THE OCEAN VIEW PLAZA PROJECT LOCATED AT 457, 465, 470, 484, 565 AND 570 CANNERY ROW FOR ONE (1) YEAR WHEREAS, Ocean View Plaza is a 3.5-acre project (“the Project”) located on Cannery Row;
WHEREAS, the Project includes a vesting tentative map (the “Map”) which, under Government Code § 65943, secures the right to proceed with development in substantial compliance with the City ordinances, policies, and standards that were in effect at the time that the application for the vesting tentative map was deemed complete; WHEREAS, the Map was approved on June 1, 2004 and was originally valid for two years to June 1, 2006;
WHEREAS, by a combination of mandatory extensions, statutory extensions, and extensions approved by the City of Monterey, the life of the Map had previously been extended to June 1, 2025;
WHEREAS, on April 10, 2025, attorneys for the property owner, Ruby Falls Fund, LLC, asked the City to approve a one-year extension to the Map; WHEREAS, under Government Code § 66452.6(e) the April 10, 2025 request extends the life of the Map “for 60 days or until the application for extension is approved, conditionally approved, or denied, whichever occurs first”; and
WHEREAS, no further review is required under the California Environmental Quality Act because the Map remains unchanged from what was analyzed in the EIR Report for the Project and the Map extension implements the Project that was analyzed in the Final EIR for the Ocean View Project.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby approves a one-year extension of the Vesting Tentative Map for the Ocean View Plaza Project, extending the life of the Vesting Tentative Map to June 17, 2026.

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

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 16., Item Page 4, Packet Page 129 APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor City of Monterey
City Clerk thereof
6204523.1
Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 16., Item Page 5, Packet Page 130 A Limited Liability Law Partnership Including Corporations / Los Angeles • San Francisco • Orange County Neill Brower
[email protected]
1900 Avenue of the Stars, 7th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90067-4308
(310) 203-8080 (310) 203-0567 Fax
www.jmbm.com
Ref: 77401-0001
73105211v1
April 10, 2025

VIA E-MAIL
Christine Davi
City Attorney
City of Monterey
E-Mail: [email protected]
Re: Ocean View Plaza Tentative Tract Map
Request for One-Year Extension of the Tentative Tract Map Dear Christine:

This letter constitutes a request, on behalf of Ruby Falls Fund, LLC (“Ruby Falls”), that the City exercise its authority under the Subdivision Map Act to extend the Ocean View Plaza Tentative Tract Map (the “Map”) for a period of one year. Our prior correspondence with the City and its outside counsel at Meyers Nave indicated the City’s opinion that various statutory extensions of the Map operated to extend the map to June 10, 2025, and recognized the existence of three one-year discretionary extensions of the Map by the City.

We attach that memorandum to this letter as Exhibit A.

As with the prior exemptions of the map by the City’s Planning Commission and City Council, the underlying project remains unchanged. Further, nothing indicated at the time or now indicates changed circumstances that would yield different or substantially more severe impacts than those originally evaluated and disclosed in the EIR. Consequently, no CEQA review is necessary to provide this one-year extension.

As before, we look forward to working with the City to provide the necessary time to prepare and record a final tentative tract map for the Ocean View Plaza project.

Sincerely,
NEILL BROWER of
Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
NB:nb4
Enclosure: 2024 Memorandum
cc: Kimberly Cole, City of Monterey
Bob Faulis, Ruby Falls Fund
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 16., Item Page 6, Packet Page 131 Exhibit A
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 16., Item Page 7, Packet Page 132

MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 30, 2024
TO:

CC:

File
Neill Brower, Counsel for Ruby Falls Fund, LLC
FROM: Kimberly Cole, Community Development Director
RE: Ocean View Plaza Vesting Tentative Map and Use Permit This memorandum memorializes the City’s determination on the expiration date of the vesting tentative map (“Map”) and associated use permit for the Ocean View Plaza project located at 457, 465, 470, 484, 565 and 570 Cannery Row, in the City of Monterey (“Project”), as outlined and explained in the attached letter from Adam Lindgren, Special Counsel, dated January 30, 2024.

The City recognizes an extension by operation of law to June 1, 2025 with the understanding that the City may toll the map further prior to that date.

Attachments.
1) January 30, 2024 memorandum from Adam Lindgren
5587034.1
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 16., Item Page 8, Packet Page 133 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 1200
Sacramento, California 95814
tel (916) 556-1531
fax (916) 556-1516
www.meyersnave.com
Adam U. Lindgren
[email protected]

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION OAKLAND LOS ANGELES SACRAMENTO SANTA ROSA SAN DIEGO

MEMORANDUM
Via Electronic Mail Only
DATE: January 30, 2024
TO: Christine Davi, City Attorney
FROM: Adam U. Lindgren, Special Counsel
RE: Ocean View Plaza Project
Introduction and Summary
This memorandum analyzes the expiration date of the vesting tentative map (“Map”) for the Ocean View Plaza project (“Project”) and builds off the April 7, 2016, March 18, 2019, and July 9, 2020 analyses we prepared for the City of Monterey (“City”) on the same issue.1 Generally, our findings in April 2016 were that the analysis provided by the developer’s counsel, Lombardo & Associates, in their July 22, 2015 memorandum, was correct as to the expiration date of the Map, and that as of April 7, 2016, the previous expiration date of the Map was April 10, 2018. The City then extended the life of the Map to April 10, 2019. Our March 2019 memorandum recommended that the City recognize additional tolling under the Subdivision Map Act’s (“Map Act”) litigation and development moratoria tolling provisions of 489 days to toll the life of the Map to August 10, 2020.

In 2020, we received letters from representatives of both entities that claim ownership over the Project, Ruby Falls Fund, LLC (“Ruby Falls”) and AquaLegacy Development LLC (“AquaLegacy”), asserting that the expiration of the Map has been further extended, by operation of litigation and development moratoria tolling provisions. Our recommendation in 2020 was that the City recognize additional tolling of the life of the Map until June 26, 2022.
1 We additionally provided the City with non-privileged versions of our analyses, dated April 5, 2019, and July 17, 2020, which served as the basis for the City’s decision on the Map at those times.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 16., Item Page 9, Packet Page 134 To: Christine Davi, City Attorney
From: Adam U. Lindgren
Re: Ocean View Plaza Project
Date: January 30, 2024
Page: 2

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION OAKLAND LOS ANGELES SACRAMENTO SANTA ROSA SAN DIEGO On June 20, 2022, the City received another letter from attorneys representing Ruby Falls, asserting additional tolling under the litigation and development moratorium extensions to the life of the Map.2 Ruby Falls asserts that the life of the Map extends to September 11, 2026, though it is currently requesting that the City recognize an extension until “at least” January 20, 2025.

While we agree that the City should recognize further extensions of the life of the Map, we disagree on how long those extensions would last. Under our analysis, the Map has a maximum current extension until June 1, 2025, with the potential for the City to grant up to four additional one-year extensions of the Map.

Analysis
Our previous analyses of the Map focused on the timing and application of certain statutory extensions and the allocation of time between the development moratorium extension (Government Code, § 66452.6(b)(1)) and the litigation extension (Government Code, § 66452.6(c).) Based on our previous analyses and the evidence submitted by Ruby Falls and AquaLegacy, we conclude there is sufficient evidence to apply the full statutory extensions in addition to the maximum five-year extensions allowed for both the development moratorium extension and the litigation extension. These extensions would extend the life of the map as follows:
• The Map was approved on June 1, 2004 and was originally valid for two years to June 1, 2006;
• The City granted two 1-year extensions under Government Code, § 66452.6(e), one in 2006 and one in 2018, for a total of two years; • 1-year statutory extension under Government Code, § 66452.21; • 2-year statutory extension under Government Code, § 66452.22; • 2-year statutory extension under Government Code, § 66452.23; • 2-year statutory extension under Government Code, § 66452.24. • 5-year development moratorium extension under Government Code, § 66452.6(b)(1); and
2 We have not seen any additional correspondence from AquaLegacy at this time.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 16., Item Page 10, Packet Page 135 To: Christine Davi, City Attorney
From: Adam U. Lindgren
Re: Ocean View Plaza Project
Date: January 30, 2024
Page: 3

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION OAKLAND LOS ANGELES SACRAMENTO SANTA ROSA SAN DIEGO • 5-year litigation extension under Government Code, § 66452.6(c).

Thus, the extensions total 19 years from the original expiration date of June 1, 2006.

Therefore, the current expiration date should be June 1, 2025. Additionally, the owner can request up to four more years of extensions under Government Code, § 66452.6(e).

It is unclear how Ruby Falls attorneys calculated the September 11, 2026 date as this represents a 15-month extension beyond the total extensions allowed by law. However, our recommendation of June 1, 2025 is beyond the minimum extension that Ruby Falls asked the City to recognize. If the Project still has not been developed by 2025, we recommend meeting and conferring with the then-owners to determine their theory for why any additional extensions should apply. Alternatively, on your request, we could contact Ruby Falls attorneys now to ask them to further explain their calculation, and to attempt to harmonize their analysis with our analysis.

Conclusion
We recommend the City recognize that the life of the Map is extended to June 1, 2025.

AUL.
5175825.4
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 16., Item Page 11, Packet Page 136 Community Services District
Agenda Report
FROM: Christine Davi, City Attorney
SUBJECT: Receive Ocean View Community Services District Quarterly Report (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the Community Services District Board of
Directors receive a report on the Ocean View
Community Services District.

VALUE DRIVERS:

SECURE WATER SOURCES – Champion regional
and local efforts to secure adequate, affordable, and
sustainable water sources for the city, now and into
the future.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

This Community Services District was formed
pursuant to Community Services District Law
(Government Code section 61000 et seq.,) to own
and operate a desalination plant to provide residential and commercial water to the Ocean View Plaza
Project (“Project”) located at 457, 465, 470, 484, 565, and 570 Cannery Row.

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, Agenda Report Highlights
 The Ocean View Community
Services District was formed to
manage a desalination plant for
the Ocean View Plaza Project
located on Cannery Row.
 The City Council serves as the
board to the District and as such
must meet on a regular basis.
 Ruby Falls Fund, LLC was
confirmed as the property owner
after a court ruling resolved
ownership disputes in May 2023.
 The California Coastal
Commission's 2019 denial of
permit extensions was overturned
in 2024 due to procedural errors.
 Ruby Falls Fund, LLC requested a
one-year extension for the vesting
tentative map, which the City
Council will review as a separate
agenda item at this meeting.

Date: 6/17/2025
Item No.: 17.

Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 1, Packet Page 137 this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

DISCUSSION:

The City of Monterey approved the Ocean View Plaza Project (“Project”) located at 457, 465, 470, 484, 565, and 570 Cannery Row in June 2004. Subsequently, the City of Monterey requested that the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) review the establishment of a Community Services District (CSD) for the project site that would own, operate, and maintain the proposed desalination plant once constructed.

LAFCO adopted Resolution No. 05-27 on December 27, 2005, approving the formation of this CSD. The Monterey City Council was subsequently appointed as the District Board and must meet quarterly according to requirements of Government Code section 61044.

In November 2019, the California Coastal Commission denied requests for coastal development permit extensions (Permit No. 3-08-013). The Coastal Commission voted that there were changed circumstances from its original coastal development permit issued in 2008 related to water supply and coastal hazards/sea level rise.

In January 2020, Ruby Falls Fund, LLC, sued the Coastal Commission over its denial of the permit extension request as described in Monterey County Superior Court Case No. 20CV000165. That action was stayed pending resolution of the appeals in related litigation regarding the ownership of the property. On May 1, 2023, in an unpublished decision in the Sixth District Court of Appeal, Case Nos. H048978, H049062, H049160, and H049368, the court ruled that the trial court erred in ruling that Canrow Owner, LLC’s foreclosure was wrongful, among other things. In other words, Ruby Falls Fund, LLC is the property owner.

On August 16, 2023, the Monterey County Superior Court lifted the stay in the action against the Coastal Commission. A hearing on the merits of the writ was heard on May 28, 2024 in Department 15 of the Monterey Superior Court. The Court took the matter under submission and issued a ruling on July 11, 2024 granting Ruby Falls Fund, LLC’s petition for writ of mandate. The petition was granted on the basis that the Coastal Commission failed to provide notice of the hearing and staff report of the November 19, 2019 hearing, the Commission failed to exercise its discretion in deciding whether to grant Ruby Falls Fund, LLC’s request for a continuance, and the November 19, 2019 decision based on “changed circumstances” was not reached through a fair hearing conducted as required by law. The judgment was entered in that case on January 22, 2025.

The City originally approved the vesting tentative map for the project on June 1, 2004. The City recognized an extension by operation of law to June 1, 2025. On April 10, 2025, Ruby Falls Fund, LLP requested a one-year extension. Under Government Code section 66452.6(e), the April 10, 2025 request for a one-year extension of the Map extends the life of the Map “for 60 days or until the application for extension is approved, conditionally approved, or denied, whichever occurs first.” Under Government Code section 66452.6(e) approval or denial of the requested one-year extension is discretionary, meaning that the City Council has no legal obligation to approve or deny the request. The City Council will be considering the map extension request at a public hearing on June 17, 2025. cc: Save Our Waterfront, 781 Terry Street, Monterey, CA 93940 Cannery Row Association
LAFCO of Monterey County – Local Agency Formation Committee, POB 1369, Salinas, CA 93902 Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 2, Packet Page 138 New Monterey Neighborhood Association
David Balch, Esq.

Anne Mudge, Esq.

Neill Bower, Esq.

Stephanie Lai, Esq.

Aaron Gruber, Esq.

Bob Faulis
William Coffee, Esq.

David Bowie, Esq.

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, 6/17/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 3, Packet Page 139 №10/24
Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Nat Rojanasathira, Assistant City Manager
Clementine Bonner Klein, City Clerk
SUBJECT: Provide Direction on: (1) the Process for Appointments to Boards, Commissions and Committees; (2) Whether to Combine the Architectural Review Committee with the Planning Commission; and (3) Whether to Combine the Historic Preservation Commission with the Museums and Cultural Arts Commission (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) -- Tabled from May 28, 2025 RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council provide direction on the process for appointments to Boards, Commissions and Committees;
whether to Combine the Architectural Review Committee
with the Planning Commission; and whether to Combine
the Historic Preservation Commission with the Museums
and Cultural Arts Commission. Staff would then bring
forward a revised Governance Policy and draft Ordinance for consideration.

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:

Monterey Charter § 4.5(a)(2) provides: “The Council shall appoint by affirmative vote of three (3) of its members, all members of municipal boards, commissions and
committees and representatives of the City to other
agencies.”
Current Council policy on Board, Commission, and
Committee appointments is set in the Governance
Resolution, Resolution No. 23-131 C.S., and provides
that the Mayor conducts applicant interviews and
nominates appointees, and the full Council makes the
appointments.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

Agenda Report Highlights
 The City Council is asked to
provide direction on revising the
appointments process and
composition of Monterey's Boards,
Commissions, and Committees.
 Research on 102 California cities
shows varied practices for
interviews and appointments, with
options ranging from mayor-led
nominations to full council interviews
and public appointments
 Council may consider the
consolidation of the Planning
Commission with the Architectural
Review Committee and the Historic
Preservation Commission with the
Museums and Cultural Arts
Commission to streamline
operations and reduce costs.
 Neighborhood Associations are
encouraged to participate in the
appointments process but would not
be granted official roles.
 Council will decide on the preferred
appointment method and potential
consolidations, with staff returning
on May 20 with future action.

Date: 6/17/2025
Item No.: 18.

Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 1, Packet Page 140 №10/24
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no fiscal implications to receiving this report. The City is following its Fiscal Health Response Plan by reviewing administrative functions to identify non-critical tasks and opportunities for streamlining. Assessing the structure of City boards, commissions, and committees, which is a component of this discussion, aligns with this plan and the "CORE" initiative's objective to make the City’s operations more efficient and financially sustainable.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council could choose not to consider and provide direction on the appointments process for, and composition of, Monterey's Boards, Commissions, and Committees, but that is not recommended.

DISCUSSION:

Background
On February 18, 2025, Councilmember Rasch’s request to agendize a discussion regarding revising the Council’s Governance Policy Regarding Appointments to Boards, Commissions, and Committees came before the Council for consideration. The request states that for purposes of transparency, more of the Council should be included in the interview process and that interviews should be conducted publicly on a legally noticed basis to give the public the opportunity to participate. It also states that Neighborhood Associations should have access to Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program (NCIP) Committee applications and be asked for their recommendations regarding appointments to the NCIP Committee.

Councilmember Rasch’s full request is attached to this report as Attachment 1.

The request was approved for a future City Council agenda on a vote of 2-3, with Mayor Williamson, Councilmember Barber, and Councilmember Garcia voting no. The passage of the item was successful pursuant to the Council’s Governance Policy regarding Agendizing of City Council Items by Individual Councilmembers (Resolution No. 23-131 C.S.), which provides that for requests to agendize, “a majority vote is not required, instead, the motion will pass with two ‘yes’ votes.”
This agenda report outlines various related considerations and options for potential updates to the Monterey City Code and the City Council’s Governance Policy.

Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 2, Packet Page 141 №10/24
Appointments to Boards, Commissions, and Committees
Results of Research on 102 California Cities
In order to fully inform the Council on this matter, the City Clerk conducted research and compiled data on interview and appointment practices from a total of 102 other California cities.

The research shows that there is a wide range of options available to California city councils, and if an option exists there is probably at least one city doing it. Following are visualizations showing the broad assortment of practices.
“Other” responses for whether interviews take place break down into the following categories:
 Sometimes, but usually not. Interviews take place for Planning Commission applicants and based on numbers of applicants
 At-large applicants only
 Informally
 Planning Commission applicants only
 Only based on numbers of applicants
6 6
11 Are applicants interviewed?
Yes
No
52 27
They may make public comment, but are not
interviewed
At the discretion of the nominating Councilmember
Other
Who conducts interviews?
The full Council
3 3 1
A Subcommittee
5 Other
5 Nominating Councilmember
33 Districted Councilmembers interview applicants from their own districts
The Mayor
16 An individual Councilmember
Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 3, Packet Page 142 №10/24
The composition of subcommittees breaks down as follows:
“Other” responses regarding who conducts interviews break down into the following categories:
 A few members of Council, except for applicants to Planning Commission  Council Subcommittee for some members; By-District interviews for others  Depending on the Committee/Commission the Department Head may sit in with the Mayor on the interviews
 Nominating Councilmember may interview applicants directly OR the Council can interview all applicants at a public meeting
 Planning Commission applicants introduce themselves to the Council at a Council meeting
 A designated Councilmember and staff
In 81% of cities the full Council makes appointments regardless of who interviews and/or nominates applicants. The remaining 19% have varying systems of direct appointments by the Mayor and/or individual Councilmembers; however, such direct appointments in Monterey may not be considered by the Council at this time due to the provision of Monterey Charter §

4.5(a)(2) that “the Council shall appoint by affirmative vote of three (3) of its members, all members of municipal boards, commissions and committees and representatives of the City to other agencies.”
Options for the Council to Consider
Clearly there is almost any combination of interview and nomination methods possible, but the following are some of the process options that staff recommends the Council examine, either based on use by other cities or because the Council has already expressed an interest in, or curiosity about, the method. Additional context and information are added for the Council, including some advantages and disadvantages.

A. Monterey’s current policy: Mayor Interviews and Nominates (Not Subject to the Brown Act), and Full Council Appoints (Subject to the Brown Act) o Pros: While Monterey is not a General Law City and has a voter-approved Charter, it is noteworthy that this method is consistent with California Gov. Code § 40605: “the mayor, with the approval of the city council, shall make all appointments to boards, commissions, and committees unless otherwise specifically provided by statute,” and is therefore consistent with the practices in Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 4, Packet Page 143 №10/24
many other cities. It is also consistent with the Charter § 4.5(a)(2) requirement that the Council appoint board, commission, and committee members. o Cons: Councilmember Rasch has stated there is a lack of transparency associated with this method, and that “more Councilmembers should be included in the interview process, and the public should be welcome as well.” B. Full Council Interviews and Appoints in Public Meetings Subject to the Brown Act o Most common practice among researched California cities (51%). o Variants:
 All applicants receive interviews; only certain bodies’ applicants receive interviews; or none do but applicants may make public comment. Should the Council opt for the full Council meeting appointment process, City staff recommends holding interviews to ensure a comprehensive evaluation of candidates, assessing suitability beyond submitted materials.
 Some cities have ballot voting procedures for appointments. California Gov. Code § 54953(c)(1) prohibits secret ballots, and Monterey City staff recommends motions for full transparency.
o Pros:
 The same practice was used successfully to fill the Monterey Councilmember vacancy in 2022.
 This method provides full transparency, and every member is equally involved in the process.
 Meetings are already scheduled, saving significant time spent by staff organizing, and Mayor conducting, separate interviews.
 Achieves the goals of Councilmember Rasch’s request that more of the Council should be included in the interview process and that interviews should be conducted publicly on a legally noticed basis to give the public the opportunity to participate.
 12 Neighborhood Association Presidents and Vice Presidents met in late March 2025 (this meeting is discussed further in this report) and agreed that interviews and nominations should be made by more than one person.
o Cons:
 Takes time during a Council meeting to hold interviews, which requires greater time commitment from Councilmembers and staff, potentially including additional special meetings.
 This would be a shift from current practice of the City, as well as General Law cities, where the Mayor nominates a potential appointee and the Council approves the appointment.

C. Standing Subcommittee Interviews and Nominates in Public Meetings Subject to the Brown Act, and Full Council Appoints
Process: The Subcommittee would meet in public in a public and televised meeting to interview and deliberate on whom to nominate. The Council would receive the nominations and appoint, pursuant to the Charter requirement. o Variants: Subcommittee could consist of Council only, Council plus staff, Council plus advisory body member(s), advisory body members only, Council plus member(s) of public, etc.
o Pros:
 This method is the request of Councilmember Rasch.

Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 5, Packet Page 144 №10/24
 Neighborhood Association officials agreed at their recent meeting that interviews and nominations should be made by more than one person. o Cons:
 Standing subcommittee meetings would be additional meetings subject to the Brown Act, which are resource- and time-consuming, requiring extra staff time spent on finding convenient times that work for multiple members, agendizing and noticing the meeting, staffing the meeting, and preparing minutes.
 Additional costs would be incurred for broadcasting services as a result of televised or virtual meetings.
o Feedback Received: 12 Neighborhood Association Presidents and Vice Presidents met in late March 2025 and unanimously support the subcommittee model as opposed to the current model. Letters in support of the subcommittee model are attached to this packet (Attachment 3). A proposed NCIP-specific subcommittee recommendation from the Neighborhood Associations, and separately Neighborhood Associations’ role in the appointment process, are both discussed further below in this report.
o Note that a majority of the City Council may attend an open and public meeting of a standing committee, provided the members who are not part of the standing committee only observe and may not participate. (Gov. Code § 54952.2(c)(6).) D. NCIP Positions Only: NCIP-Specific Standing Subcommittee Interviews and Nominates in Public Meetings Subject to the Brown Act, and Full Council Appoints o Process:
 The Subcommittee would meet in public in a public and televised meeting to interview and deliberate on whom to nominate. The Council would receive the nominations and appoint, pursuant to the Charter requirement.
 Subcommittee(s) interviewing and nominating for NCIP positions would include the districted Councilmember representing the area encompassing the NCIP neighborhood associated with each vacancy(s). o Pros:
 This method is requested by the Neighborhood Association representatives.
o Cons:
 This model would require multiple variations of NCIP-specific appointment subcommittees in order to achieve the goal of having each districted Councilmember as part of the interview and nomination process for NCIP positions within their own district.
 These assorted standing subcommittee meetings would be additional meetings subject to the Brown Act, which are resource- and timeconsuming, requiring extra staff time spent on finding convenient times that work for multiple members, agendizing and noticing the meeting, staffing the meeting, and preparing minutes.
 Additional costs would be incurred for broadcasting services as a result of televised or virtual meetings.
o Feedback Received: 12 Neighborhood Association Presidents met in late March 2025 and unanimously support the subcommittee model as opposed to the current model. Letters in support of the subcommittee model are attached to this packet (Attachment 3). Neighborhood Associations’ role in the appointment process is discussed further below in this report.

Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 6, Packet Page 145 №10/24
o Note that a majority of the City Council may attend an open and public meeting of a standing committee, provided the members who are not part of the standing committee only observe and may not participate. (Gov. Code § 54952.2(c)(6).) E. Advisory Body Interviews and Nominates Applicants in Public Meetings Subject to the Brown Act, and Full Council Appoints
o Process:
 Either a subcommittee of the advisory body (e.g., Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission), or the full advisory body, would interview and nominate applicants for their own body. The Council would receive the nominations and appoint, pursuant to the Charter requirement.
o Pros:
 Advisory body in question would take some ownership by advising Council on its own membership.
 If full advisory body: Meetings are in public and are already scheduled. o Cons:
 If full advisory body: It would take time in the advisory body’s meeting and slow the process down by potentially up to a month or two based on the body’s meeting schedule. Some bodies have a difficult time achieving a quorum consistently which could introduce additional delays.  If subcommittee of the advisory body: Standing subcommittee meetings would be additional meetings subject to the Brown Act, which are resource- and time-consuming requiring extra staff time spent on finding convenient times that work for multiple members, agendizing and noticing the meeting, staffing the meeting, and preparing minutes.

F. Individual Members Nominate by District, or At Large Even Though Districted, and Full Council Appoints
o In some cities, each Councilmember nominates and/or appoints one member to each body. For example, Councilmember “A” would nominate/appoint one Planning Commissioner, one Library Trustee, one Parks and Recreation Commissioner, etc. Note: Appointment by individual members is not an option in Monterey due to the Charter requirement, but interviews and nominations could be done by individual members.
o Process: Using this method, each Councilmember would:
 Interview, or have the discretion to interview candidates or not; and  Nominate their own applicants for appointment.

Then the Council would receive the nominations and appoint, pursuant to the Charter requirement.
o Variants:
 In Monterey, this could mean either reducing advisory bodies with seven members to five members (by ordinance), or appointing members to these boards with a combined nomination system such as with each Councilmember nominating one member and the Mayor nominating three.
 In some cities that use this method, each appointee’s term follows the term of the Councilmember that nominated/appointed them. o Pros:
 No Subcommittee needed. Each Councilmember could conduct interviews their own way as transparently as they wish.

Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 7, Packet Page 146 №10/24
o Cons:
 Has less involvement by Councilmembers, and the potential for less transparency, which are issues of concern for Councilmember Rasch.  The Council and public can become more district-focused, which is counter to the Council-adopted Mutually Monterey principles of: making decisions that are in the interests of the entire community and not only one district, and fully engaging on every issue before the City Council regardless of which district(s) may be most directly impacted by the issue.

Potential Combination of the Architectural Review Committee with the Planning Commission, and of the Historic Preservation Commission with the Museums and Cultural Arts Commission
At the recent prioritization exercise during the Council Special Meeting on January 29, 2025, the Council asked that when there were prioritization challenges with the City staff’s work program, the City staff agendize the matter so that the Council could assist in the prioritization.

Considerations relating to the composition of advisory bodies naturally arise when researching and contemplating appointment methods, and with January’s prioritization direction from Council in mind, staff would like to take this opportunity to suggest that the Council review the composition of its own advisory bodies. There are 88 seats total on Monterey’s 11 Boards, Commissions, and Committees, broken down as follows:
 7 members of the Planning Commission
 7 members of the Architectural Review Committee
 7 members of the Parks and Recreation Commission
 7 members of the Historic Preservation Commission
 7 members of the Museums and Cultural Arts Commission  4 members of the Appeals Hearing Board (3 members and one alternate)  4 members of the Building and Housing Appeals Board (3 members and one alternate)  5 members of the Disabled Access Appeals Board
 5 members of the Measure P and S Oversight Committee
 30 members of the Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program (NCIP) Committee (15 members and 15 alternates)
 5 members of the Board of Library Trustees
The City greatly values all of its volunteer board, commission, and committee members, who generously dedicate service to the Monterey community and provide valuable advice to the City Council on their areas of expertise. Staff knows that Council recognizes the positive impacts of maintaining numerous advisory bodies on many subjects, such as the potential for having more subject matter experts serving the City, and that more residents have access to a path that helps them develop a sense of ownership with local issues and grow into other public-serving roles.

In the interest of transparency and fiscal responsibility, it is also important to share with the Council the downsides to the City maintaining a higher number than necessary of advisory bodies, which include retention and recruitment challenges that can lead to quorum concerns and decision-making delays; review required by multiple boards leading to longer approval times for development applications and projects; and the additional staff resources that are required to administer more public meetings, produce the associated written materials and minutes, respond to inquiries from individual members, seek compliance with more members’ Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 8, Packet Page 147 №10/24
required filings and trainings, and conduct recruitments for more seats that can experience turnover.

The City has documented budget challenges and resources are stretched thin across both standard mandated daily work and new programs, and in developing policy it is appropriate for the Council to review existing administration tasks that are not strictly necessary.

The City’s Fiscal Health Response Plan emphasizes the need to implement strategies to balance the City’s checkbook and solve long-term funding needs. The Plan calls for the City “to continue analyzing our service levels and adjust them where appropriate [and to] continue to look at our internal processes to streamline and optimize.” Reviewing the bodies’ composition is consistent with the “C” of the “CORE” strategy: "Change the way we do business to be more streamlined." This is not merely a clever catchphrase but a crucial consideration in moving the City forward.

With all of these considerations in mind, the Council should note that the only advisory bodies that exist in the Monterey Charter, the City’s constitution, which was approved and can only be modified by the voters of Monterey, are the:
 Planning Commission,
 Parks and Recreation Commission,
 Library Board of Trustees, and
 Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program (NCIP) Committee.

In addition, while not in the Charter, the Measure P & S Oversight Committee is required by the voters as a condition of the measures.

There are other advisory bodies that the City Council could consider consolidating, due to overlapping or related duties of the bodies, and because of the desire to be wise with limited resources including direct costs and staff time. Descriptions of these bodies and potential consolidations follow.

Planning and Architectural Review
The City Code provides that the Planning Commission advises the City Council on matters related to land use, zoning, and the General Plan. It reviews development proposals, conditional use permits, variances, and other planning applications to ensure they align with the city's longterm goals and regulations. Monterey City Code does not require any qualifications for service on the Planning Commission.

The City Code provides that the Architectural Review Committee evaluates the design and aesthetics of proposed buildings and modifications to ensure compatibility with the surrounding environment, preservation of community character, and high-quality architectural standards.

Monterey City Code provides that at least one of the members should be an architect or professionally trained in a related field.

Historically, a singular project may require multiple meetings for approval including a Planning Commission hearing and Architectural Review Committee meeting. In many cases, these reviews could be streamlined into one public meeting. For example, only the Planning Commission can grant a variance that may result in a specific building placement and then the Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 9, Packet Page 148 №10/24
ARC might have wanted an alternate building placement for aesthetic reasons. Although we regularly navigate these discussions in a successful manner, applicants can be frustrated with the multiple reviews for one project. One meeting and decision-making body could streamline project review. It is also important to note that many pro-housing State laws require the City to create objective design standards where a developer can simply use a checklist to determine consistency with city policy. The concept of a discretionary architectural review is becoming a concept of the past.

The Community Development Department excels at “doing more with less” but has limited staff and a significant existing core work program including meeting mandatory State objectives, as well as new projects and programs, which can make achieving the Council’s priorities a juggling act. In addition, the Council has tasked staff with finding ways to reduce administrative hurdles that get in the way of development. Enabling increased efficiency in the way architectural and development review processes are conducted is well supported by the “C” of the Fiscal Health Response Plan “CORE” strategy: "Change the way we do business to be more streamlined." The work program of the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) and Planning Commission (PC) could easily be combined into one body’s powers and duties. It is recommended that the Council consider directing staff to bring forward an ordinance combining the ARC and the PC.

Historic Preservation and Cultural Arts
The City Code provides that the Historic Preservation Commission advises on the designation, preservation, and protection of historic structures and districts in Monterey. It reviews projects affecting historic resources to ensure they align with preservation standards and city policies.

In order to continue as a Certified Local Government (CLG) through the State’s California Office of Historic Preservation, which administers grants to CLG for historic preservation, the City needs to maintain a qualified historic preservation review commission consisting of a minimum of two professional members from various historic preservation related disciplines, or lay members who have demonstrated special interests, competence, experience, or knowledge in historic preservation. Currently, three of the City’s Historic Preservation Commission members meet this CLG qualification.

The City Code provides that the Museums and Cultural Arts Commission supports the development and promotion of the City’s museums and cultural programming, and advises on policies, exhibitions, and cultural initiatives that enhance public appreciation of Monterey’s heritage and arts.

Like the Community Development Department, the Library & Museums Department does a fantastic job at providing enriching community services with reduced resources, and existing resources can go further and benefit the community the most when used efficiently.

The work program of the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) and Museums and Cultural Arts Commission (MCAC) could be combined into one body’s powers and duties. It is recommended that the Council consider directing staff to bring forward an ordinance combining the HPC and MCAC.

Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 10, Packet Page 149 №10/24
Neighborhood Associations and Their Role
Councilmember Rasch’s request includes the statement that “NCIP [Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program Committee] nominations should include affirmative outreach to neighborhood associations for their recommendations of their NCIP representative and alternative representative.” A related document showing results from a recent discussion among Neighborhood Association presidents and vice presidents with Councilmembers Rasch and Smith, which was provided by Councilmember Rasch, is attached as Attachment 2. In this document, the Neighborhood Association officials provide input on their desired role in the appointments process.

While it is highly admirable how engaged Monterey residents are with their neighborhoods, and the City benefits from this involvement in many ways, the Neighborhood Associations are not official or even unofficial City entities, and there could be a perception of favoritism to give an external individual or group more influence in the appointment process than another when undertaking official governmental acts such as appointments to City bodies. In addition, there are concerns about equity and fairness when some Neighborhood Associations require dues for membership. Allowing Neighborhood Associations to have a distinct voice in the official process would mean that for some residents it would cost money to participate and enjoy representation in their City government in this matter.

Members and officials of Monterey’s Neighborhood Associations are equivalent to all other members of the public and members of business organizations and external associations in that they are not City representatives and their associations are not City entities. They all have the same ability to be involved in the process and provide feedback. All Monterey residents and stakeholders are highly encouraged to stay involved and engaged with whichever Board, Commission, and Committee interview and nomination process is selected by the Council.

Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Council consider the information provided and give direction to City staff on how, or if, to proceed with the matters of updating the appointments process for, and composition of, Monterey's Boards, Commissions, and Committees. Specifically, staff would like to know if the Council supports:

1. Changing the appointments policy outlined in the Council’s Governance policy to a different method, and if so, which:
o Option “A” - Monterey’s current policy: Mayor Interviews and Nominates, and Full Council Appoints,
o Option “B” - Most common practice in California cities: Full Council Interviews and Appoints,
o Option “C” - Standing Subcommittee Interviews and Nominates for All Bodies, Full Council Appoints,
o Option “C&D” - Standing Subcommittee Interviews and Nominates for Non-NCIP Bodies, Districted Council Subcommittees Interview and Nominate for NCIP, Full Council Appoints,
o Option “E” - Advisory Body (or its Subcommittee) Interviews and Recommends Applicants for Appointment, or
o Option “F” - Individual Members Nominate or Appoint by District, or At Large; and/or Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 11, Packet Page 150 №10/24

2. Combining the ARC and the Planning Commission; and/or

3. Combining the Historic Preservation Commission and the Museums and Cultural Arts Commission.

Next Steps
Following Council’s direction at this meeting on the above recommendations, City staff will return to the Council with, as applicable:
 A draft resolution revising and restating the Council’s Governance Policy, and/or  A first reading of a draft ordinance updating the composition and number of the City’s Boards, Commissions, and Committees.

NR/CBK
Attachments: 1. Councilmember Rasch’s February 18, 2025 request to agendize a discussion regarding appointments to Boards, Commissions, and Committees

2. Document from recent discussion among Neighborhood Association presidents
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, 6/17/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 12, Packet Page 151 ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 13, Packet Page 152 Neighborhood Associations President's and VP's Meeting
March 29,2025
Those present:

Aquajito Oaks
Alta Mesa
Casanova Oak Knott
De[ Monte Beach
De[ Monte Grove/Laguna Grande
Deer Flats
Downtown
Fisherman's Ftats
Gtenwood
Monterey Vista
New Monterey
Oak Grove
Old Town
Skyline Forest
Villa Del Monte
A. Topic One: Why are Neighborhood Associations Vatuabte?

1. Neighborhoods are where retationships between neighbors start.

2. Neighborhoods are where neighbors can meet each other and sociatize.

3. NAs are where neighbors can voice their concerns to each other.

4. NAs are a voice with which to be heard to the City.

5. NAs buitd communication to and from the City.

6. Communication among neighbors buitds stronger communities.

7. NAs hetp educate neighbors on issues affecting them.

8. NAs are organizations with which to speak to Councit.

9. NAs invotve neighbors for organized action such as CERT.

Mike Brassfietd
Joe Fogel & Debbie Murchinson
Scott Hanson
Curt Tipton
Tom Rowtey
Lee Whitney
Eric Ebett
Bob Evans & Roberta Myers
Dona Betzold
Gari Soule
Jim Cullem
John Mclellan
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 14, Packet Page 153

10. NAs are the voice of the neighbors.
1 1. NAs buitd neighborhood cohesiveness.

12. NAs support neighbor invotvement, create identity, form advocacy, and impact safety.

13. NAs represent the uniqueness of a community.

14. NAs networkwithin NCIP.

15. NAs reftect their own NCIP project nominations and priorities, and nomination of reps.

16. NAs survey views of residents.

17. NAs mitigate disasters through setf-knowtedge, organization, and CERT.

18. NAs voice neighborhood needs and grievances.

19. NAs encourage activism and civic participation.

B. Topic Two: How Shoutd lnterviews and Nominations for Committees and Commissions be Managed?
These ideas received unanimous support from a vote of the NAs present:

1. Att neighborhoods voted that interviews and nominations not be made by just one person.

2. The unanimous proposed modeI is: a voting subcommittee of two Councitmembers, rotating equitabty each year, to include a non-voting member who is the chair (or in Chair's absence, the Vice Chair) of said committee affected, who is present for the interviews and discussions of nominations advancing to futt Councit.

3. lnterviews are to be done ideatty in person, or by Zoom when necessary, atways with faciat presence on. lt was a unanimous vote that interviews never are conducted onty by phone/audio.

4. At[ votes supported that a Sptit vote between the two subcommittee Councitmembers goes to futt Councit as sptit decision.

C. Topic Three: How Shoutd lnterviews and Nominations for NCIP be Managed? The unanimousty supported modet is: a voting subcommittee of two Councitmembers, one of whom shatt be the District Councitperson of the affected NCIP neighborhood, and to include a non-voting member who is the Chair (or in Chair's absence, Vice Chair) of NCIP, who shatt be present for the interviews and discussions of nominations advancing to futt Councit. Additionatty, neighborhoods ask that the apptications of att NCIP appticants be shared with the neighborhood association president (or VP) no later than two weeks before the interviews, so that the opinion of the NA can be garnered by the NA and shared with the interviewing Councitmembers and chairs.

Att spl.it votes between the two Councitmembers shatt go to the futt Councit with the written recommendation of the neighborhood association for consideration by the futt Councit.

1. 2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 15, Packet Page 154 D. Topic Four: Other Strong Recommendations by the 12 NAs Recommend that when agency appointments are made yearty by the Councit, one each of the five Councitmembers is appointed as lead to NCIP, Ptanning Commission, ARC, Parks or Rec, or Library; and one each of the five Councitmembers is appointed as lead to each of Zoning Administration, Appeats Board, Historic Preservation, Measure P & S, or Museums and CutturatArt. These appointments shat[ rotate yearty and equitabty.

Recommend that when agency appointments are made, each District Councitperson is appointed as lead to their neighborhood association(s).

Recommend that at[ interviews be open to the pubtic.

1. 2.

3. ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 16, Packet Page 155 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Kimberly Cole, AICP, Community Development Director Prepared By: Jose Acosta, HCD Coordinator
SUBJECT: Approve Changes to Rental Assistance Program (RAP) Guidelines (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 approving
program changes to Rental Assistance Program
(RAP) Guidelines.

VALUE DRIVERS:

Support efforts and policies that provide equitable
access to affordable housing in Monterey and the
region.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The City Council could direct staff to make additional
changes to the City’s Rental Assistance Program
(RAP). This program provides rental assistance
resources to members of the community in need
through an application to the Housing Division. This
program would be 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:

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The City Council will determine the budget allocation
for Fiscal Year FY 2025-2026 as part of its budget
adoption process.

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
Agenda Report Highlights
 The City of Monterey launched a
Rental Assistance Program (RAP)
in April 2024 to address ongoing
housing affordability challenges,
providing $218,336.62 in assistance
to 67 households.
 The program aims to prevent
homelessness and provide a safety
net for cost-burdened tenants, with
flexibility for urgent cases.
 Applicants can receive up to $5,000
in rental assistance per year, with
additional provisions for utility
assistance and deposit aid, but
excessive debt and rent burdens
may limit eligibility.
 Recommended changes to RAP
guidelines include stricter eligibility
criteria, such as income limits, asset
thresholds, and proof of eviction
risk, to better serve lower-income
residents.
 Fraud prevention measures require
applicants to sign under penalty of
perjury, with repayment obligations
for those who misrepresent
information.

Date: 6/17/2025
Item No.: 19.

Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 19., Item Page 1, Packet Page 156 №10/24
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 can propose additional changes to the RAP Guidelines.

DISCUSSION:

City of Monterey Rental Assistance Programs
Previous City Rental Assistance programs have provided financial relief for members of the Monterey community. As the first program of its kind and the only one in Monterey County, the City of Monterey launched an Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) in April 2020, spending almost $1 million (assisting 162 households) in the City’s housing program income funds in response to financial hardships resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2021, the City of Monterey administered the ERAP funds totaling approximately $1.25 million on behalf of the United Way of Monterey County, benefiting 128 households. Combined, the two programs benefited 290 households.

As federal COVID assistance ceased, the City Council expressed interest in early 2024 in establishing a local Rental Assistance Program funded by the City of Monterey for its residents.

Current Program
The City of Monterey initiated a new Rental Assistance Program on April 17, 2024. This program was launched in response to ongoing housing challenges and lack of affordability experienced by renters in the City of Monterey. Pandemic aid ended after the COVID crisis, and people still face a lack of affordability in their housing situations. The 2024 Monterey Rental Assistance Program provided rental assistance to eligible households faced with housing instability issues. This pilot program was funded with General Fund dollars, which allowed the Program to not be prescribed by federal or state pass-through regulations. This approach allowed the City Council to customize the program to best fit the needs of renters in Monterey.

Since April 17, 2024, the City assisted 94 individuals and families and provided approximately $304,590.93 in rental assistance. Of the 94 assisted, 15 were served either with eviction notices from their landlord or a shut-off notice from their utility company. Twelve of the 15 were served with a three-day eviction notice and three were issued a shut-off notice from their utility company. Of the applications reviewed, 15 were denied assistance due to ineligibility, and 13 applicants submitted fraudulent information in their application, such as false pay stubs or false landlord information.

The maximum amount of rental assistance allowed in the program guidelines is $5,000 per applicant with an additional amount of $3,000 allowed for utilities, financial counseling, or oneCouncil Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 19., Item Page 2, Packet Page 157 №10/24
time legal assistance. The City has provided an average of $3,902.42 per applicant. Out of the total number of applicants, 54% were comprised of a one-person household and 46% were from a household of more than one person.

The following are the income levels of the 94 applicants who received funding:
 17% Acutely Low (16 applicants)
 19% Extremely Low (18 applicants)
 21% Very Low (20 applicants)
 30% Low (28 applicants)
 13% Moderate (12 applicants)
Table 1
HCD Income Limits (2025)
The program is effective and assists applicants in need. The first-come, first-served approach is working and the funding amounts are meeting the needs of people needing assistance.

The program assists up to ten (10) qualified applicants per month on a first-come, first-serve basis. City staff accepts no more than twenty (20) applications per month, reviews eligibility of those applicants, and provides funds to as many as possible in the top twenty (20).

Recommended Changes to Program
Staff is recommending changes to the program guidelines to better serve lower income residents in need and ensure funds are available for those at risk of eviction.

Proposed Changes to the program are detailed below.

Recommended Program Changes
Income Limit
Decrease Income Limit to people earning less than 80% of Area Median Income (AMI) based on annual State of California Housing and Community Development (HCD) Income Limits for Monterey County
Demonstrating
Need
Applicants must provide a notice that they are at or near eviction due to being unable to pay rent, such as a job loss, medical emergency, illness, 3- Day Notice to Pay-or-Quit, loss of income due to a major life event, injury etc.

Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 19., Item Page 3, Packet Page 158 №10/24
Assets
Applicants cannot receive assistance if they have more than $5,000 in accessible/liquid assets (bank accounts, checking accounts, real property, etc.).

Excessive Debt
If applicants have excess car payment, credit card payments, parking or speeding tickets, medical bills, or other excessive bills, one month of assistance will be provided and applicants may reapply. Additional assistance will be based on the applicants making improvements to their financial situation.

If the rental cost burden is greater than 50% for more than six months, one month of assistance will be provided. Applicants may reapply and additional assistance will be subject to the applicant’s ability to demonstrate decreased rent cost burden. The Housing Manager will determine if the Applicant Rent applicant has taken sufficient steps to decrease their rental cost burden.

Burden If the rent cost burden of the applicant is greater than 50% of their income, one month of assistance will be provided. The applicant may reapply for assistance and will only be provided additional assistance if the applicant can demonstrate they will be able to afford their rent at a 50% cost burden or less long-term.

Lease Applicants must provide an industry standard lease for any type of assistance in the City’s Rental Assistance Program.

Maximum
Assistance
Allow applicants to apply up to three times/year in a calendar year with a maximum of $5,000 in rental assistance. Applicants in a household are only eligible for maximum of $5,000 of assistance in a calendar year once every three years.

If the applicant is in a unit that is too large or expensive and if they demonstrate they are extremely cost burdened due to their rent being over 50% of their gross income, the City will assist with covering one month of rent and they may reapply if they have moved to a less expensive unit.

Applicants living in a unit that has more bedrooms than the number of people living in the unit, the City will not provide rental assistance. Unit Eligibility All applicants over 18 years old in a household are only eligible to receive up to $5,000 in rental assistance within a three-year period. Also, if a family member moves out of the primary household, they are not eligible for rental assistance at the new location unless there is a special circumstance as determined by the City Manager designee (i.e. divorce, domestic violence, etc.)
Timelines Applicants must meet internal deadlines and provide information about rental assistance or they are not eligible for that month.

Flexibility for
Urgent Cases
City Manager or designee has discretion to provide up to two urgent cases with assistance. These urgent cases must demonstrate an imminent risk of homelessness or eviction if the City does not step in and provide assistance.

Applicants must sign under penalty of perjury that they have not misrepresented information. If it is deemed that information has been misrepresented, they are deemed ineligible for funding and may not apply again for funding.

Fraud, Security
and Repayment
Provisions If an applicant provided false information and was provided funding through the program, the applicant must repay the City funding received.

Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 19., Item Page 4, Packet Page 159 №10/24
Deposit
Assistance
If the City provides deposit assistance (only allowed within City limits), a signed industry standard lease or intent to sign an industry standard lease is required. If the tenant does not move into the unit, the landlord must repay the deposit to the City. Deposit assistance will no longer be a loan.

Part-Time
Employment
Income loss from a reduction in naturally fluctuating/seasonal part-time hours is not considered a valid loss of income (i.e. working during the school year and not working over the summer). This will be up to the discretion of the Housing Manager.

Utility
Assistance
Utility assistance will only assist for water, sewer, gas, and electric.

Internet, streaming services, and cable will not be reimbursed by this program.

Conclusion
City staff understands this has been a pilot program and can return to Council to modify the program if continued in future fiscal years. It is also important to note that staff expects many lessons to be learned as the program continues. The City is gaining valuable information on the needs of renters and how rental assistance can provide support.

There are limited funds and programs available to the public. When the program launched, staff received hundreds of calls from people in need all over Monterey County. Many callers were Spanish-only speakers and live in Salinas and South County. The City also received calls from other Peninsula cities including, Seaside, Pacific Grove, and Marina. Of the 491 calls staff have documented, 105 have been from Salinas, 79 have been from the City of Monterey, 21 have been from Marina, 12 from Soledad, four from Gonzales, seven from King City, five from Greenfield, 15 from Seaside, and six from Pacific Grove.

Many people need rental assistance and there are few resources and programs. The City of Monterey has stepped up to offer a safety net to its citizens through the rental assistance program. The Rental Assistance Program provides cost-burdened tenants a safety net and is a best practice to prevent homelessness. The continued number of calls from people throughout the County attests to the continued need as people’s financial needs change.

Staff recommends that the program continues with the recommended program modifications and hopes that other cities and the County join the City of Monterey and create programs to help people in their jurisdictions.

KC/ja
Attachments: 1. Resolution

2. Exhibit A - Guidelines
e: Housing list
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, 6/17/2025, Item No. 19., Item Page 5, Packet Page 160 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

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

APPROVING CHANGES TO THE MONTEREY RENTAL ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM GUIDELINES FOR 2025
WHEREAS, the City Council approved a Rental Assistance Program (RAP) in 2024, and the program was launched on April 17, 2024;
WHEREAS, since April 17, 2024, the City has assisted 94 individuals and families and provided approximately $304,590.93 in rental assistance. Of the 94 assisted, 15 were served either with eviction notices from their landlord or a shut-off notice from their utility company.

Twelve of the 15 were served with a three-day eviction notice and three were issued a shut-off notice from their utility company. Of the applications reviewed, 15 were denied assistance due to ineligibility, and 13 applicants submitted fraudulent information in their application, such as false pay stubs, false landlord information, and other false information; WHEREAS, the RAP has been actively serving the community since April 2024. City staff has recommended additional changes to the program guidelines to better serve lower income residents in need and ensure funds are available for those who need rental assistance and are at risk of eviction;
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; and

Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 19., Item Page 6, Packet Page 161 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby approves the Rental Assistance Program guidelines for 2025 (Exhibit A).

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this June __ 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, 6/17/2025, Item No. 19., Item Page 7, Packet Page 162

EXHIBIT A

CITY OF MONTEREY
City of Monterey Rental Assistance
Program Guidelines
June 2025
About the Program
The City of Monterey Rental Assistance Program (RAP) provides rental assistance to eligible applicants in the City of Monterey. The City has a history of providing rental assistance. The City launched an Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) in April 2020 and then administered additional funding on behalf of the United Way of Monterey County in 2021 with the objective of mitigating potential homelessness and displacement of existing Monterey residents and workers who experienced a decrease in household income due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and thus, unable to pay their rent. The City expanded its program efforts in 2024.

The RAP aims to provide rental assistance grants to assist eligible applicants. The assistance could pay for:
 Deposit Assistance
 Housing Relocation and stabilization (only within the City of Monterey)  Short-term rental assistance (maximum of 3 months of rental assistance)  Covering rent increases
 Delinquent rent/rental arrears
 Application Fees
 Utility Assistance (electric, gas, and water only)
The City is providing a much-needed resource to ensure residents of Monterey stay housed.

The program is funded through the City’s General Fund. Utilizing general funds for this program allows for the greatest flexibility for the City to assist applicants and allow the City Council to determine the parameters of the program.

Applicant Eligibility
In order to be eligible for the Rental Assistance Program, applicants must meet the following requirements:
 Live in the City of Monterey (prove Monterey residency for at least 1 year of continuous residency prior to receiving assistance)
 Applicants cannot receive assistance if they have more than $5,000 in liquid assets (Savings accounts, checking accounts, real property, etc.) Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 19., Item Page 8, Packet Page 163

EXHIBIT A
 The City will not provide rental assistance to applicants who live in a unit with more bedrooms than the number of people living in the unit
 If an applicant has exhausted the total assistance available, no resident of the same unit will be eligible for assistance while the original applicant remains on the lease and continues to reside in the unit
 Applicants must meet response and submission deadlines. If they are unable to meet a deadline, they will not be eligible for that month and will have the opportunity to reapply in the future.
 Demonstrate a history of making rent payments
 Be able to provide an industry standard lease agreement  Make less than 80% of Area Median Income (the below AMI chart will be updated annually based on State of California Housing and Community Development (HCD) Income Limits for Monterey County)
 In order to be eligible for the program, applicants must sign under penalty of perjury that they have not misrepresented information required by the program. If misinformation is provided, they are not eligible to apply again.

Rental Assistance Committee
City staff reviews applications based on the guidelines to determine funding amounts for each application.

Amount and Type of Assistance
Rental Assistance
Rental Assistance covers only funds for rent that is paid directly to the landlord.

Deposit Assistance
Deposit Assistance covers an applicant’s deposit for a unit within the City of Monterey. Deposit assistance is allowed as part of the $5,000 of rental assistance and is allowed once from the time of an applicant’s first application.

Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 19., Item Page 9, Packet Page 164

EXHIBIT A
Other Assistance
Other assistance may include, utility assistance, one-time legal assistance, and financial counseling. This type of assistance will not exceed $3,000.

Total assistance for rental assistance, deposit assistance, and other assistance will not exceed $8,000 from the time of the applicants first application.

It is not a requirement for a client to accept additional assistance, however, if needed and requested, City staff will work with other non-profit organizations that provide counseling and housing services to provide additional resources and support. Other one-time assistance will be capped at $3,000 per applicant. Payments for one-time assistance for housing counseling and legal assistance would be paid to the City’s contracted non-profit agency that provides these services.

Additional program requirements are detailed in the following table.

Monterey Rental Assistance Program Requirements
Income Limit
Decrease Income Limit to people earning less than 80% of Area Median Income (AMI) based on annual State of California Housing and Community Development (HCD) Income Limits for Monterey County
Demonstrating
Need
Applicants must provide a notice that they are at or near eviction due to being unable to pay rent, such as a job loss, medical emergency, illness, 3- Day Notice to Pay-or-Quit, loss of income due to a major life event, injury etc.

Assets
Applicants cannot receive assistance if they have more than $5,000 in accessible/liquid assets (bank accounts, checking accounts, real property, etc.).

Lease Applicants must provide an industry standard lease for any type of assistance in the City’s Rental Assistance Program.

Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 19., Item Page 10, Packet Page 165

EXHIBIT A
If the applicant is in a unit that is too large or expensive and if they demonstrate they are extremely cost burdened due to their rent being over 50% of their gross income, the City will assist with covering one month of rent and they may reapply if they have moved to a less expensive unit.

Fraud, Security
and Repayment
Provisions If an applicant provided false information and was provided funding through the program, the applicant must repay the City all funding received.

Deposit
Assistance
If the City provides deposit assistance (only allowed within City limits), a signed industry standard lease or intent to sign an industry standard lease is required. If the tenant does not move into the unit, the landlord must repay the deposit to the City. Deposit assistance will no longer be a loan.

Utility
Assistance
Utility assistance will only assist for water, sewer, gas, and electric.

Internet, streaming services, and cable will not be reimbursed by this program.

Payments
Payments will be made directly to the applicant’s landlord or property management firm. No direct payments will go to Monterey Rental Assistance Program applicants. Other housing services will be paid through agreements with non-profit organizations who provide those services. Utility assistance goes directly to the utility provider.

Funding Availability
The City of Monterey has dedicated $250,000 for rental assistance for Fiscal Year 2025-2026.

Eligible applicants are primarily accepted on a first-come, first-serve basis. City staff will assist up to ten applicants per month.

Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 19., Item Page 11, Packet Page 166

EXHIBIT A
No Duplication of Benefits
Rental Assistance best practices recommend that the City of Monterey staff check to see that the Rental Assistance will not result in a duplication of benefits to the applicant, meaning that the housing cost has not or will not be paid by another source. To ensure that there is no duplication of benefits, applicants must inform the City of Monterey about other financial assistance they are receiving so that the City may verify that no duplication of benefits will occur if the applicant receives Rental Assistance from the City. Receiving other financial aid does not disqualify someone from applying, but receiving other financial aid may limit the amount of Rental Assistance an applicant is eligible to receive.

Requirements for Signatures and Penalties
Applicants must sign under penalty of perjury that they have not misrepresented information on their application. If it is deemed that information has been misrepresented, they are deemed ineligible for funding and may not apply again for funding. Required Documentation for Tenants and Landlords
Applicants must provide the following documentation to the City of Monterey Housing Programs Office:
 Cover Letter explaining your hardship that meets program guidelines and why rental assistance is needed
 Completed City provided budget worksheet
 Three years of most recent Federal income tax returns  Six months of most recent bank statement for all bank accounts (checking/savings) and written explanation for each deposit
 Industry Standard Lease Agreement
 Photo ID for each member of the household 18 years or older  Self-Certification of Income
 For employment:
o Minimum of 3 months of check stubs, more can be requested by staff (if still employed)
o Hour reduction notification from employer (if hours reduced) o Unemployment Award Letter from a state or federal unemployment (if unemployed) or Termination Letter
 Rent Due notices
 Landlord verification that applicant was current on rent or making payments  Landlord’s W9 and contact information for payment
 Information relating to other financial assistance you are receiving (see Duplication of Benefits)
 Landlord may allow inspection of the unit
 Landlord may consider forgiving back rent not covered by the program  Landlord may consider accepting a fraction (ex: 80%) of rent as payment-in-full  Landlord may consider waiving late fees
 Landlord may consider to not move forward with an eviction for a specified length of time
Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 19., Item Page 12, Packet Page 167

EXHIBIT A
Application Process
Applicants must complete the City of Monterey’s online Rental Assistance Program application at Monterey.gov/housing.

City Staff will contact applicants within one (1) week of their application submission to discuss the application.

Record Retention
The City of Monterey Housing Programs Office will keep all records for each applicant in accordance with City requirements.

Contact
The City of Monterey Housing Programs Office is available to answer questions about the Monterey Rental Assistance Program by phone at 831-646-3995 or by email at [email protected].

Council Regular Meeting, 6/17/2025, Item No. 19., Item Page 13, Packet Page 168

Monterey City CouncilJune 17, 2025

Monterey City Council
June 17, 2025