Agenda packet — Monterey City Council, November 4, 2025 (part 1 of 2)

Council Chamber
580 Pacific St.

Monterey, California

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Council Regular Meeting and
Closed Session
Tuesday, November 4, 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 (or lower it), dial *9. Once called upon, dial *6 to unmute.
 This meeting will also stream live for viewing only on youtube.com/cityofmonterey (~10 second delay) and on Comcast Channel 25 (up to 90 second delay).  Written comment: Emailed comments to [email protected] sent no later than ½ hour before the start of the meeting (sooner preferred) are not read aloud but are made available to the Council and public at monterey.gov/submitted-comments.

PUBLIC COMMENT PROCEDURES AND TIME LIMITS:

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

1. Up to three minutes per speaker.

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

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

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

November 4, 2025 4:00 PM
2 AFTERNOON SESSION: 4:00 p.m.

Call to Order
Presentations (Afternoon)

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

2. Recognize November 2025 as Native American Heritage Month (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) General Public Comments
The public may speak to any item that is not on the agenda and that is in the City of Monterey’s subject matter jurisdiction.

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

Consent: Approval of Minutes

3. October 13, 2025 Special Meeting (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

4. October 21, 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.

5. 2nd Reading of an Ordinance Adopting Parts of the 2025 California Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24), Including Local Amendments, and the 2024 International Property Maintenance Code (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and General Rule Article 5 Section 15061)

6. 2nd Reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 38, Section 38-112.5 of the Monterey City Code to Establish Local Density Incentives for Qualifying Housing Projects (CEQA: Certified Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2023080034), Article 11, Section 15168(c))
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.

7. Authorize the Finance Director to Close the Larkin Park Swings Installation Project and Transfer Remaining Funds in the Amount of $58,401.74 to the Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program (NCIP) End Balance Account; and to Appropriate Funding in the Amount of $30,000.00 from the NCIP Contingency Account to the Deer November 4, 2025 4:00 PM
3 Flats Park Fencing and Benches Project ***NCIP*** (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

8. Approve Agreement with Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, for Financial Services and Authorize City Manager to Execute the Agreement (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

9. Adopt Resolution of Intention to Modify the Monterey County Tourism Improvement District (MCTID) Management District Plan to Add the City of Sand City to the District (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

10. Authorize an Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with G7ei Inc. for the Storm Drain Master Plan and Stormwater Utility Rate Study to increase the not-toexceed amount from $561,912 to $673,366 (Exempt from CEQA, Article 19, Section 15306, Class 6)

11. Authorize Agreement with AMS.NET, LLC for Citywide Safety and Security Camera Replacement in the Amount of $1,808,626.75 (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

12. Amend Agreement with Dell, Inc. to Increase the Not to Exceed Amount by $55,000 for Additional Microsoft Software Licensing (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
End of Consent Agenda
Afternoon Session Items
Public Hearing (Afternoon)
Public Hearings are held to receive a staff presentation and public comment on certain items prior to City Council action. NOTICE CONCERNING YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS: If you challenge the City Council’s zoning, planning, or land use decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing on the matter, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at the time of or prior to the public hearing. (Government Code section 65009.)

13. Adopt the Planning Commission Recommendation and Approve 1st Reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 38 of the Monterey City Code to Establish Regulations and Development Standards for Firearms and Ammunition Retail Sales Uses and Amending the Home Occupation Permit Procedures (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Public Appearance (Afternoon)
Public Appearance items are on non-routine issues that might stimulate public interest and comments.

14. Adopt the Residential Parking Permit Program Framework, Including Updates to Special Permit Areas and Approve the Proposed Fee Structure Effective January 1, 2026 (Exempt from CEQA, Article 19, Section 15306, Class 6) Adjourn to Closed Session
The City Council will take public comments on closed session items before convening to closed session.

November 4, 2025 4:00 PM
4 Closed Session (Afternoon)
Part or all of a meeting may be closed to the public under special conditions. Council can consider only matters covered in the agenda descriptions.

15. Conference with Legal Counsel, Existing Litigation Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(2):

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

2. Ronald Rogers v. City of Monterey (Monterey County Superior Court Case No. 23CV003206)
(Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

16. Public Employment Pursuant to Government Code section 54957(b)(1) - Unrepresented Employee: City Manager Recruitment (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Recess
Reconvene
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.

Announcements from Closed Session
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.)

17. Uphold Planning Commission’s Decision to Deny Use Permit Application for a Day Care, General, Use at 2400 Garden Road; Application AP-25-0236; Use Permit Application UP-25-0013; Appellant Henry Ruhnke, Wald, Ruhnke and Dost Architects LLP; Property Owner W R MONT LLC; Industrial, Administration, and Research, Religious Assembly Overlay, Emergency Shelter Overlay, Multi-Family Residential Overlay (I-R-130-RA-ES-MF1) Zoning District; Employment General Plan Designation (Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1 and Section 15303, Class 3)
November 4, 2025 4:00 PM
5 Requests from Councilmembers to Agendize New Matters
Councilmembers may request to agendize a matter of business on a future agenda. The sole issue to be determined is whether the substantive issue warrants being heard at a future date.

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

18. Mayor Williamson’s Request to Agendize a Discussion Regarding Regulation of Temporary Noncommercial Signs on Private Property (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) 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 people with disabilities 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, including to coordinate the use of a hearing device, 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-tospeech, speech-to-speech, and Spanish-language services 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

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 Fourth 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
Fourth 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 recognize members of the Monterey
community, including members of our Nation’s military
who are stationed at the U.S. Army Garrison Presidio of Monterey, located within Monterey’s city limits.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: No fiscal implications.

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 Agenda Report Highlights
 The recommendation to City
Council is to recognize the winners
of 4th Quarter Defense Language
Institutes Quarterly Joint Service
Awards.
 The recognition is part of the longstanding relationship between the City of Monterey and the Defense
Language Institute.
 Two winners are from the U.S.

Marine Corps and the third is from
the U.S. Army.

Date: 11/4/2025
Item No.: 1.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 1., Item Page 1, Packet Page 6 №10/24
be assessed for CEQA applicability.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council could choose not to recognize the winners of the Fourth Quarter FY25 Joint Enlisted Board (JEB) Awards; however, this is not recommended.

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 Joint Enlisted Board (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 Joint Enlisted Board.

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 Fourth Quarter FY25 DLIFLC Quarterly Joint Service Awards at its meeting on November 4, 2025  Sergeant Paul Kauranen, from the U.S. Marine Corps
 Lance Corporal Avarose Quinn, from the U.S. Marine Corps  Sergeant Leon Zak, from the U.S. Army
HU/hg
Attachment: 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, 11/4/2025, Item No. 1., Item Page 2, Packet Page 7 Proclamation Honoring
The Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center's Quarterly Joint Service Award Recipient
Sergeant Paul Kauranen
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 Paul Kauranen, 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 Paul Kauranen, United States Marine Corps, for a job well done, and thank them for their continuing contributions to the Armed Services and to our Nation.

November 4, 2025 ______________________
Tyller Williamson, Mayor
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 1., Item Page 3, Packet Page 8 Proclamation Honoring
The Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center's Quarterly Joint Service Award Recipient
Lance Corporal Avarose Quinn
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 Avarose Quinn, 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 Avarose Quinn, United States Marine Corps, for a job well done, and thank them for their continuing contributions to the Armed Services and to our Nation.

November 4, 2025 ______________________
Tyller Williamson, Mayor
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, 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 Leon Zak
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 Leon Zak, 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 Leon Zak, United States Army, for a job well done, and thank them for their continuing contributions to the Armed Services and to our Nation.

November 4, 2025 ______________________
Tyller Williamson, Mayor
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 1., Item Page 5, Packet Page 10 Council
Agenda Report
№11/25
FROM: Hans Uslar, City Manager
Prepared By: Hayley Goodwein, Administrative Assistant
SUBJECT: Recognize November 2025 as Native American Heritage Month (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council recognize November 2025 as
Native American Heritage Month.

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 recognizes and celebrates Native
American Heritage Month in honor of the culture,
accomplishments, and contributions of the Native
American community in Monterey and across the United
States. The City proudly supports the continued advancement of equality for Native American individuals and their families.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: No fiscal implications.

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, Agenda Report Highlights
 The recommendation to City
Council is to recognize November
2025 as Native American Heritage
Month.
 The recognition is designated as an
opportunity to learn about the
original inhabitants of the land that
is the City of Monterey.
 The Esselen and Rumsen-OhloneCostanoan nations continue to live in Monterey and keep their timehonored traditions and practices alive.

Date: 11/4/2025
Item No.: 2.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 2., Item Page 1, Packet Page 11 №10/24
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 to not recognize November 2024 as Native American Heritage Month; however, that is not recommended.

DISCUSSION:

The month of November is designated as a time to learn about the original inhabitants of the land that is now the City of Monterey. From the rich traditions to the languages spoken to the history of persecution and forced removal, the entire story of the indigenous peoples of Monterey and the larger United States should be learned and reckoned with. The month was designated in 1990 by President George H.W. Bush, 75 years after the first day of recognition was approved by the Congress of the American Indian Association in 1915.

The Esselen and Rumsen-Ohlone-Costanoan nations live and have lived in Monterey for generations. The members of these nations work to honor their past and continue to share their culture with the Monterey community through events in connection with the season, through artwork that keeps time-honored traditions and practices alive, and through the constant reminder that they are active members of the Monterey community.

HU/hg
Attachment: 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, 11/4/2025, Item No. 2., Item Page 2, Packet Page 12 Proclamation declaring
November 2025
Native American Heritage Month
WHEREAS, the initial efforts to have a day of recognition for Native Americans were first approved in 1915 by the annual Congress of the American Indian Association as directed by its president, Reverend Sherman Coolidge, an Arapaho minister; and,
WHEREAS, in 1976, member of the Cherokee Nation J.C. Elliot-High Eagle authored the first legislation to proclaim a “Native American Awareness Week” and the resolution was later signed by President Gerald Ford. In 1990, President George H.W. Bush designated November as “National American Indian Heritage Month” after approving a joint resolution; and, WHEREAS, the month of November is designated as a time to learn about the original inhabitants of the land that is now the United States of America. From the rich traditions to the languages spoken to the history of persecution and forced removal, the entire story of the indigenous peoples of America should be learned and reckoned with; and,
WHEREAS, the culture and history of the native people of all 50 states weave an undeniable thread in the tapestry that is the United States, and their stories continue to be an important part of the continued story of this country; and
WHEREAS, the Esselen and Rumsen-Ohlone-Costanoan nations live and have lived in Monterey for generations. The members of these nations work to honor their past and continue to share their culture with the Monterey community through events in connection with the seasons, through artwork that keeps time-honored traditions and practices alive, and through the constant reminder that they are active members of the Monterey community; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED THAT I, Tyller Williamson Mayor of the City of Monterey, on behalf of the City Council and citizens, hereby proclaim the month of November 2025 as Native American Heritage Month.

Dated: November 2025 _______________________
Tyller Williamson, Mayor
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 2., Item Page 3, Packet Page 13

MINUTES

SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF CITY COUNCIL AND NCIP COMMITTEE

CITY OF MONTEREY
Monday, October 13, 2025
6:00 PM
COUNCIL CHAMBER, 580 PACIFIC ST.

MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
Councilmembers

Present: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson

Absent: None
NCIP Committee
Neighborhoods

Present:

Aguajito Oaks (Purdy), Alta Mesa (Stocker), Casanova Oak Knoll (Schmidt), Del Monte Beach (Fields), Del Monte Grove-Laguna Grande (Hanson), Downtown (Tipton), Fisherman Flats (Baker), Glenwood (Whitney), Monterey Vista (Sessions), New Monterey (Ogbonna), Oak Grove (Adam), Old Town (Ricketson), Skyline (Duke)

Absent: Deer Flats, Villa Del Monte
City Staff

Present:

Assistant City Manager, City Attorney, Finance Director, Public Works Director, City Clerk, Assistant Fire Chief, Senior Engineer, Recreation Manager, Administrative Assistant (Public Works Engineering), Street Maintenance Leadworker

EVENING SESSION AGENDA
Call to Order
Mayor Williamson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. City Clerk Klein called the roll with the Council and NCIP Committee present as indicated above.

Pledge of Allegiance
Neighborhood and Community Improvement Committee Chair Ogbonna led the Pledge.

Public Appearance (Evening)

1. Joint Meeting of the City Council and Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program Committee (NCIP) to Discuss Potential Appropriation of NCIP Funds into the General Fund to Address the City’s $10 Million Structural Deficit in the Next Fiscal Year’s Budget (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Discussed
Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira, Finance Director King, and Public Works Director Renny gave the staff presentation introducing a discussion of potential appropriation of NCIP funds into the general fund to address the City's $10 million structural deficit in the next fiscal year's budget, and answered Councilmembers' and NCIP Committee members' questions with additional information provided by City Attorney Davi and Senior Engineer Paulding. Options presented and discussed were: 1. Status Quo (maintain current cycle funding and current projects); 2. Freeze Select Projects (maintain current cycle and "freeze" specific dollar amount in current projects); 3.

Skip a Cycle (maintain current approved projects and re-appropriate FY 25/26 NCIP funding to general fund); and 4. Hybrid Approach (combination of partial re-appropriation of current cycle funding and project freezing).

Date: 11/4/2025
Item No.: 3.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 3., Item Page 1, Packet Page 14 City Council Minutes October 13, 2025
2 Mayor Williamson opened public comment, and based on the number of intended speakers, limited speaking time to two minutes per speaker.

Public comment was received from: Steve, in favor of Option 2; Marta Kraftzeck, Lori Mazzuca, and Elizabeth Jannasch, all opposed to any of the presented options; Tom Reeves, tentatively in favor of Options 3 or 4; Uwe Grobecker, in favor of Option 4; Christian Schmidt, questioning how much of the City's funding came from the federal government; Ryan Heron of LiUNA Local 792/General Employees of Monterey, who urged the Council to do whatever necessary to avoid staff reduction; Phil Bezouska of L3707/Monterey Firefighters Association, who spoke in favor of appropriating NCIP funds to the general fund but did not specify a preferred option; Marsha Moroh of the Board of Library Trustees, who urged the prioritizing of funding Library repairs; and Esther Malkin, who said that the problem of resolving the budget deficit should be addressed in a community-oriented way. It was asserted by commenters that any NCIP fund appropriation should be done together with solving the problems that led to the deficit, and should include oversight and a termination date to avoid appropriation becoming a regular occurrence. It was stated that the NCIP was not a slush fund and that the City's reserves should be used and programs paused before considering appropriating NCIP funds. It was urged that NCIP rules should be reviewed and updated and that the defitiion of "capital improvement" should be broadened to include services. It was stressed that there should be no staff cuts. It was stated that NCIP funds should go to priorities and uses that reflect the essential needs of the entire community. Mayor Williamson closed public comment, and on question from the Council, Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira said that very little of the City's funding came from the federal government.

The NCIP Committee discussed the matter. Overall, the Committee stressed the importance of public input, trust, and collaboration in the decision-making process.

Regarding Option 2: Freeze Select Projects, NCIP Committee comments in favor noted that it would be a compromise that would allow the community to move forward together. It was stated that this was the most collaborative of the options. It was suggested that freezing select projects could support avoiding staff layoffs. It was noted that this option would allow more time for community feedback, because the schedule would allow public testimony on projects prior to reporting back to the Council in early April 2026. On the other hand, comments against Option 2 expressed that it would be a waste of public funds and that freezing projects could discourage community members who had invested time and effort in submitting proposals. Concern was expressed that deferred projects could require reassessment when revisited, leading to wasted time and funds. Concern was expressed that City staff was picking which projects mattered, reducing the autonomy of the NCIP Committee. It was requested that if the Council moved forward with Option 2, that they give the NCIP Committee the opportunity to prioritize the projects to be frozen.

Regarding Option 3: Skip a Cycle, NCIP Committee comments in favor asserted that skipping a cycle would save staff and committee member time, by avoiding evaluation of new and old projects simultaneously. On the other hand, concern was expressed that community members who had already submitted proposals would be disappointed.

Regarding Option 4: Hybrid Approach, an NCIP Committee comment in favor stressed that it had the most flexibility.

On request from the Council, the NCIP Committee conducted a show of hands and it was determined that no members preferred Option 1, eight members preferred Option 2, four members preferred Option 3, and one member preferred Option 4.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 3., Item Page 2, Packet Page 15 City Council Minutes October 13, 2025
3 The Council took up the matter for discussion. The importance of collaboration was highlighted and it was stated that the Council valued continuing the great work of the NCIP while also addressing the fiscal situation that had an impact on the whole City. It was stressed that it was important to remember that everyone was in this challenge together.

It was stated that there were other solutions with which to resolve the budget deficit and that NCIP funds should not be the first in consideration. It was stated that NCIP funds were meant to be for capital improvements, not to pay City firefighters. It was asserted that the Council was committed to working with staff to fix the structural issues with the NCIP in the coming years.

Regarding Option 2: Freeze Select Projects, the Council noted that this alternative had the most support from the NCIP Committee members and that it could give the Council the biggest "bang for its buck" in addressing the deficit. The importance of NCIP projects on neighborhoods was noted. It was noted that there could be trust and engagement impacts resulting from freezing projects, and it was stressed that there were deeper structural concerns about the NCIP, such as how to address the project backlog for the long term.

Regarding Option 3: Skip a Cycle, the Council noted that current NCIP procedures already included a mechanism for deappropriating stale projects.

Regarding Option 4: Hybrid Approach, the Council expressed that it might take more work than other methods but could allow the NCIP Committee to go through a process that preserved what the Committee prioritized preserving.

The NCIP Committee adjourned from the meeting. The Council recessed at 8:36 p.m. and reconvened at 8:44 p.m.

2. Determine a Range on the Dollar Amount of Neighborhood and Community Improvement Project (NCIP) Funds to Appropriate into the General Fund to Assist the NCIP with Developing its Recommendation to the City Council on Which NCIP Projects to Defund/Put on Hold to Address the City’s $10 Million Structural Deficit in the Next Fiscal Year’s Budget (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Provided direction to the NCIP Committee to review their program using a prioritization exercise similar to the Council's process on September 2, 2025, and return to the City Council with a recommendation for $3-4M worth of projects of the lowest priority to the Committee (4-1, Councilmember Rasch voting no) Public comment was received from: Tom Reeves, who said he had now soured on Option 2, and asked the Council to give the NCIP Committee a dollar amount and let them be creative and figure out how to find the needed funds; and Dennis Duke of the NCIP Committee, who suggested that the NCIP Committee find $1.5M with matching funds from the reserve for economic uncertainty, for a total of $3M.

The Council discussed the matter, with preference tending toward Option 2 due to its flexibility.

The Council thoroughly discussed the dollar amount that the NCIP Committee should be directed to recommend for freezing, with opinions of the appropriate amount ranging from $1.5-2M to the City staff's recommendation of $8-10M. There was discussion around the potential to tap into the economic uncertainty reserve fund as a match to the NCIP contribution, with comments made both in favor of and against this concept.

On question, Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira said that the fund was intended to be used for catastrophic issues such as major recessions or natural emergencies. He said that City staff was Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 3., Item Page 3, Packet Page 16 City Council Minutes October 13, 2025
4 nervous about potential layoffs and said that if the policy decision from the Council was to preserve the NCIP and reduce staffing, the City staff would like to know sooner than later and there would be HR processes required. The Council expressed unwillingness to consider staff layoffs as a solution to the budget deficit.

The Council discussed non-NCIP solutions that could be used to address the budget deficit, including salary savings and potential tax measures. On question, Finance Director King provided information on salary savings from unfilled positions. Concern was expressed by the Council that the dollar amounts indicated did not sufficiently address the full deficit.

An initial motion was introduced by Councilmember Barber to select Option 2: Freeze Select Projects, and direct the NCIP Committee to find $4M and report to Council the projects they recommend freezing.

Councilmember Barber’s initial motion died for lack of a second.

The Council noted that it was difficult to imagine the NCIP having a robust, healthy fund and continue building great projects while the City was struggling to the extent of possibly not even retaining its staff.

A motion was introduced by Mayor Williamson, and seconded by Councilmember Garcia, to direct the NCIP Committee to review a combination of projects not yet started and inactive project balances, and use a project cards prioritization exercise to identify projects of lowest priority totaling $8.6M.

The Council discussed Mayor Williamson’s motion. In opposition to the motion, it was stated that $8.6M was too preliminary and too great of an ask of the NCIP Committee and that an amount like $2-3M would be more appropriate while the Council considered other solutions to resolve the budget deficit.

Mayor Williamson’s motion failed by the following vote:

AYES: 2 COUNCILMEMBERS: Garcia, Williamson
NOES: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Rasch, Smith
Councilmember Rasch began to introduce a motion to deappropriate $1.5M from the next fiscal year of the NCIP, but the motion died during its introduction because City Attorney Davi explained that appropriation was not agendized as an option for this meeting.

The Council suggested to direct NCIP to examine the projects currently approved for the present year and determine what projects they would recommend could be frozen.

A new motion was introduced by Councilmember Barber, and seconded by Councilmember Smith, to direct the NCIP Committee to review their program and return to the City Council with a recommendation for $3-4M worth of projects of the lowest priority to the Committee.

A friendly amendment was introduced by Mayor Williamson to direct that the NCIP Committee use a prioritization exercise similar to the Council's process on September 2, 2025, and the mover and seconder approved the friendly amendment.

The motion carried by the following vote:

AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Smith, Williamson NOES: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Rasch
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 3., Item Page 4, Packet Page 17 City Council Minutes October 13, 2025
5 Adjournment
The Council adjourned at 9:56 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted, Approved,
Clementine Bonner Klein Tyller Williamson
City Clerk Mayor
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 3., Item Page 5, Packet Page 18

MINUTES

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING

CITY OF MONTEREY
Tuesday, October 21, 2025
4:00 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) due to emergency circumstances
** Arrived at 4:06 p.m.

City Staff

Present:

City Manager, Assistant City Manager, City Attorney, Finance Director, Community Development Director, Police Chief, Fire Chief, Public Works Director, City Clerk, Property Manager, Planning Manager, Building Official, Engineering Assistant, Assistant Fire Chief, Deputy Public Works Director/City Engineer, Parks and Recreation Director
Teleconference Notice
This meeting was held with a combination of in-person and teleconference attendance, pursuant to the Ralph M. Brown Act.

AFTERNOON SESSION
Call to Order
Vice Mayor Garcia called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. and announced that Councilmember Barber had requested that a portion of the meeting be held remotely by teleconference. He said that Mayor Williamson would arrive shortly. City Clerk Klein called the roll as indicated above, with Councilmember Williamson absent.

Emergency Circumstances Remote Participation Request
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 Emergency Circumstances clause (medical emergency), and stated that nobody over the age of 18 was present in the room with her during the meeting.

Public comment was not received on Councilmember Barber's remote participation.

On a motion by Councilmember Smith, seconded by Councilmember Rasch, and carried by the following roll-call vote, the City Council approved Councilmember Barber's Emergency Circumstances Remote Participation Request:

AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith
NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Williamson
Mayor Williamson arrived at 4:06 p.m.

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

Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 1, Packet Page 19 City Council Minutes October 21, 2025
2 General Public Comments
Due to the number of individuals requesting to speak, public comments were limited to two minutes per speaker. Public comment on non-agendized matters was received from: Curt Tipton, Mira Nissim, Jason Asmus, Jim Burns, India Weeks, Eli Mullin, Keith Simone, and Jeffrey Swanson.

Consent Agenda
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 except Items 2, 3, and 5:

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

1. September 16, 2025 (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Approved
Consent: Ordinances

2. 1st Reading of an Ordinance Adopting Parts of the 2025 California Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24), Including Local Amendments, and the 2024 International Property Maintenance Code (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and General Rule Article 5 Section 15061) Action: Pulled from Consent; Passed Ordinance to a second reading On question from the Council, City Manager Uslar and Building Official Williamson gave a brief overview of the recommended changes.

Public comment was received from Nina Beety, who said the matter should be postponed to make more time to study the changes to the codes.

On question from the Council, Building Official Williamson explained the timing required for adoption of the amendments and the impacts on the City if the amendments were not to be adopted. The Council noted that the Council and public have longer to review the language prior to the second reading.

On a motion by Councilmember Smith, seconded by Councilmember Garcia, and carried by the following roll-call vote, the City Council passed the ordinance to a second reading on November 4, 2025:

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

3. Award a Contract in the Amount of $3,869,740 to Tyler Technologies, Inc. for an Enterprise Resource Planning System and Project Management and Implementation 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. 25-102 C.S.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 2, Packet Page 20 City Council Minutes October 21, 2025
3 City Manager Uslar gave a brief verbal presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions.

Public comment was received from Rick Heuer of Monterey Peninsula Taxpayers Association, who asserted that the Council was not fully informed about the fiscal impact and that in a time of economic scarcity it did not look good to spend this amount of City funds on the Enterprise Resource Planning System ("ERP").

On question from the Council, City Manager Uslar explained the organizational impacts that would take place if the City continued to use its current software which he said would reach its end-of-life in 2027, by which time he hoped the City would have implemented the new software. Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira said that two in-house staff members would be utilized to implement the ERP to maximize integration with existing City staff and due to their access to confidential information, and said that the City was being as mindful as possible of cost and had been creative with recruiting. City Manager Uslar clarified that the positions would be funded from the existing Information Technology reserve. City Manager Uslar said that approving the ERP contract would save the City money in the long run, and stressed the extreme importance of cybersecurity for cities.

On a motion by Councilmember Barber, seconded by Councilmember Garcia, and carried by the following roll-call vote, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 25-102 C.S.:

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

4. Authorize a Memorandum of Agreement with Monterey One Water for the 2025 Monterey Regional Stormwater Management Program (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 25-103 C.S.

5. Authorize an Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with SJ Construction Management for Construction Management and Resident Engineering Services for the Del Monte and Casa Verde Recreational Trail Intersection Improvement Project to Increase the Not-To-Exceed Amount From $367,998.74 to $529,658.40 and Extend the Contract by Six Months (Exempt from CEQA, Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1) ***CIP/NCIP***
Action: Pulled from Consent; Adopted Resolution No. 25-104 C.S.

City Manager Uslar gave a brief verbal staff presentation and Engineering Assistant II Garcia answered Councilmembers' questions. During the staff presentation, Mayor Williamson left the Council Chamber from 4:52 p.m. to 4:54 p.m.

Public comment was received from: George McNeely, who said that the project needed to be completed as soon as possible, citing safety concerns; Greg Vincent, who asked questions about the timeline and the planning of the construction; and Lori Mazzuca, who expressed dissatisfaction with the City's engagement and communication with residents on the matter.

On question from the Council, Engineering Assistant II Garcia provided further information on the timeline and process involved in public works construction projects.

On a motion by Mayor Williamson, seconded by Councilmember Smith, and carried by the following roll-call vote, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 25-104 C.S.:

AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 3, Packet Page 21 City Council Minutes October 21, 2025
4 6. Authorize the City of Monterey Fire Department to Accept the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Funding Award and Appropriate 10% Cost Share Funds for the Paramedic Program (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 25-105 C.S.

Consent: Other

7. Appoint Agency Negotiators for Conference with Real Property Negotiators Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8; Property: 886 Cannery Row; Agency Negotiators:

Kimberly Cole and Janna Aldrete; Negotiating Parties: Monterey Bay Aquarium Foundation; Under Negotiation: Review of Rent (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Approved real property negotiators Cole and Aldrete End of Consent Agenda
Afternoon Session Items
Public Hearing (Afternoon)

8. Adopt the Planning Commission Recommendation and Approve 1st Reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 38, Section 38-112.5 of the Monterey City Code to Establish Local Density Incentives for Qualifying Housing Projects (CEQA: Certified Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2023080034), Article 11, Section 15168(c)) Action: Passed ordinance to a second reading
Planning Manager Hill gave a verbal staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions.

Public comment was received from: Rick Heuer, who expressed concern about placement of affordable housing and said that projects should be 100% affordable in exchange for a 50% bonus; and Nina Beety, who spoke against the recommendation, citing concern about impacts, including parking, and a lack of trust in City staff's ability to mitigate problems.

The Council discussed the matter.

On question from the Council, Planning Manager Hill explained that projects requesting a density bonus through State law receive concessions or incentives based on affordability levels, which could allow height beyond the zone's maximum. He noted that existing density provisions in the Alvarado district allowed one additional story, up to six stories, while most other areas were capped at three stories with potential for one to two additional stories. ?He explained that density bonuses could be paired with other financial incentives such as state loans, to help make projects more feasible. He clarified that all projects would go through the standard development review process, even in areas with administrative approval. He confirmed that several projects, including the MidPen affordable housing project behind City Hall, would benefit from the proposed changes.

It was stated by the Council that there was support for the ordinance, and there was discussion about the ideal percentage of affordable housing that should be associated with the bonus and whether it should stay 100%. It was noted that the Planning Commission had unanimously approved the ordinance at 100% and that the percentage could be changed to 75% affordable in the future but that at the present time, units of all types and prices were needed. The need was emphasized for workforce development and social services for affordable housing residents and it was suggested to agendize a discussion about these issues. Concern was expressed about Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 4, Packet Page 22 City Council Minutes October 21, 2025
5 potential neighborhood impacts from over-dense development and it was stated that it was not desired to have plentiful identical poor-quality housing. It was stated that this amendment was an opportunity for the Council to boldly help impact everyone in the community, and particularly the most vulnerable.

On question from the Council, Planning Manager Hill agreed that City staff could review and bring to the Council data on the actual impacts of 100% affordability versus lower percentages in similar communities. He noted that many of the affordable housing developments are brought by developers for whom affordable housing is their specialty, and who provide the "wrap-around" social services that were discussed.

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

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

9. Adopt a City Council Engagements and Travel Reimbursement and Expenditure Policy and Amend Budget Resolution 25-058 to Increase City Council Travel Allocation by $7,200 (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Tabled
It was proposed by the Council that the item be tabled based on feedback that members had received from the public regarding the City's budget challenges.

Public comment was received from: Rick Heuer of the Monterey Peninsula Taxpayers Association, and Tom Reeves, who agreed with tabling the matter and suggested eliminating travel reimbursements entirely while the City was in its present financial situation; Nina Beety, who opposed the draft policy, alleging that some of the professional organizations mentioned in the draft policy were vested interest groups and lobbying venues for corporations; and Esther Malkin, who said that a policy setting standards would be helpful, and observed that it was curious that this Council's travel was a concern when every Council had traveled to professional engagements.

On a motion by Mayor Williamson, seconded by Councilmember Barber, and carried by the following vote, which was conducted by roll call, the City Council tabled the matter:

AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
It was requested by the Council that the matter return to the Council before too long.

Adjourn to Closed Session
Public comment on closed session Item 10 was received from Nina Beety, who urged the Council to enact a market rate for the Monterey Bay Aquarium, citing its financial prosperity, and comment on closed session Item 11, specifically the Nissim cases, was received from: Mira Nissim, Daniel Almendariz, and Keith Simone, who alleged wrongdoing by the City in the matter of the sidewalk vending ordinance. During public comment Councilmember Garcia left the Chamber from 5:57 p.m. to 5:59 p.m. and Councilmember Smith left the Chamber from 6:00 p.m. to 6:02 p.m.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 5, Packet Page 23 City Council Minutes October 21, 2025
6 The Council recessed to closed session at 6:05 p.m.

Closed Session (Afternoon)

10. Closed Session Conference with Real Property Negotiators Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8
Property: 886 Cannery Row
Agency Negotiators: Kimberly Cole and Janna Aldrete
Negotiating Parties: Monterey Bay Aquarium Foundation
Under Negotiation: Review of Rent
(Not a Project Under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: On a unanimous roll call vote, confidential direction was given to real property negotiators

11. Conference with Legal Counsel, Existing Litigation Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(2):

1. Zilinskas v. City of Monterey (United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. 5:25:-cv-07506-VKD)

2. Nissim v. City of Monterey (Monterey County Superior Court Case No. 25CV004949)

3. Nissim v. City of Monterey (Monterey County Superior Court Case No. 25 CV004945) (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: No reportable action was taken on any of the three cases The Council recessed at 6:58 p.m. and reconvened at 7:08 p.m.

EVENING SESSION AGENDA
Pledge of Allegiance
Councilmember Garcia led the Pledge.

General Public Comments, Continued
In the interest of fairness, the Mayor applied the same limitation of two minutes per speaker that had been placed on speakers in the afternoon general public comment session. Public comment on non-agendized matters was received from: Julie Gorman, Karen Brown, Daniel Almendariz, Nina Beety, and Esther Malkin.

Announcements from Closed Session
City Attorney Davi reported out from the closed session as indicated in the actions recorded for closed session items 10 and 11, above.

Evening Session Items
Public Appearance (Evening)

12. Provide Direction on How to Reduce the $6 Million Budget Deficit for FY 2026/27 and the City’s $10 Million Structural Budget Deficit (Not a Project Under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Received public input and discussed options to address the budget deficit Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 6, Packet Page 24 City Council Minutes October 21, 2025
7 It was suggested by the Council that the matter for this meeting remain limited to the FY 2026/27 $6 million budget deficit. City Manager Uslar, Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira, and Finance Director King gave the staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions.

Public comment was received from: Rick Heuer of the Monterey Peninsula Taxpayers Assocation, who said that City employees were overpaid and said that unless the City addressed its overspending the Association would actively oppose any tax increase; Marta Kraftzeck, who said the Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program (NCIP) should remain funded and provided input on suggested revenue options and expenditure cuts; Martine Watkins of the Monterey Bay Aquarium, who spoke against an admissions tax; Tom Reeves, who suggested the City could borrow money from the NCIP, not take it, and said the Charter language about the NCIP meant that moneys could be appropriated from future NCIP budgets only; an unidentified woman who said that the project backlog highlighted a structural problem with the NCIP that should be addressed; Pat Venza, who spoke about the NCIP project backlog of untouched projects and its impact on participant morale and asked that the Council consider lowering the transient occupancy tax (TOT) contribution to a level that would make every year's projects doable; Monique Kaldy, who said that the City should focus on addressing its spending problem and asked about compounding interest on NCIP funds; NCIP Committee Vice Chair Duke, who stressed the important impact of the NCIP to the maintenance of City facilities such as Fire Station 13 and indicated that gratitude to NCIP was more appropriate than considering taking its funds; Demetrius Kastros, who echoed the impacts of the NCIP and said it should continue, and provided input on suggested revenue options and said the Council should discuss them further; NCIP Committee Chair Ogbonna, who said she would like to see a more in-depth review of the City's spending and that it would be appropriate to match NCIP funds with reserve funds; Greg, who said City staff was overpaid and expressed concern that if the Council used NCIP funds once they would continue to do so; DJ, who said that some of the City's proposed NCIP projects were not necessary and said that any NCIP funds used should be matched by reserve funds; Nina Beety, who suggested formation of a citizen oversight committee that would conduct an independent audit of City spending, and provided input on suggested revenue options; Curt Tipton of the NCIP Committee, who echoed concern about the City's spending and the call for a citizen oversight committee; and Lori Mazzuca, who echoed the call for a citizen oversight committee and suggested that the Council needed to start discussing staff layoffs or furloughs to save money.

Councilmember Smith left the Chamber from 9:20 p.m. to 9:22 p.m. On question from the Council, Finance Director King said that compound interest was included in revenue projections every year and was allocated based on the cash balance in each fund, and Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira provided a timeline for the City's receipt of new funds from a sales tax increase if placed on the ballot and approved by the voters.

The Council discussed the matter and each member provided input on their preferred methods for reducing the budget deficit.

Regarding revenue from taxes, more information and consultant expertise was requested regarding a potential vacancy, streaming, and property transfer taxes. It was stated that any discussion until that time should be on hold, and that for now the City needed to start cutting and stop spending.

Regarding pausing or eliminating programs, support was expressed for eliminating the rental registry and rental assistance programs. On the other hand, it was expressed that there was not an appetite for eliminating rental programs.

On the subject of NCIP funds, it was stated that the community voices had been heard but that there was a disconnect when considering typical NCIP projects during such a difficult fiscal situation. On the other hand, it was stated that NCIP funds should be protected to continue the Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 7, Packet Page 25 City Council Minutes October 21, 2025
8 valuable work that may not otherwise be funded. It was stated the the NCIP Committee could use other methods of prioritization than the "rack and stack" cards exercise that had been previously directed by the Council. It was proposed that the Council could take $6M from the NCIP with the knowledge that $2M of NCIP funds would go to the important project of fuel reduction.

Regarding revenue from borrowing from the City's fiscal reserves, it was noted that reserves could be used to fill the gap until additional revenue from potential tax measures, such as the sales tax or admissions tax, would begin to flow in. On the other hand, concern was expressed about the use of reserve funds in this way, especially due to the possibility that proposed tax measures might not be approved by voters.

The Council requested that the staff return to the Council with solid figures and clarity regarding the rental assistance program, attrition of positions, freezing of positions, placing an NCIP proposal on the ballot, ballot timing and income timeline for potential admissions tax, sales tax, parking tax.

Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira said that staff would bring polling results and tax timing to the Council at the first meeting in December 2025, and
City Manager Uslar clarified that by February or March 2026, the Council would have a clearer picture of the ending balance from the Fiscal Year 2024-25, which could help determine how many reserves dollars might be available to backfill the deficit.

The Council determined that they were not ready to find consensus on solutions based on currently available information, and would take the matter up again in early 2026 armed with more data.

Council Comments
Councilmember Smith and Councilmember Barber thanked the community for its patience as the Council worked through the difficult work involved in balancing the budget. Mayor Williamson reported that Monterey One Water was conducting a rate study and that its general manager would likely present to the Council and public on the subject in the new year.

City Manager Reports
City Manager Uslar shared that Fire Chief Miller had announced his December 30, 2025 retirement. He said that the federal government shutdown had significantly affected attendance at a large conference being held in Monterey.

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

Respectfully Submitted, Approved,
Clementine Bonner Klein Tyller Williamson
City Clerk Mayor
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 8, Packet Page 26 ORDINANCE NO. ____ C.S.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№09/24
ADOPTING PARTS OF THE 2025 CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS CODE (CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS, TITLE 24), INCLUDING LOCAL AMENDMENTS AND THE 2024 INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY DOES ORDAIN, as follows:

SECTION 1:

WHEREAS, the City intends to adopt parts of the California Building Standards Code, including the 2025 editions of the California Building Code, Existing Building Code, Residential Code, Plumbing Code, Electrical Code, Mechanical Code, Green Building Standards Code, Fire Code, Wildland-Urban Interface Code, Energy Code, and the 2024 edition of the International Property Maintenance Code, except as otherwise provided in Chapters 9 and 13 of the Monterey City Code;
WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 17958, 17958.7, and18941.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, the City, before making modifications to the California Building Standards Code, must make an express finding that such modifications are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions; WHEREAS, the Monterey City Council finds that a departure from the California Building Standards Code is reasonably necessary to provide specific and greater protection to the public health, safety, and welfare than afforded by the California Building Standards Code due to local climatic, geographical, or topographical conditions;
WHEREAS, consistent with AB 130, changes made in this ordinance that are applicable to residential units are either the same or substantially equivalent to a change previously filed by the City and that were in effect as of Sept. 30, 2025, or the change is related to home hardening;
WHEREAS, the City has established specific amendments that are more restrictive than the State Building Standards Code based on the following:.

Profile of the City of Monterey:

The City encompasses an area of 8.62 square miles of land and 3.47 square miles of water, with resident population of 29,874 as of 2021. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau) Due to the significant visitor population to the City, the actual population is considered by many studies to exceed 70,000 during a given daytime period. The City of Monterey borders the Cities of Pacific Grove, Seaside, Carmel-by-the-Sea, and Del Rey Oaks, as well as the unincorporated County of Monterey, the Monterey Peninsula Airport District, and the Pacific Ocean.

The placement of the residential and commercial development is restricted not just by political boundaries, but by geological features such as the ocean, ridges, foothills, mesas, and canyons.

Throughout the City there are major roadways and highways that create barriers. Other Date: 11/4/2025
Item No.: 5.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 5., Item Page 1, Packet Page 27 barriers considered are the military facilities and federal enclaves, which include the United States Army, Presidio of Monterey, United States Naval Postgraduate School, and the United States Coast Guard Station.

Climatic I: The climate weather patterns within the City are moderately affected by the Monterey Bay. The normal year's rainfall is approximately eighteen to nineteen (18-19) inches.

Summer conditions create the mid-day fog normally associated with Monterey. This climatic fog assists the natural vegetation to grow.

Later in the year, the winds and drying vegetation mix to create a hazardous fuel condition that can cause grassland and brush land fires. While normal temperatures usually do not exceed 75-80 degrees, during late summer and early fall (August-October) the temperatures can climb to 100 degrees plus in the County of Monterey. The afternoon winds can move a fire quickly in the hillsides and canyon areas into Monterey.

The City (like other California cities) has experienced water supply issues in recent years due to drought conditions. Unfortunately, the situation is more severe in Monterey due to the State of California Cease and Desist Order regarding water connections. Due to storage capacities and consumption, as well as climatic conditions, limited water resources are a significant issue. While sound management of water resources is possible, the l demands on the already stressed water supply exceed the supply. .

Climatic Il: The region is within a climate zone that requires compliance with energy efficiency standards for building construction. The amendment adds up-to-date design standards that will add to energy efficiency in construction while maintaining nationally recognized health and safety standards.

Geographical I: Residents and visitors alike appreciate the scenic appeal and geographical features of the City. The mountains and canyons accentuate one another, as they wind around the City. The forest creates a beautiful backdrop for the City. These geographical and vegetative features established the community's physical layout and created areas for roadways and building sites. The unique geography also creates barriers to fire suppression activities..

The forested areas of oak and pines create windbreaks from oncoming winds, while producing fuel from the annual fall leaves, which drop to the ground, as well as from decayed trees and branches. The dry vegetation, mountainous terrain, and minimal water available are concerning and complicate fire suppression efforts. .

The City has within its boundaries potentially active seismic hazards with respect to the “Navy," "Berwick Canyon," "Chupines" and "Seaside" faults. While systems have been developed to study and monitor the activity of earthquakes, science has not yet been able to predict (with reliability) the potential for activity on these or any active fault.

Seismic activity within the City occurs periodically with little or no damage, although real potential for damage does exist with these four active faults. New construction may be limited by its respective distance to such faults, and replacement of existing structures could be costly.

The geographical layout of the forested areas creates hazardous conditions when a storm of gale-force winds causes trees to fall onto roadways used for access by Fire Department equipment and personnel. The growing pattern and inherent nature of the Monterey Pine lends itself to being blown over easily. This is due in part to the Monterey Pine’s Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 5., Item Page 2, Packet Page 28 shallow root system. Mountains and hills surrounding and in the City create slopes in excess of 30% with an overall average of between five to 10 percent throughout. The City's elevation ranges from sea level to 600 feet above sea level. The difference in caused by the mountains and hills creates the geographical foundation on which the City has built and will continue to build. With much of the flatlands already built upon, it can be anticipated that future growth will occur on steeper slopes and with greater contrasts in terrain.

Geographical Il: The region is located in an area of high seismic activity as indicated by United States Geological Survey and California Division of Mines and Geology. Recent earthquake activity has indicated the lack of flexibility of materials and/or building systems has been a contributing factor to damages that jeopardize the safety of building occupants and increase the cost of structure rehabilitation. Seismic activities have shown the need for increased levels of safety in buildings systems, including but not limited to means of egress, wiring systems, and fire protection systems.

Topographical: Mountains, hills, canyons, lakes, and streams dissect the City.

The water supply (domestic and fire flow) system is directly affected by the topographic layout. The distribution system consists of water lines that carry the water from storage tanks to the public via pipes. These street mains create lift-zones where the pressure and flows are adequate at lower elevations and minimal. At higher elevations, water supply can be critical.

Water supplies within the City vary from less than 250 gallons-per-minute to flows exceeding 5,500 gallons-per-minute. This wide variation causes challenges for development, as well as fire suppression forces.

The roadway system is designed around the city's topography with respect to narrow and steep grades. The grades on some roadway surfaces exceed 25% and widths of less than twelve (12) feet for access are not uncommon. Due to traffic congestion on many streets, especially the commercial downtown area and New Monterey-Cannery Row, vehicles double park for loading and unloading purposes. This creates barriers that reduce response time of fire equipment.

The topography also restricts construction to the level portions of the City with higher concentrations of building in these areas. The existing structures are being removed and replaced with larger buildings. Those existing structures which remain cause concern to the Fire Department because of their lack of adequate fire protection (firewalls, fire extinguishing systems, etc.). The hazard exposure created by these structures poses a separate and significant challenge.

It is not uncommon to see a single or two-story building torn down and replaced with a two-, three- or four-story building. For practical and cost reasons, these new structures are built of wood (Type V). The potential for a large and destructive fire exists with the high build out of certain parts of Monterey. The concentrated commercial and residential occupancies cause concern regarding the exposure elements of building-to-building and building-to-grassland areas of this City.

The topographical nature of Monterey also lends itself to power failures caused when trees and tree limbs damage sections of electrical transmission lines. These power failures cause the electrical pumps to become inactive, interrupting water supplies. Vehicular accidents also have been known to interrupt this pumping operation, due to the narrow streets, which are congested with residents and visitors.

The encouragement of greenbelts between various subdivisions of the City has given Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 5., Item Page 3, Packet Page 29 rise to brush and grass fires for many years. The existing canyons cause natural barriers, and delay response time due to complex roadways.

The natural rocky shorelines of Monterey create a situation by which access to the building can only be made from the street. The front of the building is essentially the only accessibility point for responding firefighters. Built property-line to property-line, these structures create an element of continuous construction of nearly nine blocks. Residential and commercial occupancies are located along the entire shoreline of Monterey Bay.

A harbor, created by wharves (Municipal Wharf One and Municipal Wharf Two) and piers creates a unique fire problem due to the confinement of hundreds of boats and other vessels (413) within a small area. The problems associated with firefighting within a marine environment cause concern and create challenging situations (access, water/fuel, etc.), which must be addressed as an everyday fire problem.

Lastly, the City's historical significance is a major draw for visitors. Construction methods were less restrictive than would be required today. These historical structures and settings create barriers, which firefighters must work around and protect from exposure. Forty-four to fifty historical buildings, dating back to the early 1800's, are irreplaceable.

While it is clearly understood that the adoption of these regulations may not prevent the incidence of fire or building-related accidents, implementation of more restrictive measures than required under state law is to reduce the severity and potential loss of life and property; 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, CEQÄ 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, adoption of State-mandated building safety codes traditionally seen as ministerial actions, 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 NOW THEREFORE, the Monterey City Council declares as follows:

SECTION 2: The above recitals identify local "climatic, geographical, and topographical" conditions which demonstrate the need for modification of certain sections of the California Building Standards Code to be more restrictive than otherwise required under state law. The foregoing 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 9, Article 1.0, Section 9-0.1 is amended to read as follows:

Sec. 9-0.1. Adoption of Codes.

Except as amended by Chapters 9 and13 of this Code, the following model codes, sometimes referred to in this Chapter as “technical codes,” are hereby adopted and Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 5., Item Page 4, Packet Page 30 incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein:

1. 2025 California Building Code and Appendix J;

2. 2025 California Historic Building Code;

3. 2025 California Existing Building Code;

4. 2025 California Residential Code;

5. 2025 California Plumbing Code;

6. 2025 California Electrical Code;

7. 2025 California Mechanical Code;

8. 2025 California Green Building Standards Code;

9. 2025 California Wildland-Urban Interface Code;

10. 2025 California Energy Code;

11. 2024 International Property Maintenance Code.

SECTION 4: Monterey City Code, Chapter 9, Article 1.0, Section 9-0.2 is amended to read as follows:

Sec. 9-0.2. Exemption for pending applications.

The codes listed in Section 9-0.1shall not apply to any building or structure for which a complete application for a building permit was made prior to January 1, 2026. Such buildings or structures shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, or repaired in accordance with the provisions of this chapter in effect on the date of said application.

SECTION 5: Monterey City Code, Chapter 9, Article 1.5, Section 9-1 is amended to read as follows:

Sec. 9-1. Amendments to the 2025 California Building Code. (a) Section 105.3.2 is amended to read as follows:
105.3.2 Time limitation of application. An application for a permit for proposed work shall expire 180 days from the date of receipt of the application unless extended by the Building Official pursuant to this section. An applicant may request that the Building Official extend the expiration date of the permit application upon a showing of circumstances beyond the applicant’s control that have prevented permit issuance. Applicant’s request for an extension must be made in writing to the Building Official prior to the permit application’s expiration date with the payment of any applicable fees. The Building Official may extend the expiration date in 90 day increments no more than 10 times, upon a finding that circumstances beyond the applicant’s control prevented permit issuance.
(b) Section 105.5 is amended to read as follows:
105.5 Expiration. Every permit issued by the Building Official under the provisions of the technical codes shall expire and become null and void, if the project authorized by such permit has not achieved an approval for one of the required inspections identified in Section 110.3 of the 2025 California Building Code within one year of issuance.

The Building Official may grant a one-time permit extension of 180 days provided the applicant submits a request in writing prior to the permit expiration and provided the project has not changed in scope. Additional extension requests of 90 days may be granted by the Building Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 5., Item Page 5, Packet Page 31 Official if the request is made in writing, the project has not changed in scope, the project has obtained at least one required inspection approval as specified in Section 110.3 during the preceding 90 days and the applicant pays applicable fees.

Work cannot be performed under an expired permit. A new permit application must be submitted with all applicable fees paid, and a new permit obtained, for the new project.

All existing projects with an active building permit are subject to this section.. (c) Section 1505.1 is amended to read as follows:
1505.1 Roof covering fire classification. Any new roof on a new or existing structure or any reroofing of an existing structure of 50% or more of the total roof area within a one-year period, shall be of a fire-retardant roof or Class A. Class A roof assemblies and roof coverings shall be tested in accordance with ASTM E108 or UL 790. In addition, fire-retardant-treated wood roof coverings shall be tested in accordance with ASTM D2898; fire-retardant-treated shingles and shakes shall comply with Section 1505.6. (Climatic I, Geographical I, Topographical findings apply)
(d) Sections 1505.1.1 and 1505.1.2 are deleted.

SECTION 6: Monterey City Code, Chapter 9, Article 1.5, Section 9-1.1 is amended to read as follows:

Sec. 9-11 Amendments to the California Residential Code. (a) Section R105.5.1 is deleted.
(b) Section R105.5 is amended to read as follows:
105.5 Time limitation of application. An application for a permit for proposed work shall expire 180 days from the date of receipt of the application unless extended by the Building Official pursuant to this section. An applicant may request that the Building Official extend the expiration date of the permit application upon a showing of circumstances beyond the applicant’s control that have prevented permit issuance. Applicant’s request for an extension must be made in writing to the Building Official prior to the permit application’s expiration date with the payment of any applicable fees. The Building Official may extend the expiration date in 90 day increments no more than 10 times, upon a finding that circumstances beyond the applicant’s control prevented permit issuance.
(c) Section R 105.5.1 is amended to read as follows:
105.5.1 Expiration. Every permit issued by the Building Official under the provisions of the technical codes shall expire and become null and void if the project authorized by such permit has not achieved an approval for one of the required inspections identified in Section R109.1 of the 2025 California Residential Code within one year of issuance.

The Building Official may grant a one-time permit extension of 180 days provided the applicant submits a request in writing prior to the permit expiration and provided the project has not changed in scope. Additional extension requests of 90 days may be granted by the Building Official if the request is made in writing, the project has not changed in scope, the project has obtained at least one inspection approval and the applicant pays applicable fees.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 5., Item Page 6, Packet Page 32 Work may not be performed under an expired permit. A new permit application must be submitted with all applicable fees paid, and a new permit obtained for this new project.

All existing projects with an active building permit are subject to this section. (d) Section R309.2 is amended to read as follows:

R309.2 One- and two-family dwellings automatic sprinkler systems. An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed in one- and two-family dwellings. (Climatic I, Geographical I, Topographical findings apply)
Exceptions:

1. An automatic sprinkler system shall not be required when alterations and/or repairs result in the removal, alteration, modification, replacement and/or repair of less than fifty percent (50%) of the linear length of walls of the building (exterior plus interior) independently or in combination thereof, within a five-year period. To qualify as an alteration or repair under this section, the wall must be physically added, removed, replaced or relocated; removal of wall covering does not constitute an alteration or repair.

2. Accessory Dwelling Unit, provided that all of the following are met:

2.1 The unit meets the definition of an Accessory Dwelling Unit as defined in the Government Code section66313, as amended.

2.2 The existing primary residence does not have automatic fire sprinklers.

2.3 The accessory detached dwelling unit does not exceed 1,200 square feet in size.

2.4 The unit is on the same lot as the primary residence. (e) Section R902.1.2 is amended to read as follows:

R902.1.2 Roof covering fire classification. Any new roof on a new or existing structure or any re-roofing of an existing structure of 50% or more of the total roof area within a one-year period, shall be of a fire-retardant roof or Class A. In addition, fire-retardant-treated wood roof coverings shall be tested in accordance with ASTM D2898; fire-retardant-treated shingles and shakes shall comply with Section 1505.6. (Climatic I, Geographical I, Topographical findings apply)
SECTION 7: Monterey City Code, Chapter 9, Article 1.5, Section 9-2 is amended to read as follows:

Sec. 9-2. Amendments to the California Plumbing Code.

Section 710.1.1 is added to read as follows:
710.1.1 Backwater Valves. In every case where the outlet of a trap for a plumbing fixture is installed or located at an elevation which is less than two feet (2’) above the rim of the nearest manhole uphill from the point of connection of the building sewer to the public sewer in any new or existing drainage system, approved types of backwater valve, relief vent and cleanout shall be installed in the building sewer at the point of lowest elevation of the ground surface of the building site outside of the building or at such other location as is permitted by the Building Official, providing that any such Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 5., Item Page 7, Packet Page 33 location, the elevation of the ground surface is not less than two feet (2’) below the lowest trap outlet served by the building sewer.

The installation shall consist of an approved fresh air inlet and a Y branch or combination fitting installed in sequence in the line of the flow from the building. The vent from this fresh air inlet shall be piped to the ground surface and capped with a vent cap. Provision shall be made by elevation above the ground or by other means for preventing the obstruction of the vent opening or the flow of water therein. The cleanout shall be placed as close to the valve as is practical and shall be piped to within one foot (1’) of the ground surface and closed with an approved cleanout plug. Every existing installation which includes a plumbing fixture trap outlet which is less than two feet (2’) above the rim of the nearest manhole uphill from the point of connection of the building sewer to the public sewer is hereby declared to be dangerous, unsanitary and a menace to life, health and property. Whenever it shall come to the attention of the Building Official that such an installation exists, he or she is hereby empowered to order and require that such plumbing outlet be immediately plugged or capped, or that the equipment described in the preceding paragraph of this section be installed immediately. (Topographical finding)
SECTION 8: Monterey City Code, Chapter 13, Article 1, Section 13-0.1 is hereby amended to read as follows:

Sec. 13-0.1. Adoption of the 2025 California Fire Code.

Except as otherwise amended by this Chapter, the 2025 California Fire Code is hereby adopted and incorporated by reference as if set forth fully herein.

SECTION 9: Monterey City Code, Chapter 13, Article 1, Section 13-0.2 is hereby amended to read as follows:

Section 13-0.2. Amendments to the 2025 California Fire Code. (a) Section [A] 101.1 is amended to read as follows:

Section [A] 101.1 Title. These regulations shall be known as the Fire Code for the City of Monterey, hereinafter referred to as “Fire Code.”
(b) Section [A] 101.2.1 is amended to read as follows:
[A] 101.2.1 Appendices. Provisions in all appendices to the 2025 California Fire Code are hereby adopted in their entirety and shall apply.
(c) Section [A] 102.1is amended to read as follows:
[A] 102.1 Construction and design provisions. The construction and design provisions of this Fire Code shall apply to:

1. Structures, facilities and conditions arising after the adoption of this Fire Code.

2. Existing structures, facilities and conditions not legally in existence at the time of adoption of this Fire Code.

3. Existing structures, facilities and conditions when identified in specific Sections of this Fire Code.

4. Existing structures, facilities and conditions, which, in the opinion of the Fire Code Official, constitute a distinct hazard to life and property.

5. Existing Structures Alterations, Additions and Repairs.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 5., Item Page 8, Packet Page 34 a. All new work performed to alter and/or repair existing structures shall comply with the current provisions of this Chapter.
b. When alterations and/or repairs result in the removal, alteration, modification, replacement and/or repair of fifty percent (50%) or greater of the linear length of walls of the building (exterior plus interior) independently or in combination thereof, within a five-year period, the entire building shall be made to conform to the current provisions of this Chapter. To qualify as an alteration or repair under this section, the wall must be physically added, removed, replaced or relocated; removal of wall covering does not constitute an alteration or repair. c. Calculations of linear wall measurements shall be shown on all plans submitted for building permits, on the cover page in the project description of said plans. d. The determination under this section of the requirement for upgrading any existing structure to full conformance with current provisions of this Chapter shall be at the sole discretion of the Fire Code Official.
(d) Section [A] 103 is amended to add Sections [A] 103.4 to read as follows:
[A] 103.4 Responsibility for enforcement.

Within established fire protection jurisdictions, responsibility for enforcement of this Code shall be under the direction of the Fire Chief or designee within each jurisdiction. (e) *Section [A] 113.4 of the CFC is deleted in its entirety. (f) Section 202 is amended to add the following definitions:
202 Definitions
ALL WEATHER SURFACE. A road surface constructed to the minimum standards approved by the City.

BRIDGE. A structure to carry a roadway over a depression or obstacle.

IDLE PALLET. A portable platform, typically made of wood, that serves as a structural foundation used for storage, shipping, lifting, or moving goods, that is not in use and empty of product.
(g) Section 305 is amended to read as follows:
305.1.1 General. Use of equipment, appliances, and open-flame devices shall be in accordance with this section.
(a) the use of any fuel burning or consuming apparatus, electrical device, or explosives on Municipal Wharves No. 1 and No 2 shall be prohibited unless specifically approved by the Fire Code Official including but not limited to:

1. Generators

2. Oil burning equipment

3. Liquified petroleum gas equipment

4. Lanterns

5. Stoves

6. Candles
7 Barbecues
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 5., Item Page 9, Packet Page 35 This section shall not apply to:

1. Motor vehicles

2. Devices operated or used within buildings located on Municipal Wharves No. 1 and No. 2, and fish pumps.

3. Any repair or construction undertaken by the City of Monterey, its agents, or any public entity.
(h) Section 307.1.1 is amended to read as follows:
307.1.1 Prohibited open burning. Open burning shall be prohibited, including outdoor rubbish fires and bonfires, unless:

1. the fire is confined to an approved container as defined by the Uniform Mechanical Code and authorized by the Monterey Bay Air Pollution Control District.

2. a special condition or circumstance exists, and written authorization is granted by the Fire Chief.
(i) Section 503.2.6 is amended to add Sections 503.2.6.1 and 503.2.6.2 to read as follows:
503.2.6.1 Private bridge engineering. Every private bridge hereafter constructed shall meet the following engineering requirements:

1. The weight shall be designed for a minimum of HS-20 loading as prescribed by the AASHTO.

2. The unobstructed vertical clearance shall be not less than fifteen (15) feet clear.

3. The width shall be a minimum of twenty (20) feet clear. The Fire Code Official may require additional width when the traffic flow may be restricted or reduce the width to a minimum of twelve (12) feet for Occupancy Group U or R-3 occupancies.

4. The maximum grade change of the approach to and from any private bridge shall not exceed eight percent for a minimum distance of ten (10) feet. 503.2.6.2 Private bridge certification. Every private bridge hereafter constructed shall be engineered by a licensed professional engineer knowledgeable and experienced in the engineering and design of bridges. Certification that the bridge complies with the design standards required by this Code and the identified standards, and that the bridge was constructed to those standards, shall be provided by the licensed engineer, in writing, to the Fire Code Official. Every private bridge, including existing and those constructed under this Code, shall be certified as to its maximum load limits every ten (10) years or whenever deemed necessary by the Fire Code Official. Such recertification shall be by a licensed professional engineer knowledgeable and experienced in the engineering and design of bridges. All fees charged for the purpose of certification or recertification of private bridges shall be at the owner’s expense.
(j)
Section 503.2.7 is amended to read as follows:
503.2.7 Grade. The grade of fire apparatus access roads shall be no greater than fifteen (15) percent unless specifically approved by the Fire Code Official. 503.2.7.1 Paving. All fire apparatus access roads over eight (8) percent shall be paved with a minimum 0.17 feet of asphaltic concrete on 0.34 feet of aggregate base. All fire apparatus access roads over fifteen (15) percent where approved shall be paved with perpendicularly grooved concrete.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 5., Item Page 10, Packet Page 36 (k) Section 503 is amended to read as follows:
503.7 Fire apparatus access road names. All fire apparatus access road names shall be issued or approved by the appropriate governmental agency.
(l) Section 505.1 is amended to read as follows:
505.1 Address Identification. New and existing buildings shall be provided with an approved address identification. The address identification shall be legible and placed in a position that is visible at all times from the street or road fronting the property. Address identification characters shall contrast with their background. Address numbers shall be Arabic numbers or alphabetical letters. Numbers shall not be spelled out. Each character shall be not less than 4” high with a minimum width stroke of one-half inch for single family dwellings and duplexes. For all other occupancies each character shall be not less than a minimum of 4” high with a minimum stroke of one-half inch unless otherwise required by the Fire Code Official. (m) Section 605.3 is amended to add Sections 605.3.1 and 605.3.1.2 to read as follows:
605.3.1 Spark arrestors.
605.3.1.1 An approved spark arrestor shall be installed on all chimneys, incinerators, smokestacks or similar devices using solid fuel for conveying smoke or hot gases to the outer air.
605.3.1.2 Spark arrestors shall have openings in accordance with Section 2113.9.2(3) of the California Building Code and Section 1003.9.2 of the California Residential Code with minimum openings of 3/8” and maximum openings of ½”.
(n) Section 901.1 is amended to read as follows:
901.1.1 Responsibility. The owner of the protected premises shall be responsible for all fire protection systems within the protected premises, whether existing or installed under this Code. (o) Section 901.2is amended to add Section 901.2.2 to read as follows:
901.2.2 Additional documentation. Additional documentation as required by the Fire Code Official shall be provided to the Fire Code Official in an acceptable format. (p) Section 901.4s amended as follows:
901.4 Fire Protection and Life Safety Systems. Fire protection and life safety systems shall be installed, repaired, operated, and maintained in accordance with the original installation standards for that system. All systems shall be extended, altered, or augmented as necessary to maintain and continue protection whenever the building is altered, remodeled or added to.

Alterations to fire protection systems shall be done in accordance with applicable standards. (q) Section 901.4.8 is added to read as follows:
901.4.8 Nonoperational equipment. Any fire protection equipment that is no longer in service shall be removed.
(r) Section 901.6 is amended to add Sections 901.6.4 and 901.6.5 to read as follows:

Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 5., Item Page 11, Packet Page 37 901.6.4 Qualifications of Inspection, Testing and Maintenance Personnel. All personnel performing any inspection, testing or maintenance of any fire protection system shall be qualified. Where such inspection, testing and maintenance is performed by an outside service company, the company shall be appropriately licensed by the California Contractors State License Board in accordance with the California Business & Professions Code or by the California State Fire Marshal.
901.6.5 Additional records. All documentation generated during any scheduled inspection or test of any fire protection system, whether required or voluntarily installed, shall be forwarded to the Fire Code Official within fifteen (15) calendar days after the date of the inspection or test. (s) Section 901.7.7is added to read as follows:
901.7.7 Unless otherwise approved by the Fire Code Official, fire watch personnel shall be California licensed private security individuals with a minimum of two (2) individuals on duty at all times. Fire watch personnel shall be on duty 24 hours per day until the fire protection system has been returned to service.
(t) Section 903.2is amended to read as follows:
903.2 Where required. Approved automatic sprinkler systems shall be provided in all new buildings and structures constructed, moved into or relocated within the jurisdiction.

Exceptions:
(1) Structures not classified as Group R occupancies and not more than five hundred (500) square feet in total floor area.
(2) Detached agricultural buildings, as defined by this code and the CBC, located at least one hundred feet (100) from any other structure or the property line, whichever is closer, and with a maximum size of 10,000 square feet.
(3) Accessory structures not classified as R occupancies associated with existing nonsprinklered R-3 occupancies (one- or two-family dwellings) and less than one thousand five hundred (1500) square feet in total fire area with a clearance from the existing R-3 occupancy of not less than twenty (20) feet.
(u) Sections 903.2.1.1, 903.2.1.2, 903.2.1.3, 903.2.1.4, 903.2.1.5, 903.2.3, 903.2.4, 903.2.4.1, 903.7.1, 903.7.3, 903.2.9, 903.2.9.1 and 903.2.9.2 are amended by changing requirements to five hundred (500) square feet for fire sprinkler installation, as follows (the complete text of the section is not provided):
903.2.1.1 Group A-1. Change twelve thousand (12,000) square feet to five hundred (500) square feet.
903.2.1.2 Group A-2. Change five thousand (5,000) square feet to five hundred (500) square feet.
903.2.1.3 Group A-3. Change twelve thousand (12,000) square feet to five hundred (500) square feet.
903.2.1.4 Group A-4. Change twelve thousand (12,000) square feet to five hundred (500) square feet.
903.2.1.5 Group A-5. Change one thousand (1,000) square feet to five hundred (500) square feet.
903.2.3 Group E. Change twelve thousand (12,000) square feet to five hundred (500) square feet.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 5., Item Page 12, Packet Page 38 903.2.4 Group F-1. Change twelve thousand (12,000) square feet to five hundred (500) square feet.
903.2.4.1 Group F-1. Change two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet for woodworking operations to five hundred (500) square feet.
903.2.7.1 Group M. Change twelve thousand (12,000) square feet to five hundred (500) square feet.
903.2.7.3 Group M. Change twenty-four thousand (24,000) square feet to five hundred (500) square feet.
903.2.9 Group S-1. Change twelve thousand (12,000) square feet to five hundred (500) square feet.
903.2.9.1 Repair Garages. Change ten thousand (10,000) square feet (2 story buildings) and twelve thousand (12,000) square feet (1 story buildings) to five hundred (500) square feet. 903.2.9.2 Bulk storage of tires. Change twenty thousand (20,000) cubic feet to five hundred (500) square feet.
(v) Section 903.2.8, first paragraph is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
903.2.8 Group R. An automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3 shall be provided in all buildings with a Group R fire area, including, but not limited to, one- and twofamily dwellings, townhomes, and manufactured homes and mobile homes located outside of licensed mobile home parks hereafter constructed, moved into or relocated within the jurisdiction, including all additions to buildings already equipped with automatic fire sprinkler systems. (Exceptions remain per 2025 California Fire Code, and Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subds. (a)(1)(D)(xii) and (e)(3)).
(w) *Section 903.2.22 of the CFC is added to read as follows:
903.2.22 Change of use. Automatic fire sprinklers shall be installed when the occupancy changes from a single occupancy to a mixed-use occupancy which would require the installation of an occupancy separation, or when the occupancy changes from any type of occupancy to an Assembly use occupancy.
(x) Section 903.3.1.1.1is amended to add Section 903.1.1.1 exemption 5 to read as follows:

5. Passenger elevator shafts or associated passenger elevator mechanical rooms, where elevator shafts are constructed with a 2–hour fire resistive method. (y) Section 903.3.1.1.2 is amended to read as follows:

Section 903.3.1.1.2 Bathrooms. In Group R occupancies, sprinklers shall be required in bathrooms within individual dwelling units or sleeping units. (z) Sections 903.3.1.2, 903.3.1.2.1, 903.3.1.2.3 are amended to read as follows:
903.3.1.2 NFPA 13R sprinkler systems. Automatic sprinkler systems in Group R occupancies up to and including four stories in height shall be permitted to be installed throughout in accordance with NFPA 13R as amended in this Code.
903.3.1.2.1 Balconies and decks. Sprinkler protection shall be provided for exterior balconies, decks and ground floor patios of dwelling units where the building is of Type V construction, provided there is a roof or deck above. Sidewall sprinklers that are used to protect such areas shall be permitted to be located such that their deflectors are within 1 inch to 6 inches below the Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 5., Item Page 13, Packet Page 39 structural members and a maximum distance of fourteen (14) inches below the deck of the exterior balconies and decks that are constructed of open wood joist construction. 903.3.1.2.3 Attics. Where NFPA 13R sprinkler systems are installed, all attic areas shall be provided with sprinkler protection in accordance with NFPA 13. (aa) Sections 903.1.2.4, 903.3.1.2.5, 903.1.2.6 and 903.3.1.2.7 are added to read as follows:
903.3.1.2.4 Sprinkler control valves. Where NFPA 13R sprinkler systems are installed, sprinkler system control valves shall be installed in accordance with NFPA 13. 903.3.1.2.5 Bathrooms. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in all bathrooms, regardless of square footage.
903.3.1.2.6 Accessible storage areas. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in all accessible storage areas.
903.3.1.2.7 Under-stair spaces. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in all under-stair spaces including all under-stair closets.
(bb) Section 903.3.1.3 of the CFC is amended to read as follows:
903.3.1.3 NFPA 13D sprinkler systems. Automatic fire sprinkler systems installed in one and two-family dwellings, Group R-3 and R-4 congregate living facilities and townhouses shall be permitted to be installed throughout in accordance with NFPA 13D. The requirements of this section supersede the requirements of the California Residential Code. 903.3.1.3.1 All fire sprinkler systems installed in one- and two-family dwellings shall be tested for leakage by undergoing a hydrostatic test made at 200 psi for two-hour duration. 903.3.1.3.2 Each water system supplying both domestic and fire protection systems shall have a single indicating-type control valve, arranged to shut off both the domestic and sprinkler systems. A separate shut-off valve for the domestic system only shall be permitted to be installed. The location of the control valve shall be approved by the Fire Code Official. 903.3.1.3.3 Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in all bathrooms and water closets, regardless of square footage.
903.3.1.3.4 Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in all attached garages and other accessory structures.
903.3.1.3.5 Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in all accessible storage areas. 903.3.1.3.5.1 Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in all under-stair spaces including all closets.
903.3.1.3.6 Local water flow alarms shall be provided on all sprinkler systems. Local water flow alarms shall be powered from the main kitchen refrigerator circuit. The local water flow alarm shall be clearly audible from within the master bedroom at an audibility level of not less than 75 dBa. Where no kitchen exists in the building, the water flow alarm shall be powered from the Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 5., Item Page 14, Packet Page 40 bathroom lighting circuit. Where required by the Fire Code Official, interior audible notification appliances or additional water flow alarms may be required to be installed at locations specified by the Fire Code Official.
903.3.1.3.7 Automatic fire sprinklers shall be installed to protect all furnaces and heating system appliances.
903.3.1.3.8 A backflow prevention device as approved by the water purveyor, the type and friction loss shall be included in the plans and calculations for fire flow. For retrofits to existing systems, the sprinkler system of the affected building(s) shall be recalculated and submitted to the Authority Having Jurisdiction for approval and issuance of the permit. 903.3.1.3.9 If there are any changes or modifications to the system of the approved plans, asbuilts shall be required, submitted to the City and approved prior to rough inspection. (cc) Section 903.3.10 is amended to read as follows:
903.3.10 Floor control valves. Approved indicating control valves and water flow switches shall be provided at the point of connection to the riser on each floor in all buildings over one story in height and shall be individually annunciated (distinct) as approved by the Fire Code Official. (dd) Section 903.4.2, the first paragraph is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
903.4.2 Monitoring. Alarm, supervisory, and trouble signals shall be distinctly different and shall be automatically transmitted to an approved central station, remote supervising station, or proprietary supervising station as defined in NFPA 72, or, when approved by the Fire Code Official, shall sound an audible signal at a constantly attended location. The fire alarm system installed to transmit such signals shall be considered a building fire alarm system. (ee) Section 903.4.3, the first paragraph is deleted and replaced with the following:
903.4.3 Alarms. One exterior approved audible appliance shall be connected to every automatic sprinkler system in an approved location. Sprinkler water-flow alarm devices shall be activated by water flow equivalent to the flow of a single sprinkler of the smallest orifice size installed in the system. Where a building fire alarm system is installed, actuation of the automatic sprinkler system shall actuate the building fire alarm system. Interior alarm notification appliances shall be installed as required by this section or Section 903.4.3.1. A minimum of one audible appliance shall be installed in all occupancies subject to this section. 903.4.3.1 Where an automatic fire sprinkler system is installed in a building with more than one tenant or with over one hundred (100) sprinklers, audible and visible notification appliances shall be installed throughout the building as follows:
a. Audible notification appliances shall be installed so as to be audible at fifteen (15) dBa above average sound pressure level throughout the building.
b. Visible notification appliances shall be installed in all public and common use areas, restrooms and corridors in accordance with the spacing requirements of NFPA 72. c. Visible notification appliances can be eliminated in normally unoccupied portions of buildings where permitted by the Fire Code Official.
d. Exception: The requirements of this section do not apply to Group R-3 Occupancies.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 5., Item Page 15, Packet Page 41 (ff) Section 904.14.2 is amended to read as follows:
904.14.2 System interconnection. The actuation of the fire extinguishing system shall automatically shut down power to the makeup air appliance and all fuel and electrical power located under the hood, except for the electrical power to the exhaust air supply. The fuel and electrical supply reset shall be manual.
(gg) Section 904.14.5.2is amended to read as follows:
904.14.5.2 Extinguishing system service. Automatic fire extinguishing systems shall be serviced by a CSLB licensed C-16 contractor or a CSFM licensed “A” licensee at least every six months and after any activation of the system. Inspection shall be performed by the owner at least monthly in accordance with the currently adopted edition of NFPA 17-A. The service contractor shall review the records of monthly inspections every six months, and deficiencies shall be reported to the Fire Code Official. A service report shall be forwarded to the Fire Code Official by the licensed service contractor within 15 days after every service on the appropriate AES form.
(hh) Section 907 is amended to add Section 907.1.6 to read as follows:
907.1.6 Multiple Fire Alarm Systems. Multiple fire alarm systems within a single protected premise are not permitted.
(ii) Section 907.2 Exception 1 is amended to read as follows:
907.2 Exception 1. The manual fire alarm box is not required for fire alarm control units dedicated to elevator recall control.
(jj) Section 907.6.4 is amended to add Section 907.6.4.0 to read as follows:
907.6.4.0 Zone transmittal. Where required by the Fire Code Official, fire alarm signals shall be transmitted by zone to the supervising station and retransmitted by zone to the public fire service communications center.
(kk) Section 907.6.5 is amended to read as follows:
907.6.5 Access. Access shall be provided to each fire alarm system component for periodic inspection, maintenance and testing.
(ll) Section 907.6.6 of the CFC is amended to read as follows:
907.6.6 Monitoring. Fire alarm systems, whether required by this Chapter or the California Building Code or voluntarily installed, shall be monitored by an approved supervising station in accordance with NFPA 72 and this Section.
(Exceptions referenced in this section of the CFC remain unchanged) (mm) Section 907.6.6 of the CFC is amended to add Section 907.6.6.0 to read as follows:
907.6.6.0 Means of communication. The use of either POTS or cable telephone lines with a digital alarm communicator transmitter shall not be permitted.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 5., Item Page 16, Packet Page 42

1. Exception Where no other communications methods are available, the use of telephone lines shall be permitted on a temporary basis not to exceed one year from the date of final acceptance test or until permitted alternate means of communications are available. (nn) Section 907.7.2 is amended to read as follows:
907.7.2 Completion documents. The following documentation shall be provided at the time of acceptance testing for all fire alarm system installations:

1. A record of completion in accordance with NFPA 72.

2. A record of inspection and testing in accordance with NFPA 72.

3. A contractor’s statement verifying that the system has been installed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications and has been 100% tested in accordance with NFPA 72.

4. A contractor’s affidavit of personnel qualifications, indicating that all personnel involved with the installation of the fire alarm system meet the qualification requirements of the Fire Code Official.
(oo) Section 907.8.2 of the CFC is amended to add Section 907.8.2.1 to read as follows:
907.8.2.1 Testing of FACU Batteries. Batteries installed in the fire alarm control units and remote power supplies shall be verified for battery capacity based on the approved plans and battery calculations.
(pp) Section 1205.1 of the CFC is amended to add Section 1205.1.1 to read as follows:
1205.1.1 Signing and Marking. In addition to signing and marking requirements of the California Building Code and the California Residential Code, the following signing and marking is required:

1. Main Panel Exterior Marking. A placard is required to be permanently affixed to the main service disconnect panel. The placard shall be red in color with white capital letters at least 1/2” in height and in a non-serif font, to read “SOLAR DISCONNECT INSIDE PANEL.” The placard shall be constructed of weather-resistant, durable plastic with engraved letters, or other approved material.

2. Circuit Disconnecting Means Marking. A permanent label is to be affixed adjacent to the circuit breaker controlling the inverter or other photovoltaic system electrical controller. The label shall have contrasting color capital letters at least 3/8” in height and in a non—serif font, to read “SOLAR DISCONNECT.” The label shall be constructed of durable adhesive material or other approved material.

3. Secondary Power Sources. Where photovoltaic systems are interconnected to battery systems, generator backup systems, or other secondary power systems, additional signage acceptable to the Fire Code Official shall be required indicating the location of the secondary power source shutoff switch.

4. Installer Information. Signage acceptable to the Fire Code Official indicating the name and emergency telephone number of the installing contractor shall be required to be installed adjacent to the main disconnect.
(qq) Section 1205.2 is amended to modify Section 1205.2.1 by deleting Exceptions 1 and 2.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 5., Item Page 17, Packet Page 43 (rr) Section 1205.2 is amended to add Section 1205.2.1.4 to read as follows:
1205.2.1.4 Hip and Valley Layout. Hip and Valley Layouts. Modules shall be located no closer than one and one-half feet (1-1/2’) to a hip or valley if modules are to be placed on both sides of a hip or valley. Where modules are located on only one side of a hip or valley that is of equal length, the modules shall be permitted to be placed directly adjacent to the hip or valley. (ss) Section 1206 of the CFC is amended to add Section 1206.14 to read as follows:
1206.14 Where stationary fuel cell power systems are installed inside any structure, signage acceptable to the Fire Code Official shall be required indicating the location of the stationary fuel cell power system. Placarding shall be required to read “FUEL CELL” in block letters 6” high with a ¾” stroke on a contrasting background. The location of the signage shall be approved by the Fire Code Official.
(tt) Section 1207.4.1.1 is added to the CFC to read as follows:
1207.4.1.1 Energy storage systems (ESS) disconnect shall be located at or adjacent to the main electrical panel with appropriate placarding showing location of equipment and all shutdowns. (uu) Section 1207 of the CFC is amended to add Section 1207.4.8-6 to read as follows:
1207.4.8-6 Where battery energy storage systems are installed inside any structure, signage acceptable to the Fire Code Official shall be required indicating the location of the battery energy storage system. Placarding shall be required to read “BESS” in block letters 6” high with a ¾” stroke on a contrasting background. The location of the signage shall be approved by the Fire Code Official.
(vv) Section 5601.1.3 is amended to read as follows:
5601.1.3 Fireworks. The possession, manufacture, storage, sale, handling and use of fireworks are prohibited, including “Safe and Sane” fireworks, anywhere within the City limits.

Exception:

1. Except by duly issued permit for fireworks displays as authorized by the Fire Chief. (ww) Section 5704.2.9.6.1 is amended to add Section 5704.2.9.6.1.0 to read as follows:
5704.2.9.6.1.0 Outdoor storage containers and portable tanks. Storage of Class 1 and Class II liquids in above ground tanks outside of buildings is prohibited within the limits established by law as the limits of the jurisdiction in which storage is prohibited except as permitted by the zoning ordinance.

Exceptions:

1. For marine fueling operations, a maximum of 2000 gallons of diesel fuel may be stored and dispensed from an above ground tank as approved by the Fire Chief.

2. Storage tanks of 500-gallons maximum capacity may be used only in conjunction with emergency generators as approved by the Fire Chief.
(xx) Section 6104.2 of the CFC is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
6104.2 Maximum capacity within established limits. For the protection of heavily populated or congested areas, storage of liquified petroleum gas shall not exceed an aggregate capacity in Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 5., Item Page 18, Packet Page 44 any one mercantile occupancy of 200 gallons (757 L) or 40 5-gallon LPG tanks within the jurisdiction unless approved by the Fire Code Official.

Exception: In all other occupancy classifications, the capacity limit shall not exceed 10 5-gallon LPG containers or as determined by the Fire Code Official. (yy) Section D103.2 of the CFC is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:

D103.2 Grade. Fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent in grade with a maximum side slope of five (5) percent.

Exception: Grades steeper than fifteen (15) percent, if approved by the Fire Code Official, shall be paved with perpendicularly grooved concrete.

SECTION 10: Section 13-0.3 of the Monterey City Code is hereby amended by deleting the current Section 13-0.3 in its entirety and replacing it to read as follows:

Section 13-0.3 Exemption for pending applications:

1. Notwithstanding Section 13-0.1, the provisions of the 2025 California Fire Code as adopted and amended herein shall not apply to any building or structure for which an application for a building permit was made prior to January 1, 2026. Such building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered or repaired in accordance with the provisions of this chapter in effect on the date of said application.

2. All other applications shall be processed in accordance with the provisions of the 2025 California Fire Code as adopted and amended herein.

SECTION 11: All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

SECTION 12: This ordinance shall take effect on January 1, 2026, consistent with the effective date established by the California Building Standards Commission for the 2025 California Building Standards Codes.

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, 11/4/2025, Item No. 5., Item Page 19, Packet Page 45 ORDINANCE NO. ____ C.S

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№08/22
AMENDING MONTEREY CITY CODE CHAPTER 38, SECTION 38-112.5

DENSITY BONUS TO ESTABLISH LOCAL DENSITY INCENTIVES

FOR QUALIFYING HOUSING PROJECTS
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY DOES ORDAIN, as follows:

SECTION 1:

WHEREAS, Section 65915 et seq. of the California Government Code, known as State Density Bonus Law, requires a city to provide a developer that proposes a housing development in that city containing affordable and other types of housing with a density bonus and other incentives;
WHEREAS, California Government Code section 65915(a) requires that all jurisdictions within the state adopt an ordinance that specifies how compliance with State Density Bonus Law will be implemented;
WHEREAS, on December 17, 2024, the City Council adopted Ordinance No: 3689 amending Section 38-112.5 of the Monterey City Code specifying the City’s compliance with State Density Bonus Law and how it will be implemented; WHEREAS, Ordinance No: 3689 also established Local Density Incentives for qualifying housing projects to address the City’s need for lot consolidation, multi-bedroom units, and moderate-income units;
WHEREAS, additional density incentives are needed to enhance the feasibility of one hundred percent affordable housing developments;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a properly noticed public hearing on September 23, 2025, carefully considered all of the information presented to it, including the agenda report and information submitted at the public hearing by interested persons, and adopted a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance; WHEREAS, the City of Monterey Planning Office determined that there are no substantial changes proposed by the Project or under the circumstances in which the Proposed Project would be undertaken that would require major revisions of the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR (SCH # 2023080034), certified July 16, 2024. The Proposed Project does not require preparation of a new subsequent or supplemental EIR due to either (1) the involvement of new significant environmental effects, (2) a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects, or (3) new information of substantial importance. No mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible. The Proposed Project is consistent with and within the scope of the Monterey 2031 General Plan Date: 11/4/2025
Item No.: 6.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 6., Item Page 1, Packet Page 46 2 EIR;
NOW THEREFORE, the Monterey City Council declares as follows:

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

SECTION 3: Chapter 38, Article 17, Section 38-112.5(J), Local Density Bonus, is amended as follows:

J. Local Density Bonus

4. 100 Percent Affordable Housing Developments. Multifamily housing projects meeting the criteria of Government Code Section 65915(b)(1)(G) may obtain a 50 percent density bonus independent from, and additional to, the provisions of State Density Bonus Law.

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

SECTION 5: If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of these amendments and the application of such provisions to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

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

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

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 6., Item Page 2, Packet Page 47 Council
Agenda Report
№11/25
FROM: Andrea Renny, P.E., PTOE, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Reginald Paulding, P.E., Senior Engineer
SUBJECT: Authorize the Finance Director to Close the Larkin Park Swings Installation Project and Transfer Remaining Funds in the Amount of $58,401.74 to the Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program (NCIP) End Balance Account); and to Appropriate Funding in the Amount of $30,000.00 from the NCIP Contingency Account to the Deer Flats Park Fencing and Benches Project ***NCIP*** (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt the attached resolution
authorizing the Finance director, or their designee, to:

1. Close the Larkin Park Swings Installation Project
(nip2325) and transfer remaining funds in the
amount of $58,401.74 to the NCIP End Balance
account (31nunap); and,

2. Appropriate funding in the amount of $30,000.00
from the NCIP Contingency (31ncont) to the
Deer Flats Park Fencing and Benches Project
account (ncp2418).

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.

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The determination of the projects, priorities and expenditures shall be within the sound discretion of the City Council. (City Charter Section 6.6(e).) Agenda Report Highlights
 The Larkin Park Swings Installation
Project was closed due to
insufficient space, and $58,401.74
will be transferred to the NCIP End
Balance account.
 The Deer Flats Park Fencing and
Benches Project requires an
additional $30,000 from the NCIP
Contingency account to meet ADA
standards and complete the
improvements.
 The NCIP Committee unanimously
approved both actions during their
September 10, 2025, deliberations.
 The Deer Flats Park project design
and implementation costs total
$47,000, including grading for ADA
compliance and reinstallation of
park elements.
 These actions align with City
Council policies on budget
amendments and NCIP project
procedures.

Date: 11/4/2025
Item No.: 7.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 7., Item Page 1, Packet Page 48 №11/25
The recommended actions are consistent with Council policy to approve all budget amendments and with established policy and procedures for amending NCIP project budgets. (NCIP Policies and Procedures Manual, September 7, 2021).

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: [No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

As of September 15, 2025, the NCIP End Balance account (31nunap) balance is $547,327.24, and the Larkin Park Swings Installation Project account (nip2325) balance is $58,401.74.

Following this action, the NCIP End Balance (31nunap) will be $605,728.98.

Larkin Park Swings Installation Project (nip2325)
NCIP End Balance (31nunap) as of September 15, 2025 $547,327.24 Larkin Park Swings Installation Project (nip2325) $58,401.74 Revised NCIP End Balance (31nunap) Total $605,728.24
As of September 15, 2025, the NCIP Contingency account (31ncont) balance is $69,514.20. A supplemental appropriation of $30,000 from the NCIP Contingency (31ncont) to the Deer Flats Park Fencing and Benches Project account (ncp2418) would result in an NCIP Contingency account (31ncont) balance of $39,514.20. There is sufficient funding in the NCIP Contingency account (31ncont) for this appropriation.

NCIP Contingency (31ncont)
NCIP Contingency (31ncont) as of August 22, 20205 $69,514.20 Appropriation Request -$30,000.00
Revised NCIP Contingency (31ncont) Total $39,514.20
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.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

City Council could choose not to approve the requested actions for these previously adopted and funded NCIP projects; however, this is not recommended. These actions are not recommended as there is no alternative to install a new swing at Larkin Park and the Deer Flats Park project is fully designed and ready to implement. The Council may also provide direction to City staff to take alternate actions to implement NCIP projects.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 7., Item Page 2, Packet Page 49 №11/25
DISCUSSION:

Larkin Park Swings Project
On June 16, 2022, the NCIP Committee voted on proposed projects for the Fiscal Year 2022/23 Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program. The Larkin Park Swings Installation Project (nip2325) received 81 votes out the possible maximum total of 150 points. On July 26, 2022, the Planning Commission determined this project to be consistent with the General Plan, Area Plans, Master Plans, Traffic Calming Plans, and Multi-Modal Mobility Plan. On September 20, 2022, City Council approved the project as part of FY 2022/23 Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program and approved funding in the amount of $60,000.

After Monterey Peninsula Unified School District (MPUSD) realigned the adjacent school fence around the playground area to allow for public use of the playground during school hours, Staff determined that there is insufficient space in the playground equipment area to install an additional swing at Larkin Park.

On September 10, 2025, following Public Comment and NCIP Committee deliberations, the NCIP Committee voted unanimously to close the Larkin Park Swing Project (nip2325) and transfer the remaining $58,401.74 to the NCIP End Balance account (31nunap).

Deer Flats Park Fencing and Benches Project
On June 1, 2023, the NCIP Committee voted on proposed projects for the Fiscal Year 2023/24 Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program. The Deer Flats Park Fencing and Benches Project received 101 votes out the possible maximum total of 150 points. On August 22, 2023, the Planning Commission determined this project to be consistent with the General Plan, Specific Plans, Area Plans, Master Plans, Coastal Plans, Traffic Calming Plans, and the Move Monterey Multimodal Plan. On October 17, 2023, City Council approved the project as part of the FY 2023/24 Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program and approved funding in the amount of $30,000.

The City of Monterey contracted with an outside consultant to design the requested Deer Flats Park improvements, including orienting the two benches at the park to face the Deer Flats Park field and to relocate the fence that separates the benches from the field. The design was completed for $4,500.

The City received a cost proposal in July 2025 from the City’s job order contract contractor to implement the plans for $47,000. The cost includes removing and salvaging the existing fence, benches, and brick pavers, grading the site to meet ADA requirements, and reinstallation of the fencing, benches, and pavers.

City staff have determined that it is not possible to only re-align the benches and leave the rest of the park area as-is due to the existing running slope at the site and the need to regrade the site to meet ADA Accessibility Standards for the path of travel.

On September 10, 2025, following Public Comment and NCIP Committee deliberations, the NCIP Committee voted unanimously to recommend that City Council appropriate $30,000 in additional funding from the NCIP Contingency account (31ncont) to the Deer Flats Park Fencing and Benches Project (ncp2418).

AR/rp
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 7., Item Page 3, Packet Page 50 №11/25
Attachments: 1. Resolution
e: Hans Uslar, City Manager
Nat Rojanasathira, Assistant City Manager
Rafaela King, Finance Director
Kimberly Cole, Community Development Director
Shannon Leon, Recreation Manager
Levi Hill, Planning Manager
Christy Sabdo, Associate Planner
Wendy Davies, Finance Manager
Chinyere Ogbonna, NCIP Chair/Spokesperson
Dennis Duke, NCIP Vice Chair/Alternate Spokesperson
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, 11/4/2025, Item No. 7., Item Page 4, Packet Page 51 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

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

AUTHORIZING THE FINANCE DIRECTOR TO CLOSE THE LARKIN PARK SWINGS

INSTALLATION PROJECT AND TRANSFER REMAINING FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $58,401.74 TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (NCIP) END BALANCE ACCOUNT, AND TO APPROPRIATE FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $30,000.00 FROM THE NCIP CONTINGENCY ACCOUNT TO THE DEER FLATS PARK FENCING AND BENCHES PROJECT ***NCIP***
WHEREAS, the Larkin Park Swings Installation Project (nip2325) was approved and funded in the amount of $60,000 by Council on September 20, 2022 (Resolution No. 22-131 C.S.);
WHEREAS, the Neighborhood Community Improvement Program Committee met on September 10, 2025, and voted to recommend that City Council close the Larkin Park Swings Installation Project (nip2325) and return the remaining balance of $58,401.74 to the NCIP End Balance account (31nunap);
WHEREAS, the Deer Flats Park Fencing and Benches Project (nip2325) was approved and funded in the amount of $30,000 by Council on October 17, 2023 (Resolution No. 23-122 C.S.);
WHEREAS, the Neighborhood Community Improvement Program Committee met on September 10, 2025 and voted to recommend that City Council appropriate an additional $30,000 from the NCIP Contingency account (31ncont) to the Deer Flats Park Fencing and Benches Project account (nip2325);
WHEREAS, the current balance of the NCIP Contingency (31ncont) is $69,514.20, therefore sufficient funding is available for this action; and WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the prosed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability;

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

Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 7., Item Page 5, Packet Page 52

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby authorizes the Finance Director, or their designee, to:

1. Close the Larkin Park Swings Installation Project (nip2325) and transfer remaining funds in the amount of $58,401.74 to the NCIP End Balance account (31nunap); and

2. Appropriate funding in the amount of $30,000.00 from the NCIP Contingency account (31ncont) to the Deer Flats Park Fencing and Benches Project account (ncp2418).

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, 11/4/2025, Item No. 7., Item Page 6, Packet Page 53 Council
Agenda Report
№11/25
FROM: Rafaela T. King, CPA, MBA, Finance Director
Prepared By: Stella Sandoval, Assistant Finance Director SUBJECT: Approve Agreement with Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, for Financial Services and Authorize City Manager to Execute the Agreement (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 approve an
agreement with Wells Fargo Bank, National Association
(N.A.), for financial services and authorize the City
Manager to execute said agreement.

VALUE DRIVERS:

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Monterey City Code Section 28-14 allows for an exemption from formal bidding requirements in cases where the
services are capable of being performed through
cooperative purchasing contracts negotiated by another
governmental agency, also referred to as a “piggyback”.

The agreement between Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and the
City of Thousand Oaks meets all criteria of the City’s Code regarding responsible banking and the purchasing policy.

The Finance Director or their designee approved the
piggyback on September 16, 2025.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE
ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The banking agreement allows monthly service charges to be paid for with an "earnings allowance" on account balances. This means the City does not pay the monthly fees incurred if

1.4% of the total balance exceeds the amount of fees due each month. The City generally maintains a total balance to avoid the fees. The pricing for all service charges is detailed in Exhibit A.

Agenda Report Highlights
 The City Council is
recommended to approve a
five-year agreement with Wells
Fargo Bank for financial
services, including commercial
banking, ACH payments, cash
management, reporting tools,
and merchant services.
 The agreement ensures
compliance with financial
regulations, risk management,
and PCI requirements for
credit card processing.
 The City avoids monthly
service fees by maintaining
account balances that
generate an earnings
allowance exceeding the fees.
 Staff advises against changing
the banking partner due to the
upcoming implementation of
the Enterprise Resource
Program in January 2026.

Date: 11/4/2025
Item No.: 8.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 8., Item Page 1, Packet Page 54 №11/25
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 street infrastructure rehabilitation projects that may be funded using sales tax revenue received from the referenced special transactions and use tax resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council could deny the request to approve the agreement with Wells Fargo. Staff do not recommend changing our banking partner at this time due to implementation of Enterprise Resource Program beginning January 2026.

DISCUSSION:

The City relies on banking services to function efficiently, transparently, and securely. The revenue collected from taxes, fees, grants, etc. is deposited to the bank daily. Banking services safeguard these funds in secure accounts and enable essential tracking of inflows and outflows.

Banking services also enable the City to efficiently pay employee payroll and vendors. The City’s enterprise resource planning (ERP) system is integrated with our banking.

Our banking partner ensures we are compliant with financial regulations and assists with managing risk and potential fraud which can lead to loss of public trust. Wells Fargo has been a responsible banking partner to the City since 2015. The extended term of the original agreement ended September 30, 2025.

Through this contract, Wells Fargo will provide the following services to the City:
 Primary commercial banking includes check processing and positive pay verification, cash and electronic deposits
 ACH, wire transfer and direct deposit payments
 Cash management and reporting tools
 Merchant (credit card) services
Wells Fargo excels in their proactive approach to customer service and their commitment to business process review and identification of cost savings. Credit card merchant services will be provided by Wells Fargo Merchant Services, which is bank owned and operated with no thirdparty providers. This is an important aspect to ensure seamless processing, allow for greater efficiency and help the City keep up to date with strict Processing Card Industry (PCI) compliance requirements.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 8., Item Page 2, Packet Page 55 №11/25
Locally, Wells Fargo maintains a main branch in downtown Monterey. While the City utilizes only minimal number of services at the local branch, it is important to have local branch available should the need arise.

Municipal banking isn’t just about holding money; it’s about enabling the City to serve our community effectively. Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution to accept the agreement to extend the agreement for 5 years starting October 1, 2025 through September 30, 2030.

RTK/ss
Attachments: 1. Resolution

2. Exhibit A
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, 11/4/2025, Item No. 8., Item Page 3, Packet Page 56 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

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

APPROVING THE AGREEMENT WITH WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND AUTHORIZING CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE

AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the City relies on banking services to function efficiently, transparently, and securely. The revenue collected from taxes, fees, grants, etc. is deposited to the bank daily.

Banking services safeguard these funds in secure accounts and enable essential tracking of inflows and outflows. Banking services also enable the City to efficiently pay employee payroll and vendors. The City’s enterprise resource planning (ERP) system is integrated with our banking;
WHEREAS, our banking partner ensures we are compliant with financial regulations and assists with managing risk and potential fraud which can lead to loss of public trust. Wells Fargo has been a responsible banking partner to the City since 2015. The extended term of the original agreement ended September 30, 2025;
WHEREAS, Wells Fargo excels in their proactive approach to customer service and their commitment to business process review and identification of cost savings. Credit card merchant services will be provided by Wells Fargo Merchant Services, which is bank owned and operated with no third-party providers. This is an important aspect to ensure seamless processing, allow for greater efficiency and help the City keep up to date with strict Processing Card Industry (PCI) compliance requirements;
WHEREAS, through this contract, Wells Fargo will provide the following services to the City: Primary commercial banking includes check processing and positive pay verification, cash and electronic deposits, ACH, wire transfer and direct deposit payments, Cash management and reporting tools, Merchant (credit card) 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 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 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, 11/4/2025, Item No. 8., Item Page 4, Packet Page 57

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby authorizes the City Manager, or designee, to enter into an agreement for financial services with Wells Fargo, National Association for a period of five years retroactive to October 1, 2025 through September 30, 2030.

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, 11/4/2025, Item No. 8., Item Page 5, Packet Page 58 Wells Fargo Treasury Management Pricing
City of Monterey Pricing as of February 2025WF AFPCode Code Service Description Charge Basis Price Element Definition ACH Fraud Filter
34333 251050 ACH FRAUD FILTER REVIEW MO BASE Account 10.00000 Monthly base charge for CEO ACH Fraud Filter Review Service.

ACH Origination
ES280 250000 ACH MONTHLY BASE Company ID 30.00000 Monthly base charge for ACH Direct Origination services.

ES211 250102 ACH FUTURE DATED ITEM Transaction 0.05000 Per item charge for originated ACH transit one day items. Volumes arereceived from DDAES211,DDAES212, DDAES213 andDDAES220.

ES206 250120 ACH ORIGINATED - ADDENDA REC Addenda record 0.05000 Per addenda record charge for remittance data in originated ACHaddenda records
ES803 250510 ONLINE PAYMENTS BATCH RELEASE Batch/file 5.00000 Fee for each batch the customer releases to the bank for processing
ES802 250501 ACH TRANSMISSION SPECIAL Batch/file 2.50000 Per file charge for prefunded ACH transmission input
ES237 250710 ACH FAX SERVICE Page 2.20000 Per page of faxed reports34377 250000 ONLINE PAYMENTS BASE FEE Company ID 30.00000 Monthly base fee assessed for each Company ID set up on ACHPayments
ACH1D 250102 ONLINE PAYMENTS NEXT DAY ITEM Transaction 0.05000 Charge per any one day item originated through ACH Payments.The volume for this element isdetermined by summing elementsDDA34381, DDA34382,DDA34387& DDA34388 1 of
8 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 8., Item Page 6, Packet Page 59 06535 250302 ACH NOC - MANUAL Transaction 9.00000 Per item charge for manual ACH Notifications of Change - fax andmail reporting advice
34330 250703 ACH SUBSCRIPTION PER CO ID Account/company ID 35.00000 Monthly maintenance charge per report in Treasury InformationReporting. Fee is charged perenrolled ACH Company ID for ACHOrigination/Reject report. Customeris charged per enrolled account forboth ACH Customer Activity andACH Receive reports.

ACH Receive
ES349 250220 ACH RECEIVED ADDENDA Addenda record 0.00000 Per addenda record charge for remittance data in received ACHaddenda records
ES344 250202 ACH RECEIVED ITEM Transaction 0.05000 Per item charged for ACH received item (credit and debit)
Account Reconcilement
34337 200201 ONLINE CHECK ISSUES-ITEM Check issued 0.04000 Per item charge for all records entered manually or imported viaCEO Fraud Manager
12687 209999 ARP AGED ISSUE RECORDS ON FILE-ITEM Record 0.01000 Per item fee for maintaining issue records that remain outstandingafter 60 days.

Basic Banking Funds Transfer
46106 010102 ONLINE TRANSFER Transaction Incremental CEO Basic Banking Transfer Fee - Fee applied for each funds transfertransaction requested through BasicBanking. 1st 25 0.00000Remaining 1.50000Branch Services
CK197 100040 CASH ORDER FEE IN A WF BRANCH Transaction 5.25000 Per order fee for cash order in a Wells Fargo branch.

CK131 100040 ROLLED COIN FURNISHED BY WF BRANCH Coin roll 0.50000 Per roll charge for each roll of coin furnished by a Wells Fargo branch.

CK141 100040 CURRENCY FURNISHED BY WF BRANCH Dollar 0.00100 Per dollar fee for currency furnished by Wells Fargo branch.
08052 100006 BRANCH DEPOSIT Deposit 6.00000 Per deposit fee for deposit in Wells Fargo branch balanced and verifiedby teller at the time of deposit. 2 of
8 Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 8., Item Page 7, Packet Page 60 Cash Vault
08173 100100 CASH VAULT DEPOSIT Deposit 1.00000 Per deposit fee for deposits processed in a cash vault
08416 100199 CASH VAULT CURRENCY FURNISHED Dollar 0.00130 Currency furnished in change orders. Billed on a per dollarfurnished basis.
08290 100199 CASH VAULT CURRENCY/COIN DEPOSITED Dollar 0.00080 Processing and verification charge for currency and/or coin deposited.Billed on a per dollar depositedbasis. 08071 100111 CASH VAULT DEP - NONSTD COIN BAG Coin bag 3.00000 Per deposit charge for a loose coin deposit that does not conform to theFederal Reserve's specifications fora "standard bag". A partial/mixedcoin bag contains either a nonstandard amount of onedenomination or mixeddenominations. 08067 100113 CASH VAULT DEP - STD COIN BAG Coin bag 0.75000 Per bag charge for a loose coin deposit containing a specific numberof coins of one denomination - thenumber of coins in a standard bag isset by the Federal Reserve. Thedeposit is usually verified by theweight of the bag. 08181 100141 CASH VAULT ORDER - AUTOMATED Transaction 7.00000 Per order charge for a coin/currency order placed via transmission, CEO,or touch-tone.

Desktop Deposit Electronic Dep Serv
12816 151352 DESKTOP DEPOSIT IMAGES RETRIEVED Image 0.00000 Charge for each image retrieved in any of the Desktop Deposit reports.Charge is incurred each and everytime an image appears on a reportand/or link is clicked to view it. 15017 400058 DESKTOP DEPOSIT MONTHLY BASE Account 20.00000 For each depository account set up for the Desktop Deposit service, avolume of one will be made to thecustomer. 15003 400272 DESKTOP DEPOSIT REPORT PER ITEM Item reported 0.00000 For each item that appears on any report pulled via the DesktopDeposit service, a volume of one willbe made. Charge is incurred eachand every time the report is pulled. 3 of
8 Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 8., Item Page 8, Packet Page 61 15007 010101 DESKTOP DEPOSIT-DEPOSIT CREDITED Credit 0.75000 For each deposit submitted through the Desktop Deposit service, eitherthrough the CEO portal or mobile, acharge of one will be made to thecustomer. 706 100224 DESKTOP DEPOSIT-DEPOSITED ITEM Check deposited 0.06000 Charge per item deposited via Desktop Deposit for checks drawnon Wells Fargo and on banks otherthan Wells Fargo. Applies to itemssubmitted through CEO portal ormobile. For each item, a charge ofone will be made to the customer.

EDI Reporting
34240 330000 ONLINE EDI PMT DETAIL SUBSC MO BASE Account 25.00000 Monthly base charge per account for CEO TIR EDI Payment Detailreporting.

Gen Acct Services Recoupment
IAMTH 000230 RECOUPMENT MONTHLY Deposit assessment 0.12750 Fee to partially recover insurance premiums the Bank pays to theFDIC for deposit insurance. Monthlycharge based upon average monthlyledger balance. Assessed on perthousand dollar basis. SeeCommercial Account Agreement foradditional information.

General Account Services
22051 010000 ACCT MAINTENANCE Account 8.00000 Monthly maintenance charge for DDA with non return of checks(CheXstor) - one account statementincluded CK021 010100 DEBITS POSTED Debit 0.05000 Per item charge for debit items, other than checks or drafts, postedto an account.

CK018 250201 ELECTRONIC CREDITS POSTED Credit 0.05000 Per item charge for electronic and non-paper credits posted.

General Disbursement Services
22225 150240 CHECK CASHING THRESHOLD MO BASE Account 5.00000 Charge for providing fraud control service setting maximum checkcashing dollar thresholds at thebranches. 4 of
8 Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 8., Item Page 9, Packet Page 62 22245 150240 CHECKS PAY TO INDIV BLOCK MO BASE Account 5.00000 Charge for providing fraud control service disallowing cashing ofchecks to individuals at thebranches. 22235 150240 OTC DEBIT BLOCK MONTHLY BASE Account 5.00000 Charge for providing fraud control service disallowing over the counterwithdrawals at the branches.

MD091 150240 PYMT AUTH MAX CHECK MTHLY BASE Account 20.00000 Monthly per account fee when accounts are setup for the PaymentAuthorization Max Check $ option. 12670 150410 STOP PAYMENT - ONLINE Stop payment 5.00000 Per item charge for PC initiated stop payment.
22202 150100 DDA CHECKS PAID Check paid 0.10000 Per item change for checks or drafts presented for payment on anaccount, including checks that arepresented electronically.

Incoming Wire Transfers
ES030 350300 WIRE IN TO USA ACCT-USA DOMESTIC Transfer 10.00000 Incoming U.S. domestic wire crediting a Wells Fargo USAaccount, this includes incomingwires from a Wells Fargo originatedwire, not designated as a booktransfer. 27045 350402 WIRE PERFECT RECEIVABLE USA ACCT Transaction 1.00000 Wire through Perfect Receivables Posting Service.This serviceprovides payment collection andreporting for incoming wires to aWells Fargo USA account. Fee is inaddition to incoming wire fees.

Information Reporting
34101 400052 PLUS INFO RPTG BASE PER ACCT account 30.00000 Channel access fee for transmission access to information reporting data
34118 400425 PREMIUM INFO RPTG BASE PER ACCT account 70.00000 Intraday and extended detail data information reporting access byaccount. Includes previous day dataaccess as well. Includes access ofdata on Vantage and API channels. 34129 400055 REPORTING ITEMS LOADED item loaded Incremental Information reporting items loaded in Vantage, API and Transmissionchannels.
1st 50 0.0000051 to 250 0.10000251 to 1250 0.05000Remaining 0.02000 5 of
8 Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 8., Item Page 10, Packet Page 63 Paper Checks Deposited
002 100224 DEPOSITED CHECK Check deposited 0.09000 Deposited checks drawn on U.S. banks, including Wells Fargo.

Perfect Receivables Service
ES203 250000 ACH/WIRE PERFECT RECEIVABLE-MO BASE Account 50.00000 Monthly base fee for the ACH/Wire Perfect Receivables service
ES204 250202 ACH PERFECT RECEIVABLES - ITEM Transaction 0.10000 Per item charge for Perfect Receivables service
ES205 250220 ACH PERFECT RECEIVABLES - ADDENDA Addenda record 0.05000 Per addenda record charge for Perfect Receivables serviceaddenda
Positive Pay
DS191 150122 PAYEE VALIDATION STANDARD-ITEM Check paid 0.03000 Per check charge for each check posted to account with payeevalidation services.
34336 150724 POSITIVE PAY EXCEPTION-ONLINE IMAGE Image retrieved 0.00000 Per item charge for Image Positive Pay images retrieved via CEO
12908 150310 POS PAY CHECKS WITH NO ISSUE RECORD Check 0.50000 Charge for positive pay checks that are presented without matchingissue information on file. 12505 150222 POSITIVE PAY EXCEPTION CHECKS RETND Check returned 15.00000 Per item charge for Positive Pay exception returned per customerrequest - includes stale-dated itemsthat have been returned 12903 150310 POSITIVE PAY EXCEPTIONS - ITEM Exception 0.00000 Per item charge for Positive Pay Exceptions
12682 150120 POSITIVE PAY ONLY - ITEM Check issued 0.03000 Per item charge for the receipt and posting of check issue data receivedon Positive Pay Only accounts.Includes customer, vendor, NDM,and CEO Fraud Manager originated.PPO does not include reconciliationservices. 12681 150030 POSITIVE PAY ONLY MONTHLY BASE Account 15.00000 Monthly charge for providing positive pay services on accounts that do nothave Account Reconciliationservices Returned Items
CK064 100416 RETURN ITEM SERVICE MTHLY BASE Customer ID 0.00000 Monthly base fee for customers enrolled in the CEO Returned ItemServices
6 of
8 Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 8., Item Page 11, Packet Page 64 Wires Origination and Reporting
ES139 350100 WIRE OUT DOMESTIC VANTAGE/API Transfer 10.00000 Outgoing USA domestic wire (freeform/templated/import) initiatedin CEO from a Wells Fargo USAaccount. Includes Create Wire orCreate Template screens (for Wire,Drawdown, Federal Tax, or FederalTax Bulk templates), or wiresimported as a payment. 34216 400832 WIRE TEMPLATE ONLINE Occurrence 0.33000 Per CEO Wire template stored within CEO Wires each month.Applicable if the template is presentfor > 15 calendar days.

Zero Balance Account (ZBA)
DS001 010021 ZERO BALANCE MONTHLY BASE Account 10.00000 Per account charge for Zero and Target Balance accounts.
7 of
8 Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 8., Item Page 12, Packet Page 65 A book transfer is a wire between two accounts on the Wells Fargo US account system initiated via CEO Wires or Payment Manager. The debit and credit accounts are in the same relationship and linked by thebank on the wire systemFor additional service definitions, please contact your Treasury Management Sales Consultant or visit:www.wellsfargo.com/accountanalysis 8 of
8 Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 8., Item Page 13, Packet Page 66 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Nat Rojanasathira, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution of Intention to Modify the Monterey County Tourism Improvement District (MCTID) Management District Plan to Add the City of Sand City to the District (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 expressing its intention to modify the Monterey County Tourism
Improvement District (MCTID) Management District
Plan in order to extend the boundary of the MCTID to
include the City of Sand City.

VALUE DRIVER:

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE
ACT) APPLIES: No.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

It is within the City Council’s purview to consider
modifying the MCTID boundary to include the City of
Sand City. The MCTID requested this change to the
Management District Plan to further the MCTID’s efforts to increase demand for overnight tourism and to
promote Monterey County as a tourist, meeting, and event destination. The City of Monterey initiated the formation of this district in 2018 with the adoption of Resolution 18-147 and is the designated lead agency in the adopted Management District Plan.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

No immediate fiscal impact. The City will continue to receive one percent (1%) of the amount collected within the City of Monterey to cover its costs of administration. Because the MCTID programs are intended to increase visitation to the City, there may be an increase in transient occupancy tax and sales tax collections.

Agenda Report Highlights
 The City Council is recommended
to adopt a resolution to modify the
MCTID Management District Plan
to include Sand City.
 The MCTID aims to increase
overnight tourism and promote
Monterey County as a destination.
 The proposed change will allow
assessments to be collected in
Sand City starting on February 1,
2026, shortly after the planned
opening of a new 215-room hotel.
 The City of Monterey will continue
to receive 1% of collected
assessments for administrative
costs.
 The modification process includes
public hearings, notices to
affected businesses, and
opportunities for protests before
final approval.

Date: 11/4/2025
Item No.: 9.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 9., Item Page 1, Packet Page 67 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 adopt this resolution. Staff does not recommend this option, since the MCTID has requested this change to the Management District Plan.

DISCUSSION:

Background
The MCTID is a benefit assessment district designed to fund marketing and sales promotion efforts for lodging businesses such as hotels and motels within the district’s participating jurisdictions. The success of lodging businesses is beneficial to the participating jurisdictions, both directly through the collection of business license and Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenues and indirectly through collection of sales tax generated by visitors. The current MCTID includes all lodging businesses located within the boundaries of the unincorporated areas of Monterey County and the cities of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Marina, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Salinas, and Seaside. The City of Monterey serves as the lead public agency for the MCTID pursuant to the Management District Plan.

On February 21, 2023, the Monterey City Council adopted a resolution declaring results of majority protest proceedings and renewed the Monterey County Tourism Improvement District (MCTID) for a 10 year term.

The Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994, Streets and Highways Code §36600 et seq., allows for the Owners’ Association to request the City to modify the Management District Plan (MDP). The MCTID Owners’ Association, the Monterey County Destination Marketing Organization, Inc. d.b.a. See Monterey (formerly the Monterey County Convention and Visitors Bureau) has provided a written request to the City Council to modify the MCTID to authorize the inclusion of the City of Sand City within the boundary of the MCTID. A copy of the request letter is included as Attachment 2. The proposed modification would allow the MCTID to begin collecting assessments in the City of Sand City on February 1, 2026. The MCTID requested this change to the MDP to advance its mission of increasing overnight visitation and promoting Monterey County as a leading destination for tourism, meetings, and events. The 215-room Sand City Courtyard and Residence Inn by Marriott is scheduled to open in January 2026.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 9., Item Page 2, Packet Page 68 MCTID Management District Plan Modification Process
November 4, 2025 RESOLUTION OF INTENTION HEARING
Upon the written request by the MCTID, the Council may adopt a resolution of intention which states the proposed modification to the MCTID MDP. The MCTID provided a written request for the proposed modification to the Council dated October 14, 2025, which is included as Attachment 2. Receipt of this written request allows the Council to initiate proceedings for MCTID MDP modification at the November 4, 2025 meeting.

November 21, 2025 NOTICE TO PROPOSED NEW LODGING BUSINESSES The 1994 Law requires the City to mail written notice to the owners of all businesses proposed to be within the MCTID. Mailing the notice begins a mandatory forty-five (45) day period prior to the public hearing in which owners may protest MCTID modification. The notice is a joint notice of both the public meeting and the public hearing, and must be mailed at least 10 days before the public meeting.

No later than
January 9 & 13, 2026 NOTICE TO CURRENTLY ASSESSED LODGING BUSINESSES The Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994 requires the City to mail a complete copy of the Resolution of Intention to each lodging business owner affected by the proposed modification at least ten (10) days before the public hearing (by Friday, January 9, 2025) and to publish the Resolution of Intention in a newspaper of general circulation in the City at least seven (7) days before the public hearing (by January 13, 2025).

December 2, 2025 PUBLIC MEETING AND INTRODUCTION
Allow public testimony on the modification of the MCTID and levy of assessments. No City Council action is required.

January 20, 2026 PUBLIC HEARING & RESOLUTION OF MODIFICATION The City Council shall hold a public hearing on the proposed MCTID MDP modifications. If the City Council, following the public hearing, decides to modify the MCTID MDP, the City Council shall adopt a Resolution of Modification.

Attachments: 1. Resolution

2. Request Letter to Modify from the Owners’ Association

3. Proposed Modified Management District Plan
c: MCTID Executive Director, c/o Monterey County Convention & Visitors Bureau 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, 11/4/2025, Item No. 9., Item Page 3, Packet Page 69 RESOLUTION NO. __- ___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№07/19
EXPRESSING THE COUNCIL’S INTENTION TO MODIFY THE MONTEREY COUNTY

TOURISM IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (MCTID) MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN TO

ADD THE CITY OF SAND CITY TO THE DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey initially created the Monterey County Tourism Improvement District (“MCTID”) in 2006 under the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 by Ordinance No. 3376. This district was disestablished on December 20, 2018 pursuant to Ordinance No. 3587;
WHEREAS, the existing MCTID was established effective January 1, 2019 under Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994 by Resolution No. 18-207 for a five (5) year term;
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey renewed the MCTID with a new Management District Plan (“MDP”) on February 21, 2023 that was effective July 1, 2023; WHEREAS, the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994, Streets and Highways Code §36600 et seq., allows cities to modify the MDP at the request of the owners’ association;
WHEREAS, the MCTID owners’ association, the Monterey County Destination Marketing Organization, Inc. d.b.a. See Monterey (formerly the Monterey County Convention and Visitors Bureau) has requested modification of the MDP; 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 RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY THAT:

1. The recitals set forth herein are adopted by the City Council as findings and they are true and correct.

2. The City Council declares its intention to modify the MCTID MDP.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 9., Item Page 4, Packet Page 70 2 3. The proposed modification of the MCTID MDP will amend the MCTID boundary to include the City of Sand City.

4. The time and place for a public hearing on modification of the MCTID MDP is set for 4:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard on January 20, 2026 at City of Monterey Council Chambers, at City Hall, 580 Pacific Street, Monterey, CA 93940.

5. The City Clerk, or designee, is directed to take all necessary actions to process the request for modification of the MDP.

6. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution of Intention was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on this 4th day of November 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, 11/4/2025, Item No. 9., Item Page 5, Packet Page 71 ATTACHMENT 2
888.221.1010
[email protected]
99 Pacific Street, Bldg 375B
Monterey, CA 93940 SeeMonterey.com
Big Sur | Carmel-by-the-Sea | Carmel Valley | Marina | Monterey | Moss Landing Pacific Grove | Pebble Beach | Salinas | Salinas Valley | Sand City | Seaside | South County 10/15/2025
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers
City of Monterey
580 Pacific Street
Monterey, CA 93940
Re: Monterey County Tourism Improvement District
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers:

As the Monterey County Tourism Improvement District (MCTID) Owners Association, Monterey County Destination Marketing Organization, Inc. d.b.a. See Monterey (SM) (formerly the Monterey County Convention and Visitors Bureau) hereby requests modification of the MCTID Management District Plan (Plan), pursuant to Streets and Highways Code §36635.

The desired modification to the Plan will have the effect of expanding the MCTID boundary, allowing SM to remain competitive in promoting Monterey County as a visitor destination. In the current Plan, the MCTID boundary includes all lodging businesses located within the boundaries of the unincorporated areas of Monterey County and the cities of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Marina, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Salinas and Seaside. We request modifying the Plan to expand the MCTID boundary to include the City of Sand City. The modification is also projected to result in increased visitor spending, which would increase Transient Occupancy Tax and sales tax revenue for the City.

We ask that you consider a resolution of intention on this item at your November 4, 2025 meeting.

If you have any questions regarding the MCTID or the requested modification, please contact me at (831) 657-6425.

Best Regards,
Rob O’Keefe
President & CEO
See Monterey
p| 657.6425
e| [email protected]
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 9., Item Page 6, Packet Page 72 Monterey County TID
Modification Timeline
October 14, 2025
Action Date Responsible
Party
Submit Modification Request to City October 2025 Civitas, MCCVB Develop modified Management District Plan (MDP) October 2025 Civitas Submit Modified MDP, resolutions and notice to City October 2025 Civitas City Council – Resolution of Intention
Resolution of Intention to modify District November 4, 2025 City Council Mail
• Notice of Public Meeting/Hearing – CA Gov Code Section 54954.6 (2) The legislative body shall provide at least 45 days’ public notice of the public hearing at which the
legislative body proposes to enact the assessment.
• The legislative body shall provide notice for the public meeting at the same time and in the same document as the notice for the public hearing, but the meeting shall occur prior to the hearing.

AND
• Copy of ROI - SHC Section 36636 (a)(2) A complete copy of the resolution of intention shall be mailed by first class mail, at least 10 days before the public hearing, to each business owner or property owner affected by the
proposed modification.

No later than:

November 21, 2025 City Staff
Publish
• Resolution of intention – Must be published at least seven days before the public hearing.

No later than: January
13, 2025 City Staff
Sand City City Council – Resolutions Granting Consent Prior to Jan 20,, 2026 Final Hearing City Council
City Council – Public Meeting
• Public Meeting – No action required. Must be held at
least 10 days after Notice of Public Meeting/Hearing is mailed and at least 7 days before Public Hearing is held.

December 2, 2025 City Council
City Council – Public Hearing
• Modification Public Hearing & Adopt Resolution of
Modification – Must be held at least 45 days after Notice is mailed.

January 20, 2026 City Council
Modified MTID begins collecting assessment from Sand City hotels February 1, 2026 Sand City Lodging Businesses
MONTEREY CITY COUNCIL MEETS ON THE 1
ST AND 3RD TUESDAY OF THE MONTH AT 4:00 PM.

ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 9., Item Page 7, Packet Page 73 Council
Agenda Report
№11/25
FROM: Andrea Renny, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Kevin Anderson, Engineering Project Manager SUBJECT: Authorize an Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with G7ei Inc. for the Storm Drain Master Plan and Stormwater Utility Rate Study to increase the not-to-exceed amount from $561,912 to $673,366 (Exempt from CEQA, Article 19, Section 15306, Class 6)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt the attached resolution
authorizing the City Manager, or their designee, to
execute Amendment 1 to the Professional Services
agreement with G7ei Inc. for the Storm Drain Master
Plan and Stormwater Utility Rate Study to increase the
not-to-exceed amount from $561,912 to $673,366, an
increase to the contract of $111,454.

VALUE DRIVERS:

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

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

This action aligns with the City’s Storm Drain Master Plan objectives and supports compliance with state regulations for stormwater management as well as requirements for establishing property-related fees.

Agenda Report Highlights
 The City Council is recommended to
approve an amendment increasing
the contract amount with G7ei Inc.
from $561,912 to $673,366 to
expand the scope of work for the
Storm Drain Master Plan and
Stormwater Utility Rate Study.
 Additional tasks include public
outreach, cost of service analysis,
engineering report preparation, and
administrative support for fee
collection.
 Deferred hydraulic model field
survey and flow monitoring tasks
are restored to strengthen the
technical foundation of the Storm
Drain Master Plan.
 Two tasks from the original scope
are removed to offset costs, as they
are covered under a separate
environmental support contract.
 Timely approval of the amendment
is critical to meeting deadlines for
fee submission to the County
Auditor by August 1, 2026.

Date: 11/4/2025
Item No.: 10.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 1, Packet Page 74 №11/25
This action is also consistent with Chapter 28-Purchasing of the City Code, which requires amendments to Professional Services contracts exceeding $74,999 to be approved by City Council.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: Yes.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The amendment increases the total contract amount by $111,454 from $561,912 to $673,366.

Sufficient funding is available in the Storm Drain Utility Repair and Maintenance project account (CIP2312). As of September 25, 2025, the account balance is $283,826.66.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey Planning Office determined that the following action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15306, Class 6) because the proposed action involves basic data collection, research, experimental management, and resource evaluation activities for the Storm Drain Master Plan and Rate Study, which do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource (these may be strictly for information gathering purposes, or as part of a study leading to an action which a public agency has not yet approved, adopted, or funded).

Furthermore, the exempt projects do 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 impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies. The proposed action involves basic data collection; therefore, would not have any impacts on the environment.

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 to be found at the project sites. The proposed action would not have a significant effect due to their limited scope and distinct locations.

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

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. None of these projects would be located on hazardous waste sites listed pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 2, Packet Page 75 №11/25
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 proposed action would involve basic data collection, which would not result in an impact to historic or cultural resources.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council could choose to deny the amendment and proceed under the original scope of work. However, this approach will limit the City’s ability to conduct outreach and make datadriven decisions based on that outreach. This could also limit the City’s ability to meet the schedule requirements and timelines in order to get the fees approved and submitted to the County Auditor before August 1, 2026. If deadlines are missed, any collection would be deferred to August, 2027.

DISCUSSION:

In December 2024, the City Council approved a professional services agreement with G7ei Inc. in the amount of $561,912 to prepare the City’s Storm Drain Master Plan and Stormwater Utility Rate Study. (Ag-12503.) The purpose of the agreement is to evaluate the City’s existing storm drain infrastructure, develop a financial plan, and provide the basis for establishing a long-term, sustainable funding mechanism for stormwater management.

As the project progressed, it has become clear that additional tasks are recommended to conduct outreach, develop a data-driven approach, and ensure that the City can successfully meet the project schedule to get fees approved and submitted to the County Auditor by August 1, 2026. Amendment No. 1 expands the scope of work to include preparing a comprehensive cost of service analysis, conducting a public opinion survey, developing the engineering report, preparing ballot materials, and providing administrative support during the first year of fee collection. Incorporating these tasks into the contract is essential to developing a transparent and data-driven stormwater funding program. These additional tasks add to the consultant’s scope of work to ensure that critical schedule requirements are met related required process and preparation of ballot materials.

The amendment also restores deferred hydraulic model field survey and flow monitoring tasks that were not included in the original scope due to budget limitations. These efforts are critical to strengthening the technical foundation of the Storm Drain Master Plan by ensuring that system capacity data is accurate and reliable.

To offset the additional costs associated with these new and restored tasks, two items from the original scope have been removed: Task 4.3, Evaluation of the Storm Drain Trash Capture Plan ($44,410), and Task 8, Storm Drain Maintenance Plan (SDMP) inspections and O&M support ($86,263). These elements are already being evaluated under a separate environmental support contract and will not be duplicated in the project.

AR/ka/ap
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, 11/4/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 3, Packet Page 76 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

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

AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH G7EI INC. FOR THE STORM DRAIN MASTER PLAN AND STORMWATER UTILITY RATE STUDY TO INCREASE THE NOT-TO-EXCEED AMOUNT FROM $561,912 TO $673,366 WHEREAS, the City Council awarded a Professional Services Agreement with G7ei Inc. on December 3, 2024 in the amount of $561,912 for preparation of the Storm Drain Master Plan and Stormwater Utility Rate Study;
WHEREAS, the project team has identified additional tasks necessary to implement a Proposition 218-compliant stormwater property-related fee, restore deferred hydraulic model field survey and flow monitoring tasks, and support long-term stormwater infrastructure planning;
WHEREAS, to offset the cost of these added tasks, Task 4.3 (Evaluation of the Storm Drain Trash Capture Plan) in the amount of $44,410 and Task 8 (Storm Drain Maintenance Plan inspections and O&M recommendations) in the amount of $86,263 were removed from the scope of work, as these items are being evaluated under a separate environmental support contract;
WHEREAS, this Amendment will increase the not-to-exceed amount by $111,454 from $561,912 to $673,366, to fund the additional scope of work; WHEREAS, sufficient funds are available in the CIP2312 account; and, WHEREAS, the City of Monterey Planning Office determined that the following action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15306, Class 6) because the proposed action involves basic data collection, research, experimental management, and resource evaluation activities for the Storm Drain Utility Master Plan and Rate Study, which do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource (these may be strictly for information gathering purposes, or as part of a study leading to an action which a public agency has not yet approved, adopted, or funded).

Furthermore, the exempt projects do not qualify for any of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions found at CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2.

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 Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 4, Packet Page 77 significant. The proposed action is basic data collection; therefore, no cumulative impacts are anticipated.

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 proposed action would involve basic data collection, which would not result in an impact to historic or cultural resources.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby authorizes the City Manager, or their designee, to execute Amendment 1 to the Professional Services Agreement with G7ei Inc. for the Storm Drain Master Plan and Stormwater Utility Rate Study, to increase the not-to-exceed amount from $561,912 to $673,366, an increase to the contract of $111,454.

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, 11/4/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 5, Packet Page 78 ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 6, Packet Page 79 Council
Agenda Report
№11/25
FROM: Nat Rojanasathira, Assistant City Manager
Prepared By: Angie Blake, Chief Information Officer
SUBJECT: Authorize Agreement with AMS.NET, LLC for Citywide Safety and Security Camera Replacement in the Amount of $1,808,626.75 (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

1. Authorize the Finance Director, or their designee,
to appropriate $217,962.70 from the Parking
Fund Retained Earnings account (625-2721) to
the Capital Projects Fund Parking Garage
Security Cameras account (CIP2316).

2. Adopt a resolution to authorize the City Manager
to enter into a contract with AMS.NET, LLC for
Citywide Safety and Security Camera
Replacement.

3. Authorize staff to expend up to $271,294.00 for
unforeseen network repairs or upgrades
necessary to support the new camera system.

VALUE DRIVERS:

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

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 choice of AMS.NET, LLC as the solution vendor is consistent with our existing practice of providing responsive, quality, and cost-effective information technology solutions that enable City departments to be successful in achieving their respective missions.

Agenda Report Highlights
 The City will replace 318 outdated
security cameras with modern
cloud-connected hardware to
improve safety and efficiency.
 The project cost of $1,808,626.75
includes funding from various
accounts and a contingency fund
for unforeseen network repairs.
 The new system is expected to
save $1.75 to $2.05 million over
10 years by reducing maintenance
costs and improving compliance.
 Privacy concerns are addressed
with encrypted storage, strict
access controls, and adherence to
legal standards.

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

Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 11., Item Page 1, Packet Page 80 №11/25
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The cost proposal is $1,808,626.75 for the purchase, installation, configuration, and replacement of 318 safety and security cameras and access control across various City facilities. The agreement also includes cloud-based video storage backup, maintenance and support for 5 years. After year 5, the yearly cost will be at the vendor’s current market rate. Staff estimate this cost to be $394,775 for years 6-10.

The City will need to appropriate $217,962.70 from the Parking Fund Retained Earnings account (625-2721) to the Capital Projects Fund – Parking Garage Security Cameras account (CIP2316).

Funding for this project is outlined below:
 Capital Projects – Parking Garage Security Cameras (CIP2316): $388,799.70  Capital Projects – Police & Fire Gate (CIP2302): $38,864.02  Capital Projects – Waterfront Parking Lot Project (CIP2005): $11,221.05  Capital Projects – Wharf 2 Critical Repairs and Parking Area Project (30C1354):
$16,831.58
 Information Services Division – Technology Project Account (30C1603): $145,174.40  Information Services Division – Equipment Outlay Account (710-030-0340-0000-4505):
$1,207,736.00
A contingency fund of $271,294.00 (15%) should be included in the project budget to address any unforeseen network repairs or upgrades necessary to support implementation of the new security camera system. If needed, contingency funding will be drawn from the Information Services Technology Project Account (30C1603).

As of October 20, 2025, sufficient funding is available to fully support this project.

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, 11/4/2025, Item No. 11., Item Page 2, Packet Page 81 №11/25
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

Council could choose not to replace the existing cameras. This is not recommended due to the age, system downtime, liability, and higher costs associated with maintaining end-of-life equipment.

DISCUSSION:

Public safety security cameras across the City are over 10 years old, with hardware failures occurring on a near-weekly basis. Surveillance equipment has an expected useful life of 7 to 10 years, and the City’s current system has exceeded that lifespan.

While funding had originally been budgeted to replace cameras individually as they failed, this reactive approach has become inefficient and more costly. The City currently operates an onpremises video system that relies on seven physical servers and demands significant staff time for upkeep. This model is increasingly unsustainable, especially given the City’s need to retain more than 150TB terabytes of video data on premise and another 150TB as a backup in the cloud to comply with one-year retention policies and legal hold requirements.

AMS.NET, LLC was chosen to lead this comprehensive safety and security camera replacement project based on competitive bid pricing, experience, qualifications, and costefficiency. This project will provide:
 Replacement of 318 outdated or failing security cameras with new 10-year warranty cameras
 Installation of new cloud-connected hardware through Verkada, a secure, government-grade video and access control platform
 Cloud-based video storage backup, support, and software and hardware updates for five years
 Access control implementation at critical sites, including the Police and Fire Department and City data centers
 In one year, eliminate the need to maintain and replace aging on-premise servers and related infrastructure
Key Benefits:
 Employee and Citizen Safety: Enhances security in and around City buildings  Asset Protection: Deters theft, vandalism, and graffiti at City facilities and infrastructure  Access Control Integration: Adds credential-based door and gate access controls at sensitive locations, including the Police and Fire Department parking lot and City data centers, improving internal security and reducing unauthorized access risks  Police Jail Monitoring: Enables real-time monitoring of the jail to ensure the safety of individuals in custody
 Post-Incident Investigations: Video footage supports evidence gathering and liability defense
 Compliance: Meets legal video retention requirements and supports legal holds The Verkada cloud-hosted system offers numerous benefits over the existing Genetec onpremise solution, including simplified system management, more reliable access, automatic software and hardware updates, and scalability without significant hardware investments.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 11., Item Page 3, Packet Page 82 №11/25
Return on Investment (ROI):

The proposed public safety investment in a modern cloud-based security camera system is expected to deliver substantial operational benefits and long-term cost avoidance over the 10- year service life of the equipment. The total project cost is $1,808,626.75 for the initial 5-year agreement, with estimated support costs of $394,775 for years 6–10, bringing the total 10-year cost to approximately $2.2 million. By transitioning to Verkada’s cloud-based platform, the City will eliminate the need for physical storage upgrades, reduce server maintenance, and streamline compliance. The City currently maintains over 150 terabytes of video data, generating significant expenses for storage, backups, and IT labor. The new system is projected to save approximately $525,000 in infrastructure and IT costs and avoid $350,000 to $500,000 in theft, vandalism, and liability expenses over five years. Over a 10-year period, supported by Verkada’s hardware warranty, these benefits could total $1.75 to $2.05 million, offsetting most of the project cost and delivering meaningful improvements in public safety, efficiency, and risk reduction for City operations. This equates to an effective financial return on investment (ROI) of approximately –7% to –20% over 10 years, excluding the significant qualitative benefits associated with improved public safety, faster investigations, and reduced liability exposure.

If the City wishes to add additional cameras beyond the initial 318 during the five-year contract period, the Verkada system supports easy scalability. Additional cameras, installation, and cloud storage services can be added at negotiated rates consistent with the original agreement and prevailing market prices.

The Merced County Focus provides discounts of up to 20% for the proposed project to the City.

AMS.NET, LLC and Verkada provided an additional discount of 10% to provide the best competitive bid possible. The estimated savings to the City is $554,251.20.

In order to secure current pricing, the agreement with AMS.NET, LLC must be executed by November 7, 2025. After this date, the vendor has notified the City that prices will increase by

5.4% for hardware and 10.6% for licensing costs due to manufacturer adjustments and market conditions. A delay beyond this deadline would increase the base project cost by approximately $184,750.30, excluding any changes in scope or contingency. Staff recommends completing the purchase prior to the deadline to ensure the City receives the lowest cost-effective pricing available.

Project Contingency:

Due to the age and current failure rate of network infrastructure (cabling and related equipment), staff recommends including a contingency fund of $271,294 (15%) to address unforeseen network repairs or upgrades necessary to support the new security camera system. This contingency will help ensure timely project completion without compromising system performance or safety.

Public Transparency and Concerns:

Staff has proactively considered potential public concerns and offers the following clarifications:
 Privacy: City will not use the cameras and access control systems to track individuals or use facial recognition. Monitoring is limited to safety and facility security.  Cost: The system replaces a failing infrastructure and prevents higher future costs.

Funding is already budgeted and not redirected from other public services.  Procurement: AMS.NET, LLC was selected through a competitive, transparent solicitation process in accordance with City procurement policies.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 11., Item Page 4, Packet Page 83 №11/25
 Data Security: Verkada provides encrypted, secure cloud storage with strict access controls, physical device security, and audit logging, protecting both video and access data from unauthorized access or breaches.
 Release of Video: All information and/or observations made in the use of the security cameras are considered confidential and can only be used for official purposes.

Requests to provide video recordings to the public are considered Public Records Act requests and require approval from the Legal department.

Privacy and Legal Compliance:

Cameras are not used to unlawfully monitor employees or members of the public. The purpose of the surveillance system is to protect public property, promote safety, and support lawful investigations. Camera placement and use comply with all local, state, and federal privacy laws, and are not used to track or monitor individuals beyond what is legally permitted.

Video footage will be retained for one year, in compliance with legal requirements and public records standards.

Conclusion:

This agreement is a proactive and cost-effective investment in public safety and infrastructure protection. It replaces a failing, outdated system with a secure and scalable solution that improves access management, surveillance, compliance, and operational efficiency.

NR/ab
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, 11/4/2025, Item No. 11., Item Page 5, Packet Page 84 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№011/24
AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT WITH AMS.NET, LLC FOR CITYWIDE SAFETY AND SECURITY CAMERA REPLACEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,808,626.75 WHEREAS, this agreement is a proactive and cost-effective investment in public safety and infrastructure protection. It replaces a failing, outdated system with a secure and scalable solution that improves access management, surveillance, compliance, and operational efficiency;
WHEREAS, the cost proposal is $1,808,626.75 for the purchase, installation, configuration, and replacement of 318 safety and security cameras and access control across various City facilities. The agreement also includes cloud-based video storage backup, 10 year hardware warranty, and software support for 5 years;
WHEREAS, $217,962.70 will be appropriated from the Parking Fund Retained Earnings account (625-2721) to the Capital Projects Fund – Parking Garage Security Cameras account (CIP2316);
WHEREAS, funding will be expended as follows: $388,799.70 from the Capital Projects – Parking Garage Security Cameras (CIP2316); $38,864.02 from Capital Projects – Police & Fire Gate (CIP2302); $11,221.05 from the Capital Projects – Waterfront Parking Lot Project (CIP2005); $16,831.58 from the Capital Projects – Wharf 2 Critical Repairs and Parking Area Project (30C1354); $145,174.40 from the Information Services Division – Technology Project Account (30C1603); and $1,207,736.40 from the Information Services Division – Equipment Outlay Account (710-030-0340-0000-4505).;
WHEREAS, Monterey City Code section 28-15(c)(3) allows for an exemption from formal bidding requirements in cases where the contract or purchase is capable of being performed through purchasing contracts negotiated by another governmental agency that utilized acceptable bidding procedures (“piggyback” agreements). This acquisition will be purchased from AMS.Net, LLC by utilizing the Merced County Focus Contract #2021092. The Finance Director, or their designee, approved the piggyback request on October 27, 2025; WHEREAS, due to the age and current failure rate of network infrastructure (cabling and related equipment), staff recommends including a not to exceed contingency of $271,294 to address unforeseen network repairs or upgrades necessary to support the new security camera system. This contingency will help ensure timely project completion without compromising system performance or safety; 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 Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 11., Item Page 6, Packet Page 85 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:

1. Authorizes the Finance Director, or their designee, to appropriate $217,962.70 from the Parking Fund Retained Earnings account (625-2721) to the Capital Projects Fund Parking Garage Security Cameras account (CIP2316).

2. Authorizes the City Manager to enter into a contract with AMS.NET, LLC for Citywide Safety and Security Camera Replacement.

3. Authorizes staff to expend up to $271,294.00 for unforeseen network repairs or upgrades necessary to support the new camera system.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this 4th day of November, 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, 11/4/2025, Item No. 11., Item Page 7, Packet Page 86 Council
Agenda Report
№11/25
FROM: Nat Rojanasathira, Assistant City Manager
Prepared By: Angie Blake, Chief Information Officer
SUBJECT: Amend Agreement with Dell, Inc. to Increase the Not to Exceed Amount by $55,000 for Additional Microsoft Software Licensing (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council amend the agreement with Dell,
Inc. to increase the not to exceed amount by $55,000 for the purchase of additional Microsoft software licensing.

VALUE DRIVERS:

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The choice of Dell as the solution vendor is consistent with our existing practice of providing responsive,
quality, and cost-effective information technology
solutions that enable City departments to be successful in achieving their respective missions.

This action is also consistent with Council policy to
approve Professional Services Agreements exceeding
$75,000.

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

Monterey City Code section 28-15(c)(3) allows for an exemption from formal bidding requirements in cases where the contract or purchase is capable of being performed through purchasing contracts negotiated by another governmental agency that utilized acceptable bidding procedures (“piggyback” agreements). This acquisition will be purchased from the Agenda Report Highlights
 The City Council is recommended
to amend the agreement with Dell,
Inc., to increase the budget by
$55,000 for additional Microsoft
software licensing.
 The amendment addresses
increased staffing needs, evolving
technology requirements, and a
pilot for Microsoft Copilot, an AIpowered productivity tool.  The agreement is funded through
the current budget and technology
project account.
 Microsoft software ensures
operational efficiency,
cybersecurity, and compatibility
with the City’s major business
systems.
 Alternatives to the amendment
were considered but deemed not
feasible due to the necessity of
the software for City operations.

Date: 11/4/2025
Item No.: 12.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 1, Packet Page 87 №11/25
County of Riverside Contract #808445 Microsoft Master Volume Licensing Agreement. The Finance Director, or their designee, approved the piggyback request on October 17, 2025.

The proposal is $55,000 for the purchase of additional Microsoft licensing. The City set aside funding for this project in the Information Services Division Technology Project Account 30C1603 for $44,200 and in the current year budget Information Services Equipment Outlay Other Account 710-030-0340-0000-4505 for $10,800.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

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

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

Council could choose not to amend the agreement to purchase additional licensing. This is not recommended due to staff needing this software licensing to conduct City business.

DISCUSSION:

In 2021, the City entered into a five-year agreement with Dell, Inc. for the procurement of Microsoft 365 licenses. The total contract amount was not to exceed $782,717.50, covering the licensing needs of City staff through October 31, 2026. Over the past four years, the City’s staffing needs have evolved, including an increase in part-time staff and shifts in technology usage across departments. As we enter the final year of the agreement, it has become necessary to revise the scope to reflect current and projected needs.

To support the City's operational efficiency and ensure all employees have access to essential software tools, staff is requesting an amendment to the current agreement with Dell, Inc. The proposed amendment will account for:
 Increased licensing required due to growth in part-time staffing levels;  Evolving technology needs across departments; and
 The purchase of additional licenses to pilot Microsoft Co-pilot, an AI-powered tool designed to enhance productivity through intelligent document management, task automation, and integrated digital assistance. The pilot of Co-pilot will allow the City to assess its effectiveness in improving staff efficiency and inform a potential broader rollout in future budget cycles.

The original not to exceed amount was $782,717.50. The proposed amendment will increase the not-to-exceed amount by $55,000, for a new total of $837,717.50. An average yearly cost of $167,543,50. Funding for this request was approved in the current year budget and in the technology project account.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 2, Packet Page 88 №11/25
Microsoft licensing provides the City with:
 Hosted cloud email with malware protection from phishing and data theft.  Improved team efficiencies with the latest version of productivity and collaboration tools in Microsoft Office which includes Word, Excel, PowerPoint, OneNote, Publisher and Access for up to five devices per user.
 Secure cloud storage, sharing, and ability to collaborate on Microsoft documents with OneDrive.
 Project team and collaboration websites with SharePoint.  eDiscovery for easily searching, holding, and exporting emails.  Online meetings with Teams.
 Ability to add CoPilot, Project, Visio, and PowerBI Microsoft cloud software.  Cybersecurity protection with single sign-on and multi-factor authentication.  Secure storage and data privacy in the Government Azure Protected Cloud Infrastructure.

Microsoft software products are the foremost choice for the City due to compatibility with our major line of business systems such as financial management (Tyler), asset management (Infor), and enterprise information management (OnBase by Hyland). These systems contain integrations that allow employees to complete their work tasks seamlessly.

Staff recommend the City Council authorize an amendment to the agreement to increase the not to exceed amount by $55,000 for the purchase of additional Microsoft software licensing.

NR/ab
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, 11/4/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 3, Packet Page 89 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№011/24
AMENDING AGREEMENT WITH DELL, INC. TO INCREASE THE NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT BY $55,000 FOR ADDITIONAL MICROSOFT SOFTWARE LICENSING WHEREAS, by adopting Resolution 21-098 the Council approved and the City entered into a contract with Dell to purchase Microsoft 365 Government Software Services and Licensing for a not to exceed amount of $782, 717.50 covering the licensing needs of City staff through October 31, 2026;
WHEREAS, to support the City's operational efficiency and ensure all employees have access to essential software tools, staff is requesting an amendment to the current agreement with Dell, Inc with an adjusted not to exceed amount of $837,717.50. The proposed amendment will account for increased licensing purchases due to growth in part-time staffing levels, evolving technology needs across departments, and the purchase of Co-pilot licenses to pilot test use to potentially improve staff efficiencies;
WHEREAS, the cost proposal is $55,000 for the purchase of additional Microsoft licensing. The City set aside funding for this project in the Information Services Division Technology Project Account 30C1603 for $44,200 and in the current year budget Information Services Equipment Outlay Other Account 710-030-0340-0000-4505 for $10,800; 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

1. Authorizes an increase in the not to exceed amount by $55,000 to $837,717.50.

2. Authorizes the City Manager, or designee, to execute the contract amendment.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 4, Packet Page 90 PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this _____ day of November, 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, 11/4/2025, Item No. 12., Item Page 5, Packet Page 91 Council
Agenda Report
№11/25
FROM: Kimberly Cole, AICP, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Adopt the Planning Commission Recommendation and Approve 1st Reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 38 of the Monterey City Code to Establish Regulations and Development Standards for Firearms and Ammunition Retail Sales and Amending the Home Occupation Permit Procedures (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council pass the ordinance to a second reading.

The Planning Commission considered and recommended the
adoption of this ordinance at its meeting held on October 14, 2025.

VALUE DRIVERS:

The City’s adopted value drivers include “Quality of Life Strategic Priorities” to “recognize that public safety is a priority to ensure that our City is safe and welcoming to all, contributing to our economic vitality as a destination City,” and to “respond effectively to neighborhood concerns;”
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The proposed ordinance establishes regulations and
development standards for firearms and ammunition retail sales businesses and amends the City’s home occupation permit procedures.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT)
APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

No fiscal implications have been identified.

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 Agenda Report Highlights
 The proposed ordinance
restricts firearm retail
businesses to the I-R
Industrial, Administration, and
Research District zones with
specific setbacks from
sensitive areas.
 The ordinance aims to
address public safety
concerns and ensure
compatibility with community
priorities.
 L&B Firearms at 301 Ocean
(not currently open) will be
subject to a three-year
amortization period, with an
option to request a review of
its reasonableness.
 Ammunition sales will
continue to be allowed at
existing businesses but
cannot expand to include
firearm sales.
 Home occupation regulations
will prohibit new firearms and
ammunition retail sales in
residential areas.

Date: 11/4/2025
Item No.: 13.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 13., Item Page 1, Packet Page 92 №10/24
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:

Deny the amendments to the City Code or adopt a modified ordinance.

DISCUSSION:

Background
On February 18, 2025, the City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 3696 to suspend the establishment and operation of new firearms and ammunition retail sales businesses in the City.

This action was necessary because the City’s Zoning Code does not regulate or restrict the establishment or operation of firearms or ammunition retail sales businesses in most areas of the City, including home occupations in residential areas. The City Council determined the matter was urgent because without a moratorium, an unlimited number of firearms and ammunition retail sales businesses could locate almost anywhere in the City without local regulation, and when certain types of land uses are incompatible with each other, such as firearms and ammunition retail sales stores in residential neighborhoods, it can lead to disputes and quality of life impacts. On April 1, 2025, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 3701 to continue the duration of the urgency ordinance for 10 months and 15 days pursuant to Government Code section 65858 to allow further review and study.

There are concerns about firearm businesses. In December 2024, it was reported that 20 firearms were stolen from a City of Salinas gun shop (https://www.ksbw.com/article/20- handguns-stolen-salinas-firearmburglary/63314552 (KSBW, Dec. 31, 2024). City staff has been studying the appropriateness of locations of firearms and ammunitions businesses in the City, and because dealerships can be targets of people who are or should be excluded from possessing weapons, staff recommends updating existing regulations to ensure that future locations of firearms and ammunitions retail establishments respond to community concerns by prohibiting firearms dealers from being located near sensitive areas, such as residential areas, schools, parks, etc. (see, e.g., Suter v. City of Lafayette (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 1109).

Proposed Amendment
The proposed regulations will prohibit firearm retail business within the City except for sites located in the I-R Industrial, Administration and Research District zones. In this zone, new firearm retail sales would be allowed with a use permit meaning that a public hearing would be required. Ammunition sales would be principally permitted in the I-R zone.

This new regulation will result in the firearm retail sales business ,JC Firearms and Ammo, located at 2 Harris Court, to continue to operate as a legal nonconforming use as it is located in the I-R zone although it is within 600 feet of a daycare. (See proposed Section 7-4.07.) Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 13., Item Page 2, Packet Page 93 №10/24
L& B Firearms is located at 301 Ocean (not currently open), which is not in an I-R zone. The proposed ordinance would amortize the existence of this business for a period of three years.

The property owner and/or the operator of the nonconforming firearms retail sales business may apply to the Planning Commission to review the reasonableness of the three-year amortization period within ten days of the ordinance adoption (See proposed Section 7-4.06.e). Ultimately, the ordinance’s goal is to limit firearm retail sales only in the I-R District with a minimum of 600’ setback from a school, day care, playground, residential zone, multi-family overlay zone, store that sells liquor, bar, other firearm and ammunition retailers or cannabis businesses.

Two businesses – Big 5 (2259 North Fremont Street) and Gallagher Ammunition Sales (871 Alice Street) – sell ammunition only (no firearms).

The proposed ordinance would continue to allow ammunition sales at Big 5 and Gallagher Ammunition Sales pursuant to the proposed Ordinance Section 7-4.07 and 7-4.08. The proposed ordinance would not allow these businesses to expand their product lines to include firearms retail sales.

The proposed changes to home occupation regulations would prohibit new firearms and ammunition retail sales.

In summary, staff recommends: the City Council pass the ordinance to a second reading.

KC
Attachments: 1. Ordinance

2. Draft Planning Commission Minutes
e: All neighborhood associations
All business associations
Big 5
JC Firearms and Ammo
L&B Firearms
Gallagher Ammunition
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, 11/4/2025, Item No. 13., Item Page 3, Packet Page 94 ORDINANCE NO. C.S.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY

ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR FIREARMS AND

AMMUNITION RETAIL SALES USES AND UPDATING HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT

PROCESS
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY DOES ORDAIN, as follows:

SECTION 1:

WHEREAS, the City’s business license ordinance is a ministerial process. Issuance of a business license does not grant permission to conduct business in the City because the license is not regulatory; it is revenue generating only. (City Code section 19-2); WHEREAS, in December 2024, it was reported that 20 firearms were stolen from a City of Salinas gun shop (https://www.ksbw.com/article/20-handguns-stolen-salinas-firearmburglary/63314552 (KSBW, Dec. 31, 2024); WHEREAS, on February 18, 2025, the City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 3696 to suspend the establishment and operation of new firearms and ammunition retail sales businesses in the City. This action was necessary because the City’s Zoning Code does not regulate or restrict the establishment or operation of firearms or ammunition retail sales businesses in most areas of the City, including home occupations in residential areas. The City Council determined the matter was urgent because without a moratorium, an unlimited number of firearms and ammunition retail sales businesses could locate almost anywhere in the City without local regulation, and when certain types of land uses are incompatible with each other, such as firearms and ammunition retail sales stores in residential neighborhoods, it can lead to disputes and quality of life impacts;
WHEREAS, on April 1, 2025, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 3701 to continue the duration of the urgency ordinance for 10 months and 15 days pursuant to Government Code section 65858 to allow further review and study;
WHEREAS, after studying the appropriateness of locations of firearms and ammunitions businesses in the City, and because dealerships can be targets of people who are or should be excluded from possessing weapons, the City Council desires to update existing regulations to ensure that future locations of firearms and ammunitions retail establishments respond to community concerns by prohibiting firearms dealers from being located near sensitive areas, such as residential areas, schools, parks, etc. (see, e.g., Suter v. City of Lafayette (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 1109);
WHEREAS, this ordinance establishes a new use classification for firearms to regulate the location and operation of these businesses in the City with a use permit. This ordinance establishes a new use classification for ammunition sales, and the location and operation of these businesses will be principally permitted as specified. It is the purpose and intent of this ordinance to allow commercial firearms and ammunition activity in the City while imposing Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 13., Item Page 4, Packet Page 95 2 sensible regulations on commercial activities to protect the City’s residents, neighborhoods, and businesses from disproportionately negative impacts and to protect the public’s health, safety, and welfare;
WHEREAS, the following businesses were authorized to engage in firearms retail sales, which may include ammunition sales, as of February 18, 2025:
 City Business License #1013736 - L&B Firearms (exp 6/30/26) 301 Ocean Ave. (Commercial Zoning C-1) established 10/24/24; (FFL Expires 03/01/28)  City Business License #1010512 - JC Firearms & Ammo (exp 6/30/26) 2 Harris Ct. (Industrial Zoning I-R) established 2/12/21; (FFL Expires 05/01/27) WHEREAS, the following businesses engaged in ammunition retail sales (non-firearms dealers) as of February 18, 2025:
 City Business License #1013633 - Gallagher Ammunition (exp 6/30/26) 871 Alice St. (Residential Zoning R-3-5) established 9/12/24
 City Business License #97341 - Big 5 (exp 6/30/26) 2259 N Fremont St. (Planned Community Zoning PC) established sometime prior to 1995 (FFL expired on 09/01/2025 – currently ammunition retail sales only) WHEREAS, it is the intent of this ordinance to allow firearms and ammunition businesses located in the I-R Industrial, Administration, and Research District zones as of February 18, 2025, to continue to operate as legal non-conforming uses without a use permit as specified;
WHEREAS, it is the intent of this ordinance to allow ammunitions retail sales businesses existing as of February 18, 2025, to continue to operate as legal non-conforming uses as specified;
WHEREAS, the duration of a valid Federal Firearms License, which is required for firearms and ammunition retail sales, is three years, and the City is exercising its police powers to require elimination of the nonconforming firearms retail sales uses that are not located in an I-R Industrial, Administration, and Research District zone following a reasonable amortization period of three years. A Federal Firearms License is not required for ammunition retail sales when firearms are not sold. A State of California ammunition vendor license (non- firearms dealer) may be required for ammunition vendors (non-firearms dealers) depending on the number of rounds of ammunition sold in a 30-day period; WHEREAS, the City’s adopted value drivers include “Quality of Life Strategic Priorities” to “recognize that public safety is a priority to ensure that our City is safe and welcoming to all, contributing to our economic vitality as a destination City,” and to “respond effectively to neighborhood concerns;”
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 Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 13., Item Page 5, Packet Page 96 3 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, 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 7, Article 4, Firearms and Ammunition, is added to read as follows:

Article 4. Firearms and Ammunition.

Section 7-4.00 Purpose
It is the purpose and intent of this article to establish local development and location standards for the sale, lease, or transfer of firearms and ammunition. The provisions of this article are not intended to contradict applicable state or federal law.

Section 7-4.01 Definitions.
a. “Day care center” is as defined in Monterey City Code section 38-11. b. “Firearms and ammunition retail sales” is as defined in Monterey City Code section 38-

11. c. “Playground” is as defined in Monterey City Code section 38-11. d. “School” is as defined in Monterey City Code section 38-11. e. “Youth center” is as defined in Monterey City Code section 38-11. f. “Cannabis business” is as defined in Monterey City Code section 7-7.01.

Section 7-4.02 Firearms and ammunition retail sales businesses prohibited unless specifically authorized.
a. No person shall engage in, conduct, or operate a firearms retail business, or cause, allow, permit, or maintain a firearms retail business on any real property within the City except as specifically authorized by a conditional use permit and this article. b. No person shall engage in, conduct, or operate as a retail sales ammunition vendor Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 13., Item Page 6, Packet Page 97 4 (non-firearms dealer), or cause, allow, permit, or maintain an ammunition retail sales business on any real property within the City except as specifically authorized by this article.
c. It shall be unlawful to fail to comply with all terms and conditions set forth in a firearms retail sales conditional use permit or this article.

Section 7-4.03 Compliance with federal, state and local laws.

Nothing in this article shall be construed as authorizing any actions that violate federal, state, or local law with respect to engaging in, or the operation of, a firearms and/or ammunition retail sales business. It shall be the responsibility of the permittees, owners, employees, and managers of a firearms or ammunition retail sales business to ensure that the business is always operating in a manner compliant with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, including any subsequently enacted federal, state, and local laws, or regulatory, licensing, certification standards or requirements, and any specific additional operating procedures or requirements.

Section 7-4.04 Location Limitations and Conditional Use Permit. a. Firearms and ammunition retail sales are prohibited except in I-R Industrial, Administration, and Research District zones.
b. Except as otherwise provided under Section 7-4.06, it shall be unlawful for any person to own or operate a firearms retail sales business in the City without first having obtained a conditional use permit in accordance with Chapter 38, Article 22. An ammunition vendor (non-firearms dealer) does not require a conditional use permit to operate.

Section 7-4.05 Firearms and Ammunition Retail Sales Business Operational Requirements
a. No person under the age of 18 years may enter or remain within the premises of a firearms or ammunition retail sales business without being accompanied by the parent or other adult legally responsible for the minor child where the firearms and ammunition retail sales activity is the primary business performed at the site. b. It shall be unlawful to engage in any firearms retail sales business within the City unless the person has submitted proof of liability insurance that meets the requirements of Penal Code section 26811, as may be amended from time to time, to the City’s Finance Director, or designee. Upon expiration of the policy of insurance, if no additional insurance is obtained or if valid proof of insurance is not submitted to the City’s Finance Director, the use permit shall be revoked.
c. It shall be unlawful to rent, lease, license, or otherwise permit any firearms or ammunition retail sales business at any location or structure in the City by a person that does not have all licenses and permits required by federal, state, and local laws. d. Firearms and ammunition retail activity on property owned by the City of Monterey is prohibited.
e. Hours of operation for firearms retail sales businesses are limited to the hours of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. seven days a week.

Section 7-4.06 Compliance by Existing Firearms Retail Sales Businesses Not Located in I-R Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 13., Item Page 7, Packet Page 98 5 Industrial, Administration, and Research District zones. a. Any person who claims or believes they have established a legal nonconforming use to conduct firearms retail sales outside of an I-R Industrial, Administration, and Research District zone shall, within 60 days of the effective date of this article, provide written evidence describing the extent and scope of such use to the Planning Department. b. An established firearms retail business as of February 18, 2025, shall, within 60 days of the effective date of this article, comply with Section 7-4.05. c. A firearms retail business established prior to February 18, 2025, that is not operating in an I-R Industrial, Administration, and Research zone must comply with Chapter 38, Article 8, Section 38-41(I), Supplemental Regulations Applicable to I-R District, within three years of the effective date of this article.
d. Notwithstanding subsection (d), within ten days of the effective date of this article, the property owner and/or the operator of the nonconforming firearms retail sales business may apply to the Planning Commission to review the reasonableness of the three-year amortization period as applied to their business. The applicant carries the burden of proving the invalidity of the three-year amortization period as applied to the applicant’s business.

1. The Planning Commission shall consider and may recommend to the City Council the complete termination of the nonconforming use within a shorter or longer amount of time based on facts applicable to that business, including but not limited to:
i. The total cost of improvements;
ii. The duration of the lease;
iii. The length of time the use has existed;
iv. Adaptability of the land and improvements to a currently permitted use;
v. The cost of moving and reestablishing the use elsewhere; vi. Whether the use is significantly nonconforming;
vii. Compatibility with the existing land use patterns and densities of the surrounding neighborhood;
viii. The expiration date of the Federal Firearms License; and ix. The possible threat to public health, safety, or welfare; and any other relevant factors.

2. The City Council shall consider the recommendation of the Planning Commission and shall adopt a resolution designating the amortization period for the nonconforming firearms retail sales business, which may be shorter or longer than the three-year period to terminate set forth in Section 7-4.06(d). e. Any firearm retailer that is not located in an I-R Industrial, Administration, Retail zone shall be subject to Chapter 38, Article 28, Nonconforming Uses, and Structures, of the City’s zoning code during the three-year period identified in subsection (d). In the event of any conflict between this Section 7-4.06 and Chapter 38, Article 28, the provisions of this Section 7-4.06 shall prevail.

Section 7-4.07 Compliance by Existing Firearm Retail Sales Businesses Located in I-R Industrial, Administration, and Research District zones.

Any firearms retail sales use located in the I-R Industrial, Administration, and Research District zone as of February 18, 2025, that is nonconforming with Chapter 38, Article 8, Section 38-41(I), Supplemental Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 13., Item Page 8, Packet Page 99 6 Regulations Applicable to I-R District, shall be subject to Chapter 38, Article 28, Nonconforming Uses, and Structures, of the City’s zoning code and shall, within 60 days of the effective date of this article, comply with Section 7-4.05.

Section 7-4.08 Compliance by Existing Ammunition Retail Sales Businesses Any ammunition (non-firearms) retail sales use that is a nonconforming use as of February 18, 2025, shall be subject to Chapter 38, Article 28, Nonconforming Uses, and Structures, of the City’s zoning code, and shall, within 60 days of the effective date of this article, comply with Section 7-4.05.

Section 7-4.09 Nuisance
Any violation of this article is deemed a public nuisance.

SECTION 4: Monterey City Code, Chapter 38, Section 11, Definitions, is amended to add definition of “Firearms and Ammunition Retail Sales” and to amend the definition of “Home Occupation” to be inserted in alphabetical order as follows:
“Firearms and Ammunition Retail Sales means the business of selling, leasing, or transferring of any firearm or ammunition, whether it is the principal sales item or incidental to the overall sales.

1. “Ammunition” includes, but is not limited to, any bullet, cartridge, magazine, clip, speed loader, autoloader,
ammunition feeding device, or projectile capable of being fired from a firearm with a deadly consequence. Ammunition does not include blanks.

2. “Firearms” means a device, designed to be used as a
weapon, from which is expelled through a barrel, a projectile by the force of an explosion or other form of combustion. A firearm does not include an unloaded antique firearm as defined by 18 U.S.C. section 921(a).
“Home Occupation: A home occupation is a business activity conducted in a residential unit that is clearly subordinate, secondary, and incidental to the primary residential use of the unit.

Examples include cottage food operations, handicrafts, consulting, and home offices for off-site business activities such as various personal services (counseling, therapy, etc.). A family childcare home is not considered a home occupation.”
SECTION 5: Monterey City Code, Chapter 38, Article 8, Section 38-40(B), the I-R Districts Land Use Regulations, is amended to add, to be inserted in alphabetical order, as follows:

Additional Regulations
Firearms Retail Sales U See Chapter 7, Article 4
Ammunition (Non-Firearm) Retail Sales P See Chapter 7, Article 4 SECTION 6: Monterey City Code, Chapter 38, Article 8, Section 38-41, Supplemental Regulations Applicable to I-R Districts, (I)(1)-(I)(3) are relettered as (H)(8)(i) through (H)(8)(iv).

Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 13., Item Page 9, Packet Page 100 7 SECTION 7: Monterey City Code, Chapter 38, Article 8, Section 38-41, Supplemental Regulations Applicable to I-R Districts, (J) is relettered as (H)(9).

SECTION 8: Monterey City Code, Chapter 38, Article 8, Section 38-41, Supplemental Regulations Applicable to I-R District, is amended to add as follows:
(I) Firearms and ammunition retail sales businesses

1. Firearms and ammunition retail sale businesses shall not be located within a 600-foot radius measured from property line to property line of the following uses in existence at the time of submission of a completed application for a use permit under Chapter 38, Article 22 or zone clearance permit under Chapter 38, Article 21:
(i) School
(ii) Day care center
(iii) Playground
(iv) Residential zone (i.e., R-1, R-2, R-3, R-E, and any PC zone not governed by a specific plan)
(v) Multi-family overlay zone
(vi) Store that sells liquor
(vii) Bar
(viii) Other firearms and ammunition retailers
(ix) Cannabis business
SECTION 9: Monterey City Code, Chapter 38, Section 108, Home Occupations, Section subsection (C) is recodified as subsection (D), subsection (A) is amended, and subsections (B)(13) and (C) are added as follows:

A. Purpose. The purpose of the home occupation provision is to allow for minor business activities in residences in such a manner that is compatible with their neighborhood.

B. 13. A new or expanded use of a home occupation shall obtain Zoning Review pursuant to City Code section 38-150.

C. Prohibited Uses. The following uses and activities are prohibited as Home Occupations. This list, from time to time, may be increased with additional classifications which are found by the Community Development Director to change the character of the dwelling unit or adversely impact the residential neighborhood’s character:

1. Firearms and Ammunition Retail Sales

2. Sexually oriented businesses

3. Food catering or production except in compliance with the Cottage Food Act 4. (Government Code section 51035)

4. Vehicle storage, dismantling, installation, manufacture, repair, or service.

5. Vehicle sale, lease, dispatching, or renting including ecommerce platforms

6. Welding

7. Any use that does not comply with the standards set forth in subsection (D).

SECTION 10: Severability. If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the Ordinance, including the application of such part or provision to other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, the provisions of this Ordinance Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 13., Item Page 10, Packet Page 101 8 are severable.

SECTION 11: All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

SECTION 12: If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of these amendments and the application of such provisions to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

SECTION 13: 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, 11/4/2025, Item No. 13., Item Page 11, Packet Page 102 Attachment 2

D R A F T M I N U T E S

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, October 14, 2025
4:00 – 5:30 PM
COUNCIL CHAMBER, 580 PACIFIC STREET

MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
Commissioners Present: Latasa, Bluth, Brassfield, Dawson, Freeman

Absent: Silva
Staff Members Present: Planning Manager Hill, City Attorney Davi, Recording Secretary Barrera
***Afternoon Session Agenda Only***
4:00 - 5:30 p.m.

CALL TO ORDER
Vice-Chair Latasa called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. Recording Secretary Barrera announced staff present and provided information to the public about how to participate by calling in to give public comment on the live web meeting.

CONSENT AGENDA
Approval of Minutes

2. September 23, 2025 (Not a project under CEQA per Article 20 Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5 Section 15061)
ACTION: Approved as submitted
On a motion by Commissioner Bluth seconded by Commissioner Dawson and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission approved the September 23, 2025, Minutes:

AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Latasa, Bluth, Brassfield, Freeman NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Silva
ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
RECUSED: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Dawson

GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.

PUBLIC HEARING

3. Recommending Approval of Amendments to Chapter 38 of the Monterey City Code to Establish Regulations and Development Standards for Firearms and Ammunition Retail Sales Uses and Amending the Home Occupation Permit Procedures (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 13., Item Page 12, Packet Page 103 Planning Commission Minutes
Tuesday, October 14, 2025
2 ACTION: Approved a Resolution Recommending that the City Council Approve Amendments to Chapter 38 of the Monterey City Code to Establish Regulations and Development Standards for Firearms and Ammunition Retail Sales Uses and Amending the Home Occupation Permit Procedures
Staff Presentation/Commissioner Questions
Planning Manager Hill presented the Agenda Report and responded to Commissioners’ questions. City Attorney Christine Davi responded to Commissioners’ questions regarding the regulatory changes to the ordinance and the zoning code amendments.

Public Comments
Colin Gallagher, owner of Gallagher Ammunition, gave a public comment.

Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Brassfield questioned the connection to burglaries and the location to firearms uses and expressed that the proposed changes would negatively impact businesses. He spoke against the recommendation.

Commissioner Bluth asked for a visual that would illustrate allowed locations. Mr. Hill explained where the I-R zones are within the city.

Commissioner Dawson spoke against the recommendation. Commissioner Freeman had no comment and Vice-Chair Latasa spoke in favor of the recommendation.

On a motion by Commissioner Freeman seconded by Commissioner Bluth and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission approved a resolution recommending that the City Council approve of amendments to Chapter 38 of the Monterey city code to establish regulations and development standards for firearms and ammunition retail sales uses and amending the home occupation permit procedures:

AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Latasa, Bluth, Freeman
NOES: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Brassfield, Dawson
ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Silva
ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None

4. Recommending Denial of Amendments to Chapter 38 of the Monterey City Code to Increase the Number of Storefront Retail Cannabis Businesses Allowed in the CB2 - Cannabis Business Overlay District (CEQA: Exempt per Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183)
ACTION: Continued to a Date Uncertain Amendments to Chapter 38 of the Monterey City Code to Increase the Number of Storefront Retail Cannabis Businesses Allowed in the CB2 - Cannabis Business Overlay District
Staff Presentation/Commissioner Questions
Planning Manager Hill announced the applicant requested the item be tabled to a future Planning Commission Meeting.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 13., Item Page 13, Packet Page 104 Planning Commission Minutes
Tuesday, October 14, 2025
3 Commissioner Freeman inquired about CB-2 zone locations, and Commissioner Latasa about the applicant. Mr. Hill clarified what area of the City would be impacted and that the applicant is Embarc Monterey.

Public Comments
None.

Commissioner Comments
None.

On a motion by Commissioner Brassfield seconded by Commissioner Dawson and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission continued to a date uncertain amendments to Chapter 38 of the Monterey City Code to increase the number of storefront retail cannabis businesses Allowed in the CB2 - cannabis business overlay district:

AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Latasa, Bluth, Brassfield, Dawson, Freeman NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Silva
ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None

COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Commissioner Bluth recommended drafting a specific plan for Garden Road.

INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS
Mr. Hill confirmed Commissioner attendance for upcoming meetings.

ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:35 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted, Approved,
Levi Hill
Planning Manager
Chair
Planning Commission
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 13., Item Page 14, Packet Page 105 Council
Agenda Report
№11/25
FROM: Andrea Renny, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Cristie Steffy, Parking Superintendent
SUBJECT Adopt the Residential Parking Permit Program Framework, Including Updates to Special Permit Areas and Approve the Proposed Fee Structure Effective January 1, 2026 (Exempt from CEQA, Article 19, Section 15306, Class 6) RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:

1. Approve the Residential Parking Permit (RPP)
program framework with updated guidelines as
presented.

2. Approve the proposed annual permit fee
structure, effective January 1, 2026 and direct
staff to update the City’s Master Fee Schedule
accordingly.

3. Approve recommended updates to the Oak
Grove and Cannery Row special permit areas.

VALUE DRIVERS:

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

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

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The Residential Parking Program was first established in 1985 to protect neighborhood access and manage residential parking impacts. The City Council, under its authority to regulate parking and traffic management on public streets as provided in the Monterey City Code and the California Vehicle Code, has the discretion to adopt, modify or discontinue residential parking permit programs. The proposed changes to the RPP Program support the City’s goals of Agenda Report Highlights
 The Residential Parking Permit
(RPP) program will transition to a
virtual, license plate-based system
to improve efficiency and
convenience.
 A $25 annual permit fee will be
introduced starting January 1,
2026, with a low-income fee
waiver available for qualifying
individuals.
 Existing RPP zones will undergo a
requalification process, and new
zones will require higher
community support and stricter
criteria for establishment.
 Special permit areas, including
Oak Grove and Cannery Row, will
be updated to align with the new
RPP framework and address
unique parking challenges.
 The proposed changes aim to
modernize the program, enhance
equity, streamline operations, and
ensure financial sustainability.

Date: 11/4/2025
Item No.: 14.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 1, Packet Page 106 №11/25
equitable access to public resources, sustainable transportation management, and efficient program management.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The proposed RPP fee structure is intended to recover ongoing costs associated with administering, enforcing and maintaining the program. Based on approximately 1,535 participating addresses currently registered with an average of 1.5 permits per household, annual revenue is estimated at approximately $70,000 depending on participation and guest permit purchases. This estimate can decrease depending on how many zones requalify under the new program framework.

Currently the RPP program operates at no charge to residents, with all administrative and enforcement costs supported by the Parking Fund. The Parking Fund is an enterprise fund that operates independently of the General Fund and relies exclusively on parking-related revenues to support its operations and services. Program costs include administrative support, signage and enforcement. Transitioning to a virtual permit platform will introduce additional expenses for online system management, along with upcoming investments in Automated License Plate Recognition (ALPR) enforcement technology, which improve efficiency for both residential and citywide parking operations.

While the proposed fees are based on current participation estimates, they represent an important step towards cost sharing, program modernization and financial sustainability. As implementation progresses, staff will continue to monitor participation levels, operating costs and technology expenses to evaluate potential future adjustments to the permit rates or program structure to ensure it is self-sustaining.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15306, Class 6) because the proposed action plan would involve information collection and research for a City Residential Parking Permit Program, specifically public outreach, onsite assessment to evaluate existing parking conditions, and development of recommendations to improve the residential parking experience. Furthermore, the project does not qualify for any of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions found at CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2.

Exception a - Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located -a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply in all instances, except where the project may have an impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies. Exception a – Location – does not apply to projects which are exempt under Class 1.

Exception b - Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. There would be no cumulative impact because the proposed action plan involves information collection and research for a City Residential Parking Permit Program.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 2, Packet Page 107 №11/25
Exception c - Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. The preparation of a proposed action plan would involve basic information collection and research that will not result in any disturbance to environmental resources. No unusual circumstances would result from the preparation of this action plan.

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). There would be no impacts to scenic highways because the proposed action plan involves information collection, research, and recommendations for the City’s Residential Parking Permit Program.

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 preparation of this study would involve information collection and research; therefore, there would be no impacts to historic or archeological resources.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

Council could choose not to approve the updated RPP program framework or the proposed annual permit fee structure, however this is not recommended. Maintaining the existing RPP program without modifications would continue current challenges related to administrative complexity, inconsistent policies across neighborhoods and reliance on outdated paper-based processes. These inefficiencies limit effective enforcement, reduce equity in parking management and place the full financial burden of the program administration on the Parking Fund.

For these reasons, staff recommends adopting the updated RPP framework and fee structure to modernize the program, enhance fairness and efficiency, and ensure a more sustainable funding model moving forward.

DISCUSSION:

The first Residential Parking Permit (RPP) Program in Monterey was established in 1985 to help protect residential neighborhoods from external parking impacts, such as overflow from nearby commercial districts, visitor attractions, or schools. Over time, the program expanded to include 18 separate zones. The current structure has become increasingly difficult to administer and does not recover the costs associated with its operation.

To address these challenges, the City contracted with Dixon Resources Unlimited (DIXON) to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the RPP program and related municipal codes. The resulting Residential Parking Action Plan (Exhibit A) provides guidance for modernizing the program, improving efficiency, enhancing equality and ensuring long-term financial sustainability.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 3, Packet Page 108 №11/25
As part of this effort, the City has actively engaged the community throughout this process to ensure proposed updates reflect needs and priorities. Initial outreach included two Town Hall meetings in April and September 2021, along with a resident survey. Although the project was temporarily paused, engagement resumed in 2025 to gather updated input reflective of current parking conditions. Key engagement activities in 2025 included:
 A citywide survey launched in January 2025.
 A dedicated page for outreach on the “Have Your Say Monterey” webpage.  A community Town Hall meeting held on March 27, 2025, presenting proposed changes, including the transition to virtual permits and the introduction of permit fees. The meeting was livestreamed, recorded and posted on the “Have Your Say Monterey” project website.
 Three additional Town Hall meetings were held on September 15, 2025 which focused on special permit areas that operate as extensions of the RPP program, including Oak Grove Employee Permit Program, Casanova Oak-Knoll neighborhood and the Cannery Row residential zone.

These efforts reflect the City’s commitment to ensuring the updated RPP program aligns with community priorities. Following are the key components of the recommended updates.

Intent of the RPP Program:

The intent of the Residential Parking Permit (RPP) Program is to establish permit areas only in neighborhoods experiencing significant external parking impacts, and solely for the purpose of mitigating those impacts. External parking impacts are defined as parking pressures caused by non-residential activity, such as:
 Nearby commercial districts or business areas
 Adjacent jurisdictions or cities
 Event venues
 Schools or government agencies
 Recreational or tourist destinations
External parking impacts do not include parking demand generated by residents of neighboring housing developments, even if those developments provide limited on-site parking for their own residents.

By focusing RPP designations on areas with verifiable external impacts, the program ensures that parking restrictions are applied where they are most needed and remain consistent with the original goal of protecting neighborhood access and maintaining parking availability for residents.

Establishment of New RPP Zones
Staff recommends revising the process for establishing new RPP zones to improve program consistency and align with best practices. Under the proposed approach, new zones must include a minimum of four contiguous blocks to ensure cohesive and effective implementation, rather than the current block-by-block petition process that can create fragmented coverage.

Because this program has an associated fee, the petition threshold would increase from 50% plus one to 80% of affected households. This change strengthens community consensus and ensures new zones reflect genuine neighborhood support. In addition, new RPP zones would Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 4, Packet Page 109 №11/25
only be designated if they meet a minimum parking occupancy threshold of 70%, and at least 50% of eligible households actively purchase permits after approval. Once a zone is approved, it must participate in the RPP program for at least one full year before any changes may be made.

These updates will ensure that new RPP zones are created in response to demonstrated parking challenges, applied consistently across neighborhoods or areas zoned residential (R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-E) and supported by a clear majority of residents.

Virtual Permits and Online Management
To modernize the program, the RPP system will transition from paper-based permits to a fully online, license plate based virtual system. This online platform will allow residents to apply for, renew, and manage both resident and guest permits conveniently online, while all approvals continue to be reviewed by Parking Division staff to ensure proper oversight. Residents who prefer or require in-person assistance may still visit the Parking Division office for support. The virtual permit system reduces the risk of lost or damaged permits, streamlines enforcement through license plate recognition technology, and enhances both user convenience and overall administrative efficiency.

Permit Limits and Auxiliary Permits
The updated RPP program establishes a limit of one permit per licensed driver, with a maximum of four permits per residential address, ensuring a fair distribution of permits and managing neighborhood parking demand. Residential permits will apply only to standard passenger vehicles registered to residents. Oversized vehicles such as RVs, trailers and commercial trucks will be subject to the City parking restrictions and will not qualify for residential permits.

The program also introduces an auxiliary permit option for a care provider or property owner.

These permits are subject to approval and require documentation to demonstrate eligibility.

Auxiliary permits count towards the overall four-permit limit per residence, maintaining consistency and fairness across the program.

Introduction of Permit Fees
To ensure the RPP program is financially sustainable and better aligned with the costs of administration and enforcement, staff proposes introducing a permit fee of $25.00 per resident permit, effective January 1, 2026. To promote equity and accessibility, a low-income fee waiver will be available. Qualifying individuals will receive their first resident permit at no cost, with standard rates applying for any additional permits Neighboring cities’ fees are listed below for comparison.

RPP Permit Fees in Nearby Cities
City Annual Permit Fee
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA $33 each
Salinas, CA $25 each for the first two permits | $20 for third permit | $15 for fourth permit | $10 each for fifth and sixth permits
Pacific Grove, CA $15 each
Santa Cruz, CA $30 each
Monterey, CA Free
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 5, Packet Page 110 №11/25
Guest permits will follow a tiered structure with an annual cap of 100 daily passes per household per calendar year. Eligible residential addresses will receive the following guest permit allowances:
 The first 25 one-time-use virtual permits – No charge,  25 additional permits (up to 50) - $25
 25 additional permits (up to 75) - $50
 25 additional permits (up to 100) - $75
If a household requires a total of 100 guest passes per year, the household will pay a total of $150 per the tiered rate structure. The fee structure for both resident and guest permits will be reviewed after 12 months to assess usage, equity impacts and cost recovery goals.

Requalification and Consolidation of Existing RPP Areas Staff proposes consolidating the current 18 Residential Parking Permit zones into fewer, larger and more cohesive areas. This approach will simplify administration, standardize permit management across neighborhoods, and clarify boundaries for both residents and enforcement staff.

Recognizing that some neighborhoods may have differing views on participation in the modernized RPP program, the proposed plan includes a requalification process. Existing zones will have the opportunity to demonstrate continued interest and participation by undergoing a requalification process to continue in the program or opt out. Existing zones would not be subject to the proposed 80% petition threshold proposed for new zones. Instead, existing zones would follow a requalification pathway based on the original 50% plus one petition threshold, along with a requirement that at least 50% of eligible households purchase permits under the revised program.

This process provides a fair and practical method to align existing zones with the updated program goals, including new elements such as permit limits and fees. As part of the requalification process staff will evaluate all current zones to identify opportunities to consolidate fragmented or non-contiguous areas, improving overall program effectiveness, efficiency and zone consistency.

For all newly established zones or requalified zones, the proposed RPP program includes an opt-out provision. Once a zone has participated in the modernized RPP program for a minimum of one year, residents may petition to exit the program. The opt-out option would follow a petition process, ensuring that any change requested is supported by 80% of households within the affected zone This provision provides neighborhoods with a structured and fair mechanism to discontinue participation in the RPP program if they choose.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 6, Packet Page 111 №11/25
Map of Existing RPP Zones: (CONA permit program not shown) Proposed Consolidated RPP Zone Concept: (CONA permit program not shown) Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 7, Packet Page 112 №11/25
Summary of Residential Parking Program Changes – Current vs. Proposed Existing RPP Program Proposed RPP Program
Permit Type Physical decals, hangtags or paper
permits Virtual (license plate-based)
Fee Structure Free $25 per permit
Resident Permit
Limits No formal limit; permits do not expire
1 permit per licensed driver;
maximum 4 permits per residence;
annual renewal required
Guest Permits Up to 2 paper permits; free; renewed
biennially
Virtual, one-time-use permits; first 25
free, escalating fees thereafter (up to
100 per year)
Permit
Registration In-person office visit required Online or in-person option available Documentation
Required
Proof of residency, ID, vehicle
registration No change
New Zone Creation
Petition requires 50%+1 signatures
and an occupancy threshold of 70%
Petition minimum single block
Petition requires 80% signatures
and an occupancy threshold of 70%.

Petition minimum 4 contiguous blocks
External Impact
Criteria Not defined Must demonstrate qualifying external parking spillover Existing Zone
Transition 18 Existing Zones
Consolidated zones; requalification
requires original petition (50% + 1)
and ≥50% permit purchase
Auxiliary Permit Exception available for Owner’s permit Exceptions for care provider and
owner; all counted within the 4 permit
limit
Opt-Out Option No formal process to opt-out
Allows residents option to opt-out via
petition after a minimum of 1 year of
participation in the program
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 8, Packet Page 113 №11/25
These updates aim to retain the original intent of the RPP program of protecting neighborhood access from outside parking intrusions while addressing current administrative and fiscal challenges of maintaining the existing program. The proposed changes also support broader City goals including equity, accessibility, transparency, and economic sustainability.

Adjust Policies for Special Permit Areas
In addition to the citywide Residential Parking Permit (RPP) framework, several special permit programs operate as extensions of the RPP program to address unique parking conditions in high-demand or mixed-use areas. These areas include:
 Oak Grove Employee Parking Program (including 10th Street),  Cannery Row Resident Parking Program, and
 Casanova Oak Knoll (CONA) Neighborhood Program.

Each area faces distinct parking challenges requiring a tailored approach to align with the proposed RPP framework while improving consistency, fairness, and efficiency. The following sections summarize current conditions, challenges, and staff’s proposed direction for each program.

Oak Grove Employee Parking Permits (including 10th Street): The 10th Street Employee Parking Program was originally established in 1991 to support nearby businesses in the Oak Grove area. Over time, the number of permits issued combined with the absence of a fee structure or permit renewal process has limited effective program management. Currently, permits are issued free of charge without expiration, and overflow parking by employees and customers frequently affects nearby residential streets. To align with the City’s new on-street employee permit structure and to promote equitable, efficient use of curb space, staff recommends the following revisions:
 Establish a formal Oak Grove Business Employee Permit Program with a fee of $32.50 per month or $90.00 per quarter, consistent with the Monterey Business District employee permit rate.
 Convert paper permits to virtual, license-plate-based permits, managed through the City’s online portal, and renewed annually with employment verification.  Authorize permit parking on the south side of 10th Street (currently posted two-hour parking) and expand permit rights to include the south side of 9th Street and Sloat Avenue for overflow parking.
 Perpendicular parking is currently not permitted on the 1100 block of 9th Street; however, this segment will be reevaluated to determine whether parallel parking may be approved instead.
 Conduct an annual program review to assess utilization, enforcement effectiveness, and fee adequacy, with adjustments recommended as needed.

These changes will ensure consistent treatment of employee parking programs citywide while improving parking turnover and neighborhood parking viability in the Oak Grove area.

Cannery Row Resident On-Street Permits: The Cannery Row area presents unique parking challenges, as there are several residential addresses that are located within a high-demand commercial paid-parking district. While the area does not fully meet the proposed criteria for the Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 9, Packet Page 114 №11/25
RPP program, the City recognizes the long-standing inclusion of the residents currently in the program and will continue to honor their participation under a revised framework which includes:
 Only addresses currently registered in the existing RPP program will remain eligible to receive on-street permits.
 Each eligible address may obtain one permit per licensed driver, up to a maximum of four permits per address, including auxiliary permit option as defined in the RPP program framework.
 Any available off-street parking space(s) associated with an eligible address will be applied toward the four-permit maximum, which may reduce the number of on-street permits issued.
 Future residential developments in the Cannery Row area would not be eligible for inclusion in an RPP program.
 Permits will cost $25 per year, renewed annually. Addresses currently eligible for onstreet permits are not eligible for guest passes.  Upon change in property ownership or tenancy, the address will no longer be eligible to receive on-street permits and must use available off-street parking options (e.g., private parking, public lots or garages).
 These regulations will be reviewed annually for effectiveness and equity, with consideration of visitor parking data and residential feedback.

This framework preserves fairness by maintaining on-street access for existing residents without off-street parking, while aligning the Cannery Row area with the City’s broader parking management strategy. Many Cannery Row residents already rely on garage permits as their primary parking solution. Similarly, in the Downtown District, where curb spaces are in high demand or time-restricted, residents are not eligible for on-street permits and instead use offstreet parking options.

Casanova Oak-Knoll Neighborhood: The Casanova Oak Knoll Neighborhood (CONA) Residential Parking Permit Program was established by Resolution 87-207 to mitigate periodic event-related parking impacts from the Monterey County Fairgrounds. The current program restricts parking to one hour except by permit during designated Fairgrounds events and is managed through the temporary placement of over 200 barricades and signs for each event.

While mostly effective during major events, the system is labor-intensive, inconsistently applied, and challenging for residents to navigate.

Staff has identified several limitations with the existing program, including unclear event triggers, limited enforcement/citation deterrence, and high operational costs associated with manual barricade deployment. Additionally, when no events are occurring at the Fairgrounds, there is little to no parking demand in the neighborhood.

Due to the complexity and uniqueness of the CONA neighborhood, no proposed revisions are recommended at this time. If the proposed citywide Residential Parking Permit (RPP) Program framework is adopted, the CONA neighborhood would have the option to petition to participate in the standardized RPP Program structure. However, staff recognizes that the neighborhood’s unique, event-based parking conditions may require a more tailored solution. Further engagement with residents will be conducted to explore options that balance neighborhood access, event management, and City resource efficiency.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 10, Packet Page 115 №11/25
Staff will return to City Council with specific recommendations for the CONA neighborhood separately once additional outreach is completed and consensus is reached on whether to transition into the citywide RPP framework or pursue a customized event-based parking model.

Adopting the proposed Residential Parking Permit (RPP) Program framework and associated fee structure will modernize the program, enhance administrative efficiency, promote equitable access, and improve financial sustainability. The recommended updates, including virtual permits, consolidated zones, and a tiered fee structure, preserve the original intent of the RPP program of protecting neighborhoods from external parking impacts. The revisions to Oak Grove and Cannery Row special permit areas provide tailored solutions that reflect unique neighborhood conditions. By implementing these changes, the City will establish a clear, consistent, and equitable approach to residential parking management that aligns with broader City goals of accessibility, transparency, and sustainability.

AR/cs
Attachments: 1. Resolution

2. Exhibit A – Residential Parking Action Plan
e: Dixon Resources Unlimited
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, 11/4/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 11, Packet Page 116 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

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

ADOPTING THE RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT PROGRAM FRAMEWORK, INCLUDING

UPDATES TO SPECIAL PERMIT AREAS, AND APPROVING THE PROPOSED FEE STRUCTURE EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2026
WHEREAS, the Residential Parking Permit (RPP) Program was established in 1985 to protect residential neighborhoods from external parking impacts; WHEREAS, over time, the program has expanded to 18 zones and become administratively complex, reliant on outdated paper-based processes, and lacking a cost recovery mechanism to support ongoing program operations; WHEREAS, following a comprehensive review and extensive community engagement, the Residential Parking Action Plan was developed to guide modernization of the program through virtual permitting, zone consolidation, updated policies and proposed fee structure; WHEREAS, the proposed updates are designed to enhance program efficiency, equity and financial sustainability and support the City’s broader goals of accessibility, transparency and neighborhood protections;
WHEREAS, special permit areas, including the Oak Grove employee and Cannery Row residential permit areas present unique parking conditions that require tailored updates consistent with the proposed program framework; and
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15306, Class 6) because the proposed action plan would involve information collection and research for a City Residential Parking Permit Program, specifically public outreach, onsite assessment to evaluate existing parking conditions, and development of recommendations to improve the residential parking experience. Furthermore, the project does not qualify for any of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions found at CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2.

Exception a - Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located -a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply in all instances, except where the project may have an impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies. Exception a – Location – does not apply to projects which are exempt under Class 1.

Exception b - Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. There would be no cumulative impact because the proposed action plan involves information collection and research for a City Residential Parking Permit Program.

Exception c - Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 12, Packet Page 117 due to unusual circumstances. The preparation of a proposed action plan would involve basic information collection and research that will not result in any disturbance to environmental resources. No unusual circumstances would result from the preparation of this action plan.

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). There would be no impacts to scenic highways because the proposed action plan involves information collection, research, and recommendations for the City’s Residential Parking Permit Program.

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 preparation of this study would involve information collection and research; therefore, there would be no impacts to historic or archeological resources.

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

1. Approves the Residential Parking Permit (RPP) program framework and updated program guidelines in accordance with the Residential Parking Action Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit A;

2. Approves the proposed annual permit fee structure, effective January 1, 2026, and directs staff to update the City’s Master Fee Schedule accordingly, and

3. Approves the recommended updates to the Oak Grove and Cannery Row special permit areas including permit fees.

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

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 13, Packet Page 118 Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 14, Packet Page 119 DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED | 1
Residential
Parking
Action
Plan
City of Monterey, CA
June 2025

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 15, Packet Page 120

EXHIBIT A
DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED | 2
City of Monterey
Residential Parking Action Plan
Prepared by Dixon Resources Unlimited
on behalf of the City of Monterey, CA
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 16, Packet Page 121

EXHIBIT A
DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED | 3
Contents
................................................................................................................................................ 2 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 4 Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. 4 Existing Conditions Assessment...................................................................................... 4 Site Assessment............................................................................................................................ 4 Data Collection............................................................................................................................. 5 Community Outreach .................................................................................................................. 6 Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 7 Recommendation 1: Introduce Permit Fees.............................................................................. 7 Recommendation 2: Implement a New RPP Petition Process ................................................. 8 Recommendation 3: Set Permit Limits .................................................................................... 10 Recommendation 4: Implement New Guest Passes ............................................................. 12 Recommendation 5: Adjust Policies for Special Areas ......................................................... 12 Recommendation 6: Implement Virtual Permits .................................................................... 12 Recommendation 7: Improve Signage Coverage................................................................. 14 Recommendation 8: Consider Adjustments to Enforcement Coverage ............................ 14 Recommendation 9: Enhance Program Branding and Marketing....................................... 15 Implementation Guide ..................................................................................................16 Phase 0: Groundwork ............................................................................................................... 18 Phase 1: Externally Impacted Zones ....................................................................................... 19 Phase 2: Non-Externally Impacted Zones............................................................................... 20 Phase 3: Future Zones............................................................................................................... 22 Appendix A. [placeholder] .....................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 17, Packet Page 122

EXHIBIT A
DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED | 4
Introduction
Executive Summary
Dixon Resources Unlimited (DIXON) was contracted by the City of Monterey (City) to undergo an in-depth analysis of the City’s Residential Parking Permit (RPP) program and related municipal codes to provide guidance for the future of residential parking in Monterey. DIXON is a uniquely qualified firm that specializes in identifying and implementing operations and management recommendations that can scale with the City’s RPP program over time in a comprehensive and equitable way.

This residential Parking Action Plan (PAP) identifies policies, procedures, and strategies necessary to address the City’s current and future residential parking needs. Due to the transformative nature of the proposed changes, DIXON recommends that all existing RPP zones undergo a renewal and reverification process. Included is a comprehensive implementation guide, which breaks down the renewal process into four phases and provides a step-by-step checklist for the City to follow.

Project Overview
• The project included multiple public outreach phases that engaged residents of Monterey through both in-person community meetings and online surveys to understand resident feedback.
• An onsite assessment was completed by visiting the existing RPP zones in Monterey neighborhoods to thoroughly evaluate existing parking conditions. • Upon completion of the public outreach phases, site assessments, and comprehensive background and research tasks, a list of actionable recommendations was developed that aims to improve the residential parking experience in Monterey. • To assist with implementing the recommendations, DIXON developed a four-phase comprehensive implementation guide through which all existing RPP zones will undergo a renewal process.

Existing Conditions Assessment
Site Assessment
The initial assessment took place on September 16, 2024, in which the existing parking conditions within each existing RPP zone were evaluated during the late morning to early afternoon to understand the physical layout of each neighborhood. The assessment included analysis of each zone, including parking occupancy, signage, unique surrounding contexts, and gaps between zones.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 18, Packet Page 123

EXHIBIT A
DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED | 5
Data Collection
City-led data collection efforts have been ongoing since March 2024. Using its two LPRequipped vehicles, parking enforcement staff have been collecting information on parking occupancy rates and turnover conducted during regular enforcement patrols. The data is continually processed and visualized by the DIXON Data Suite, indicating trends and key metrics for various neighborhoods throughout the City.

One key insight is that occupancy rates are low for most of the City, averaging 45% citywide.

The only pockets of intense parking demand occur around downtown and on Cannery Row, as shown in Figure 1 above. Also, it appears that the existing RPP zones show some success at containing the parking demand from downtown. On streets with RPP restrictions (which are shown in various colors on the left of Figure 2), occupancy rates are noticeably lower than in the downtown core.

Figure 1. Overall Average Parking Occupancy
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 19, Packet Page 124

EXHIBIT A
DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED | 6
Community Outreach
Community outreach and public engagement are important project elements. Input from internal City and community stakeholders helped guide the development of these draft recommendations. The engagement does not end with
this project, and City staff recognize the importance of ongoing communication with the community
throughout an incremental and adaptive
implementation process.

Community Meetings
An in-person community meeting took place on March
27th, 2025 in which approximately 20 residents
participated to discuss their experiences and challenges with parking in their neighborhoods. This meeting
followed two earlier community meetings held in 2021,
garnering more specific feedback regarding Monterey’s
residential permit parking program. Each resident was
given the opportunity to voice their feedback and
concerns. Their responses were recorded and
considered during the draft recommendation process.

Community Survey
To supplement the insights from community meetings and to reach a greater range of participants, a community survey was made available from January 27th to April 10th, 2025. Its questions pertained specifically to resident experiences with permit parking and local parking availability. A total of 297 responses were received.

Figure 2. Downtown RPP Areas (left) vs Average Occupancy Rates (right) Figure 3. Community Meeting Flyer
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 20, Packet Page 125

EXHIBIT A
DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED | 7
Recommendations
The following recommendations for revising the RPP program take into consideration field observations from the on-site assessment, community feedback, correspondence with City staff, policies in comparable cities, and industry best practices.

These recommendations are intended to align the RPP program with the revised goal of mitigating external parking impacts on residents. Implementing these recommendations will provide immediate parking management benefits and establish a baseline for future improvements. Most of these changes should be implemented as a part of the first phase of the RPP zone renewal process described in the comprehensive implementation guide.

Recommendation 1: Introduce Permit Fees
Currently, the City of Monterey recovers none of the costs associated with parking permits, as permit-holders are not charged a fee. For the program to become financially sustainable, and for the City to make investments in modernizing the program, a cost should be associated with the permits. It is recommended that the City introduce a fee of no less than $25.00 annually per permit. This fee aligns with other similar, nearby cities as shown in Table 1 below.

Table 1. RPP Permit Fees in Nearby Cities
City Annual Permit Fee
Monterey, CA Free
Salinas, CA $25 each for the first two permits | $20 for third permit | $15 for fourth permit | $10 each for fifth and sixth permits
Santa Cruz, CA $30 each
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA $33 each
While a flat permit fee would assist with cost-recovery, the City should consider implementing an escalating rate structure where each additional permit purchased by a household costs more. An initial recommended escalating rate model is shown in Figure 4 below. This provides an even greater incentive for residents to efficiently use their private off-street parking, thus better managing on-street demand.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 21, Packet Page 126

EXHIBIT A
DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED | 8
Figure 4. Escalating Rate Model
To ensure that permits remain affordable, the City should offer a discounted rate where the first two permits are provided for free to qualifying low-income residents. This program should be aligned with other low-income qualifying programs provided by the City. For instance, if there are low-income recreation program fee waivers or citation payment plans in place, the City can use the same criteria to determine eligibility.

Fees should be reviewed annually to determine whether the City’s costs are being recovered and whether the cost structure is effective at managing on-street parking. The City could opt to adjust the fees each year based on the local CPI, but the first two factors must also be considered. Additionally, the City must account for the cost of ongoing enforcement to provide enough consistency and coverage to encourage compliance.

Recommendation 2: Implement a New RPP Petition Process
Currently, the City requires a petition for the creation of a new RPP zone to be signed by a majority of the households within said zone. Following this petition, a parking occupancy study is conducted by the City to determine if the area faces significant parking congestion, informing the decision to approve or deny the new RPP zone.

To align the RPP program with its new intention of managing external impacts, this process should be modified in a few ways. First, residents should be required to request an RPP petition form instead of simply submitting one directly to the City. The decision to grant their request and provide them a petition form should be based on the following 3 criteria:

Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 22, Packet Page 127

EXHIBIT A
DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED | 9

1. New Zone Must Face External Impacts - RPP should only be used in neighborhoods experiencing significant external parking impacts and only for the purpose of mitigating those impacts. See below for details.

2. New Zone Must be a Residential Area - On-street RPP restrictions should only apply to residential blocks because such restrictions can be highly disruptive to commercial areas.

Mixed-use and commercial blocks should utilize different methods to mitigate high levels of parking demand.

3. New Zone Must Meet Minimum Zone Size - The City should only consider implementing new RPP restrictions on collections of streets. The goal should be to cover an entire neighborhood or sub-area that faces external impacts, including all blocks within reasonable walking distance of the impact source. The City could verify this size requirement by establishing an empirical minimum. For instance, a minimum of 2,000 feet (both sides of the street included) measured to the end of the next street is common for establishing a new standalone RPP zone. That is approximately the length of four typical city blocks. The inquiring resident should indicate which streets would be in the requested new RPP zone either on a map or by writing down the street boundaries.

Petition Voting
If a request for an RPP petition meets the above criteria, the City should then provide the inquiring resident with a petition form that includes a list of all eligible addresses within the proposed zone. In multifamily rental complexes, the owners, property managers, and each unit within the complex may participate in the petition. Therefore, each unit as well as the complex owner(s) and manager(s) should be listed as separate votes to obtain on the petition.

Also, instead of requiring a simple majority of eligible addresses to sign the petition, the City should raise the threshold to over 80%. Upon receipt of the petition form, the resident will have a set amount of time to obtain the necessary signatures to pass the 80% threshold.

External parking impacts include:
• Nearby commercial areas
• Neighboring cities
• Event venues, such as the Monterey County Fairgrounds • Schools
• Recreational facilities
External parking impacts do NOT include:
• Residents of neighboring housing developments, even if the developments provide insufficient on-site parking
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 23, Packet Page 128

EXHIBIT A
DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED | 10
Permit Purchase Threshold
If the petition receives enough signatures, City staff will conduct the parking occupancy study to determine empirical need for a new RPP zone. The petition and the study serve as the basis for staff to recommend creating the new zone to the City Council. Once Council has passed an ordinance establishing the prospective RPP zone, it must pass one final hurdle before the City can move forward with signage implementation and enforcement: among addresses within the zone, at least 50% must first purchase a permit. This demonstrates the necessary level of financial commitment to support a new RPP zone. This permit purchase requirement should also continue to apply after the new zone has been finalized. If less than 50% of an existing zone’s households purchase permits, the zone may need to be revoked or reworked.

Removing a Zone
To remove a residential parking restriction, residents should be required to follow the existing petitioning process and over 80% of residents should support removing the restriction for it to be considered. A parking occupancy study should not be required, but notification should be given to all surrounding permit zone residents. In deciding to grant a petition form for removing permit parking from a single street, staff should carefully take into consideration the surrounding area and permit zone. A street where the majority of surrounding streets are included in the permit zone should not be considered for removal because of the spillover parking risk.

Recommendation 3: Set Permit Limits
The City should limit permits to one permit per eligible resident, with a maximum of up to four permits per household. Each resident should be required to provide their driver’s license number when applying for their permit so the City can ensure that each driver receives only one permit. These limits help the City better manage on-street parking demand. In particular, the one permit per resident limit only affects those who choose to own extra vehicles. These residents would be incentivized to use any on-site parking available to them, rather than rely parking on-street for storing their extra vehicles.

Similar driver’s license requirements have been established in the City of Costa Mesa, the City of San Mateo, and the City of Cerritos. Taking permit limits even further, the City of Cerritos also requires that residents use all the parking available on their property prior to applying for an on-street permit. Additional limits such as these can be applied to zones with particularly constrained parking resources.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 24, Packet Page 129

EXHIBIT A
DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED | 11
The online community survey indicates that permit limits would impact relatively few drivers, as over 80% of respondents own two vehicles or less:

Introduce Annual Renewals for Permits
Under the current process, residential permits do not expire once issued, which can be abused by previous permit holders who have moved out of an existing zone. The City should implement the expiration of residential permits on an annual basis. Requiring annual renewals would ensure that permit users are active residents and reduce the likelihood of permit abuse.

It is recommended to establish a rolling permit renewal, where all permits expire one year from purchase. The benefit of rolling renewal is that the administrative effort for the renewal process is spread out across a larger timeframe, instead of reviewing all renewals in a zone concurrently.

The City should continue to require applicants to provide their vehicle registration during the application, as it is the best industry practice for residential permits. The annual fee for renewing RPP permits should be the same as the fee for purchasing one initially.

Prevent Oversized Vehicles
Oversized vehicles, as defined by the Monterey Municipal Code, should not be eligible to receive parking permits through the RPP program because there are separate considerations related to roadway access with oversized vehicles. However, smaller commercial vehicles and work trucks would still be eligible for RPP permits, assuming they meet all other permit program requirements. Residents with oversized vehicles should be responsible for identifying alternate off-street storage locations, rather than relying on public street parking.

Figure 5. Household Car Ownership
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 25, Packet Page 130

EXHIBIT A
DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED | 12
Recommendation 4: Implement New Guest Passes
The City’s current policy allows two physical guest passes per residence which are valid for a two-year cycle and renew automatically by mail. Guest passes should instead be managed virtually by the resident permit holder and assigned to guest vehicle license plates. One option is to provide transferable guest passes that are perpetually valid and can be assigned to different guests as needed. However, this system can be abused by residents as a way to circumvent the usual permit limits. Instead, households should be provided with a free, yearly allotment of single-use, one-day guest passes in the online portal. Residents would activate a guest pass by providing the license plate of their visitor and the day(s) on which they will need a pass. One guest pass is allotted to each visiting vehicle for each day of their stay. Each guest pass should expire at noon on the day after it was activated for. Guest permits are beneficial for residents that have re-occurring visitors like yard workers, childcare, caretakers, or family members that may make frequent visits.

Recommendation 5: Adjust Policies for Special Areas
Certain RPP zones face unique external impacts and surroundings that warrant special variations in policy. The recommended adjustments to these zones are contingent on their renewal in the RPP revision process outlined in the next section. • Cannery Row (CR): Cannery Row is a mixed-use area with significant commercial activity and numerous parking meters. Currently, CR permit holders are allowed to park for free at parking meters, displacing potential customers. The permit configuration must change to prevent this. To compensate for the corresponding loss of parking options, CR permit holders should be allowed to park on the top two floors of the Cannery Row Garage. The City may choose to implement a higher annual permit fee for Cannery Row to recover costs. However, the fee should be lower than the $540 non-resident annual fee to obtain a permit for the garage. • Casanova Oak Knoll (COK): Casanova Oak Knoll is a residential neighborhood near the Monterey County Fairgrounds. Its RPP restrictions are only enforced on certain days of the year when large events are held at the Fairgrounds. A clear threshold for what constitutes a large event should be defined in the municipal code. The City should maintain a yearly schedule of such events on the website. The City should also consider posting a QR code linking to the schedule on any permanent signage they install in the neighborhood.

Recommendation 6: Implement Virtual Permits
The City currently has a contract with Turbo Data, Inc., which provides virtual permitting and citation management services. The dashboard to manage the program has already been configured to provide online permit fulfillment. In addition to virtual permits, the City is in the process of procuring LPR cameras to outfit all nine enforcement vehicles in the City for license plate-based enforcement. The goal is to transition the entire program from the physical, permit counter management to the virtual process by July 1, 2025, in line with Fiscal Year 2026.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 26, Packet Page 131

EXHIBIT A
DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED | 13
This virtual process will allow residents to self-manage their permits, including applications, renewals, adding/removing vehicles, and allocating guest permits. The City will have the ability to review pending applications and supporting documentation; approve or deny applications; send notifications and alerts; generate reports and more. The Permit Management System (PMS) will automate the annual renewal process by sending notices, allowing customers to log in, make updates to vehicles, reconfirm residency, and collect payments.

One of the survey questions related to a modernized online permit management system showed that only 16% of respondents were not in favor of modernizing the parking permit system, which shows that the transition should be well supported by the community. For those unable to register for a parking permit online, counter services will still be provided by the City.

Figure 4. Question Regarding Online Permit Management
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 27, Packet Page 132

EXHIBIT A
DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED | 14
Recommendation 7: Improve Signage Coverage
Some areas have sparse or inconsistent
signage, potentially creating confusion as
to which parking regulations apply in that
area. For instance, both Foam and
Hawthorne streets have especially long
blocks with only one or two RPP signs on
each side. After Phase 2 of the RPP zone
renewal process, the City will have to
remove and install signage in many
existing RPP zones. It should take this
opportunity to install signs that ensure
adequate coverage throughout the new
zone boundaries.

Best practices for sign placement follow
three guidelines:

1. Consistent – signs should be placed in regular, predictable positions on each block (e.g. 30ft from each end).

2. Uniform – where possible, signs should display the same regulations within a given RPP zone.

3. Frequent – depending on the size of the block, each side of the street should have at least two or three signs indicating the parking rules.

Recommendation 8: Consider Adjustments to Enforcement Coverage Parking policies and restrictions are only effective insofar as they are followed, so consistent parking enforcement is critical. The City should consider the staffing or contracting requirements necessary to effectively enforce
parking in residential areas and promote
compliance. Increasing the capacity of LPRequipped enforcement vehicles will be especially key to the oncoming
implementation of virtual parking permits.

The City’s current effort to procure seven
additional LPR units and thus outfit all nine of
its enforcement vehicles is an excellent step
in this direction.

Gap Management
Parking enforcement officer productivity should not be based upon a quota or the number of citations issued. Consistent, successful enforcement will reduce the frequency of citations Figure 5. Infrequent Signage on Foam Street
Figure 6. Parking Ambassador - Napa, CA
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 28, Packet Page 133

EXHIBIT A
DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED | 15
issued over time due to an increase in compliance. Instead, productivity should be measured and monitored using gap management strategies. Gap management is the process of analyzing citation issuance trends, identifying gaps in issuance, and accounting for time spent in the field. LPR cameras and citation issuance handheld devices also provide GPS location data which should be monitored to confirm coverage and assigned routes or areas.

Recommendation 9: Enhance Program Branding and Marketing The City should consider developing a distinctive parking and mobility brand. A brand can maximize ongoing exposure and familiarity with the City’s parking programs. It can also serve as a memorable, attention-getting method of notifying the public of events and changes in policy. Past successful parking brand efforts included both a coherent visual aesthetic and a mascot. Monterey has already taken a great first step in this direction by inventing a parking mascot: Parker, the Parking Otter! The City should draw inspiration from
other successful parking mascots for examples on how
to use Parker in the future.

For example, Portland, Oregon uses a bright pink color
scheme and cat-themed promotional materials for their
parking platform, Parking Kitty.

Meanwhile, Seattle uses both a mascot and a memorable
theme in promoting their parking programs. Their mobility mascot, Sal the Salmon, appears in several humorous videos encouraging Seattleites to use transit and bike facilities.

Seattle also hired the PR firm, Team Soapbox, to design parking-related informational materials. Using Monopolythemed promotional flyers, ads, and videos, they informed residents of changes to parking in several neighborhoods. This reduced confusion and conflict in response to the changes and enhanced compliance with the new parking rules. The City Figure 11. Seattle’s Sal the Salmon
Figure 10. Portland’s Parking Kitty
Figure 7. Parker, the Parking Otter
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 29, Packet Page 134

EXHIBIT A
DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED | 16
should look to Portland and Seattle for inspiration on ways to use its own mascot, Parker, and for ideas on cohesive themes for parking campaigns.

Visualize Petition Process
The City should develop a visual
representation of the process new permit
zone petitions will need to go through prior to
being implemented. As shown in Figure 13,
the City of Anaheim utilizes a simple flowchart
graphic to the required steps to implement a
new permit zone. Any materials,
documentation, or graphics created should
be produced in both English and Spanish.

Implementation Guide
Currently there is a patchwork collection of permit zones, many of which are individual streets that are adjacent to other similarly structured zones. Furthermore, there are several noncontiguous permit zones which complicate both administrative efforts and the parking process for residents. Not only do these scattered zones unnecessarily complicate parking but they are also ineffective at addressing parking impacts because vehicles can shift over to park on adjacent unregulated blocks.

To fix these issues and implement general RPP reforms in a streamlined way, it is recommended that all existing permit zones be required to go through renewal. This will allow the City to ensure that the zones meet the new RPP program goals. Additionally, the renewal process will provide the opportunity for all addresses in existing RPP zones to decide if they would like to continue to participate in the program under the revised guidelines.

Figure 9. City of Anaheim Permit Flowchart
Figure 8 - Promotional Materials for Seattle
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 30, Packet Page 135

EXHIBIT A
DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED | 17
The renewal process will occur in four phases. First is Phase 0, which outlines the necessary steps the City must take before the renewal process can begin. Next, Phase 1 is when existing RPP blocks that face external impacts will have the opportunity to renew. Phase 2 is when the remaining RPP blocks that do not face external impacts will have the opportunity to renew.

Finally, Phase 3 provides longer-term recommendations and a process for future additions to the RPP program. Overall, the renewal process will involve holding two separate community meetings and sending four sets of mailers to residents. Significant numbers of signs must also be installed and removed based on the results of the process.

The blocks that are eligible for renewal under each phase are highlighted in the map below.

See the following two tables for the number of blocks in each phase and the approximate renewal process timeline respectively.
[Insert map of Phase 1 & Phase 2 block faces]
Table 2. Existing RPP Blocks by Phase
Impact Number of RPP Blocks Renewal Phase
External Impacts ___ Phase 1
No External Impacts ___ Phase 2
Table 3. Approximate Timeline
Phase Timeline
Phase 0 Present – Month 2
Phase 1 Month 2 – Month 5
Phase 2 Month 5 – Month 8
Phase 3 Month 8 onwards
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 31, Packet Page 136

EXHIBIT A
DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED | 18
Phase 0: Groundwork
For the renewal process to run smoothly and achieve the desired outcomes, the City must prepare in several ways. First, the municipal code must be updated to support both the renewal process and the other recommended changes. Second, the City should finish procurement of additional LPR cameras to outfit all nine enforcement vehicles. Third, the City must extend the expiration dates of RPP zones that are set to expire this year to align with the beginning of Phase 1. Finally, the City must do extensive outreach to explain this process and notify the public. This includes a comprehensive mailer sent to all addresses within existing RPP zones.

The measures required to implement these steps are outlined in the Phase 0 implementation checklist and additional details can be found in the individual recommendation sections.

Table 44. Phase 0 Implementation Checklist
✓ Implementation Steps
▢ 1
Update the municipal code to enable the new RPP zone policies and administrative policies.

These include:
• Permit limits
• Permit fees
• Low-income permit fees
• Annual, rolling permit renewal
• Guest passes
• The new RPP petition process
• Policy adjustments for special RPP zones
▢ 2
Create a webpage for the RPP renewal process on the City website. Include a visual representation of the process, FAQs, important dates, incoming policy changes, and other key information.
3 Include Parker, the Parking Otter on the webpage and in all future outreach materials to provide a sense of continuity and familiarity with the parking program. ▢ 4 Designate a City staff member to regularly update and maintain the webpage. ▢ 5
Send mailers to each address in existing RPP zones which:
• Explain the renewal process.
• Explain the new permit fees and limits
• Explain the new guest pass system
• Inform each address if they are eligible for renewal in Phase 1 or Phase 2. • Inform each address of any proposed changes that are unique to their zone • Include key deadlines that must be met for their RPP zones to renew. • Refer to the new renewal process webpage for updates. • Invite residents to a community meeting where questions and concerns will be answered. ▢ 6 Procure remaining LPR cameras to outfit all nine enforcement vehicles. ▢ 7 Configure permit and citation management systems to support guest passes and the purchasing of permits
▢ 8 Create a new RPP petition form template that aligns with the updated petition requirements.

Include a blank table for inputting addresses eligible to vote. ▢ 9 Extend the expiration dates of existing RPP zones until the end of 2025.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 32, Packet Page 137

EXHIBIT A
DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED | 19
Phase 1: Externally Impacted Zones
Phase 1 is when the RPP renewal process will begin for existing RPP blocks that face external impacts. For these impacted zones, the only requirement for them to be renewed is that over 50% of addresses in the zone must purchase a permit under the new fee schedule by a set deadline. The phase should begin with a community meeting to clarify the overall renewal process and restate key deadlines. After the purchase deadline passes, mailers should be sent to all addresses in RPP zones notifying them of the results. Finally, refunds should be issued to those who purchased permits in zones that did not pass the 50% purchase threshold.

Table 55. Phase 1 Implementation Checklist
✓ Implementation Steps
▢ 1 Hold an initial community meeting explaining the renewal process and taking feedback. ▢ 2
Emphasize on the website and at the community meeting that Phase 1 zones will only be renewed if over 50% of addresses within the zone purchase a permit. Set a clear deadline for the purchase date.
▢ 3
Once the purchase deadline is reached, send mailers to each address in existing RPP zones which:
• List the Phase 1 zones which have successfully renewed • List the Phase 1 zones which did not renew
• Inform the Phase 1 zones which did not renew that they are eligible to petition again after Phase 2 is complete
• Inform residents that refunds will be issued to those who purchased permits for zones that did not exceed the 50% threshold
• Notify Phase 2 zones of the upcoming requirements and deadlines for their zones to renew
• Invite residents to another community meeting explaining the next steps in the process ▢ 4 Provide refunds for residents who purchased permits in zones that did not meet the permit purchase threshold.
▢ 5 Create a plan to add and remove signage for the renewed Phase 1 zones. Include any suggested adjustments to operating hours and time limits.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 33, Packet Page 138

EXHIBIT A
DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED | 20
Phase 2: Non-Externally Impacted Zones
Phase 2 is when the RPP blocks that do not face external impacts will have the opportunity to renew. This may be the only opportunity for these blocks to retain RPP restrictions, as they will become ineligible for RPP under the new guidelines. The phase should begin with a second community meeting to both emphasize this point and take questions. To renew their zones, Phase 2 residents must submit a petition with signatures from over 80% of addresses in their zone. Petitions should be distributed to any resident of a Phase 2 zone who requests one. If more than one petition is submitted by the deadline, their signatures will later be aggregated by City staff. Then, parking occupancy data should be reviewed for each zone which successfully petitioned. Zones with significant parking occupancy will then be recommended to Council, who must pass the requisite ordinance establishing each zone. After, the results should be shared with residents via mailer. Then, all zones established by Council must have over 50% of their addresses purchase a permit for their zone to finally renew. Again, mailers should inform residents of the results and refunds should be issued for permit purchases in zones that did not successfully renew. Signage installation and enforcement of the new zones may begin at the end of Phase 2.

Table 66. Phase 2 Implementation Checklist
✓ Implementation Steps
▢ 1 Hold a second community meeting explaining Phase 2 and taking feedback on Phase 1. ▢ 2
Emphasize on the website and at the community meeting that Phase 2 zones will only be renewed if they both successfully petition with signatures from over 80% of addresses in the zone and if over 50% of addresses subsequently purchase a permit. Set clear deadlines for both the petition and purchase dates.
▢ 3
Emphasize on the website and at the community meeting that this is the only opportunity Phase 2 addresses will have at retaining RPP on their blocks. After Phase 2, these addresses will no longer be eligible to petition for RPP as long as they do not face external impacts ▢ 4 Distribute petition forms to all Phase 2 residents that request them. Allow any number of petition forms to be submitted, as they will be manually aggregated later. ▢ 5 Once the petition deadline is reached, aggregate all the signatures for each Phase 2 zone.

Remove duplicate votes by assigning each signature to an address. Each address gets 1 vote. ▢ 6 For each Phase 2 zone with a successful petition, observe parking occupancy data to confirm occupancy is over 70% at certain times of the week.
▢ 7 Recommend City Council pass an ordinance for the creation of each Phase 2 zone which both had a successful petition and was determined to face significant parking demand. ▢ 8
Send mailers to all Phase 2 addresses which:
• Identify the zones which were successfully adopted by Council • Identify the zones which were not successfully adopted by Council • Notify eligible zones of the permit purchase requirement and deadline ▢ 9
Once the purchase deadline is reached, send mailers to each address in existing RPP zones which:
• List the Phase 2 zones which have successfully renewed • List the Phase 2 zones which did not renew
• Inform residents that refunds will be issued to those who purchased permits for zones that did not exceed the 50% threshold
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 34, Packet Page 139

EXHIBIT A
DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED | 21
• Notify residents of plans to install and update signage • Notify residents that the new RPP restrictions will be enforced once signage is installed ▢ 10 Provide refunds for residents who purchased permits in zones that did not meet the permit purchase threshold.
▢ 11 Create a plan to add and remove signage for the renewed Phase 2 zones. Include any suggested adjustments to operating hours and time limits.
▢ 12 Configure permit and citation management systems to support the changes to the RPP zones. ▢ 13 Adjust enforcement routes and protocol to match the new RPP zones. Provide the necessary training to begin prompt enforcement.
▢ 14 After waiting 3 weeks to receive feedback and handle unforeseen issues, begin installing signage.
▢ 15 Enforcement of the renewed Phase 1 and Phase 2 RPP zones may begin once signage installation is complete. Issue only warnings for the first month of enforcement.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 35, Packet Page 140

EXHIBIT A
DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED | 22
Phase 3: Future Zones
Phase 3 is ongoing, following the establishment and enforcement of the renewed RPP zones.

Residents may now petition to establish additional RPP zones in their areas under the new guidelines. Blank petition forms should only be provided to residents whose neighborhoods are fully residential, meet the minimum size requirement, and face identified external impacts.

The City should monitor the newly collected parking data to determine if changes are necessary to enforcement staffing, permit limits, or other policies. Additionally, the City should review permit fees annually and make necessary adjustments. Finally, staff should also monitor existing zones to ensure that a majority of households have active permits. If fewer than 50% of households within a zone maintain active permits, the zone may need to be revoked or reworked down the line.

Table 77. Phase 3 Implementation Checklist
✓ Implementation Steps
▢ 1 Update the “Resident On-Street Parking” webpage with the new map of RPP zones and an explanation of the updated petition process for adding a new zone. ▢ 2
Allocate additional staff to parking enforcement as needed in order to efficiently and effectively enforce permit zones. Ensure daily, reoccurring patrols of the area (minimally two to four times daily) to encourage compliance with the time limit.
▢ 3 Leverage LPR cameras for ongoing monitoring of RPP zone effectiveness and determine if a zone may benefit from adjustments to permit limits, time limits, or operating hours. ▢ 4 Review permit fees annually and adjust as needed based on operating costs and utilization. ▢ 5 Monitor the zones to ensure that a majority of households continue to purchase and maintain active permits.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 14., Item Page 36, Packet Page 141 Council
Agenda Report
№11/25
FROM: Kimberly Cole, AICP, Community Development Director Levi Hill, AICP, Planning Manager
Prepared By: Chris Schmidt, Senior Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Uphold Planning Commission’s Decision to Deny Use Permit Application for a Day Care, General, Use at 2400 Garden Road; Application AP-25-0236; Use Permit Application UP-25-0013; Appellant Henry Ruhnke, Wald, Ruhnke and Dost Architects LLP; Property Owner W R MONT LLC; Industrial, Administration, and Research, Religious Assembly Overlay, Emergency Shelter Overlay, MultiFamily Residential Overlay (I-R-130-RA-ES-MF1) Zoning District; Employment General Plan Designation (Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1 and Section 15303, Class 3)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt the attached resolution
denying the appeal, which would uphold Planning
Commission Resolution P25-022.

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.

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) has
review authority over proposed projects within the
airport influence area (PUC §21676.5(a)).

The ALUC found that the proposed project is
inconsistent with the 2019 Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). Under state law, only
the City Council has the authority to override an
Airport Land Use Commission inconsistency
determination. Pursuant to Public Utilities Code
Agenda Report Highlights
 The City Council is recommended to
deny the appeal and uphold the
Planning Commission's decision to reject
the use permit for a Montessori day care
at 2400 Garden Road.
 The proposed facility is located within
the Airport Influence Area, and the
Airport Land Use Commission deemed it
inconsistent with the 2019 Airport Land
Use Compatibility Plan due to safety
concerns for vulnerable occupants.
 The Planning Commission determined
the project does not meet public safety
findings, citing risks from aircraft
incidents and exposure to noise and
emissions.
 The appellant argues liability concerns
and references to the Department of
Transportation were improperly
considered in the Planning
Commission's decision.
 If the City Council overrides the ALUC
decision, a formal override process
requiring substantial evidence and a
two-thirds vote would be necessary.

Date: 11/4/2025
Item No.: 17.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 1, Packet Page 142 №11/25
Section 21676 and Government Code Section 65302.3, the City Council may override the ALUC’s findings by adopting findings, supported by substantial evidence, that the proposed use is consistent with the purposes of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, specifically the protection of public health, safety, and welfare. The City must provide written notice of its intent to override to both the ALUC and the California Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics at least 45 days in advance, along with the proposed findings. Any override must then be adopted by a two-thirds vote of the full City Council. If the Council were to grant the appeal and approve the Use Permit, a formal override of the ALUC decision would be required at a subsequent meeting prior to the Use Permit becoming effective.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: Yes.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: No fiscal implications have been identified.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1 and Section 15303, Class 3) because the project proposes minor alterations to the exterior of a developed site in an urbanized area and construction of small structures. The project would not involve an expansion of the existing building and proposes minor improvements to the site including a new waste enclosure and deck. Furthermore, the project does not qualify for any of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions found at CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2.

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

Exception b - Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. The proposed waste enclosure is a minor alteration to the site, which is already developed. No cumulative impacts are anticipated due to the project’s limited scope and distinct location.

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 significant effects are anticipated due to the project’s limited scope and distinct location.

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 Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 2, Packet Page 143 №11/25
Government Code. The project site is not located on a hazardous waste site that is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.

Exception f - Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.

There are no historic structures on site, and the project site is not located in an area of high archaeological sensitivity. Therefore, impacts to historic or archaeological resources are not anticipated.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

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

The City Council is tasked with finding whether, in its opinion, error was made by the Planning Commission. If the Council were to grant the appeal and approve the Use Permit, a formal override of the ALUC decision would be required at a future meeting prior to the Use Permit becoming effective.

DISCUSSION:

Background
The applicant proposes to convert the existing building to a Montessori community school for children ages 6 weeks to 6 years old. The subject site is an approximately 32,700 square foot lot that fronts both Garden Road and Garden Court and contains an existing commercial office building and parking lot (Figure 1). The site is designated Employment on the General Plan Land Use Map and is zoned I-R-130-RA-ES-MF1 (Industrial, Research and Administration Zoning District with Religious Assembly, Emergency Shelter and South Side of Garden Road Multifamily Overlay Districts).

Monterey City Code section 38-17 includes the following definitions for “Day Care, General” and “Schools, Public or Private”:

E. Day Care, General. Provision of non-medical care for seven or more persons on a less than 24 hour basis. This classification includes nursery schools, preschools, and day care centers for children or adults.

Q. Schools, Public or Private. Educational institutions having a curriculum comparable to that required in the public schools of the State of California.

In accordance with the above definitions, while the applicant labels their operation a “school”, it is classified as a “Day Care, General” use for zoning purposes.

The I-R zoning district permits the “Day Care, General” use by conditional use permit, while the “Schools, Public or Private” use is not permitted in the zone.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 3, Packet Page 144 №11/25
Figure 1: Aerial photograph identifying project site and surrounding area.

Project Description
The applicant requested approval of a Use Permit for a Day Care, General use and a Variance to reduce setbacks applicable to a proposed waste enclosure and deck (see Exhibits A-B to the City Council Agenda Report Attachment 2).

The Montessori Community School proposes to establish a new childcare and early education campus at 2400 Garden Road in Monterey. The facility will serve children from 6 weeks to 6 years old, offering:
 Two infant classrooms (6 weeks–18 months)
 Three toddler classrooms (18 months–3 years)
 Two primary classrooms (2.5–6 years)
The maximum enrollment will be 104 students onsite at any one time, based on existing water credits available at the site.

In addition to the childcare program, the lower level of the building will be used as a dualpurpose teacher training center, providing professional certification programs for educators during two summer sessions each year.

The facility would operate Monday through Friday, 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, with staggered drop-off and pick-up times to reduce traffic impacts. The project includes improvements such as a replacement trash enclosure along the south property line and a new exterior play deck along the west property line to maximize outdoor usable space for the children.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 4, Packet Page 145 №11/25
The project includes improvements to the existing building, and site work improvements, such as reconfiguration of the parking lot to create a drop-off and pick-up queue area, minimal grading to create new play areas, construction of decking to expand total play area, and a new waste enclosure.

Figure 2. Site Plan with proposed improvements. Proposed waste enclosure and deck locations have been highlighted in orange.

Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) Review
On June 17th, 2025, the City of Monterey received correspondence from Monterey Regional Airport (MRY) staff (Attachment 3 to the City Council Agenda Report Attachment 2) indicating that the proposed conversion of an 11,177-square-foot commercial office building at 2400 Garden Road into a Montessori day care/school facility requires ALUC review, due to the site location within the Airport Influence Area (Safety Zone 7) of the Monterey Regional Airport. MRY staff stated they do not support the proposed use due to the introduction of “vulnerable occupants” within 6,000 feet of the side of runway. Although the ALUCP does not prohibit this use, it strongly discourages the introduction of “vulnerable occupants,” including children, within 6,000 feet of a runway due to elevated risk in the case of an aircraft accident. .

As a result, the City continued the June 25th, 2025, Planning Commission item and submitted an ALUC consistency determination request (ALUC File No. REF250022). The ALUC staff report supporting the consistency determination request has been included as Attachment 4 to the Planning Commission Agenda Report.

On July 28th, 2025, the Monterey County Airport Land Use Commission adopted Resolution No. 25-003 (Attachment 5 to the Planning Commission Agenda Report), determining that the proposed Montessori day care and school facility at 2400 Garden Road is inconsistent with the Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 5, Packet Page 146 №11/25
2019 ALUCP for Monterey Regional Airport. The ALUC’s finding was based on the project’s location within Safety Zone 7 and its proximity (approximately 1,395 feet) to Runway 10R-28L.

As described above, State law dictates that only the City Council has the authority to override an ALUC inconsistency determination. Specifically, Public Utilities Code Section 21676 and Government Code Section 65302.3 provide that a local agency may override the ALUC’s decision by adopting findings, supported by substantial evidence, that the proposed use is consistent with the purposes of the ALUCP, namely, protecting public health, safety, and welfare by minimizing the public’s exposure to airport-related hazards. To proceed with an override, the City must provide the ALUC and Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics with at least 45 days’ written notice of its intent to override, along with the proposed findings. The override must then be adopted by a two-thirds vote of the full City Council.

ALUC Override History
In the past, the City Council has, at times, overridden or disagreed with ALUC decisions. The summary provided below recaps previous decisions of the City Council:

Previous ALUCP
 3001 Monterey-Salinas Highway (Calvary Monterey): The City Council overrode the ALUC denial of a proposed church project at 3001 Monterey-Salinas Highway. The override was based on findings that the site was not identified as an airport hazard area and that no specific safety data had been cited to justify the ALUC’s determination (City Council Resolution 93-018 adopted January 19th, 1993.
 2 Justin Court (Ryan Ranch Day Care): The Ryan Ranch Day Care was approved by the Planning Commission on September 14th, 1993. The ALUC staff sent the City correspondence indicating that the proposal should be reconsidered due to inconsistency with the 1987 ALUCP. On April 5th, 1994, The City Council authorized sending a letter to the ALUC in response to concerns over a proposed child care center at 2 Justin Court, asserting that the use was not subject to override procedures because it did not require changes to zoning, the General Plan, or building codes, and reaffirming the City's jurisdiction over local land use decisions.
 601 E. Franklin Street (Trinity Christian High School) was approved by the Planning Commission on August 11th, 2009, with a condition of approval requiring that the project obtain a consistency determination from the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) in accordance with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). The use permit stipulated that the applicant secure ALUC approval by December 2009, although the school was allowed to commence operations in August. On August 24th, 2009, the ALUC found the project inconsistent with the ALUCP and, on September 14th, 2009, transmitted correspondence to the Planning Office stating that the City must reconsider the project. On December 8, 2009, the use permit returned to the Planning Commission with a staff recommendation that the school cease operations in June 2010. Instead, the Planning Commission revised the condition of approval and recommended that the City Council override the ALUC’s determination. On June 1st, 2010, the City Council voted to override the ALUC’s inconsistency finding. The use of this site as a school ceased in approximately 2016.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 6, Packet Page 147 №11/25
Current ALUCP (Adopted 2019)
 ADU Ordinance: The City Council adopted a resolution to override the ALUC’s finding of inconsistency and approved a draft zoning ordinance for accessory dwelling units (ADUs). The override was supported by findings that the ordinance complies with state housing law and minimizes exposure to airport-related safety and noise hazards (City Council Resolutions 23-027 adopted March 7th, 2023, and 23-049 adopted May 2nd, 2023).

Planning Commission Meeting
The proposed use permit application was agendized for the September 11th, 2025, Planning Commission meeting but was continued to the September 23rd, 2025, Planning Commission meeting at the request of the project applicant.

Prior to the September 23rd meeting, the City received 18 public comments which have been included as Attachment 6 to the Planning Commission Agenda Report. An additional 9 public comments were made during the public hearing.

Following public testimony, the Planning Commission discussed the project and its conflict with the Monterey Regional Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). The Commission expressed appreciation for the applicant’s intent to expand early childhood education options in Monterey but noted that they’re tasked with ensuring the proposed land use meets the required findings. Additionally, the Commission acknowledged that an override to the Airport Land Use Commission’s (ALUC) inconsistency finding would require action from the City Council.

Several commissioners raised questions about the potential liability associated with overriding the ALUC’s determination in the event of an airport related incident. Commissioners also expressed concerns related to outdoor activities and the health risks associated with the exposure of vulnerable occupants to excess aircraft noise and aircraft exhaust emissions.

Other questions and comments pertained to site operations such as traffic management and drop-off procedures, to which the applicant provided response.

The Commission concluded that the use permit findings related to public safety could not be made and ultimately voted 4–0 to deny the use permit.

Findings for Approval
Pursuant to Monterey City Code section 38-161, Use Permit applications may be approved if all three findings, described below, are made. On September 23rd, 2025, the Planning Commission denied the use permit request with the following findings:
1) That the proposed use is in accord with the objectives of this chapter and the purposes of the zone.

Planning Commission Determination: This finding is met. The proposed use is in accord with the objectives of this chapter and the purposes of the zone. The project site is zoned IR-130-RA-ES-MF1 (Industrial, Research and Administration Zoning District with Religious Assembly, Emergency Shelter, Multifamily Overlay Districts). The purpose of the I-R district is to accommodate a range of employment, research, technology, and institutional uses, while allowing compatible supporting uses that serve the needs of employees, businesses, and the broader community.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 7, Packet Page 148 №11/25
The proposed Montessori Community School would establish a childcare and early education center serving children from 6 weeks to 6 years, as well as a teacher training center. This use supports the employment-oriented intent of the district by providing muchneeded childcare options for local workers, supporting working families, and offering professional training for educators, which contributes to the local knowledge economy. The use is compatible with the office and research park character of the surrounding area, and the proposed site improvements, including a replacement trash enclosure and exterior play deck, have been designed to fit within the physical boundaries of the site. 2) That the proposed use and the proposed conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will be consistent with the General Plan; will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the neighborhood of such use; and will not be detrimental to properties or improvements in the vicinity or to the general welfare of the city.

Planning Commission Determination: This finding is not met. While the Employment General Plan designation encourages supportive secondary uses, the proposed use presents a unique public safety concern due to its location within an active airport influence area. The ALUCP strongly discourages facilities that serve vulnerable populations, including children, within 6,000 feet of the side of a runway. The subject property lies approximately 1,395 feet from Runway 10R-28L. In July 2025, the Monterey County Airport Land Use Commission determined the project to be inconsistent with the 2019 ALUCP, citing unacceptable risk exposure to vulnerable occupants in the event of an aircraft incident. The Monterey Regional Airport expressed formal opposition in writing as well as verbal public comment at the ALUC meeting. Additionally, Monterey County ALUC Planning staff indicated that the California Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics had been verbally consulted and stated general discouragement for the proposed use to be introduced at the site, as described in the ALUC staff report (Attachment 4 to the City Council Agenda Report Attachment 2). As proposed, the project introduces a high number of vulnerable individuals into an area with documented aircraft arrival and departure risk. This potential impact to public safety cannot be mitigated through operational conditions alone, and thus, the project is considered detrimental to the general welfare of the City and the safety of potential vulnerable occupants.
3) That the proposed use will comply with any specific condition required for that use.

Planning Commission Determination: This finding is met. The proposed childcare center and training facility would comply with all applicable local, state, and federal regulations governing childcare licensing, health and safety, and accessibility. If approved, the City would recommend conditions of approval to require compliance with the approved site plans, maximum enrollment limits, stormwater and BMP requirements, tree protection, and cultural resource protocols. Additionally, operational conditions, such as hours of operation and adherence to approved pick-up and drop-off procedures would be imposed to ensure ongoing compatibility with the neighborhood. These conditions ensure the use would operate in a manner consistent with City standards and expectations.

Appeal
The appellant submitted an appeal letter which is included as Attachment 3. Generally, the letter provides the following for the basis of appeal:

Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 8, Packet Page 149 №11/25
 The Planning Commission spent much time discussing potential liability issues related to approval of the Montessori School. Some members mentioned the airport land use commission may have denied Montessori to relieve the airport from liability stemming from an accident. The question of liability was clearly a factor the Planning Commission considered in the decision to deny the use permit. Legal questions, such as liability issues, should not be a factor in the Planning Commission’s decision-making process.  The resolution to deny the use permit references the Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics (DTDA) having “general discouragement of the proposed use”.

DTDA is not an approving authority for this project and should never have been referenced in the staff report and the resolution to deny.  Staff presented information the ALUC’s decision is precedent for the Planning Commission that effectively should be followed. This is prejudicial to the Planning Commission as what the ALUC decided is irrelevant to the Planning Commission.  The discussion also revolved around how close the location is to the airport, when the zone 7 does not have a sliding scale.

Analysis
MCC Section 38-211 states:

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

Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal, upholding the decision of the Planning Commission, based on the above findings and as further described in the draft resolution (Attachment 1).

KC/lh/cs
Attachments: 1. Resolution Denying Appeal with Exhibit

2. Planning Commission Agenda Report with Attachments

3. Appellant Letter dated October 3, 2025

4. Planning Commission Minutes
e: Henry Ruhnke, Wald, Ruhnke and Dost Architects LLP, Appellant Shawn Capps, Wald, Ruhnke and Dost Architects LLP, Applicant Bill Tershy, representative for W R MONT LLC, Property Owner Madelynn Van Den Huevel, representative for W R MONT LLC, Property Owner Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 9, Packet Page 150 №11/25
Hansen P. Reed, Walker and Reed
Chris Morello, Monterey Regional Airport
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, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 10, Packet Page 151 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№011/24
UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO DENY USE PERMIT UP-25- 0013 FOR A DAY CARE, GENERAL, USE AT 2400 GARDEN ROAD;
APPEAL APPLICATION AP-25-0236
WHEREAS, Henry Ruhnke of Wald, Ruhnke and Dost Architects LLP, appellant, submitted an application to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission to deny Use Permit UP-25-0013 for a Day Care, General, use at 2400 Garden Road; WHEREAS, the site is designated Employment on the General Plan Land Use Map and is zoned I-R-130-RA-ES-MF1 (Industrial, Research and Administration Zoning District with Religious Assembly, Emergency Shelter and South Side of Garden Road Multifamily Overlay Districts). The I-R zoning district requires a use permit for the day care, general, use classification;
WHEREAS, on January 15, 2025, Shawn Capps of Wald, Ruhnke and Dost Architects LLP, applicant on behalf of owner W R MONT LLC, proposes to convert the existing building to a private Montessori community school for children;
WHEREAS, on September 23rd, 2025, the Planning Commission, at a properly noticed public hearing on September 23, 2025 carefully considered all of the information presented to it, including the agenda report and information submitted at the public hearing by interested persons; and denied the use permit application based on the findings identified in Resolution P25-022 (Exhibit A);
WHEREAS, on October 3, 2025, the appellant filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision (AP-25-0236); and
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1 and Section 15303, Class 3) because the project proposes minor alterations to the exterior of a developed site in an urbanized area, and construction of small structures. The project would not involve an expansion of the existing building and proposes minor improvements to the site including a new waste enclosure and deck. Furthermore, the project does not qualify for any of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions found at CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2.

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

Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 11, Packet Page 152 Exception b - Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. The proposed waste enclosure is a minor alteration to the site, which is already developed. No cumulative impacts are anticipated due to the project’s limited scope and distinct location.

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 significant effects are anticipated due to the project’s limited scope and distinct location.

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

Exception f - Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby denies Appeal Application AP-25-0236 and upholds the Planning Commission decision to deny the use permit application because the required findings could not be made for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use is in accord with the objectives of this chapter and the purposes of the zone.

Planning Commission Determination: This finding is met. The proposed use is in accord with the objectives of this chapter and the purposes of the zone. The project site is zoned I-R-130-RA-ES-MF1 (Industrial, Research and Administration Zoning District with Religious Assembly, Emergency Shelter, Multifamily Overlay Districts). The purpose of the I-R district is to accommodate a range of employment, research, technology, and institutional uses, while allowing compatible supporting uses that serve the needs of employees, businesses, and the broader community.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 12, Packet Page 153 The proposed Montessori Community School would establish a childcare and early education center serving children from 6 weeks to 6 years, as well as a teacher training center. This use supports the employment-oriented intent of the district by providing much-needed childcare options for local workers, supporting working families, and offering professional training for educators, which contributes to the local knowledge economy. The use is compatible with the office and research park character of the surrounding area, and the proposed site improvements, including a replacement trash enclosure and exterior play deck, have been designed to fit within the physical boundaries of the site.
2) That the proposed use and the proposed conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will be consistent with the General Plan; will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the neighborhood of such use; and will not be detrimental to properties or improvements in the vicinity or to the general welfare of the city.

Additionally, Monterey County ALUC Planning staff indicated that the California Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics had been verbally consulted and stated general discouragement for the proposed use to be introduced at the site, as described in the ALUC staff report (Attachment 4 to the City Council Agenda Report Attachment 2). As proposed, the project introduces a high number of vulnerable individuals into an area with documented aircraft arrival and departure risk. This potential impact to public safety cannot be mitigated through operational conditions alone, and thus, the project is considered detrimental to the general welfare of the City and the safety of potential vulnerable occupants.
3) That the proposed use will comply with any specific condition required for that use.

Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 13, Packet Page 154 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, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 14, Packet Page 155 RESOLUTION NO. P25-022 Date: September 23, 2025
Item No: 4

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
№07/19
DENYING USE PERMIT UP-25-0013 FOR DAY CARE, GENERAL USE AT 2400 GARDEN ROAD
WHEREAS, Shawn Capps, Wald Ruhnke and Dost Architects, applicant, submitted applications for a use permit for a day care use and variance application for a replacement waste enclosure and deck setback reduction;
WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to convert the existing building to a Montessori community school for children ages 6 weeks to 6 years old; WHEREAS, the subject site is an approximately 32,700 square foot lot which fronts both Garden Road and Garden Court, and contains an existing commercial office building and parking lot;
WHEREAS, the site is designated Employment on the General Plan Land Use Map, and is zoned I-R-130-RA-ES-MF1 (Industrial, Research and Administration Zoning District with Religious Assembly, Emergency Shelter and South Side of Garden Road Multifamily Overlay Districts). The I-R zoning district requires a use permit for the day care, general, use classification; WHEREAS, the applicant proposed a new waste enclosure at distances of 1-foot, 2- inches, from the South side lot line and 12-feet, 10-inches from the Garden Court frontage front lot line; and, a new deck located 1-foot from the West side lot line. Both features are subject to the I-R zoning district 50-foot setbacks;
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1 and Section 15303, Class 3) because the project proposes minor alterations to the exterior of a developed site in an urbanized area, and construction of small structures. The project would not involve an expansion of the existing use. Furthermore, the project does not qualify for any of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions found at CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2.

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

Docusign Envelope ID: 543B266A-08A0-4D2D-BCD5-AC42EA6E3DEC

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 15, Packet Page 156 2 Exception b - Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. The proposed accessory structure is a minor alteration to the site, which is already developed. No cumulative impacts are anticipated due to the project’s limited scope and distinct location.

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 significant effects are anticipated due to the project’s limited scope and distinct location.

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

Exception f - Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.

There are no historic structures on site. The project site is not located in an area of high archaeological sensitivity. Therefore, impacts to historic or archaeological resources are not anticipated.

WHEREAS, on July 28, 2025, the Monterey County Airport Land Use Commission adopted Resolution No. 25-003 (Attachment 4), determining that the proposed Montessori day care and school facility at 2400 Garden Road is inconsistent with the 2019 ALUCP for Monterey Regional Airport;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a properly noticed public hearing on September 23, 2025 carefully considered all of the information presented to it, including the agenda report and information submitted at the public hearing by interested persons; WHEREAS, notice is hereby given that decisions of the Planning Commission are appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the date of this action pursuant to Monterey City Code section 38-205;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby denies Use Permit UP-25-0013 for a day care, general use, as illustrated and/or described in Exhibits A and B with the following findings and conditions:

FINDINGS:

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 16, Packet Page 157 3 Administration Zoning District with Religious Assembly, Emergency Shelter, and South Side of Garden Road Multifamily Overlay Districts). The purpose of the I-R district is to accommodate a range of employment, research, technology, and institutional uses, while allowing compatible supporting uses that serve the needs of employees, businesses, and the broader community.

The proposed Montessori Community School will establish a childcare and early education center serving children from 6 weeks to 6 years, as well as an AMI Montessori teacher training center. This use supports the employment-oriented intent of the district by providing much-needed childcare options for local workers, supporting working families, and offering professional training for educators, which contributes to the local knowledge economy. The use is compatible with the office and research park character of the surrounding area, and the proposed site improvements, including a replacement trash enclosure and exterior play deck, have been designed to fit within the physical and operational framework of the site.
2) While the Employment General Plan designation encourages supportive institutional uses, the proposed use presents a unique public safety concern due to its location within an active airport influence area. The ALUCP strongly discourages facilities that serve vulnerable populations, including children, within 6,000 feet of the side of a runway. The subject property lies approximately 1,395 feet from Runway 10R-28L. In July 2025, the Monterey County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) determined the project to be inconsistent with the 2019 ALUCP, citing unacceptable risk exposure to vulnerable occupants in the event of an aircraft incident. The Monterey Regional Airport expressed formal opposition in writing as well as verbal public comment at the ALUC meeting.

Additionally, Monterey County ALUC Planning staff indicated that the California Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics had been consulted and stated general discouragement for the proposed use to be introduced at the site, as described in the ALUC staff report. As proposed, the project introduces a high number of vulnerable individuals into an area with documented aircraft arrival and departure risk. This potential impact to public safety cannot be mitigated through operational conditions alone, and thus, the project is considered detrimental to the general welfare of the City and the safety of potential vulnerable occupants.
3) The proposed childcare center and training facility will comply with all applicable local, state, and federal regulations governing childcare licensing, health and safety, and accessibility. Conditions of approval require compliance with the approved site plans, maximum enrollment limits, stormwater and BMP requirements, tree protection, and cultural resource protocols. Additionally, operational conditions, such as hours of operation and adherence to approved pick-up and drop-off procedures, are imposed to ensure ongoing compatibility with the neighborhood. These conditions ensure the use will operate in a manner consistent with City standards and expectations.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this 23rd day of September, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Latasa, Bluth, Brassfield, Freeman NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Dawson, Silva
ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
Docusign Envelope ID: 543B266A-08A0-4D2D-BCD5-AC42EA6E3DEC

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 17, Packet Page 158 4 APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Planning Commission Chair
Planning Manager
Docusign Envelope ID: 543B266A-08A0-4D2D-BCD5-AC42EA6E3DEC

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 18, Packet Page 159 Use Permit Proposal, Montessori Community School- Monterey Mission Statement
Montessori Community School's mission is to guide and nurture the natural unfolding of the whole child in an atmosphere of order, beauty and harmony - an atmosphere in which each child is actively supported in the self-directed pursuit of lifelong intellectual, emotional and spiritual growth.

Core Values

1. Create a culture of warmth and belonging, where everyone is welcome.

2. Focus on the child and all else will follow.

3. Wow the parents!

4. What we do, we do well.

5. Make your momma proud.

6. Don’t look at things as problems, but a challenge that needs to be solved.

7. Have fun! Find joy in the job.

Project Information
We propose to start a second campus at 2400 Garden Rd in Monterey, California. Currently, Monterey only has one Montessori school, which isn’t an AMI Montessori accredited school, and the need for a high-quality educational experience from birth to six years old is needed in the area. Furthermore, there is a huge shortage of infant and Toddler care options, so this would greatly benefit young families needing to go back to work.

Montessori Community School- Monterey would serve children from 6 weeks through kindergarten. We would establish two infant classrooms (6 weeks to 18 months), three Toddler classrooms (18 months to three years), and two Primary classrooms (two and a half to six years). In total, we would have a maximum of 104 students onsite at a time.

Additionally, we would like to use the lower-level of 2400 Garden Rd to have a dual-purpose AMI Montessori teacher training center. The AMI Montessori training is only offered in select areas around the country, the closest being San Diego, Portland, and Denver. The AMI Montessori training is an international diploma and is the same training worldwide. By using our school as a training center, we can ensure there are well-trained, top-notch candidates for our school and throughout the country, making Monterey a hub and go-to destination for Montessorians, inviting high-level educators into the area. We would do two training groups per year, one for 0-3 age and one for 3-6. Each group would use the dual-purpose rooms downstairs for a 5-week module for two summers, and then virtual modules the rest of the year.

Montessori Community School- Monterey would be a huge asset to the community of Monterey. By providing high-quality education for infants through kindergarten, we would provide a foundation for children’s lives that will serve them throughout their educational careers. Parents would also have another option for infant and Toddler care, something that is in high demand in the Monterey area.

Exhibit A
Docusign Envelope ID: 543B266A-08A0-4D2D-BCD5-AC42EA6E3DEC

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 19, Packet Page 160 Montessori Education
Children need to work at an interesting occupation: they should not be helped unnecessarily, not interrupted, once they have begun to do something intelligent. --- Dr. Maria Montessori
Montessori Community School serves children using the philosophy and curriculum developed by Dr. Maria Montessori. Montessori education provides an education for life. Maria Montessori understood that education must begin at birth, and be holistic to meet physical, emotional, intellectual, and spiritual needs of children. The Montessori Method helps the natural development of the individual from birth to maturity within the context of his or her life situation.

A Montessori environment is a child-centered environment in which children learn real life knowledge through active exploration with Montessori materials. In this prepared environment, the furniture and materials are child-sized and the aesthetic beauty and order of the room provide an environment where children are comfortable, safe, and excited to learn.

The materials in a Montessori environment are specially designed to meet children’s unique developmental needs. The materials are self-correcting, enabling children to understand their errors and successes through their own exploration, rather than adult interference. The mixed age groups provide a dynamic and real-life social environment in which children constantly practice social grace, and interact with each other as learners and guides. Socialization and peace education are naturally built in to every day. The Montessori environment grants each child his/her right to develop according to his/her own potential, following individual interests and needs.

Maria Montessori understood the human tendencies for exploration and order, repetition and perfection, communication, work, and abstraction, and she developed an educational model to allow the activation of those tendencies. The adults in the Montessori classroom serve as a link between the child and the environment to enable the natural unfolding of the child’s tendencies. Montessori saw the stage of development between 0 and 6 years of age as one in which the child has an absorbent mind, constantly activated by sensorial input, and constantly requiring movement to connect sensorial input with intellectual development. For this reason, movement is never restricted in a Montessori classroom.

From birth on, we are all on a path toward independence, and we adults are responsible to guide children along this path. At each stage in development, we must meet children’s needs to maximize their developmental interests and potential. Infants are given freedom to move, eat, sleep, and communicate at will, guided by special materials and furniture to facilitate this development. As infants’ interest in communication and movement grows, they begin to seek a broader environment for stimulation and become ready to join our toddler community.

Exhibit A
Docusign Envelope ID: 543B266A-08A0-4D2D-BCD5-AC42EA6E3DEC

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 20, Packet Page 161 The toddler environment is filled with materials and activities specially designed for the toddler’s interest in movement, independence, order, language, and music. Toddlers are able to confidently succeed in their explorations and endeavors with toddler-sized furniture and materials, assisting them in their pursuits for independence.

At around three years of age, children are ready to join our Primary environment. The main pedagogical areas of a Primary classroom include the Practical Life area, the Sensorial area, the Language area, the Mathematics area, and the Cultural area. Each of these areas has many materials for children at various developmental stages to work with. Lessons begin with presentations of concrete concepts such as size or volume (sensorial), sounds (language), and quantities (mathematics), and gradually and logically progress toward abstraction, such as the words big and small for the concept of size, the shapes of the sounds (letters), and the numerals associated with quantities while doing mathematical operations. Lessons from a Montessori Guide progress in a logical order according to each individual’s readiness, and each lesson and material has multiple purposes, preparing the child for increasingly complex and challenging activities. The Montessori Guide is trained to carefully observe children for their interests and readiness to progress through the curriculum.

The Montessori Environment is filled with many materials, each with several phases and extensions. In order for a child to fully benefit from a Montessori education, consistent attendance is crucial. This is why all children are enrolled for several consecutive days and why the Primary Program is a five day per week program. It is imperative for a child to attend school consistently and on time to benefit from the full three-hour work period each day. Older children should be enrolled for full days to have the afternoon period to further explore the materials in more depth and maximize their experience in the classroom.

The Primary Program is a three-year program, with three age groups in one class. Children develop over the three years through their work with the Montessori materials in the dynamic environment of the classroom with built-in mentorship and leadership opportunities. Many lessons converge by the third year, and the purposes of many materials are revealed, as these children enter the age of abstraction and the seeds of knowledge planted in the first two years begin to truly bloom. In their third year in Primary, children step into a leadership role in the classroom, helping the younger children, consolidating their lessons from the first two years, exercising the responsibilities and freedoms they have earned over two years, and completing their own cycle of learning with complex activities and advanced academics.

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 21, Packet Page 162 classroom, for the Puffins, was opened in October 2004. Our Nido (nest) program for infants from 6 weeks to 24 months opened in January, 2008 and our second Toddler class, the Jellyfish, was opened in November 2018. We are looking to expand our school into the Monterey area at 2400 Garden rd.

The Tershys, owners of Montessori Community School, are three generations of Montessori students, guides, parents, and administrators working together to create a caring community devoted to the principles of Dr. Maria Montessori. The Tershy family composes the board of Montessori Community School, and includes Russ and Ellie Tershy, Madelynn Tershy, Bill and Regina Tershy, and Joseph Tershay. They are honored to invite your participation in this endeavor. Welcome!
Admissions Policies
Prior to admission into Montessori Community School, each family will tour the facilities and be provided with an introduction to Montessori philosophy and the school’s daily procedures.

After this tour, families are invited to complete the application form to hold a place on the waiting list. As space becomes available, families will be invited to schedule an enrollment appointment with the Head of School.

Forms: State law mandates that a child not be allowed to attend without the following forms complete and in the child’s folder at the school:

1. Application Form: This form holds a family’s place on the waiting list. This must be accompanied by the application fee. As space becomes available, each family is contacted in the order received.

2. Enrollment Contract: This is the signed contract between family and school, which secures enrollment for your child at MCS. This must be accompanied by the enrollment fee. Please ensure that all contact information on this form is kept current.

3. Physician’s Report: Affirms your child is healthy and identifies any special needs your child may have. A licensed physician must sign this report.

4. Copy of Immunization Records: A record of immunizations or a signature acknowledging optional exemption from immunizations is required in your child’s file. Please notify the office whenever your child is given additional vaccinations so that the form can be kept up to date. If your family requests an exemption, please speak with the Head of School. State law requires your signature on a designated form.

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 22, Packet Page 163 cannot be at school. Please pay particular attention to any allergies that are life threatening or will cause severe reactions.

6. Emergency Medical Consent Form

7. Emergency Information Card: (needs to be resubmitted annually) It is necessary to have a completed emergency card for every child. We require a minimum of two emergency contacts, and prefer an additional out-of-state contact. Inform the office immediately of any changes in emergency information.

8. Parents and Personal Rights Forms

9. Infant Needs and Services Plan: (Nido only) This plan will be completed collaboratively by parents and the child’s guide on a regular basis.

MCS Schedules
For a ten-month contract MCS follows the school year calendar from late August into June. We ensure that our students receive 179 instruction days throughout the school year. For a twelvemonth contract, MCS follows the school year calendar from late-August through the following August. We ensure that our students receive 228 instruction days throughout the twelvemonth school year. Our holidays follow those outlined by the public school district calendar.

Please be advised that MCS will be closed and child care will not be available on statutory holidays, and for one week before the beginning of the school year for Guide Preparation week, and another week for a summer break.

Our academic half day programs are from 8:30-11:45 for Nido, 8:30am to 12:15pm for Toddler, and 8:30-12:45 for Primary. Our full day programs for all classes is 8:30am to 3:00pm. The school is open from 7:00am to 6:00pm, and childcare is available as needed.

Drop-Off and Pick-Up Guidelines
***State law requires that all children be signed in and out of childcare facilities by a responsible adult.

MCS utilizes a QR code which you sign your child in and out of the school.

Carpooling reduces traffic, conserves energy and aids socialization. We encourage you to share the ride to and from school with another family. If you are interested in carpooling, inform the office and we will connect you with another family in your area if one is available.

Timing
Exhibit A
Docusign Envelope ID: 543B266A-08A0-4D2D-BCD5-AC42EA6E3DEC

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 23, Packet Page 164 Drop off is done throughout the day, depending on your designated start time. The earliest drop off you can do is 7:00am, and we will limit the number of families between each half hour. Same goes for pickup. We will have a maximum of 104 students at one time, spread out for drop off based on their drop off and pickup windows.

Please see below for a schedule:

Drop off:
7:00-7:30am: 15 children
7:30-8:00am: 15 children
8:00-8:30am: 15 children
8:30-9:00am: 15 children
9:00-9:30am: 15 children
9:30-10:00am: 15 children
10:00-10:30am: 15 children
Pickup:
11:30-12:00pm: 12 children
12:00-12:30pm: 12 children
2:30-3:00pm: 12 children
3:00-3:30pm: 12 children
3:30-4:00pm: 12 children
4:00-4:30pm: 12 children
4:30-5:00pm 12children
5:00-5:30pm: 12 children
5:30-6:00pm:12 children
Drop off is done at the drop off curb in the front of the school. Parents will pull up and a staff person will be there to greet the child and walk him/her to class.

Pick up is done the same, so parents will pull up to the curb and a staff member will help their child into the car.

Before and Aftercare
Extended Child Care is available from 7:00am on and until 6:00pm in the evenings. Drop-in spaces in before and aftercare are limited; please call the office when you may need extended care to verify that a space for your child is available. If you are contracted for aftercare, space will always be reserved and available for your child until your contracted time.

Before care starts at your schedule time, and aftercare pickup has a grace period of 5 minutes from your contracted time. On the sixth minute, your account will be charged $12 for the following hour. Extended care is charged per hour in full for any portion of an hour that your child is here.at an additional cost for this extended care (please see tuition fee schedule).

Exhibit A
Docusign Envelope ID: 543B266A-08A0-4D2D-BCD5-AC42EA6E3DEC

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 24, Packet Page 165 Staff
We will have 16 staff in total at the school, with differing schedules, so not all will be onsite at the same time. Staff will park in the designated parking spaces.

Exhibit A
Docusign Envelope ID: 543B266A-08A0-4D2D-BCD5-AC42EA6E3DEC

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 25, Packet Page 166 Exhibit B
Docusign Envelope ID: 543B266A-08A0-4D2D-BCD5-AC42EA6E3DEC

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 26, Packet Page 167 Exhibit B
Docusign Envelope ID: 543B266A-08A0-4D2D-BCD5-AC42EA6E3DEC

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 27, Packet Page 168 Exhibit B
Docusign Envelope ID: 543B266A-08A0-4D2D-BCD5-AC42EA6E3DEC

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 28, Packet Page 169

ROAD EASEMENT
FH
WV

WATER METER
HB
HB
SSCO
LP
LP
12"P
12"P
12"P
12"P
10"P
10"P
10"P
10"P
10"P
10"P
10"P
10"P
10"Q
6"Q 6"Q
14"P
14"P
14"P
24"P
24"P
6"P
6"P
6"P
6"P
6"P
16"P
18"P
18"P
8"P
8"P
8"P
6"P
8"P TELECOM VAULT MANHOLE TELECOM

GAS METER
24"P ACU

ACUACU ACUACU
SSCO
SSCO
ACU
P
P

MULIT-STORY CONCRETE & WOOD FRAME BUILDING
FDC
24"P
12"P
12"P
8"T
6"T
6"T
18"P
2-PRONG
PINE, 12"-14"
18"P
16"P
16"P
ACU
S 0°06'20" W 190.00'
S 24°38'31" W 44.09'
Δ=66°21'29" R=50.00' L=57.91' 81.51' S 89°00'00" E
226.31'
N 15°41'03" E
N 15°41'03" E

43.65' L=112.60' R=1960.00'
Δ=3°17'29"
N 74°18'57" W

55.10'
N 89°00'00" W 146.79' FOGLINE

PROPERTY LINE
LP
96 GAL. BIN
96 GAL. BIN
96 GAL. BIN
4 CUBIC YARD
96 GAL. BIN
4 CUBIC YARD

CARDBOARD
13 13
TYP.
13 28
16 20
20 29
TYP.
24 19
TYP.
21 5
28 22
23 28
27 26
24 24
17 17
17 17
11 9
15 6
3 8
17 2
7 1 12
4 7
7 14
14 1
4 10
4 1
4 7
18 17 4
12 25
18'-0" 9'-0" TYP. 18'-0" 24'-0" 18'-0" 6'-0" 15'-0" 10'-0" 9'-0" TYP.
15'-0"
12 30
31 31
31 32
32 32
29 33
1'-2" 12'-10"

PROPOSED
SITE
PLAN
A101
24094-A101
SC
PRINT DATE:

DRAWN BY:

JOB NO.
2340 GARDEN ROAD, SUITE 100
MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA 93940
PHONE: 831.649.4642
FAX: 831.649.3530
WWW.WRDARCH.COM A.P.N. NO.:

SHEET NAME:

SHEET NO.:

FILE NAME.:

SET ISSUED:

CHECKED BY:

THE USE OF THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS IS RESTRICTED TO THE ORIGINAL SITE FOR WHICH

THEY WERE PREPARED, AND PUBLICATION
THEREOF IS EXPRESSLY LIMITED TO SUCH USE. REUSE, REPRODUCTION OR PUBLICATION BY

ANY METHOD IN WHOLE OR IN PART IS
PROHIBITED. TITLE TO THE PLANS AND

SPECIFICATIONS REMAINS WITH THE ARCHITECT, AND VISUAL CONTACT WITH THEM

CONSTITUTES PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE
ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS.

PLOT DATE: 4.10.2025
24094 MONTESSORI COMMUNITY SCHOOL PLANNING PACKAGE MONTESSORI COMMUNITY SCHOOL 2400 GARDEN ROAD MONTEREY, CA 93940 013-322-008-000

CITY OF MONTEREY APPROVAL
PLAN
NORTH
SCALE:

PROPOSED SITE PLAN
1" = 10'-0"
THE KEY NOTES THAT FOLLOW APPLY TO THE DRAWING(S) ON THIS SHEET ONLY. REFER TO FOLLOWING SHEETS FOR NOTES THAT ARE APPLICABLE TO THOSE DRAWINGS.

KEY NOTES GENERAL NOTES
22 EXISTING AC PAVED ROAD TO REMAIN INTACT.
1 4" WIDE PAINTED PARKING STALL STRIPING PER CITY STANDARDS.

PROVIDE 4" THICK CONCRETE WALKWAY WITH SLIP RESISITANT FINISH AND PROPERLY PLACED 6"X6"/10X10 WELDED WIRE MESH OVER A MIN. 4" CLASS IV AGGREGATE BASE WORK OVER COMPACTED SUBGRADE. CONCRETE WALK TO BE A MIN. 4'-0" WIDE. PROVIDE POSITIVE SLOPE AWAY FROM BUILDING WHERE APPLICABLE. REFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR EXACT CONFIGURATION OF CONCRETE WALKWAY SECTION.
2 PROVIDE DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE (TRUNCATED DOMES) MIN. 36" IN DEPTH THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF OPENING / LANDING / RAMP AS SHOWN ON PLAN. 3 4 LANDSCAPED AREA. SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS
5 6 INDICATES "VAN ACCESSIBLE" STALL.

INDICATES EXTENT OF 6" HIGH CURBS WHICH SHALL BE PAINTED RED WITH 4" HIGH WHITE LETTERS STATING "FIRE LANES - NO PARKING" AT 30'-0" O.C.

MAX. WHEN 6" CURB(S) NOT AVAILABLE, INSTALL A "FIRE LANES - NO PARKING ANYTIME" SIGN (R28 - 12"X18"). SIGN HEIGHT SHALL BE 54" FROM

TOP OF PAVEMENT/LANDSCAPE AREA TO BOTTOM OF SIGN ON A WALL, FENCE OR BUILDING 75'-0" O.C. MAX. A POLE-MOUNTED SIGN IN A PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY SHALL BE 84" FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE SIGN TO TOP OF WALKWAY. REFER ALSO TO CITY STANDARD PLAN.
7 ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL INDICATOR ARROWS. ARROWS SHOWN ON PLAN ARE FOR REFERENCE ONLY AND NOT FOR PHYSICAL APPLICATION.

WALKWAY ALONG ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL SHALL BE CONTINUOUSLY ACCESSIBLE, HAVE A MAX. 1/2" CHANGE IN ELEVATION, MIN. 48" IN WIDTH AND HAVE MAX. 1/4" PER FOOT CROSS SLOPES.
8 9 PROVIDE CONCRETE WHEEL STOP.

PROVIDE A "ACCESSIBLE PARKING ENTRY" SIGN ("VEHICLE TOW-AWAY" SIGN) (17"X22") AND A "NOTICE ALL ROADS ARE FIRE LANES" ENTRANCE SIGN (18"X24") INSTALLED TOGETHER FOR VEHICLES ENTERING INTO THE PARKING LOT AT DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE.
10 11
PROVIDE 6" HIGH CONCRETE CURB TYPICAL AS SHOWN. REFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR ADDTIONAL NOTATION. 12
13 INDICATES PROPERTY LINE.

PROVIDE NEW AC PAVEMENT OVER AGGREGATE BASE AND COMPACTED SOIL SUBGRADE. REFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR ADDITIONAL NOTATION. 14 15 PROVIDE INTERNATIONAL SYMBOL OF ACCESSIBILITY.

INDICATES CONCRETE CONTROL OR EXPANSION JOINTS AT CONCRETE WALKWAY.
18 EXISTING BUILDING FOOTPRINT TO REMAIN INTACT. PROTECT FROM DAMAGE. NO WORK U.O.N. 16
INDICATES LOCATION OF NEW 6'-0" HIGH FENCE. 17
19 20
EXISTING LANDSCAPE AREA TO REMAIN INTACT. PROTECT FROM DAMAGE. 21 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL RECONSTRUCT ALL DAMAGED CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK ALONG SITE'S WEST MARKET STREET FRONTAGE.

2. "FIRE LANE" SIGNS ARE REQUIRED TO BE INSTALLED AT EACH ENTRANCE IN LOCATIONS WHERE VEHICLE PARKING WOULD ENCROACH ON THE REQUIRED 24'-0" CLEAR WIDTH OF ROADWAY. ALL RAISED CURBS AT THESE LOCATIONS SHALL BE PAINTED RED WITH "FIRE LANE - NO PARKING ANYTIME" STENCILED 4" HIGH AT 30'-0" INTERVALS PER CITY STANDARDS.

3. APPROVED NUMBERS AND/OR LETTERS SHALL BE PLACED ON ALL BUILDINGS TO BE VISIBLE FROM THE STREET, WITH THE COLOR CONTRASTING THE BACKGROUND.

ADDRESS POSTING IS REQUIRED ON BUILDING, FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS AND ON ALL REAR DOORS. THE PROJECT REQUIRES AN ILLUMINATED DIRECTORY AT THE MAIN ENTRANCE. INDIVIDUAL ROOM/SUITE NUMERALS TO BE A MINIMUM OF 4" HIGH. 6" HIGH x 3/4" STROKE; 9" HIGH x 1-1/4" STROKE WHEN 36'-50' FROM ACCESS; 12" HIGH x 1-1/2" STROKE WHEN OVER 50' FROM ACCESS.

4. NO TREES OR HIGH-GROWING SHRUBS SHALL BE CLOSER THAN 6'-0" FROM ANY OF THE REQUIRED ACCESS ROADWAYS AND SHALL MAINTAIN CLEAR UP TO 13'-6".

INDICATES EXISTING LIGHT POLE AND CONCRETE BASE TO REMAIN.

CONTRACTOR TO PROTECT FROM DAMAGE.

NEW "VAN ACCESSIBLE" STALL SIGNAGE.
23 24
EXISTING ROAD EASEMENT PER REEL 747 PAGE 495.

EXISTING PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT PER REEL 932 PAGE 668.

NEW WOOD DECK.

EXISTING CONCRETE WALKWAY TO REMAIN INTACT. PROTECT FROM DAMAGE.

EXISTING RAMP TO REMAIN.

EXISTING SHED TO REMAIN.

EXISTING TRENCH DRAIN TO REMAIN.
25 26
27 28
29 30 INDICATES DROP OFF AREA.
31 INDICATES NEW 36" WIDE EGRESS GATE.
32 PROPOSED SYNTHETIC GRASS AND/OR WOOD CHIP CHILDREN'S PLAY AREA

PROVIDE SIDEWALK, CURB, AND GUTTER ALONG GARDEN COURT STREET FRONTAGE PER CITY OF MONTEREY STANDARD DETAIL 132.

PROPOSED TRASH ENCLOSURE.
1 A102
PROVIDE AREA DRAIN & HOSE BIBB WITHIN PROPOSED TRASH ENCLOSURE.

CONNECT AREA DRAIN TO SANITARY SEWER. CIVIL ENGINEER TO PROVIDE DRAIN CONNECTION DETAILS DURING CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS.
33 Exhibit B 12.50 ft
Docusign Envelope ID: 543B266A-08A0-4D2D-BCD5-AC42EA6E3DEC

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 29, Packet Page 170 TRASH

ENCLOSURE

DETAILS
A102
24094-A102
SC
PRINT DATE:

DRAWN BY:

JOB NO.
2340 GARDEN ROAD, SUITE 100
MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA 93940
PHONE: 831.649.4642
FAX: 831.649.3530
WWW.WRDARCH.COM A.P.N. NO.:

SHEET NAME:

SHEET NO.:

FILE NAME.:

SET ISSUED:

CHECKED BY:

THE USE OF THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS IS RESTRICTED TO THE ORIGINAL SITE FOR WHICH

THEY WERE PREPARED, AND PUBLICATION
THEREOF IS EXPRESSLY LIMITED TO SUCH USE. REUSE, REPRODUCTION OR PUBLICATION BY

ANY METHOD IN WHOLE OR IN PART IS
PROHIBITED. TITLE TO THE PLANS AND

SPECIFICATIONS REMAINS WITH THE ARCHITECT, AND VISUAL CONTACT WITH THEM

CONSTITUTES PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE
ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS.

PLOT DATE: 5.8.2025
24094 MONTESSORI COMMUNITY SCHOOL PLANNING PACKAGE MONTESSORI COMMUNITY SCHOOL 2400 GARDEN ROAD MONTEREY, CA 93940 013-322-008-000

CITY OF MONTEREY APPROVAL
5-1/2"thk CONC APRON w/ #4 BARS
@ 18"oc EA WAY o/ 4" CLASS 2 AGG
BASE o/ 95% RELATIVE COMP

SUBGRADE EQ EQ
8"

AC PAVING
(EXISTING) 8"
SCALE:
8 TRASH ENCLOSURE APRON
1-1/2" = 1'-0"

CMU BLOCK WALL - SEE DETAILS
FOR ADDITIONAL REQ.
1/2" Ø 'HILTI' KWIK BOLT
(MIN. 8" EMBEDMENT)
1/4

TUBE STEEL COLUMN
SCALE:
10 BASE PLATE @ CORNER
1-1/2" = 1'-0"
7-1/2"
5"

CMU BLOCK WALL - SEE DETAILS
FOR ADDITIONAL REQ.
1/2" Ø 'HILTI' KWIK BOLT
(MIN. 8" EMBEDMENT)
1/4

TUBE STEEL COLUMN
SCALE:
9 BASE PLATE
1-1/2" = 1'-0"
10"
5"
18" 8" 16" LAP 40 BAR Ø

PER PLAN
18" 6"
#5 @ TOP &
@ 12"oc @
BOTTOM
8x8x16 SPLIT-FACED CMU
WALL
CONT#5 HORIZ BAR IN BOND
BEAM BLOCK @ 24"oc
#5 BARS @ 24"oc VERT
(GROUT ALL CELLS SOLID)
(2) #5 CONT HORIZ BARS IN

BOND BEAM - GROUT ALL

CELLS SOLID

PRE-CAST CONC CAP

ALTERNATE DIRECTION OF

HORIZ LEG OF ALL VERT
DOWELS
5-1/2" thk CONC SLAB w/ #4 @
18"oc EA WAY 6'-8"

FIBER EXPANSION MATERIAL
#4 @ 18"oc w/ 12" LAP MIN 4" DOWEL

EMBEDMENT IN
EPOXY
SCALE:
7 TRASH ENCLOSURE

CMU WALL
1/2" = 1'-0"

TUBE STEEL COLUMN

BASE PLATE

CMU BLOCK WALL - SEE DETAILS
FOR ADDITIONAL REQ. EQ. EQ.
9~
4" 4"
SCALE:
14 COLUMN PLACEMENT
1-1/2" = 1'-0"

TUBE STEEL COLUMN
4" 4" 4" 4"

CORNER BASE PLATE

CMU BLOCK WALL - SEE DETAILS
FOR ADDITIONAL REQ.
10~
SCALE:
13 CORNER COLUMN

PLACEMENT
1-1/2" = 1'-0"
2" @ SINGLE GATE
(JAMB ONLY)
6" 6" 5'-8" 6" 3 1/2"
11" 11"
5" 9" 5"
4x4-1/2 HD. STL. BUTTS TOP, MIDDLE & BOTTOM
- WELD TO ANGLE
2x2 w/ 1/4" STL.

PLATE TO STL. ANGLE
MTL. DECKING
STL. TUBING - WELD TO STL.

ANGLE TO FIT STL. ROD
3 4" Ø STL. ROD -

TAPER END & WELD
4" HANDLE ON
2"x2"x3/16" STL ANGLE - WELD
CORNERS (TYP @ 4 SIDES)
3 4" Ø CANE BOLT - PROVIDE CATCH TO HOLD

IN UP POSITION (DOUBLE GATES ONLY)
SHEET MTL SCREWS @ 9"oc @ TOP
BOTTOM & SIDES. GRIND FLUSH
1/4" PLATE - ANGLE AND WELD
TO 2x2 TUBE & 2x2 STL ANGLES
@ EA END. SEE SECTION "A"
2"x2"x3/16" STL TUBE AT

CENTER OF FRAME
18ga MTL DECKING w/ SHT MTL SCREWS
@ 9"oc @ TOP, BOTTOM & SIDES.

B
A
1/2 OF OPENING

A SECTION
SCALE: 1" = 1'-0"

B SLIDE BOLT
SCALE: 1" = 1'-0"

C ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0"

D SECTION
SCALE: 1" = 1'-0" 4"
SCALE:
5 ENCLOSURE GATES

AS NOTED
(2) 1/4" Ø MACHINE
BOLT w/ MALEABLE

WASHERS
5x3x1/4 STL TAB
1/4
CUT FLANGES & BEND WEB.

BOLT THROUGH TO ADJ. EJ
w/ (2) 1/4" MACHINE BOLT &
3" MALEABLE WASHERS 2"
1-1/2"
1-1/2" 1-1/2" 3" 1-1/2" 1-1/2"
1-1/2" 1-1/2"
SCALE:
12 TRASH ENCLOSURE

FRAMING PLAN
1/4" = 1'-0"
20 ga. GALV. STL
C8x11.5 (TYP.)
EJ60014 STEEL
JOIST @ 24" O.C.
14 ga. STEEL 'Z' PURLIN
4x4x1/4 TS (TYP. OF 5) 12'-4"
19'-4"
EQ. EQ.
#4 BAR x24" @ 24"oc PLUG WELD TO

CHANNEL
(2) #4 BAR TO TOP OF WALL
C5x9x8'-0" LONG - SLOPE
TOP w/ WELDED CAP
STEEL GATES w/

HINGE WELDED TO

CHANNEL - SEE

SOLID GROUT ALL CELLS
PAINT GATES w/ (3) COATS OF
PAINT o/ (1) COAT OF PRIMER
NOTE - MAINTAIN 4" CLR.

UNDER GATES

TOP OF CONC APRON &

AC PAVING
EMBED "C-5" MIN 2'-0"

INTO CONCRETE
12"sq FOOTING
5 1
2 " 3" 2'-3"
3 - #4 TIES
2 - #5 EA WAY
SCALE:
6 TRASH ENCLOSURE

JAMB & FOOTING
1-1/2" = 1'-0"
5~
(2) 1/2" Ø MACHINE BOLT w/

MALEABLE WASHERS & NUTS

STEEL CHANNEL

ROOF SHEET

TUBE STEEL COLUMN
TEK w/ NEOPRENE WASHER 2" 4" 2"
2 1
4" 8"
3"
SCALE:
15 LOW EAVE
1-1/2" = 1'-0"

ROOF SHEET

TUBE STEEL COLUMN

RAKE TRIM

STITCH SCREW

ANGLE FLASHING
(1) 1/2" Ø MACHINE
BOLT w/ MALEABLE

WASHERS & NUTS

STEEL CHANNEL
SCALE:
16 METAL ROOFING RAKE
1-1/2" = 1'-0"
OPEN
13~
6~
13~ 6'-8" 10" MIN
SCALE:
3 TRASH

ENCLOSURE ELEVATIONS
1/4" = 1'-0"
A
12 1/2
OPEN
B
13~
13~ C
METAL ROOFING w/
RAKE TRIM @ (3) SIDES
- SEE NOTED DETAILS

METAL ROOF

STRUCTURE - SEE

NOTED DETAILS
CMU ENCLOSURE w/

PRE - CAST CONCRETE
CAP

OPEN OPEN
14~
13~
TYP @ RAKE
12 1/2 6'-8" 1'-11" 8'-7" 6'-8" +/- 1'-6" +/- 9'-0"
OPEN
D
13~
16~

METAL ACCESS GATE
w/ LATCHSET - SEE
'GATE HARDWARE'

NOTE & STRUCTURAL

DRAWINGS
TRASH

ENCLOSURE

ROOF FRAMING

PLAN PER
12~
LOW
EAVE
15~13~
SCALE:
1 TRASH ENCLOSURE
1/4" = 1'-0" 96 GAL. BIN
96 GAL.

BIN
19'-8" 3C / A103
SIM. 7~ 3D / A103 12'-8" 10'-0" EXTEND CONC. SLAB BEYOND TRASH ENCLOSURE TYP
7~
6~
2'-8" 10'-0" CLEAR 2'-0"
CONC
SLAB
3A / A103
4'-0"
TYP
1'-0"
5'-0"

CONCRETE CURB
36"w METAL
ACCESS GATE w/

LATCHSET - SEE
'GATE HARDWARE
NOTE'

ROLL-OUT TRASH

RECEPTACLES (TYP
OF 2) - VERIFY SIZE
w/ SOLID WASTE

SLOPE SLAB
@ 1
4"/FT TO
AREA DRAIN 3B / A103
8" CMU WALL - PAINT TO

MATCH BUILDING COLOR

RECYCLE

RECEPTACLES (TYP
OF 4) - VERIFY SIZE
w/ SOLID WASTE
GATE HARDWARE NOTE:

1. PROVIDE LEVER

OPENER, OPERABLE
WITH SINGLE EFFORT;

WITH LATCH BUT NO
CLOSER. THE LEVER

SHALL BE CURVED TO
RETURN TO WITHIN 1/2"

OF THE GATE TO

PREVENT CATCHING

OF CLOTHING (CBC
1126A.6)

2. BOTTOM OF GATE TO
BE 10" MIN ABOVE
GRADE OR 10"

SMOOTH SURFACE

SHALL BE REQUIRED

ON PUSH SIDE OF
DOOR.

BOLT SLEEVE AT EA.

GATE, AND RECEIVING

HOLE IN GROUND PER

CITY STANDARD PLAN
S-602a. THE BOLT HOLE

SHALL ALLOW FOR THE

DOORS TO BE OPENED
BEYOND 90 DEGREES SO

THAT THE DOORS DO

NOT LIMIT ACCESS TO
THE ENCLOSURE. 96 GAL. BIN 96 GAL. BIN 96 GAL. BIN
5~
8~
Exhibit B
Docusign Envelope ID: 543B266A-08A0-4D2D-BCD5-AC42EA6E3DEC

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 30, Packet Page 171 Exhibit B
Docusign Envelope ID: 543B266A-08A0-4D2D-BCD5-AC42EA6E3DEC

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 31, Packet Page 172 Exhibit B
Docusign Envelope ID: 543B266A-08A0-4D2D-BCD5-AC42EA6E3DEC

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 32, Packet Page 173

PRELIMINARY

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION

SHEET INDEX

GENERAL NOTES GRADING & DRAINAGE TREE PROTECTION NOTES

UNDERGROUND UTILITIES

VICINITY MAP

SANITARY SEWER

STORM DRAIN

BENCHMARK
GROVE

PAICIFIC
SITE

MONTEREY
CARMEL
VALLEY
CARMEL

PACIFIC
OCEAN
PEBBLE
BEACH
LEGEND

PRELIMINARY

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
PRINT DATE:

DRAWN BY:

JOB NO.
2340 GARDEN ROAD, SUITE 100
MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA 93940
PHONE: 831.649.4642
FAX: 831.649.3530
WWW.WRDARCH.COM A.P.N. NO.:

SHEET NAME:

SHEET NO.:

FILE NAME.:

SET ISSUED:

CHECKED BY:

THE USE OF THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS IS

RESTRICTED TO THE ORIGINAL SITE FOR WHICH

THEY WERE PREPARED, AND PUBLICATION
THEREOF IS EXPRESSLY LIMITED TO SUCH USE.

REUSE, REPRODUCTION OR PUBLICATION BY

ANY METHOD IN WHOLE OR IN PART IS
PROHIBITED. TITLE TO THE PLANS AND

SPECIFICATIONS REMAINS WITH THE ARCHITECT,

AND VISUAL CONTACT WITH THEM

CONSTITUTES PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE
ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS.

PLOT DATE: 3.27.2025
24094 MONTESSORI COMMUNITY SCHOOL PLANNING PACKAGE MONTESSORI COMMUNITY SCHOOL 2400 GARDEN ROAD MONTEREY, CA 93940 013-322-008-000

CITY OF MONTEREY APPROVAL
126 Bonifacio Place, Suite C, Monterey, CA 93940
Phone: (831) 647-1192 Fax (831) 647-1194
[email protected]
Civil Engineering Land Development
Stormwater Management C1

COVER &

GENERAL
NOTES
Exhibit B
Docusign Envelope ID: 543B266A-08A0-4D2D-BCD5-AC42EA6E3DEC

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 33, Packet Page 174

EXISTING SITE PLAN
PRINT DATE:

DRAWN BY:

JOB NO.
2340 GARDEN ROAD, SUITE 100
MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA 93940
PHONE: 831.649.4642
FAX: 831.649.3530
WWW.WRDARCH.COM A.P.N. NO.:

SHEET NAME:

SHEET NO.:

FILE NAME.:

SET ISSUED:

CHECKED BY:

THE USE OF THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS IS

RESTRICTED TO THE ORIGINAL SITE FOR WHICH

THEY WERE PREPARED, AND PUBLICATION
THEREOF IS EXPRESSLY LIMITED TO SUCH USE.

REUSE, REPRODUCTION OR PUBLICATION BY

ANY METHOD IN WHOLE OR IN PART IS
PROHIBITED. TITLE TO THE PLANS AND

SPECIFICATIONS REMAINS WITH THE ARCHITECT,

AND VISUAL CONTACT WITH THEM

CONSTITUTES PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE
ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS.

PLOT DATE: 3.27.2025
24094 MONTESSORI COMMUNITY SCHOOL PLANNING PACKAGE MONTESSORI COMMUNITY SCHOOL 2400 GARDEN ROAD MONTEREY, CA 93940 013-322-008-000

CITY OF MONTEREY APPROVAL

PRELIMINARY

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
126 Bonifacio Place, Suite C, Monterey, CA 93940
Phone: (831) 647-1192 Fax (831) 647-1194
[email protected]
Civil Engineering Land Development
Stormwater Management C2

EXISTING

SITE PLAN

HATCH LEGEND
Exhibit B
Docusign Envelope ID: 543B266A-08A0-4D2D-BCD5-AC42EA6E3DEC

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 34, Packet Page 175 1 KEY NOTES
2 HATCH LEGEND
PRINT DATE:

DRAWN BY:

JOB NO.
2340 GARDEN ROAD, SUITE 100
MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA 93940
PHONE: 831.649.4642
FAX: 831.649.3530
WWW.WRDARCH.COM A.P.N. NO.:

SHEET NAME:

SHEET NO.:

FILE NAME.:

SET ISSUED:

CHECKED BY:

THE USE OF THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS IS

RESTRICTED TO THE ORIGINAL SITE FOR WHICH

THEY WERE PREPARED, AND PUBLICATION
THEREOF IS EXPRESSLY LIMITED TO SUCH USE.

REUSE, REPRODUCTION OR PUBLICATION BY

ANY METHOD IN WHOLE OR IN PART IS
PROHIBITED. TITLE TO THE PLANS AND

SPECIFICATIONS REMAINS WITH THE ARCHITECT,

AND VISUAL CONTACT WITH THEM

CONSTITUTES PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE
ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS.

PLOT DATE: 3.27.2025
24094 MONTESSORI COMMUNITY SCHOOL PLANNING PACKAGE MONTESSORI COMMUNITY SCHOOL 2400 GARDEN ROAD MONTEREY, CA 93940 013-322-008-000

CITY OF MONTEREY APPROVAL

PRELIMINARY

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
126 Bonifacio Place, Suite C, Monterey, CA 93940
Phone: (831) 647-1192 Fax (831) 647-1194
[email protected]
Civil Engineering Land Development
Stormwater Management

GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN
C3

GRADING
& DRAINAGE
PLAN
3 4
5 2
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 2
3 4
5 6
6 6
6 7
7 8
8 9
9 Exhibit B
Docusign Envelope ID: 543B266A-08A0-4D2D-BCD5-AC42EA6E3DEC

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 35, Packet Page 176 A
C4
A.C. PAVEMENT SECT.

B
C4

CONCRETE PAVEMENT
C
C4

THICKENED EDGE
E
C4

ROOF DRAIN CONNECTION
F
C4
CLEAN-OUT @ GRADE
G
C4
RET. WALL SUBDRAIN
PRINT DATE:

DRAWN BY:

JOB NO.
2340 GARDEN ROAD, SUITE 100
MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA 93940
PHONE: 831.649.4642
FAX: 831.649.3530
WWW.WRDARCH.COM A.P.N. NO.:

SHEET NAME:

SHEET NO.:

FILE NAME.:

SET ISSUED:

CHECKED BY:

THE USE OF THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS IS

RESTRICTED TO THE ORIGINAL SITE FOR WHICH

THEY WERE PREPARED, AND PUBLICATION
THEREOF IS EXPRESSLY LIMITED TO SUCH USE.

REUSE, REPRODUCTION OR PUBLICATION BY

ANY METHOD IN WHOLE OR IN PART IS
PROHIBITED. TITLE TO THE PLANS AND

SPECIFICATIONS REMAINS WITH THE ARCHITECT,

AND VISUAL CONTACT WITH THEM

CONSTITUTES PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE
ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS.

PLOT DATE: 3.27.2025
24094 MONTESSORI COMMUNITY SCHOOL PLANNING PACKAGE MONTESSORI COMMUNITY SCHOOL 2400 GARDEN ROAD MONTEREY, CA 93940 013-322-008-000

CITY OF MONTEREY APPROVAL

PRELIMINARY

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
126 Bonifacio Place, Suite C, Monterey, CA 93940
Phone: (831) 647-1192 Fax (831) 647-1194
[email protected]
Civil Engineering Land Development
Stormwater Management C4

SECTIONS &

DETAILS
D
C4
CONC. VERTICAL CURB
K
C4
CONC. WHEELSTOP
I
C4

POLE MOUNTING
J
C4

TRUNCATED DOMES

NO PARKING
H
C4

L ACCESSIBLE STALL
C4
CONC. VERTICAL CURB
M
C4
12" CURB
1 1
C4

DRIVEWAY
1 KEY NOTES
2 3
4 5
2 4
5 3
Exhibit B
Docusign Envelope ID: 543B266A-08A0-4D2D-BCD5-AC42EA6E3DEC

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 36, Packet Page 177

EROSION CONTROL PLAN
PRINT DATE:

DRAWN BY:

JOB NO.
2340 GARDEN ROAD, SUITE 100
MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA 93940
PHONE: 831.649.4642
FAX: 831.649.3530
WWW.WRDARCH.COM A.P.N. NO.:

SHEET NAME:

SHEET NO.:

FILE NAME.:

SET ISSUED:

CHECKED BY:

THE USE OF THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS IS

RESTRICTED TO THE ORIGINAL SITE FOR WHICH

THEY WERE PREPARED, AND PUBLICATION
THEREOF IS EXPRESSLY LIMITED TO SUCH USE.

REUSE, REPRODUCTION OR PUBLICATION BY

ANY METHOD IN WHOLE OR IN PART IS
PROHIBITED. TITLE TO THE PLANS AND

SPECIFICATIONS REMAINS WITH THE ARCHITECT,

AND VISUAL CONTACT WITH THEM

CONSTITUTES PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE
ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS.

PLOT DATE: 3.27.2025
24094 MONTESSORI COMMUNITY SCHOOL PLANNING PACKAGE MONTESSORI COMMUNITY SCHOOL 2400 GARDEN ROAD MONTEREY, CA 93940 013-322-008-000

CITY OF MONTEREY APPROVAL

PRELIMINARY

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
126 Bonifacio Place, Suite C, Monterey, CA 93940
Phone: (831) 647-1192 Fax (831) 647-1194
[email protected]
Civil Engineering Land Development
Stormwater Management
BMP'S

EROSION CONTROL NOTES EROSION CONTROL NOTES SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES LEGEND
A
C5

FIBER ROLL
B
C5

STABILIZE ENTRANCE
C
C5

CONCRETE WASHOUT
D
C5

DROP INLET PROTECTION
E
C5

CURB INLET PROTECTION
A
A
F
C5

SILT FENCE
G
C5

STOCK PILE COVERING
C5

EROSION

CONTROL
PLAN &

DETAILS
Exhibit B
Docusign Envelope ID: 543B266A-08A0-4D2D-BCD5-AC42EA6E3DEC

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 37, Packet Page 178 FH
WV

WATER METER
HB
HB
SSCO
LP
LP
12"P
12"P
12"P
12"P
10"P
10"P
10"P
10"P
10"P
10"P
10"P
10"P
10"Q
6"Q
6"Q
14"P
14"P
14"P
24"P
24"P
6"P
6"P
6"P
6"P
6"P
16"P
18"P
18"P
8"P
8"P
8"P
6"P
8"P TELECOM VAULT MANHOLE TELECOM

GAS METER
24"P ACU
ACU

ACU ACUACU
SSCO
SSCO

ELECTRICAL PANEL
FDC
12"P
8"T
6"T
2-PRONG
PINE, 12"-14"
18"P
16"P
16"P
LP

AM GARDEN ROAD
LS
LS
LS LS
LS
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
LG
LG LG
LG
LG
LG

CO CO CO CO CO
P
P
P
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
C
C
C
C
C
C
LV
LV
LV
LV
LV

FM FM FM FM FM
F
LV H
H
TC
TC
L L
L
L
TC
L
L
L
L
S
H
H
H
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA LA
E
E
E
E

LA S R S S S R R R
R R

R R R R
R R
R R

R R R R
C
C
C
C
C
H H
H
H
H
H H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H H
H

CC TC CC
CC
CC

L L L L
L
L
L
L
A

CODE BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME CONT QTY WATER USE
TREES
AM Arbutus x `Marina` / Arbutus Standard 15 gal 1 Low
CC Cercis canadensis / Eastern Redbud 15 gal 4 Medium
LS Laurus x `Saratoga` / Saratoga Laurel 15 gal 5 Low
SHRUBS
A Arctostaphylos x `Pacific Mist` / Pacific Mist Manzanita 5 gal 8 Very low C Ceanothus griseus horizontalis `Carmel Creeper` / Carmel Creeper 5 gal 11 Low CO Correa x 'Carmine Bells' / Carmine Bells Australian Fuchsia 5 gal 10 Low E Eriogonum arborescens / Santa Cruz Island Buckwheat 5 gal 4 Low H Hemerocallis x / Hybrid Daylily 1 gal 22 Low
LA Lantana x 'New Gold' / New Gold Lantana 5 gal 12 Low LV Lavandula x intermedia 'Provence' / Provence Lavendin 5 gal 6 Low P Prunus caroliniana 'Compacta' / Compact Carolina Laurel Cherry 5 gal 3 Low R Rosa x `Flower Carpet White` / Rose 1 gal 18 Medium
S Salvia mellifera / Black Sage 5 gal 5 Very low
TC Tecomaria capensis / Cape Honeysuckle 5 gal 4 Medium

GRASSES
FM Festuca rubra 'Molate' / Molate Red Fescue 1 gal 5 Low LG Leymus arenarius `Glaucus` / Blue Wild Rye 1 gal 6 Low L Lomandra longifolia Platinum Beauty / Variegated Mat Rush 1 gal 16 Low VINES
F Ficus pumila / Creeping Fig 5 gal 1 Medium

PLANT SCHEDULE
PRINT DATE:

DRAWN BY:

JOB NO.
2340 GARDEN ROAD, SUITE 100
MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA 93940
PHONE: 831.649.4642
FAX: 831.649.3530
WWW.WRDARCH.COM A.P.N. NO.:

SHEET NAME:

SHEET NO.:

FILE NAME.:

SET ISSUED:

CHECKED BY:

THE USE OF THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS IS RESTRICTED TO THE ORIGINAL SITE FOR WHICH

THEY WERE PREPARED, AND PUBLICATION
THEREOF IS EXPRESSLY LIMITED TO SUCH USE. REUSE, REPRODUCTION OR PUBLICATION BY

ANY METHOD IN WHOLE OR IN PART IS
PROHIBITED. TITLE TO THE PLANS AND

SPECIFICATIONS REMAINS WITH THE ARCHITECT, AND VISUAL CONTACT WITH THEM

CONSTITUTES PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE
ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS.

PLOT DATE: 3.14.2025
L-1.0
MAA

LANDSCAPE PLAN
24094 MONTESSORI COMMUNITY SCHOOL T.I. 2400 GARDEN ROAD MONTESSORI COMMUNITY SCHOOL 2400 GARDEN ROAD MONTEREY, CA 93940 013-322-008-000 N O R T H existing tree to remain
(typical)
existing tree to remain (typical)
0 SCALE:
10 20 30 feet
1" = 10'
native landscape to remain
existing tree to remain (typical)
native landscape to remain
native landscape to remain
trash enclosure
existing play area to remain
existing play area to remain

1. All existing trees, shrubs and ground covers to remain shall be protected. Any damage caused by Contractor's work shall be repaired or replaced at the Contractor's expense and be approved by the Landscape Architect.

2. Pre-planting should consist of adding the following fertilizer materials per 1000 sq ft of bed area:

Gypsum 25.0 lbs
Nitroform (38-0-0) 20.0 lbs
(MAP) 11-52-0 30.0 lbs
The above amendments should be thoroughly incorporated into the upper 8" of the soil profile.

3. After amending soil, grade all areas smooth with no localized depressions exceeding .5 inch. All areas shall surface drain with 1.5 percent minimum slope away from all buildings, paving or other structures.

4. Quantities are for aiding in bidding only. Contractor shall verify all quantities.

5. Contractor shall lay out plant material as per plan and receive approval from Landscape Architect prior to installation.

6. No plants shall be planted with root balls or new pits in a dry condition.

7. Plant all plants as per planting details in square pits with sides and bottoms thoroughly scarified. Do not amend backfill mix beyond initial topsoil amending unless noted.

8. All newly planted material shall be watered by deep soaking within 3 hours of planting.

9. All planting areas shall receive 3 inches of mini bark chip top dressing (mulch).

10. Contractor shall be responsible for irrigating all new plant material until the entire project as been approved and accepted by Owner.

11. Thirty days after planting Contractor shall re-stake and straighten all trees as necessary to be approved by Landscape Architect.

12. New trees planted within 4' of any paving shall have a root barrier installed as per manufacturers instructions. DeepRoot UB 18-2 or equal product.

PLANTING NOTES
existing play area to remain
Exhibit B
Docusign Envelope ID: 543B266A-08A0-4D2D-BCD5-AC42EA6E3DEC

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 38, Packet Page 179 PRINT DATE:

DRAWN BY:

JOB NO.
2340 GARDEN ROAD, SUITE 100
MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA 93940
PHONE: 831.649.4642
FAX: 831.649.3530
WWW.WRDARCH.COM A.P.N. NO.:

SHEET NAME:

SHEET NO.:

FILE NAME.:

SET ISSUED:

CHECKED BY:

THE USE OF THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS IS RESTRICTED TO THE ORIGINAL SITE FOR WHICH

THEY WERE PREPARED, AND PUBLICATION
THEREOF IS EXPRESSLY LIMITED TO SUCH USE. REUSE, REPRODUCTION OR PUBLICATION BY

ANY METHOD IN WHOLE OR IN PART IS
PROHIBITED. TITLE TO THE PLANS AND

SPECIFICATIONS REMAINS WITH THE ARCHITECT, AND VISUAL CONTACT WITH THEM

CONSTITUTES PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE
ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS.

PLOT DATE:
24094 MONTESSORI COMMUNITY SCHOOL T.I. 2400 GARDEN ROAD MONTESSORI COMMUNITY SCHOOL 2400 GARDEN ROAD MONTEREY, CA 93940 013-322-008-000 L-1.1
MAA

PLANT IMAGES
TREES

GRASSES
Arbutus x Marina
Arbutus Standard
Hemerocallis x 'Yellow'
Yellow Daylily
Tecomaria capensis
Cape Honeysuckle
Eriogonum arborescens
Santa Cruz Island Buckwheat
Lomandra longifolia 'Platinum Beauty'
Varigated Mat Rush
Festuca rebra 'Molate
Molate Red Fescue
Leymus arenarius 'Glauca'
Blue Wild Rye
Ficus pumila
Creeping Fig Vine

SHRUBS AND PERENNIALS
Cercis canadensis
Eastern Redbud
Laurus x 'Saratoga'
Saratoga Laurel
Salvia melifera
Black Sage
Lantana x 'New Gold'
New Gold Lantana
Lavandula x intermedia 'Provence'
Provence Lavender
Prunus caroliniana 'Compacta'
Compact Carolina Laurel Cherry
Rosa x 'Flower Carpet White'
Flower Carper Rose
VINES
Arctostaphylos hookerii `Pacific Mist`
Carmel Creeper Manzanita
Ceanothus griseus horizontalis
Carmel Creeper
Correa x Carmine Bells
Carmine Bells Australian Fuchsia

SHRUBS AND PERENNIALS

3.14.2025
Exhibit B
Docusign Envelope ID: 543B266A-08A0-4D2D-BCD5-AC42EA6E3DEC

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 39, Packet Page 180 PRINT DATE:

DRAWN BY:

JOB NO.
2340 GARDEN ROAD, SUITE 100
MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA 93940
PHONE: 831.649.4642
FAX: 831.649.3530
WWW.WRDARCH.COM A.P.N. NO.:

SHEET NAME:

SHEET NO.:

FILE NAME.:

SET ISSUED:

CHECKED BY:

THE USE OF THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS IS RESTRICTED TO THE ORIGINAL SITE FOR WHICH

THEY WERE PREPARED, AND PUBLICATION
THEREOF IS EXPRESSLY LIMITED TO SUCH USE. REUSE, REPRODUCTION OR PUBLICATION BY

ANY METHOD IN WHOLE OR IN PART IS
PROHIBITED. TITLE TO THE PLANS AND

SPECIFICATIONS REMAINS WITH THE ARCHITECT, AND VISUAL CONTACT WITH THEM

CONSTITUTES PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE
ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS.

PLOT DATE:
24094 MONTESSORI COMMUNITY SCHOOL T.I. 2400 GARDEN ROAD MONTESSORI COMMUNITY SCHOOL 2400 GARDEN ROAD MONTEREY, CA 93940 013-322-008-000 L-1.2
MAA

PLANTING NOTES
& DETAILS

TREE PROTECTION
1/4" = 1'-0"
Crown drip line or other limit of Tree Protection area. See tree preservation plan for fence alignment. 4'-0" Maintain existing grade with the tree
protection fence
unless otherwise
indicated on the
plans.
2" x 6' steel posts
or approved equal.
5" thick
layer of mulch.

Notes:
1- See specifications for additional tree
protection requirements.
2- If there is no existing irrigation, see
specifications for watering requirements.
3- No pruning shall be performed except
by approved arborist.
4- No equipment shall operate inside the
protective fencing including during fence
installation and removal.
5- See site preparation plan for any
modifications with the Tree Protection
area.

SECTION VIEW

KEEP OUT
TREE

PROTECTION
AREA

8.5" x 11"
sign
laminated in
plastic spaced
every 50'
along the
fence.

OPEN SOURCE FREE TO USE
Tree Protection
fence: High density
polyethylene fencing
with 3.5" x 1.5"
openings; Colororange. Steel posts
installed at 8' o.c.
1 FX-PL-FX-TRMT-02
1" = 1'-0"

TREE PLANTING DOUBLE STAKE

PLANTING AT
TURF AREAS.

PLANT PIT DETAIL

STAKING DETAIL

PLANTING AT
SHRUB AREAS.

FX-PL-FX-TREE-10
2 SHRUB - MODIFIED SOIL
3/4" = 1'-0"
Notes:
1- Shrubs shall be of quality prescribed in the root observations detail and specifications. 2- See specifications for further requirements related to this detail.

Modified soil.

Depth varies. (See
specifications for soil
modification).

Root ball.
4" high x 8" wide round - topped soil
berm above root ball surface shall be
constructed around the root ball.

Berm shall begin at root ball periphery.

Prior to mulching, lightly tamp soil
around the root ball in 6" lifts to brace
shrub. Do not over compact. When the
planting hole has been backfilled, pour
water around the root ball to settle the
soil.
4" layer of mulch.

No more than 1" of
mulch on top of
root ball. (See
specifications for
mulch).

Root ball rests on
existing or
recompacted soil.

Existing soil.

Finished grade.

Shrub.

OPEN SOURCE FREE TO USE
FX-PL-FX-SHRB-03
3 VINE - MODIFIED SOIL
1/2" = 1'-0"
Notes:
1- Vines shall be of quality as prescribed in the root observations detail and specifications. 2- See specifications for further requirements related to this detail.

Face of wall or building.

Lean nursery stake against the wall. Stake to be
removed at the end of the maintenance (warranty)
period after the vine has attached to the wall.

Root ball.

Vine.
4" x 8" wide round - topped soil berm above root
ball surface shall be constructed around the root
ball. Berm shall begin at root ball periphery.

Prior to mulching, lightly tamp soil around the root
ball in 6" lifts to brace shrub. Do not over compact.

When the planting hole has been backfilled, pour
water around the root ball to settle the soil.
4" layer of mulch. No more than 1" of mulch on
the top of the root ball. (See specifications for
mulch).

Finished grade.

Pavement.

Modified soil. Depth varies. (See specifications for
soil modification).

Root ball rests on existing or recompacted soil.

Existing soil.

3.14.2025
Exhibit B
Docusign Envelope ID: 543B266A-08A0-4D2D-BCD5-AC42EA6E3DEC

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 40, Packet Page 181

SYMBOL DESCRIPTION QTY

DRIP LOW

LOW WATER USE
2,544 sf

TREE BUBBLER

MODERATE WATER USE
160 sf
TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA 2,704 s.f.

HYDROZONE MAP LEGEND
FH
WV

WATER METER
HB
HB
SSCO
LP
LP
12"P
12"P
12"P
12"P
10"P
10"P
10"P
10"P
10"P
10"P
10"P
10"P
10"Q
6"Q
6"Q
14"P
14"P
14"P
24"P
24"P
6"P
6"P
6"P
6"P
6"P
16"P
18"P
18"P
8"P
8"P
8"P
6"P
8"P TELECOM VAULT MANHOLE TELECOM

GAS METER
24"P ACU
ACU

ACU ACUACU
SSCO
SSCO

ELECTRICAL PANEL
FDC
12"P
8"T
6"T
2-PRONG
PINE, 12"-14"
18"P
16"P
16"P

LP GARDEN ROAD
PRINT DATE:

DRAWN BY:

JOB NO.
2340 GARDEN ROAD, SUITE 100
MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA 93940
PHONE: 831.649.4642
FAX: 831.649.3530
WWW.WRDARCH.COM A.P.N. NO.:

SHEET NAME:

SHEET NO.:

FILE NAME.:

SET ISSUED:

CHECKED BY:

THE USE OF THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS IS RESTRICTED TO THE ORIGINAL SITE FOR WHICH

THEY WERE PREPARED, AND PUBLICATION
THEREOF IS EXPRESSLY LIMITED TO SUCH USE. REUSE, REPRODUCTION OR PUBLICATION BY

ANY METHOD IN WHOLE OR IN PART IS
PROHIBITED. TITLE TO THE PLANS AND

SPECIFICATIONS REMAINS WITH THE ARCHITECT, AND VISUAL CONTACT WITH THEM

CONSTITUTES PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE
ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS.

PLOT DATE:
24094 MONTESSORI COMMUNITY SCHOOL T.I. 2400 GARDEN ROAD MONTESSORI COMMUNITY SCHOOL 2400 GARDEN ROAD MONTEREY, CA 93940 013-322-008-000 L-2.0
MAA

HYDROZONE MAP

AND WATER USE

CALCULATIOS

MAWA E T W U N O R T H
0 SCALE:
10 20 30 feet
1" = 10'

M A W A E T W U

3.14.2025
Click on the blue cell on right to Pick City Name Monterey Name of City ETo of City from Appendix A 36.00ETo (inches/year)
0Overhead Landscape Area (ft2)
2,704Drip Landscape Area (ft2)
0SLA (ft2)
Total Landscape Area 2,704
Results:
(ETo) x (0.62) x [(0.45 x LA) + (1.0 - 0.45) X SLA)] 27,159Gallons 3,631Cubic Feet
36HCF
0Acre-feet
0Millions of Gallons
MAWA calculation incorporating Effective Precipitation (Optional) Precipitation (Optional)
ETo of City from Appendix A 36ETo (inches/year)
Total Landscape Area 2,704LA (ft2)
Special Landscape Area 0SLA (ft2)
Total annual precipitiation (inches/year)
Enter Effective Precipitation 0.00Eppt (in/yr)(25% of total annual precipitation) Results:

MAWA = [(ETo - Eppt) x (0.62)] x [(0.45 x LA) + ((1.0 - 0.45) x SLA)] - Gallons - Cubic Feet - HCF
- Acre-feet - Millions of Gallons
Messages and Warnings
Maximum Applied Water Allowance Calculations for New and Rehabilitated Non-Residential Landscapes Irrigation Efficiency Default Value for overhead 0.75 and drip 0.81.

Plant Water Use Type Plant Factor
Very Low 0 - 0.1
Low 0.2 - 0.3
Medium 0.4 - 0.6
High 0.7 - 1.0
SLA 1.0
HydrozoneSelect System From
the Dropdown List
click on cell below
Plant Water Use
Type (s) (low,
medium, high)
Plant Factor
(PF)
Hydrozone Area (HA)
(ft2) Without SLA Irrigation
Efficiency
(IE)
(PF x HA (ft2))/IE
Zone 1 Drip Low 0.30 2 ,544 0.81 942
Zone 2 Drip Medium 0.40 1 60 0.81 79
1,021
SLA 0 0
Sum 2,704
Results
MAWA = 27,159 ETWU = 22,794Gallons ETWU complies with MAWA 3,047Cubic Feet

30.47HCF

0.07Acre-feet

0.02Millions of Gallons
Estimated Total Water Use
Equation: ETWU = ETo x 0.62 x [((PF x HA)/IE) + SLA]; Considering precipitation ETWA = (ETo-Eppt) x 0.62 x [((PF x HA)/IE) +SLA] Exhibit B
Docusign Envelope ID: 543B266A-08A0-4D2D-BCD5-AC42EA6E3DEC

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 41, Packet Page 182

SYMBOL MANUFACTURER/MODEL/DESCRIPTION QTY PSI
Hunter RZWS-SLEEVE-18-CV
18in. long RZWS with Filter Fabric Sleeve, .50 gpm bubbler options, Check Valve, 1/2in. swing joint for connection to 1/2in. pipe
20 15

SYMBOL MANUFACTURER/MODEL/DESCRIPTION QTY
Hunter ICZ-101-25
Drip Control Zone Kit. 1" ICV Globe Valve with 1" HY100 filter system. Pressure Regulation: 25psi. Flow Range: 2 GPM to 20 GPM. 150 mesh stainless steel screen.
4 Hunter AFV-T
Automatic flush valve with 1/2in. MPT connection. Removable top for diaphragm maintenance.
4 Hunter ECO-ID-12
ECO-ID: 1/2in. FPT connection with 15 psi - 100 psi operating pressure. Specify with Hunter SJ swing joint.
4 Area to Receive Drip Emitters
Rain Bird XB-PC (2)
Single Outlet, Pressure Compensating Drip Emitters. Flow rates of 0.5gph=blue, 1.0gph=black, and 2.0gph=red. Comes with a self-piercing barb inlet x barb outlet.
2,544 s.f.

Emitter Notes:

0.5 GPH emitters (2 assigned to each 1 gal plant)

1.0 GPH emitters (2 assigned to each 5 gal plant)

2.0 GPH emitters (4 assigned to each 15 gal plant)

0.25 0.50

IRRIGATION SCHEDULE
Valve Number
Valve Size
Valve Flow
Valve Callout
# #
#"
FH
WV

WATER METER
HB
HB
SSCO
LP
LP
12"P
12"P
12"P
12"P
10"P
10"P
10"P
10"P
10"P
10"P
10"P
10"P
10"Q
6"Q
6"Q
14"P
14"P
14"P
24"P
24"P
6"P
6"P
6"P
6"P
6"P
16"P
18"P
18"P
8"P
8"P
8"P
6"P
8"P TELECOM VAULT MANHOLE TELECOM

GAS METER
24"P ACU
ACU

ACU ACUACU
SSCO
SSCO

ELECTRICAL PANEL
FDC
12"P
8"T
6"T
2-PRONG
PINE, 12"-14"
18"P
16"P
16"P

LP GARDEN ROAD
3" S

1.5" M

1.5" M
3" S
1" L
C-1 3.6
1"
C-2 3.3
1"

3.7 C-3
1"
C-4 2.7
1"
C-5 5.0
1"
C-6 5.0
1"
1" L

SYMBOL MANUFACTURER/MODEL/DESCRIPTION QTY
Hunter IBV-BSP-FS
1in., 1-1/2in., 2in., and 3in. Brass Electric Remote Control Valve, Globe Configuration, with BSP Threaded Inlet/Outlet, for Commercial/Municipal Use. With Filter Sentry Factory Installed Option.
2 Rain Bird 44-LRC
1" Brass Quick-Coupling Valve, with Corrosion-Resistant Stainless Steel Spring, Locking Thermoplastic Rubber Cover, and 2-Piece Body.
3 Nibco T-580-S6-R-66-LL
Stainless steel ball valve shut off valve
2 Febco 825Y 1"
Reduced Pressure Backflow Preventer. Install 12in. above highest downstream outlet and the highest point in the downstream piping.
1 Hunter PHC-600
Wi-Fi enabled, full-functioning controller with touchscreen, 6-Station fixed controller, 120 VAC, Outdoor model.
1 Hunter SOIL-CLIK
The Soil-Clik probe uses proven technology to measure moisture within the root zone. When the probe senses that the soil has reached its desired moisture level, it will shut down irrigation, preventing water waste.
1 Hunter WRF-CLIK
Rain/freeze Sensor, install within 1000 ft of controller, in line of sight. 22-28 VAC/VDC 100 mA power from timer transformer.

Mount as noted. Includes Gutter Mount.
1 Irrigation Lateral Line: 1" PVC Class 315 SDR 13.5 240 l.f.

Irrigation Mainline: 1.5" PVC Schedule 40 400 l.f.

Pipe Sleeve: 3" PVC Schedule 80 80 l.f.

PRINT DATE:

DRAWN BY:

JOB NO.
2340 GARDEN ROAD, SUITE 100
MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA 93940
PHONE: 831.649.4642
FAX: 831.649.3530
WWW.WRDARCH.COM A.P.N. NO.:

SHEET NAME:

SHEET NO.:

FILE NAME.:

SET ISSUED:

CHECKED BY:

THE USE OF THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS IS RESTRICTED TO THE ORIGINAL SITE FOR WHICH

THEY WERE PREPARED, AND PUBLICATION
THEREOF IS EXPRESSLY LIMITED TO SUCH USE. REUSE, REPRODUCTION OR PUBLICATION BY

ANY METHOD IN WHOLE OR IN PART IS
PROHIBITED. TITLE TO THE PLANS AND

SPECIFICATIONS REMAINS WITH THE ARCHITECT, AND VISUAL CONTACT WITH THEM

CONSTITUTES PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE
ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS.

PLOT DATE:
24094 MONTESSORI COMMUNITY SCHOOL T.I. 2400 GARDEN ROAD MONTESSORI COMMUNITY SCHOOL 2400 GARDEN ROAD MONTEREY, CA 93940 013-322-008-000 L-2.1
MAA

IRRIGATION PLAN

SCHEDULE &
NOTES
existing tree to remain
existing tree to remain
drip zone 2
drip zone 1
drip zone 4
drip zone 3 N O R T H
0 SCALE:
10 20 30 feet
1" = 10'
Point of Connection to existing water
service line to be verified in field
manual shut off valve
manual shut off valve
backflow device
rain sensor on corner of building
irrigation controller on outside of building
- provide AC power to this location
soil moisture sensor

3.14.2025
Exhibit B
Docusign Envelope ID: 543B266A-08A0-4D2D-BCD5-AC42EA6E3DEC

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 42, Packet Page 183 PRINT DATE:

DRAWN BY:

JOB NO.
2340 GARDEN ROAD, SUITE 100
MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA 93940
PHONE: 831.649.4642
FAX: 831.649.3530
WWW.WRDARCH.COM A.P.N. NO.:

SHEET NAME:

SHEET NO.:

FILE NAME.:

SET ISSUED:

CHECKED BY:

THE USE OF THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS IS RESTRICTED TO THE ORIGINAL SITE FOR WHICH

THEY WERE PREPARED, AND PUBLICATION
THEREOF IS EXPRESSLY LIMITED TO SUCH USE. REUSE, REPRODUCTION OR PUBLICATION BY

ANY METHOD IN WHOLE OR IN PART IS
PROHIBITED. TITLE TO THE PLANS AND

SPECIFICATIONS REMAINS WITH THE ARCHITECT, AND VISUAL CONTACT WITH THEM

CONSTITUTES PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE
ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS.

PLOT DATE:
24094 MONTESSORI COMMUNITY SCHOOL T.I. 2400 GARDEN ROAD MONTESSORI COMMUNITY SCHOOL 2400 GARDEN ROAD MONTEREY, CA 93940 013-322-008-000 L-2.2
MAA

IRRIGATION

DETAILS
NOTES:
1- See irrigation legend for mainline and lateral line pipe size and type. 2- Direct burial control wires shall be installed in Sch. 40 PVC electrical conduit if required. 3- 2-wire irrigation wire shall be installed in Sch. 40 PVC electrical conduit. 4- Detectable locator tape shall be located six inches (6") above the entire mainline run.

Direct burial low voltage
control wires.

Pavement.

IRRIGATION TRENCHING
1 1/2" = 1'-0"
24" min. 1'-0" In planting area 1'-6" in planting area 3'-0" underneath pavement Non-pressurized line (lateral line).

Detectable locator tape.

Pressurized line (mainline). 6"
Finished grade.

REDUCED PRESSURE BACKFLOW DEVICE
FX-IR-FX-BACK-03
2 I-X WALL MOUNTED CONTROLLER
1/2" = 1'-0"
Notes:
1- Common and controller wire to be bundled using electrical tape at 10'-0" on center. 2- Grounding rods shall be located between 8"- 0" to 12'- 0" away from the controller. Grounding rods shall be 3 8" in diameter x 8' in length. Connect the grounding
rod to the controller using 6 gauge bare copper wire or per the manufacturer's specifications.See grounding rod detail. 3- ET Station shall be installed no further than 90' away from the controller and a minimum of 15' off of the ground, out from under any overhead obstructions such as, but not limited to, building overhangs, trees, or utilities.

Wall, fence, or building.

Wall mounted controller. Install per
manufacturer's specifications and
recommendations. (See irrigation legend
for controller make and model number).
3 4" knockout for earth ground wire.
2" PVC electrical conduit for irrigation
valves, master valve, and flow sensor wires.

Optional 3" knockout if more wires are needed.

Secure conduit to wall using stainless steel
clamp.
1" PVC electrical conduit for electrical power per
local and national electrical codes.
1" PVC electrical conduit for ET sensor.
(optional).

OPEN SOURCE FREE TO USE
FX-IR-FX-CONT-06 1 1/2" = 1'-0"

QUICK COUPLING VALVE IN BOX
FX-IR-FX-QUIC-04
4 1 1/2" = 1'-0"

ELECTRIC REMOTE CONTROL VALVE
FX-IR-FX-RCV-04
5 MANUAL CONTROL VALVE IN BOX
1 1/2" = 1'-0"
45 DOWN AS
REQ. TO

LATERAL PIPE
DEPTH.
2" MINIMUM, 4" MAXIMUM
BELOW TOP OF BOX.
10X15 RECTANGULAR VALVE BOX.

MANUAL VALVE AS SPECIFIED.

OUTLET PIPE SAME SIZE
AS VALVE, 24" MIN.

TO FIRST FITTING.

SCHEDULE 80
RISER AND ELL.

MAIN LINE.
1/2" WIRE CLOTH GOPHER
SCREEN, WRAP UP SIDES.

TWO 6X2X16 CONC. BLOCK CAPS,
ONE ON EACH SIDE OF BOX.

INCREASE LATERAL LINE
AS PER IRRIGATION PLAN. 12" BELOW GRADE 2"-4" 2" CLR.

FLUSH TO
GRADE AT LAWN.
2" ABOVE FINISH
GRADE AT SHRUBS.
6 FX-IR-FX-MCV-02
ICZ-101 DRIP CONTROL ZONE
1 1/2" = 1'-0"
18-24" COILED WIRE
WATERPROOF CONNECTORS (2)

DRIP ZONE KIT
MODEL ICZ-101-XX WITH
FILTER (TIP 45 DEGREES)
REGULATOR 25 OR 40 PSI

FINISH GRADE

JUMBO VALVE BOX
SCH 80 T.O.E. NIPPLE (2)

MAIN LINE PIPE & FITTINGS
BRICK SUPPORTS (4)
3/4" MINUS WASHED GRAVEL
7 FX-IR-HUNT-DRIP-18 1 1/2" = 1'-0"

TYPICAL DRIP TUBING
COMPRESSION FITTING.

PLANT GRAPHIC
DRIPLINE EDGE.

TYPICAL 1/4" TUBE STAKE WITH EMITTER OR CAP.

TYPICAL 1/4" DISTRIBUTION TUBING, 48" MAX. LENGTH.

TYPICAL 1/2" DRIP TUBING STAKE.

MULTI-OUTLET EMITTER OR TRANSFER.

EMITTER OR BUBBLER ON
1 2" DRIP STAKE.

TRANSFER BARB

TEE FOR DOUBLE
EMITTER.

TYPICAL

COMPRESSION
FITTING.

TYPICAL 1
2" DRIP TUBING.

NOTE:

1. PLACE EMITTERS 3
4 BETWEEN THE TRUNK AND OUTTER DRIPLINE.

2. EVENLY SPACE EMITTERS AROUND PLANT.

3. STAKE THE DRIP TUBING AT EACH TEE, ELL, COUPLER, AT
EACH EMITTER OR TRANSFER, AND AT 6'-0" MAX O.C.

USE BUBBLERS FOR TREES AS NOTED IN LEGEND; USE TUBING FOR ALL SHRUBS FX-IR-FX-DRIP-01
8 WIRELESS RAIN-CLIK
3" = 1'-0"
NOTE:

MOUNT SENSOR ON ANY SURFACE WHERE IT WILL BE

EXPOSED TO UNOBSTRUCTED RAINFALL, BUT NOT IN PATH OF SPRINKLER SPRAY, NO MORE THAN 1000' FROM RECEIVER UNIT.

MOUNT RECEIVER UNIT NO FURTHER THAN 6' FROM CONTROLLER.

WRC RECEIVER

MODEL WRC

MOUNTING WALL
10 FX-IR-HUNT-SENS-17

SOIL CLIK SENSOR INSTALLED IN SHRUB AREA

NOT TO SCALE
SHRUB

FINISHED GRADE

SOIL CLIK CABLE TO

CONTROLLER

SOIL CLIK SENSOR
INSTALLED AT 50% OF

ROOT DEPTH

ROOT DEPTH
ROOTS
11 FX-IR-HUNT-SENS-09

FLUSH VALVE AUTO
1 1/2" = 1'-0" 18"

FINISH GRADE
10" ROUND VALVE BOX
HUNTER PLD-050 OR
1/2" FPT ADAPTER

LINE FLUSHING VALVE

LATERAL OR HEADER
BRICK SUPPORTS (3) SEE SPECS
3/4" GRAVEL SUMP
9 FX-IR-HUNT-DREQ-03
ROOT ZONE WATERING SYSTEM - 18"

NOT TO SCALE
1 LEGEND:
18" ROOT ZONE WATERING SYSTEM PER PLAN
2 3
MULCH
7 NATIVE SOIL

FINISHED GRADE
4 LATERAL PIPE - SIZE PER PLAN
6 5 ROOT BALL
NOTES

INSTALL RZWS SLEEVE OVER TUBE TO HELP

PREVENT SOIL INTRUSION
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 AMENDED SOIL MEDIA (PER SOILS REPORT)
12 3.14.2025
Exhibit B
Docusign Envelope ID: 543B266A-08A0-4D2D-BCD5-AC42EA6E3DEC

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 43, Packet Page 184 Planning Commission
Agenda Report
№07/19
FROM: Levi Hill, AICP, Planning Manager
Fernanda Roveri, AICP, Principal Planner
Prepared by: Chris Schmidt, Senior Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Consider 2400 Garden Road: Use Permit Application UP-25-0013 for a Day CareGeneral Use and Variance Application VA-25-0075 for Reduced Front and Side Yard Setbacks; Applicant Shawn Capps, Wald Ruhnke and Dost Architects; Owner W R MONT LLC; Industrial, Administration, and Research, Religious Assembly Overlay, Emergency Shelter Overlay, Multi-Family Residential Overlay (I-R-130- RA-ES-MF1) Zoning District; Employment General Plan Designation (Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1 and Section 15303, Class 3) RECOMMENDATION:

That the Planning Commission adopt a resolution denying Use Permit UP-25-0013 for a day care-general use and approving Variance Application VA-25-0075 for reduced front and side yard setbacks, with conditions of approval.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1 and Section 15303, Class 3) because the project proposes minor alterations to the exterior of a developed site in an urbanized area, and construction of small structures. The project would not involve an expansion of the existing building and proposes minor improvements to the site including a new waste enclosure and deck. Furthermore, the project does not qualify for any of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions found at CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2.

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

Exception b - Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. The proposed waste enclosure is a minor alteration to the site, which is already developed. No cumulative impacts are anticipated due to the project’s limited scope and distinct location.

Date: 9/23/2025
Item No.: 4.

Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 1, Packet Page 18 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 44, Packet Page 185 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 significant effects are anticipated due to the project’s limited scope and distinct location.

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

Exception f - Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.

There are no historic structures on site and the project site is not located in an area of high archaeological sensitivity. Therefore, impacts to historic or archaeological resources are not anticipated.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The PC may elect to approve or deny either application or continue them for additional information.

DISCUSSION:

Background
The applicant proposes to convert the existing building to a Montessori community school for children ages 6 weeks to 6 years old. The subject site is an approximately 32,700 square foot lot that fronts both Garden Road and Garden Court, and contains an existing commercial office building and parking lot (Figure 1). The site is designated Employment on the General Plan Land Use Map, and is zoned I-R-130-RA-ES-MF1 (Industrial, Research and Administration Zoning District with Religious Assembly, Emergency Shelter and South Side of Garden Road Multifamily Overlay Districts).

Monterey City Code section 38-17 includes the following definitions for “Day Care, General” and “Schools, Public or Private”:

Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 2, Packet Page 19 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 45, Packet Page 186 Q. Schools, Public or Private. Educational institutions having a curriculum comparable to that required in the public schools of the State of California.

In accordance with the above definitions, while the applicant labels their operation a “school”, it is classified as a “Day Care, General” use for zoning purposes.

The I-R zoning district permits the “Day Care, General” use by conditional use permit, while the “Schools, Public or Private” use is not permitted in the zone.

Figure 1: Aerial photograph identifying project site and surrounding area.

Project Description
The applicant requests approval of a Use Permit for the Day Care, General use and approval of a Variance to reduce setbacks applicable to a proposed waste enclosure and deck (see Exhibits A-B to Attachments1 and 2).

Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 3, Packet Page 20 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 46, Packet Page 187 In addition to the childcare program, the lower level of the building will be used as a dual-purpose teacher training center, providing professional certification programs for educators during two summer sessions each year.

The facility will operate Monday through Friday, 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, with staggered drop-off and pick-up times to reduce traffic impacts. The project includes improvements such as a replacement trash enclosure along the south property line and a new exterior play deck along the west property line to maximize outdoor usable space for the children.

The project includes improvements to the existing building, and site work improvements, such as reconfiguration of the parking lot to create a drop-off and pick-up queue area, minimal grading to create new play areas, construction of decking to expand total play area, and a new waste enclosure. Figure 2 below includes a site plan showing the project site improvements.

Figure 2. Site Plan with proposed improvements. Proposed waste enclosure and deck locations have been highlighted in orange.

The site contains an existing waste enclosure which the City has determined to be inadequate:
existing waste containers are housed by chain link fencing with no sewer drain, water connection or roofing which is consistent with City standards. The applicant has proposed a new enclosure in the same location, consistent with the City’s waste enclosure guidelines. However, the enclosure location, at distances of 1-foot, 2-inches, from the south lot line and 12-feet, 10-inches, from the Garden Court lot line, does not comply with the zoning district’s 50-foot setback requirement. Additionally, the applicant is proposing a new deck as close as 1 foot from the west lot line, to serve as a play area. The deck is also subject to the 50-foot setback.

Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 4, Packet Page 21 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 47, Packet Page 188 The I-R zoning district development regulations stipulate that accessory structures, including attached structures such as decks or standalone structures like waste enclosures, are subject to the setbacks of the main structure. Table 1 below includes an analysis of the I-R-130 zoning district development standards applicable to the project.

Table 1. I-R-130 Development Standards
Zoning Ordinance Standard Proposal
Lot Coverage
One Story: 40%
Greater Than One Story: 30% Consistent: 24.8%
Setbacks:

Front
50'
Inconsistent:

From Garden Ct Cul-de-sac frontage:
(E) Commercial Building: 123’
(P) Waste Enclosure: 12’ 10”
(P) Deck: 134’
(P) Deck Stair: 205’
From Garden Rd frontage:
(E) Commercial Building: 33’
(P) Waste Enclosure: 262’
(P) Deck: 31’
(P) Deck Stair: 12.5’
North Side
50'
Legal Nonconforming:
(E) Commercial Building: 2.8’
(P) Waste Enclosure: 225’
South Side
50'
Inconsistent:
(E) Commercial Building: 151’
(P) Waste Enclosure: 1.17’
(P) Deck: 174’
(P) Deck Stair: 245’
West Side
50'
Inconsistent:
(E) Commercial Building: 4.5’
(P) Waste Enclosure: 53.13’
(P) Deck: 1.17’
(P) Deck Stair: 1.17’
East Side
50'
Inconsistent:
(E) Commercial Building: 15.75’
(P) Waste Enclosure: 48.2’
(P) Deck: 130.7’
(P) Deck Stair: 89’
Rear 50' NA: No rear yard due to double-fronting lot
Bldg Height:

Ft. 35'
Consistent:

No change in height to existing building
(P) Deck: 10.5’
Minimum
Landscaping 20%
Consistent:
2,704 sf new landscaping
5,123 sf new synthetic grass/wood chip
play area
Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 5, Packet Page 22 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 48, Packet Page 189 3,242 sf existing native landscape to
remain
Total: 11,069 sf (33.9%)
Parking:
1 parking stall per 6 children
Max. 104 children onsite
requires 17 parking stalls
Consistent:
(P) 17 parking stalls
Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) Review
On June 17, 2025, the City of Monterey received correspondence from Monterey Regional Airport (MRY) staff (Attachment 3) indicating that the proposed conversion of an 11,177-square-foot commercial office building at 2400 Garden Road into a Montessori day care/school facility requires Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) review. The site lies within the Airport Influence Area (Safety Zone 7) of the Monterey Regional Airport. MRY staff stated they do not support the proposed use due to the introduction of “vulnerable occupants” within 6,000 feet of the side of runway. The Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) strongly discourages the introduction of “vulnerable occupants,” including children, within 6,000 feet of a runway due to elevated risk from aircraft operations.

As a result, the City continued the June 25, 2025 Planning Commission item and submitted an ALUC consistency determination request (ALUC File No. REF250022). The ALUC staff report supporting the consistency determination request has been included as Attachment 4.

On July 28, 2025, the Monterey County Airport Land Use Commission adopted Resolution No. 25-003 (Attachment 5), determining that the proposed Montessori day care and school facility at 2400 Garden Road is inconsistent with the 2019 ALUCP for Monterey Regional Airport. The ALUC’s finding was based on the project’s location within Safety Zone 7 and its proximity (approximately 1,395 feet) to Runway 10R-28L.

Under state law, only the City Council has the authority to override an ALUC inconsistency determination. Specifically, Public Utilities Code Section 21676 and Government Code Section 65302.3 provide that a local agency may override the ALUC’s decision by adopting findings, supported by substantial evidence, that the proposed use is consistent with the purposes of the ALUCP, namely, protecting public health, safety, and welfare by minimizing the public’s exposure to airport-related hazards. To proceed with an override, the City must provide the ALUC and Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics with at least 45 days’ written notice of its intent to override, along with the proposed findings. The override must then be adopted by a twothirds vote of the full City Council.

While the Planning Commission does not have the authority to override the ALUC’s determination, it does have the authority to approve Use Permits in accordance with the Monterey City Code. If the PC was inclined to approve the Use Permit, staff recommends that it do so with a condition stating that the permit shall not become effective unless and until the City Council overrides the ALUC’s determination in accordance with state law. This condition ensures that the project cannot move forward without satisfying the legal requirements for addressing airport land use safety policy.

Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 6, Packet Page 23 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 49, Packet Page 190 ALUC Override History
In the past, the City Council has, at times, overridden or disagreed with ALUC decisions. The summary provided below recaps previous ALUC Override decisions of the City Council:

Previous ALUCP
 3001 Monterey-Salinas Highway (Calvary Monterey): The City Council overrode the ALUC denial of a proposed church project at 3001 Monterey-Salinas Highway. The override was based on findings that the site was not identified as an airport hazard area and that no specific safety data had been cited to justify the ALUC’s determination (City Council Resolution 93-018 adopted 1/19/1993).
 2 Justin Court (Ryan Ranch Day Care): The Ryan Ranch Day Care was approved by the Planning Commission on September 14, 1993. The ALUC staff sent the City correspondence indicating that the proposal should be reconsidered due to inconsistency with the 1987 ALUCP. On April 5, 1994, The City Council authorized sending a letter to the ALUC in response to concerns over a proposed child care center at 2 Justin Court, asserting that the use was not subject to override procedures because it did not require changes to zoning, the General Plan, or building codes, and reaffirming the City's jurisdiction over local land use decisions.
 Trinity Christian High School was approved by the Planning Commission on August 11, 2009, with a condition of approval requiring that the project obtain a consistency determination from the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) in accordance with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). The use permit stipulated that the applicant secure ALUC approval by December 2009, although the school was allowed to commence operations in August. On August 24, 2009, the ALUC found the project inconsistent with the ALUCP and, on September 14, 2009, transmitted correspondence to the Planning Office stating that the City must reconsider the project. On December 8, 2009, the use permit returned to the Planning Commission with a staff recommendation that the school cease operations in June 2010. Instead, the Planning Commission revised the condition of approval and recommended that the City Council override the ALUC’s determination.

On June 1, 2010, the City Council voted to override the ALUC’s inconsistency finding.

Current ALUCP (Adopted 2019)
 ADU Ordinance: The City Council adopted a resolution to override the ALUC’s finding of inconsistency and approved a draft zoning ordinance for accessory dwelling units (ADUs).

The override was supported by findings that the ordinance complies with state housing law and minimizes exposure to airport-related safety and noise hazards (City Council Resolutions 23-027 adopted 3/7/2023 and 23-049 adopted 5/2/2023).

September 11, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting
The proposed use permit and variance applications were agendized for the September 11, 2025 Planning Commission meeting but were continued to the September 23, 2025 Planning Commission meeting at the request of the project applicant.

To date, the City has received a number of public comments in support of the proposal which have been included as Attachment 6.

Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 7, Packet Page 24 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 50, Packet Page 191 Analysis
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the use permit application for a general day care use and approve the variance application with the following findings:

Use Permit Findings for Approval
1) That the proposed use is in accord with the objectives of this chapter and the purposes of the zone;
Staff response: This finding can be made. The project site is zoned I-R-130-RA-ES-MF1 (Industrial, Research and Administration Zoning District with Religious Assembly, Emergency Shelter, Multifamily Overlay Districts). The purpose of the I-R district is to accommodate a range of employment, research, technology, and institutional uses, while allowing compatible supporting uses that serve the needs of employees, businesses, and the broader community.

The proposed Montessori Community School would establish a childcare and early education center serving children from 6 weeks to 6 years, as well as a teacher training center. This use supports the employment-oriented intent of the district by providing much-needed childcare options for local workers, supporting working families, and offering professional training for educators, which contributes to the local knowledge economy. The use is compatible with the office and research park character of the surrounding area, and the proposed site improvements, including a replacement trash enclosure and exterior play deck, have been designed to fit within the physical boundaries of the site. 2) That the proposed use and the proposed conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will be consistent with the General Plan; will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the neighborhood of such use; and will not be detrimental to properties or improvements in the vicinity or to the general welfare of the city; and
Staff response: This finding cannot be made. While the Employment General Plan designation encourages supportive secondary uses, the proposed use presents a unique public safety concern due to its location within an active airport influence area. The ALUCP strongly discourages facilities that serve vulnerable populations, including children, within 6,000 feet of the side of a runway. The subject property lies approximately 1,395 feet from Runway 10R28L. In July 2025, the Monterey County Airport Land Use Commission determined the project to be inconsistent with the 2019 ALUCP, citing unacceptable risk exposure to vulnerable occupants in the event of an aircraft incident. The Monterey Regional Airport expressed formal opposition in writing as well as verbal public comment at the ALUC meeting. Additionally, Monterey County ALUC Planning staff indicated that the California Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics had been consulted and stated general discouragement for the proposed use to be introduced at the site, as described in the ALUC staff report (Attachment 4). As proposed, the project introduces a high number of vulnerable individuals into an area with documented aircraft arrival and departure risk. This potential impact to public safety cannot be mitigated through operational conditions alone, and thus, the project is considered detrimental to the general welfare of the City and the safety of potential vulnerable occupants.
3) That the proposed use will comply with any specific condition required for that use.

Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 8, Packet Page 25 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 51, Packet Page 192 Staff response: This finding can be made. The proposed childcare center and training facility would comply with all applicable local, state, and federal regulations governing childcare licensing, health and safety, and accessibility. If approved, the City would recommend conditions of approval to require compliance with the approved site plans, maximum enrollment limits, stormwater and BMP requirements, tree protection, and cultural resource protocols. Additionally, operational conditions, such as hours of operation and adherence to approved pick-up and drop-off procedures would be imposed to ensure ongoing compatibility with the neighborhood. These conditions ensure the use would operate in a manner consistent with City standards and expectations.

Variance Findings for Approval
1) That, because of special circumstances or conditions applicable to the subject property (including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings), strict application of the requirements of this ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under an identical zoning classification; Staff response: This finding can be made in regard to the proposed waste enclosure but cannot be made for the proposed deck. The subject property is significantly smaller than the minimum lot size required in the I-R-130 district: approximately 32,700 square feet where 130,000 square feet is the standard. The combination of its small size, unique lot dimensions, existing development footprint, and site topography limits the ability to relocate necessary site infrastructure such as the waste enclosure. The proposed waste enclosure location, within the south side and front setbacks, has been determined by the City and the waste hauler to be the only feasible and functional location for safe and efficient trash service. Strict application of the 50-foot setback standard would effectively preclude the site from accommodating an enclosure that can be adequately accessed by waste collection trucks, thereby depriving the property of a basic operational feature that other similarly zoned properties can provide.

The City does not support a side yard setback variance for the proposed deck play area.

Although the site has some size and design constraints, the applicant has not demonstrated that a setback variance is necessary to provide outdoor play space. Alternative options exist to reconfigure play areas within the site without encroaching into the required setback. The deck is considered an amenity rather than an operational necessity, and strict application of the setback does not deprive the site of a privilege or right enjoyed by other properties. 2) That granting the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity of the development site, or to the public health, safety, or general welfare; and Staff response: This finding can be made. The proposed waste enclosure will replace an inadequate and nonconforming existing enclosure and will comply with the City’s waste enclosure design guidelines, improving the site’s overall sanitation, health, and safety. Although it is located at the front of the site, it is positioned away from the main pedestrian and customer access points and will be properly screened. Granting the variance will improve waste Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 9, Packet Page 26 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 52, Packet Page 193 management operations and will not create adverse impacts on adjacent properties or the public realm.

Staff response: This finding can be made in regard to the proposed waste enclosure but cannot be made for the proposed deck. The enclosure variance accommodates a basic site function (waste management) that would otherwise be impractical given the site’s size, layout, and topographic constraints. This flexibility aligns with the purpose of the ordinance and does not create a special privilege.

In conclusion, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution denying Use Permit UP-25-0013 for a day care, general, use and approving Variance Application VA-25-0075 for a replacement waste enclosure setback reduction and denying the deck setback reduction with conditions of approval.

LH:CS:eb
Attachments: 1. Resolution Denying Use Permit for Day Care, General with Exhibits

2. Resolution Approving Variance for Waste Enclosure, Denying Variance for Deck with Exhibits

3. Monterey Regional Airport Public Comment

4. Monterey ALUC Staff Report (July 28, 2025, Item 7a)

5. Monterey ALUC Resolution No. 25-003

6. Public Comments
e: Shawn Capps, WRD Architects, Applicant
Madelynn Van Den Huevel, representative for W R MONT LLC, Property Owner Chris Morello, Monterey Regional Airport
Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 10, Packet Page 27 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 53, Packet Page 194 RESOLUTION NO. __ Date: September 23, 2025
Item No: 4

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

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 Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 11, Packet Page 28 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 54, Packet Page 195 2 significant. The proposed accessory structure is a minor alteration to the site, which is already developed. No cumulative impacts are anticipated due to the project’s limited scope and distinct location.

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 significant effects are anticipated due to the project’s limited scope and distinct location.

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

Exception f - Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.

FINDINGS:

Use Permit UP-25-0013 Findings for Approval
1) The proposed use is in accord with the objectives of this chapter and the purposes of the zone. The project site is zoned I-R-130-RA-ES-MF1 (Industrial, Research and Administration Zoning District with Religious Assembly, Emergency Shelter, and South Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 12, Packet Page 29 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 55, Packet Page 196 3 Side of Garden Road Multifamily Overlay Districts). The purpose of the I-R district is to accommodate a range of employment, research, technology, and institutional uses, while allowing compatible supporting uses that serve the needs of employees, businesses, and the broader community.

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

AYES: COMMISSIONERS:

NOES: COMMISSIONERS:

ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:

ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:

APPROVED:

Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 13, Packet Page 30 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 56, Packet Page 197 4 ATTEST:

Planning Commission Chair
Project Planner
Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 14, Packet Page 31 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 57, Packet Page 198 Use Permit Proposal, Montessori Community School- Monterey Mission Statement
Montessori Community School's mission is to guide and nurture the natural unfolding of the whole child in an atmosphere of order, beauty and harmony - an atmosphere in which each child is actively supported in the self-directed pursuit of lifelong intellectual, emotional and spiritual growth.

Core Values

1. Create a culture of warmth and belonging, where everyone is welcome.

2. Focus on the child and all else will follow.

3. Wow the parents!

4. What we do, we do well.

5. Make your momma proud.

6. Don’t look at things as problems, but a challenge that needs to be solved.

7. Have fun! Find joy in the job.

Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 15, Packet Page 32 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 58, Packet Page 199 Montessori Education
Children need to work at an interesting occupation: they should not be helped unnecessarily, not interrupted, once they have begun to do something intelligent. --- Dr. Maria Montessori
Montessori Community School serves children using the philosophy and curriculum developed by Dr. Maria Montessori. Montessori education provides an education for life. Maria Montessori understood that education must begin at birth, and be holistic to meet physical, emotional, intellectual, and spiritual needs of children. The Montessori Method helps the natural development of the individual from birth to maturity within the context of his or her life situation.

Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 16, Packet Page 33 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 59, Packet Page 200 The toddler environment is filled with materials and activities specially designed for the toddler’s interest in movement, independence, order, language, and music. Toddlers are able to confidently succeed in their explorations and endeavors with toddler-sized furniture and materials, assisting them in their pursuits for independence.

School History
Montessori Community School first opened its doors for children in September 2003. Inspired by their strong conviction and faith in the Montessori Method, the Tershy family purchased and remodeled the former Christian Life Center campus at 123 South Navarra Drive, in January of 2003. The first Primary classroom, for the Dolphins, was opened in September of the same year. A second Primary classroom, for the Otters, was added in 2004. The first Toddler Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 17, Packet Page 34 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 60, Packet Page 201 classroom, for the Puffins, was opened in October 2004. Our Nido (nest) program for infants from 6 weeks to 24 months opened in January, 2008 and our second Toddler class, the Jellyfish, was opened in November 2018. We are looking to expand our school into the Monterey area at 2400 Garden rd.

Forms: State law mandates that a child not be allowed to attend without the following forms complete and in the child’s folder at the school:

3. Physician’s Report: Affirms your child is healthy and identifies any special needs your child may have. A licensed physician must sign this report.

5. Child’s Pre-Admission Health History: Health History of important background information regarding your child’s health and any special needs they may have. This is a parent report in addition to the Physician’s Report. It includes your stated plan for when the child is ill and Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 18, Packet Page 35 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 61, Packet Page 202 cannot be at school. Please pay particular attention to any allergies that are life threatening or will cause severe reactions.

6. Emergency Medical Consent Form

8. Parents and Personal Rights Forms

9. Infant Needs and Services Plan: (Nido only) This plan will be completed collaboratively by parents and the child’s guide on a regular basis.

Drop-Off and Pick-Up Guidelines
***State law requires that all children be signed in and out of childcare facilities by a responsible adult.

MCS utilizes a QR code which you sign your child in and out of the school.

Timing
Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 19, Packet Page 36 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 62, Packet Page 203 Drop off is done throughout the day, depending on your designated start time. The earliest drop off you can do is 7:00am, and we will limit the number of families between each half hour. Same goes for pickup. We will have a maximum of 104 students at one time, spread out for drop off based on their drop off and pickup windows.

Please see below for a schedule:

Pick up is done the same, so parents will pull up to the curb and a staff member will help their child into the car.

Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 20, Packet Page 37 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 63, Packet Page 204 Staff
We will have 16 staff in total at the school, with differing schedules, so not all will be onsite at the same time. Staff will park in the designated parking spaces.

Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 21, Packet Page 38 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 64, Packet Page 205 Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 22, Packet Page 39 Attachment 2 Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 65, Packet Page 206 Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 23, Packet Page 40 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 66, Packet Page 207 Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 24, Packet Page 41 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 67, Packet Page 208 ROAD

EASEMENT
FH WV

WATER METER
HB
HB
SSCO
LP
LP
12"P
12"P
12"P
12"P
10"P
10"P
10"P
10"P
10"P
10"P
10"P
10"P
10"Q
6"Q
6"Q
14"P
14"P
14"P
24"P
24"P
6"P
6"P
6"P
6"P
6"P
16"P
18"P
18"P
8"P
8"P
8"P
6"P
8"P

TELECOM

VAULT MANHOLE

TELECOM

GAS METER
24"P
ACU
ACU
ACU
ACUACU
SSCO
SSCO
ACU
P
P

MULIT-STORY CONCRETE & WOOD FRAME

BUILDING
FDC
24"P
12"P
12"P
8"T
6"T
6"T
18"P
2-PRONG
PINE, 12"-14"
18"P
16"P
16"P
ACU S 0°06'20" W 190.00'
S 24°38'31" W

44.09'
Δ=66°21'29" R=50.00' L=57.91'

81.51' S 89°00'00" E
226.31'
N 15°41'03" E
N 15°41'03" E

43.65'
L=112.60'
R=1960.00'
Δ=3°17'29"
N 74°18'57" W

55.10'
N 89°00'00" W 146.79'

FOGLINE PROPERTY LINE
LP 96 GAL. BIN 96 GAL. BIN 96 GAL. BIN 4 CUBIC YARD 96 GAL. BIN 4 CUBIC YARD CARDBOARD 13 13TYP. 13 28 16 20 2029TYP. 24 19 TYP. 21 5 28 22 23 28 27 26 24 24 17 17 17 17 11
9 15 6
3817
27 1 124
7 7 14 14
1 4 10
4 1
4 7 18 17
4 12 25 18'-0"
9'-0" TYP.
18'-0" 24'-0" 18'-0" 6'-0" 15'-0" 10'-0" 9'-0" TYP. 15'-0" 12 30 31 31 31 32 32 32 29 33 1'-2" 12'-10" PROPOSED SITE PLAN A10124094-A101 SC PRINT DATE: DRAWN BY: JOB NO. 2340 GARDEN ROAD, SUITE 100 MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA 93940 PHONE: 831.649.4642 FAX: 831.649.3530 WWW.WRDARCH.COM A.P.N. NO.: SHEET NAME: SHEET NO.: FILE NAME.: SET ISSUED: CHECKED BY: THE USE OF THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS IS RESTRICTED TO THE ORIGINAL SITE FOR WHICH THEY WERE PREPARED, AND PUBLICATION THEREOF IS EXPRESSLY LIMITED TO SUCH USE. REUSE, REPRODUCTION OR PUBLICATION BY ANY METHOD IN WHOLE OR IN PART IS PROHIBITED. TITLE TO THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS REMAINS WITH THE ARCHITECT, AND VISUAL CONTACT WITH THEM CONSTITUTES PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS. PLOT DATE: 4.10.2025 24094 MONTESSORI COMMUNITY SCHOOL

PLANNING PACKAGE

MONTESSORI COMMUNITY SCHOOL
2400 GARDEN ROAD
MONTEREY, CA 93940 013-322-008-000 CITY OF MONTEREY APPROVAL PLAN NORTH SCALE: PROPOSED SITE PLAN 1" = 10'-0" THE KEY NOTES THAT FOLLOW APPLY TO THE DRAWING(S) ON THIS SHEET ONLY. REFER TO FOLLOWING SHEETS FOR NOTES THAT ARE APPLICABLE TO THOSE DRAWINGS. KEY NOTES GENERAL NOTES 22 EXISTING AC PAVED ROAD TO REMAIN INTACT. 1 4" WIDE PAINTED PARKING STALL STRIPING PER CITY STANDARDS. PROVIDE 4" THICK CONCRETE WALKWAY WITH SLIP RESISITANT FINISH AND PROPERLY PLACED 6"X6"/10X10 WELDED WIRE MESH OVER A MIN. 4" CLASS IV AGGREGATE BASE WORK OVER COMPACTED SUBGRADE. CONCRETE WALK TO BE A MIN. 4'-0" WIDE. PROVIDE POSITIVE SLOPE AWAY FROM BUILDING WHERE APPLICABLE. REFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR EXACT CONFIGURATION OF CONCRETE WALKWAY SECTION.2 PROVIDE DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE (TRUNCATED DOMES) MIN. 36" IN DEPTH THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF OPENING / LANDING / RAMP AS SHOWN ON PLAN. 34 LANDSCAPED AREA. SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS56 INDICATES "VAN ACCESSIBLE" STALL. INDICATES EXTENT OF 6" HIGH CURBS WHICH SHALL BE PAINTED RED WITH 4" HIGH WHITE LETTERS STATING "FIRE LANES - NO PARKING" AT 30'-0" O.C. MAX. WHEN 6" CURB(S) NOT AVAILABLE, INSTALL A "FIRE LANES - NO PARKING ANYTIME" SIGN (R28 - 12"X18"). SIGN HEIGHT SHALL BE 54" FROM TOP OF PAVEMENT/LANDSCAPE AREA TO BOTTOM OF SIGN ON A WALL, FENCE OR BUILDING 75'-0" O.C. MAX. A POLE-MOUNTED SIGN IN A PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY SHALL BE 84" FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE SIGN TO TOP OF WALKWAY. REFER ALSO TO CITY STANDARD PLAN. 7 ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL INDICATOR ARROWS. ARROWS SHOWN ON PLAN ARE FOR REFERENCE ONLY AND NOT FOR PHYSICAL APPLICATION. WALKWAY ALONG ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL SHALL BE CONTINUOUSLY ACCESSIBLE, HAVE A MAX. 1/2" CHANGE IN ELEVATION, MIN. 48" IN WIDTH AND HAVE MAX. 1/4" PER FOOT CROSS SLOPES.8 9 PROVIDE CONCRETE WHEEL STOP. PROVIDE A "ACCESSIBLE PARKING ENTRY" SIGN ("VEHICLE TOW-AWAY" SIGN) (17"X22") AND A "NOTICE ALL ROADS ARE FIRE LANES" ENTRANCE SIGN (18"X24") INSTALLED TOGETHER FOR VEHICLES ENTERING INTO THE PARKING LOT AT DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE. 1011 PROVIDE 6" HIGH CONCRETE CURB TYPICAL AS SHOWN. REFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR ADDTIONAL NOTATION. 1213 INDICATES PROPERTY LINE. PROVIDE NEW AC PAVEMENT OVER AGGREGATE BASE AND COMPACTED SOIL SUBGRADE. REFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR ADDITIONAL NOTATION. 1415 PROVIDE INTERNATIONAL SYMBOL OF ACCESSIBILITY. INDICATES CONCRETE CONTROL OR EXPANSION JOINTS AT CONCRETE WALKWAY. 18 EXISTING BUILDING FOOTPRINT TO REMAIN INTACT. PROTECT FROM DAMAGE. NO WORK U.O.N. 16 INDICATES LOCATION OF NEW 6'-0" HIGH FENCE. 171920 EXISTING LANDSCAPE AREA TO REMAIN INTACT. PROTECT FROM DAMAGE. 21 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL RECONSTRUCT ALL DAMAGED CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK ALONG SITE'S WEST MARKET STREET FRONTAGE. 2. "FIRE LANE" SIGNS ARE REQUIRED TO BE INSTALLED AT EACH ENTRANCE IN LOCATIONS WHERE VEHICLE PARKING WOULD ENCROACH ON THE REQUIRED 24'-0" CLEAR WIDTH OF ROADWAY. ALL RAISED CURBS AT THESE LOCATIONS SHALL BE PAINTED RED WITH "FIRE LANE - NO PARKING ANYTIME" STENCILED 4" HIGH AT 30'-0" INTERVALS PER CITY STANDARDS. 3. APPROVED NUMBERS AND/OR LETTERS SHALL BE PLACED ON ALL BUILDINGS TO BE VISIBLE FROM THE STREET, WITH THE COLOR CONTRASTING THE BACKGROUND. ADDRESS POSTING IS REQUIRED ON BUILDING, FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS AND ON ALL REAR DOORS. THE PROJECT REQUIRES AN ILLUMINATED DIRECTORY AT THE MAIN ENTRANCE. INDIVIDUAL ROOM/SUITE NUMERALS TO BE A MINIMUM OF 4" HIGH. 6" HIGH x 3/4" STROKE; 9" HIGH x 1-1/4" STROKE WHEN 36'-50' FROM ACCESS; 12" HIGH x 1-1/2" STROKE WHEN OVER 50' FROM ACCESS. 4. NO TREES OR HIGH-GROWING SHRUBS SHALL BE CLOSER THAN 6'-0" FROM ANY OF THE REQUIRED ACCESS ROADWAYS AND SHALL MAINTAIN CLEAR UP TO 13'-6". INDICATES EXISTING LIGHT POLE AND CONCRETE BASE TO REMAIN. CONTRACTOR TO PROTECT FROM DAMAGE. NEW "VAN ACCESSIBLE" STALL SIGNAGE. 2324 EXISTING ROAD EASEMENT PER REEL 747 PAGE 495. EXISTING PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT PER REEL 932 PAGE 668. NEW WOOD DECK. EXISTING CONCRETE WALKWAY TO REMAIN INTACT. PROTECT FROM DAMAGE. EXISTING RAMP TO REMAIN. EXISTING SHED TO REMAIN. EXISTING TRENCH DRAIN TO REMAIN. 252627282930 INDICATES DROP OFF AREA. 31 INDICATES NEW 36" WIDE EGRESS GATE. 32 PROPOSED SYNTHETIC GRASS AND/OR WOOD CHIP CHILDREN'S PLAY AREA PROVIDE SIDEWALK, CURB, AND GUTTER ALONG GARDEN COURT STREET FRONTAGE PER CITY OF MONTEREY STANDARD DETAIL 132. PROPOSED TRASH ENCLOSURE. 1 A102 PROVIDE AREA DRAIN & HOSE BIBB WITHIN PROPOSED TRASH ENCLOSURE. CONNECT AREA DRAIN TO SANITARY SEWER. CIVIL ENGINEER TO PROVIDE DRAIN CONNECTION DETAILS DURING CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS. 33 Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 25, Packet Page 42 Attachment 2 Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 68, Packet Page 209 TRASH ENCLOSURE DETAILS A10224094-A102 SC PRINT DATE: DRAWN BY: JOB NO. 2340 GARDEN ROAD, SUITE 100 MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA 93940 PHONE: 831.649.4642 FAX: 831.649.3530 WWW.WRDARCH.COM A.P.N. NO.: SHEET NAME: SHEET NO.: FILE NAME.: SET ISSUED: CHECKED BY: THE USE OF THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS IS RESTRICTED TO THE ORIGINAL SITE FOR WHICH THEY WERE PREPARED, AND PUBLICATION THEREOF IS EXPRESSLY LIMITED TO SUCH USE. REUSE, REPRODUCTION OR PUBLICATION BY ANY METHOD IN WHOLE OR IN PART IS PROHIBITED. TITLE TO THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS REMAINS WITH THE ARCHITECT, AND VISUAL CONTACT WITH THEM CONSTITUTES PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS. PLOT DATE: 5.8.2025 24094 MONTESSORI COMMUNITY SCHOOL

PLANNING PACKAGE

MONTESSORI COMMUNITY SCHOOL
2400 GARDEN ROAD
MONTEREY, CA 93940 013-322-008-000 CITY OF MONTEREY APPROVAL 5-1/2"thk CONC APRON w/ #4 BARS @ 18"oc EA WAY o/ 4" CLASS 2 AGG BASE o/ 95% RELATIVE COMP SUBGRADE EQ EQ 8" AC PAVING (EXISTING)
8" SCALE: 8 TRASH ENCLOSURE APRON 1-1/2" = 1'-0" CMU BLOCK WALL - SEE DETAILS FOR ADDITIONAL REQ. 1/2" Ø 'HILTI' KWIK BOLT (MIN. 8" EMBEDMENT) 1/4 TUBE STEEL COLUMN SCALE: 10 BASE PLATE @ CORNER 1-1/2" = 1'-0" 7-1/2" 5" CMU BLOCK WALL - SEE DETAILS FOR ADDITIONAL REQ. 1/2" Ø 'HILTI' KWIK BOLT (MIN. 8" EMBEDMENT) 1/4 TUBE STEEL COLUMN SCALE: 9 BASE PLATE 1-1/2" = 1'-0" 10" 5" 18" 8" 16"
LAP 40 BAR Ø PER PLAN 18"
6" #5 @ TOP &
@ 12"oc @ BOTTOM 8x8x16 SPLIT-FACED CMU WALL CONT#5 HORIZ BAR IN BOND BEAM BLOCK @ 24"oc #5 BARS @ 24"oc VERT (GROUT ALL CELLS SOLID) (2) #5 CONT HORIZ BARS IN BOND BEAM - GROUT ALL CELLS SOLID PRE-CAST CONC CAP ALTERNATE DIRECTION OF HORIZ LEG OF ALL VERT DOWELS 5-1/2" thk CONC SLAB w/ #4 @ 18"oc EA WAY 6'-8" FIBER EXPANSION MATERIAL #4 @ 18"oc w/ 12" LAP MIN 4" DOWEL EMBEDMENT IN EPOXY SCALE: 7 TRASH ENCLOSURE CMU WALL 1/2" = 1'-0" TUBE STEEL COLUMN BASE PLATE CMU BLOCK WALL - SEE DETAILS FOR ADDITIONAL REQ.

EQ. EQ. 9~ 4" 4" SCALE: 14 COLUMN PLACEMENT 1-1/2" = 1'-0" TUBE STEEL COLUMN 4" 4" 4" 4" CORNER BASE PLATE CMU BLOCK WALL - SEE DETAILS FOR ADDITIONAL REQ. 10~ SCALE: 13 CORNER COLUMN PLACEMENT 1-1/2" = 1'-0" 2" @ SINGLE GATE (JAMB ONLY)6" 6"
5'-8"
6"
3 1/2" 11" 11" 5" 9" 5" 4x4-1/2 HD. STL. BUTTS TOP, MIDDLE & BOTTOM - WELD TO ANGLE 2x2 w/ 1/4" STL. PLATE TO STL. ANGLE MTL. DECKING STL. TUBING - WELD TO STL. ANGLE TO FIT STL. ROD 3 4" Ø STL. ROD - TAPER END & WELD 4" HANDLE ON 2"x2"x3/16" STL ANGLE - WELD CORNERS (TYP @ 4 SIDES) 3 4" Ø CANE BOLT - PROVIDE CATCH TO HOLD IN UP POSITION (DOUBLE GATES ONLY) SHEET MTL SCREWS @ 9"oc @ TOP BOTTOM & SIDES. GRIND FLUSH 1/4" PLATE - ANGLE AND WELD TO 2x2 TUBE & 2x2 STL ANGLES @ EA END. SEE SECTION "A" 2"x2"x3/16" STL TUBE AT CENTER OF FRAME 18ga MTL DECKING w/ SHT MTL SCREWS @ 9"oc @ TOP, BOTTOM & SIDES. BA 1/2 OF OPENING A SECTION SCALE: 1" = 1'-0" B SLIDE BOLT SCALE: 1" = 1'-0" C ELEVATION SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" D SECTION SCALE: 1" = 1'-0" 4" SCALE: 5 ENCLOSURE GATES AS NOTED (2) 1/4" Ø MACHINE BOLT w/ MALEABLE WASHERS 5x3x1/4 STL TAB 1/4 CUT FLANGES & BEND WEB. BOLT THROUGH TO ADJ. EJ w/ (2) 1/4" MACHINE BOLT & 3" MALEABLE WASHERS
2"
1-1/2"
1-1/2"
1-1/2"
3"
1-1/2" 1-1/2"
1-1/2"
1-1/2" SCALE: 12 TRASH ENCLOSURE FRAMING PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0" 20 ga. GALV. STL C8x11.5 (TYP.) EJ60014 STEEL JOIST @ 24" O.C. 14 ga. STEEL 'Z' PURLIN 4x4x1/4 TS (TYP. OF 5) 12'-4" 19'-4" EQ. EQ. #4 BAR x24" @ 24"oc PLUG WELD TO CHANNEL (2) #4 BAR TO TOP OF WALL C5x9x8'-0" LONG - SLOPE TOP w/ WELDED CAP STEEL GATES w/ HINGE WELDED TO CHANNEL - SEE SOLID GROUT ALL CELLS PAINT GATES w/ (3) COATS OF PAINT o/ (1) COAT OF PRIMER NOTE - MAINTAIN 4" CLR. UNDER GATES TOP OF CONC APRON & AC PAVING EMBED "C-5" MIN 2'-0" INTO CONCRETE 12"sq FOOTING 512" 3"
2'-3"3 - #4 TIES 2 - #5 EA WAY SCALE: 6 TRASH ENCLOSURE JAMB & FOOTING 1-1/2" = 1'-0" 5~ (2) 1/2" Ø MACHINE BOLT w/ MALEABLE WASHERS & NUTS STEEL CHANNEL ROOF SHEET TUBE STEEL COLUMN TEK w/ NEOPRENE WASHER 2" 4" 2" 2 14"
8" 3" SCALE: 15 LOW EAVE 1-1/2" = 1'-0" ROOF SHEET TUBE STEEL COLUMN RAKE TRIM STITCH SCREW ANGLE FLASHING (1) 1/2" Ø MACHINE BOLT w/ MALEABLE WASHERS & NUTS STEEL CHANNEL SCALE: 16 METAL ROOFING RAKE 1-1/2" = 1'-0" OPEN 13~ 6~ 13~ 6'-8"
10"
MIN SCALE: 3 TRASH ENCLOSURE ELEVATIONS 1/4" = 1'-0" A 12 1/2 OPEN B13~ 13~ C METAL ROOFING w/ RAKE TRIM @ (3) SIDES - SEE NOTED DETAILS METAL ROOF STRUCTURE - SEE NOTED DETAILS CMU ENCLOSURE w/ PRE - CAST CONCRETE CAP OPEN OPEN 14~ 13~ TYP @ RAKE 12 1/2 6'-8" 1'-11"
8'-7"
6'-8" +/-
1'-6"
+/- 9'-0" OPEN D 13~ 16~ METAL ACCESS GATE w/ LATCHSET - SEE 'GATE HARDWARE' NOTE & STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS TRASH ENCLOSURE ROOF FRAMING PLAN PER 12~ LOW EAVE 15~ 13~ SCALE: 1 TRASH ENCLOSURE 1/4" = 1'-0" 96 GAL.

BIN 96 GAL. BIN 19'-8" 3C / A103 SIM. 7~
3D / A103
12'-8"
10'-0" EXTEND CONC. SLAB
BEYOND TRASH ENCLOSURE TYP 7~ 6~ 2'-8" 10'-0" CLEAR 2'-0" CONC SLAB 3A / A103 4'-0" TYP 1'-0" 5'-0" CONCRETE CURB 36"w METAL ACCESS GATE w/ LATCHSET - SEE 'GATE HARDWARE NOTE' ROLL-OUT TRASH RECEPTACLES (TYP OF 2) - VERIFY SIZE w/ SOLID WASTESLOPE SLAB @ 14"/FT TO AREA DRAIN 3B / A103 8" CMU WALL - PAINT TO MATCH BUILDING COLOR RECYCLE RECEPTACLES (TYP OF 4) - VERIFY SIZE w/ SOLID WASTE GATE HARDWARE NOTE: 1. PROVIDE LEVER OPENER, OPERABLE WITH SINGLE EFFORT; WITH LATCH BUT NO CLOSER. THE LEVER SHALL BE CURVED TO RETURN TO WITHIN 1/2" OF THE GATE TO PREVENT CATCHING OF CLOTHING (CBC 1126A.6) 2. BOTTOM OF GATE TO BE 10" MIN ABOVE GRADE OR 10" SMOOTH SURFACE SHALL BE REQUIRED ON PUSH SIDE OF DOOR. BOLT SLEEVE AT EA. GATE, AND RECEIVING HOLE IN GROUND PER CITY STANDARD PLAN S-602a. THE BOLT HOLE SHALL ALLOW FOR THE DOORS TO BE OPENED BEYOND 90 DEGREES SO THAT THE DOORS DO NOT LIMIT ACCESS TO THE ENCLOSURE. 96 GAL.

BIN
96 GAL.

BIN 5~ 8~ Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 26, Packet Page 43 Attachment 2 Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 69, Packet Page 210 Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 27, Packet Page 44 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 70, Packet Page 211 Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 28, Packet Page 45 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 71, Packet Page 212 PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET INDEX GENERAL NOTES GRADING & DRAINAGE TREE PROTECTION NOTES UNDERGROUND UTILITIES VICINITY MAP SANITARY SEWER STORM DRAIN BENCHMARK GROVE PAICIFIC SITE MONTEREY CARMEL VALLEY CARMEL PACIFIC OCEAN PEBBLE BEACH LEGEND PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONPRINT DATE: DRAWN BY: JOB NO. 2340 GARDEN ROAD, SUITE 100 MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA 93940 PHONE: 831.649.4642 FAX: 831.649.3530 WWW.WRDARCH.COM A.P.N. NO.: SHEET NAME: SHEET NO.: FILE NAME.: SET ISSUED: CHECKED BY: THE USE OF THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS IS RESTRICTED TO THE ORIGINAL SITE FOR WHICH THEY WERE PREPARED, AND PUBLICATION THEREOF IS EXPRESSLY LIMITED TO SUCH USE. REUSE, REPRODUCTION OR PUBLICATION BY ANY METHOD IN WHOLE OR IN PART IS PROHIBITED. TITLE TO THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS REMAINS WITH THE ARCHITECT, AND VISUAL CONTACT WITH THEM CONSTITUTES PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS. PLOT DATE: 3.27.2025 24094 MONTESSORI COMMUNITY SCHOOL

PLANNING PACKAGE

MONTESSORI COMMUNITY SCHOOL
2400 GARDEN ROAD
MONTEREY, CA 93940 013-322-008-000 CITY OF MONTEREY APPROVAL 126 Bonifacio Place, Suite C, Monterey, CA 93940 Phone: (831) 647-1192 Fax (831) 647-1194 [email protected] Civil Engineering Land Development Stormwater Management C1 COVER & GENERAL NOTES Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 29, Packet Page 46 Attachment 2 Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 72, Packet Page 213 EXISTING SITE PLAN PRINT DATE: DRAWN BY: JOB NO. 2340 GARDEN ROAD, SUITE 100 MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA 93940 PHONE: 831.649.4642 FAX: 831.649.3530 WWW.WRDARCH.COM A.P.N. NO.: SHEET NAME: SHEET NO.: FILE NAME.: SET ISSUED: CHECKED BY: THE USE OF THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS IS RESTRICTED TO THE ORIGINAL SITE FOR WHICH THEY WERE PREPARED, AND PUBLICATION THEREOF IS EXPRESSLY LIMITED TO SUCH USE. REUSE, REPRODUCTION OR PUBLICATION BY ANY METHOD IN WHOLE OR IN PART IS PROHIBITED. TITLE TO THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS REMAINS WITH THE ARCHITECT, AND VISUAL CONTACT WITH THEM CONSTITUTES PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS. PLOT DATE: 3.27.2025 24094 MONTESSORI COMMUNITY SCHOOL

PLANNING PACKAGE

MONTESSORI COMMUNITY SCHOOL
2400 GARDEN ROAD
MONTEREY, CA 93940 013-322-008-000 CITY OF MONTEREY APPROVAL PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 126 Bonifacio Place, Suite C, Monterey, CA 93940 Phone: (831) 647-1192 Fax (831) 647-1194 [email protected] Civil Engineering Land Development Stormwater Management C2 EXISTING SITE PLAN HATCH LEGEND Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 30, Packet Page 47 Attachment 2 Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 73, Packet Page 214 1 KEY NOTES 2 HATCH LEGEND PRINT DATE: DRAWN BY: JOB NO. 2340 GARDEN ROAD, SUITE 100 MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA 93940 PHONE: 831.649.4642 FAX: 831.649.3530 WWW.WRDARCH.COM A.P.N. NO.: SHEET NAME: SHEET NO.: FILE NAME.: SET ISSUED: CHECKED BY: THE USE OF THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS IS RESTRICTED TO THE ORIGINAL SITE FOR WHICH THEY WERE PREPARED, AND PUBLICATION THEREOF IS EXPRESSLY LIMITED TO SUCH USE. REUSE, REPRODUCTION OR PUBLICATION BY ANY METHOD IN WHOLE OR IN PART IS PROHIBITED. TITLE TO THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS REMAINS WITH THE ARCHITECT, AND VISUAL CONTACT WITH THEM CONSTITUTES PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS. PLOT DATE: 3.27.2025 24094 MONTESSORI COMMUNITY SCHOOL

PLANNING PACKAGE

MONTESSORI COMMUNITY SCHOOL
2400 GARDEN ROAD
MONTEREY, CA 93940 013-322-008-000 CITY OF MONTEREY APPROVAL PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 126 Bonifacio Place, Suite C, Monterey, CA 93940 Phone: (831) 647-1192 Fax (831) 647-1194 [email protected] Civil Engineering Land Development Stormwater Management GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN C3 GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN 345 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 2 3 45 6 6 66 7 78 89 9 Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 31, Packet Page 48 Attachment 2 Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 74, Packet Page 215 AC4 A.C. PAVEMENT SECT. BC4 CONCRETE PAVEMENT CC4 THICKENED EDGE EC4 ROOF DRAIN CONNECTION FC4 CLEAN-OUT @ GRADE GC4 RET. WALL SUBDRAIN PRINT DATE: DRAWN BY: JOB NO. 2340 GARDEN ROAD, SUITE 100 MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA 93940 PHONE: 831.649.4642 FAX: 831.649.3530 WWW.WRDARCH.COM A.P.N. NO.: SHEET NAME: SHEET NO.: FILE NAME.: SET ISSUED: CHECKED BY: THE USE OF THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS IS RESTRICTED TO THE ORIGINAL SITE FOR WHICH THEY WERE PREPARED, AND PUBLICATION THEREOF IS EXPRESSLY LIMITED TO SUCH USE. REUSE, REPRODUCTION OR PUBLICATION BY ANY METHOD IN WHOLE OR IN PART IS PROHIBITED. TITLE TO THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS REMAINS WITH THE ARCHITECT, AND VISUAL CONTACT WITH THEM CONSTITUTES PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS. PLOT DATE: 3.27.2025 24094 MONTESSORI COMMUNITY SCHOOL

PLANNING PACKAGE

MONTESSORI COMMUNITY SCHOOL
2400 GARDEN ROAD
MONTEREY, CA 93940 013-322-008-000 CITY OF MONTEREY APPROVAL PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 126 Bonifacio Place, Suite C, Monterey, CA 93940 Phone: (831) 647-1192 Fax (831) 647-1194 [email protected] Civil Engineering Land Development Stormwater Management C4 SECTIONS & DETAILS DC4 CONC. VERTICAL CURB KC4 CONC. WHEELSTOP IC4 POLE MOUNTING JC4 TRUNCATED DOMES NO PARKING HC4 L ACCESSIBLE STALL C4 CONC. VERTICAL CURB MC4 12" CURB 1 1C4 DRIVEWAY 1 KEY NOTES 2345 2 4 5 3 Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 32, Packet Page 49 Attachment 2 Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 75, Packet Page 216 EROSION CONTROL PLAN PRINT DATE: DRAWN BY: JOB NO. 2340 GARDEN ROAD, SUITE 100 MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA 93940 PHONE: 831.649.4642 FAX: 831.649.3530 WWW.WRDARCH.COM A.P.N. NO.: SHEET NAME: SHEET NO.: FILE NAME.: SET ISSUED: CHECKED BY: THE USE OF THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS IS RESTRICTED TO THE ORIGINAL SITE FOR WHICH THEY WERE PREPARED, AND PUBLICATION THEREOF IS EXPRESSLY LIMITED TO SUCH USE. REUSE, REPRODUCTION OR PUBLICATION BY ANY METHOD IN WHOLE OR IN PART IS PROHIBITED. TITLE TO THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS REMAINS WITH THE ARCHITECT, AND VISUAL CONTACT WITH THEM CONSTITUTES PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS. PLOT DATE: 3.27.2025 24094 MONTESSORI COMMUNITY SCHOOL

PLANNING PACKAGE

WATER METER
HB
HB
SSCO
LP
LP
12"P
12"P
12"P
12"P
10"P
10"P
10"P
10"P
10"P
10"P
10"P
10"P
10"Q
6"Q
6"Q
14"P
14"P
14"P
24"P
24"P
6"P
6"P
6"P
6"P
6"P
16"P
18"P
18"P
8"P
8"P
8"P
6"P
8"P

TELECOM

VAULT MANHOLE

TELECOM

GAS METER
24"P
ACU
ACU
ACUACU
SSCO
SSCO

ELECTRICAL PANEL
FDC
12"P
12"P
8"T
6"T
2-PRONG
PINE, 12"-14"
18"P
16"P
16"P
LP AM

GARDEN ROAD LS LS LS LS LS
A
A
A
A
A
A

A LGLG LGLGLG LG CO CO CO CO CO
P
P

P COCOCOCOCO
C
C
C
C
C

C LVLVLVLVLV FM FM FM FM FM
F LV
H

H TC TC
L
L
L
L TC
L
L
L
L
SH
H

H LALALA LALALA LALALA LA LA
E
E
E
E LA
S
R
S
S
S
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
C
C
C
C
C
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H

H CC TC CC CC CC
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
A CODE BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME CONT QTY WATER USE TREES AM Arbutus x `Marina` / Arbutus Standard 15 gal 1 Low CC Cercis canadensis / Eastern Redbud 15 gal 4 Medium LS Laurus x `Saratoga` / Saratoga Laurel 15 gal 5 Low SHRUBS A Arctostaphylos x `Pacific Mist` / Pacific Mist Manzanita 5 gal 8 Very low C Ceanothus griseus horizontalis `Carmel Creeper` / Carmel Creeper 5 gal 11 Low CO Correa x 'Carmine Bells' / Carmine Bells Australian Fuchsia 5 gal 10 Low E Eriogonum arborescens / Santa Cruz Island Buckwheat 5 gal 4 Low H Hemerocallis x / Hybrid Daylily 1 gal 22 Low LA Lantana x 'New Gold' / New Gold Lantana 5 gal 12 Low LV Lavandula x intermedia 'Provence' / Provence Lavendin 5 gal 6 Low
P Prunus caroliniana 'Compacta' / Compact Carolina Laurel Cherry 5 gal 3 Low
R Rosa x `Flower Carpet White` / Rose 1 gal 18 Medium S Salvia mellifera / Black Sage 5 gal 5 Very low TC Tecomaria capensis / Cape Honeysuckle 5 gal 4 Medium GRASSES FM Festuca rubra 'Molate' / Molate Red Fescue 1 gal 5 Low LG Leymus arenarius `Glaucus` / Blue Wild Rye 1 gal 6 Low L Lomandra longifolia Platinum Beauty / Variegated Mat Rush 1 gal 16 Low VINES F Ficus pumila / Creeping Fig 5 gal 1 Medium PLANT SCHEDULE PRINT DATE: DRAWN BY: JOB NO. 2340 GARDEN ROAD, SUITE 100 MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA 93940 PHONE: 831.649.4642 FAX: 831.649.3530 WWW.WRDARCH.COM A.P.N. NO.: SHEET NAME: SHEET NO.: FILE NAME.: SET ISSUED: CHECKED BY: THE USE OF THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS IS RESTRICTED TO THE ORIGINAL SITE FOR WHICH THEY WERE PREPARED, AND PUBLICATION THEREOF IS EXPRESSLY LIMITED TO SUCH USE. REUSE, REPRODUCTION OR PUBLICATION BY ANY METHOD IN WHOLE OR IN PART IS PROHIBITED. TITLE TO THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS REMAINS WITH THE ARCHITECT, AND VISUAL CONTACT WITH THEM CONSTITUTES PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS. PLOT DATE: 3.14.2025 L-1.0 MAA LANDSCAPE PLAN 24094 MONTESSORI COMMUNITY SCHOOL T.I. 2400 GARDEN ROAD

MONTESSORI COMMUNITY SCHOOL
2400 GARDEN ROAD
MONTEREY, CA 93940 013-322-008-000
N O R T H existing tree to remain (typical) existing tree to remain (typical) 0SCALE: 10 20 30 feet 1" = 10' native landscape to remain existing tree to remain (typical) native landscape to remain native landscape to remain trash enclosure existing play area to remain existing play area to remain 1. All existing trees, shrubs and ground covers to remain shall be protected. Any damage caused by Contractor's work shall be repaired or replaced at the Contractor's expense and be approved by the Landscape Architect. 2. Pre-planting should consist of adding the following fertilizer materials per 1000 sq ft of bed area: Gypsum 25.0 lbs Nitroform (38-0-0) 20.0 lbs (MAP) 11-52-0 30.0 lbs The above amendments should be thoroughly incorporated into the upper 8" of the soil profile. 3. After amending soil, grade all areas smooth with no localized depressions exceeding .5 inch. All areas shall surface drain with 1.5 percent minimum slope away from all buildings, paving or other structures. 4. Quantities are for aiding in bidding only. Contractor shall verify all quantities. 5. Contractor shall lay out plant material as per plan and receive approval from Landscape Architect prior to installation. 6. No plants shall be planted with root balls or new pits in a dry condition. 7. Plant all plants as per planting details in square pits with sides and bottoms thoroughly scarified. Do not amend backfill mix beyond initial topsoil amending unless noted. 8. All newly planted material shall be watered by deep soaking within 3 hours of planting. 9. All planting areas shall receive 3 inches of mini bark chip top dressing (mulch). 10. Contractor shall be responsible for irrigating all new plant material until the entire project as been approved and accepted by Owner. 11. Thirty days after planting Contractor shall re-stake and straighten all trees as necessary to be approved by Landscape Architect. 12. New trees planted within 4' of any paving shall have a root barrier installed as per manufacturers instructions. DeepRoot UB 18-2 or equal product. PLANTING NOTES existing play area to remain Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 34, Packet Page 51 Attachment 2 Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 77, Packet Page 218 PRINT DATE: DRAWN BY: JOB NO. 2340 GARDEN ROAD, SUITE 100 MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA 93940 PHONE: 831.649.4642 FAX: 831.649.3530 WWW.WRDARCH.COM A.P.N. NO.: SHEET NAME: SHEET NO.: FILE NAME.: SET ISSUED: CHECKED BY: THE USE OF THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS IS RESTRICTED TO THE ORIGINAL SITE FOR WHICH THEY WERE PREPARED, AND PUBLICATION THEREOF IS EXPRESSLY LIMITED TO SUCH USE. REUSE, REPRODUCTION OR PUBLICATION BY ANY METHOD IN WHOLE OR IN PART IS PROHIBITED. TITLE TO THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS REMAINS WITH THE ARCHITECT, AND VISUAL CONTACT WITH THEM CONSTITUTES PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS. PLOT DATE: 24094 MONTESSORI COMMUNITY SCHOOL T.I. 2400 GARDEN ROAD

MONTESSORI COMMUNITY SCHOOL
2400 GARDEN ROAD
MONTEREY, CA 93940 013-322-008-000 L-1.1MAA PLANT IMAGES TREES GRASSES Arbutus x Marina Arbutus Standard Hemerocallis x 'Yellow' Yellow Daylily Tecomaria capensis Cape Honeysuckle Eriogonum arborescens Santa Cruz Island Buckwheat Lomandra longifolia 'Platinum Beauty' Varigated Mat Rush Festuca rebra 'Molate Molate Red Fescue Leymus arenarius 'Glauca' Blue Wild Rye Ficus pumila Creeping Fig Vine SHRUBS AND PERENNIALS Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud Laurus x 'Saratoga' Saratoga Laurel Salvia melifera Black Sage Lantana x 'New Gold' New Gold Lantana Lavandula x intermedia 'Provence' Provence Lavender Prunus caroliniana 'Compacta' Compact Carolina Laurel Cherry Rosa x 'Flower Carpet White' Flower Carper Rose VINES Arctostaphylos hookerii `Pacific Mist` Carmel Creeper Manzanita Ceanothus griseus horizontalis Carmel Creeper Correa x Carmine Bells Carmine Bells Australian Fuchsia SHRUBS AND PERENNIALS 3.14.2025 Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 35, Packet Page 52 Attachment 2 Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 78, Packet Page 219 PRINT DATE: DRAWN BY: JOB NO. 2340 GARDEN ROAD, SUITE 100 MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA 93940 PHONE: 831.649.4642 FAX: 831.649.3530 WWW.WRDARCH.COM A.P.N. NO.: SHEET NAME: SHEET NO.: FILE NAME.: SET ISSUED: CHECKED BY: THE USE OF THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS IS RESTRICTED TO THE ORIGINAL SITE FOR WHICH THEY WERE PREPARED, AND PUBLICATION THEREOF IS EXPRESSLY LIMITED TO SUCH USE. REUSE, REPRODUCTION OR PUBLICATION BY ANY METHOD IN WHOLE OR IN PART IS PROHIBITED. TITLE TO THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS REMAINS WITH THE ARCHITECT, AND VISUAL CONTACT WITH THEM CONSTITUTES PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS. PLOT DATE: 24094 MONTESSORI COMMUNITY SCHOOL T.I. 2400 GARDEN ROAD

MONTESSORI COMMUNITY SCHOOL
2400 GARDEN ROAD
MONTEREY, CA 93940 013-322-008-000 L-1.2 MAA PLANTING NOTES & DETAILS TREE PROTECTION 1/4" = 1'-0" Crown drip line or other limit of Tree Protection area. See tree preservation plan for fence alignment. 4'-0" Maintain existing grade with the tree protection fence unless otherwise indicated on the plans. 2" x 6' steel posts or approved equal. 5" thick layer of mulch. Notes: 1- See specifications for additional tree protection requirements. 2- If there is no existing irrigation, see specifications for watering requirements. 3- No pruning shall be performed except by approved arborist. 4- No equipment shall operate inside the protective fencing including during fence installation and removal. 5- See site preparation plan for any modifications with the Tree Protection area. SECTION VIEW KEEP OUT TREE PROTECTION AREA 8.5" x 11" sign laminated in plastic spaced every 50' along the fence. URBAN TREE FOUNDATION © 2014 OPEN SOURCE FREE TO USE Tree Protection fence: High density polyethylene fencing with 3.5" x 1.5" openings; Color- orange. Steel posts installed at 8' o.c. 1 FX-PL-FX-TRMT-02 1" = 1'-0" TREE PLANTING DOUBLE STAKE PLANTING AT TURF AREAS. PLANT PIT DETAIL STAKING DETAIL PLANTING AT SHRUB AREAS. FX-PL-FX-TREE-10 2 SHRUB - MODIFIED SOIL 3/4" = 1'-0" Notes: 1- Shrubs shall be of quality prescribed in the root observations detail and specifications. 2- See specifications for further requirements related to this detail. Modified soil. Depth varies. (See specifications for soil modification). Root ball. 4" high x 8" wide round - topped soil berm above root ball surface shall be constructed around the root ball. Berm shall begin at root ball periphery. Prior to mulching, lightly tamp soil around the root ball in 6" lifts to brace shrub. Do not over compact. When the planting hole has been backfilled, pour water around the root ball to settle the soil. 4" layer of mulch. No more than 1" of mulch on top of root ball. (See specifications for mulch). Root ball rests on existing or recompacted soil. Existing soil. Finished grade. Shrub. SECTION VIEW URBAN TREE FOUNDATION © 2014 OPEN SOURCE FREE TO USE FX-PL-FX-SHRB-03 3 VINE - MODIFIED SOIL 1/2" = 1'-0" Notes: 1- Vines shall be of quality as prescribed in the root observations detail and specifications. 2- See specifications for further requirements related to this detail. Face of wall or building. Lean nursery stake against the wall. Stake to be removed at the end of the maintenance (warranty) period after the vine has attached to the wall. Root ball. Vine. 4" x 8" wide round - topped soil berm above root ball surface shall be constructed around the root ball. Berm shall begin at root ball periphery. Prior to mulching, lightly tamp soil around the root ball in 6" lifts to brace shrub. Do not over compact. When the planting hole has been backfilled, pour water around the root ball to settle the soil. 4" layer of mulch. No more than 1" of mulch on the top of the root ball. (See specifications for mulch). Finished grade. Pavement. Modified soil. Depth varies. (See specifications for soil modification). Root ball rests on existing or recompacted soil. Existing soil. URBAN TREE FOUNDATION © 2014 OPEN SOURCE FREE TO USE 4 FX-PL-FX-SHRB-06 3.14.2025 Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 36, Packet Page 53 Attachment 2 Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 79, Packet Page 220 SYMBOL DESCRIPTION QTY DRIP LOW LOW WATER USE 2,544 sf TREE BUBBLER MODERATE WATER USE 160 sf TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA 2,704 s.f. HYDROZONE MAP LEGEND FH WV

WATER METER
HB
HB
SSCO
LP
LP
12"P
12"P
12"P
12"P
10"P
10"P
10"P
10"P
10"P
10"P
10"P
10"P
10"Q
6"Q
6"Q
14"P
14"P
14"P
24"P
24"P
6"P
6"P
6"P
6"P
6"P
16"P
18"P
18"P
8"P
8"P
8"P
6"P
8"P

TELECOM

VAULT MANHOLE

TELECOM

GAS METER
24"P
ACU
ACU
ACUACU
SSCO
SSCO

ELECTRICAL PANEL
FDC
12"P
12"P
8"T
6"T
2-PRONG
PINE, 12"-14"
18"P
16"P
16"P
LP
GARDEN ROAD PRINT DATE: DRAWN BY: JOB NO. 2340 GARDEN ROAD, SUITE 100 MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA 93940 PHONE: 831.649.4642 FAX: 831.649.3530 WWW.WRDARCH.COM A.P.N. NO.: SHEET NAME: SHEET NO.: FILE NAME.: SET ISSUED: CHECKED BY: THE USE OF THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS IS RESTRICTED TO THE ORIGINAL SITE FOR WHICH THEY WERE PREPARED, AND PUBLICATION THEREOF IS EXPRESSLY LIMITED TO SUCH USE. REUSE, REPRODUCTION OR PUBLICATION BY ANY METHOD IN WHOLE OR IN PART IS PROHIBITED. TITLE TO THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS REMAINS WITH THE ARCHITECT, AND VISUAL CONTACT WITH THEM CONSTITUTES PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS. PLOT DATE: 24094 MONTESSORI COMMUNITY SCHOOL T.I. 2400 GARDEN ROAD

MONTESSORI COMMUNITY SCHOOL
2400 GARDEN ROAD
MONTEREY, CA 93940 013-322-008-000 L-2.0 MAA HYDROZONE MAP AND WATER USE CALCULATIOS MAWA E T W U

N O R T H
0SCALE: 10 20 30 feet 1" = 10' M A W A E T W U 3.14.2025 Click on the blue cell on right to Pick City Name Monterey Name of City ETo of City from Appendix A 36.00ETo (inches/year) 0Overhead Landscape Area (ft2) 2,704Drip Landscape Area (ft2) 0SLA (ft2) Total Landscape Area 2,704 Results: (ETo) x (0.62) x [(0.45 x LA) + (1.0 - 0.45) X SLA)] 27,159Gallons 3,631Cubic Feet 36HCF 0Acre-feet 0Millions of Gallons MAWA calculation incorporating Effective Precipitation (Optional) Precipitation (Optional) ETo of City from Appendix A 36ETo (inches/year) Total Landscape Area 2,704LA (ft2) Special Landscape Area 0SLA (ft2) Total annual precipitiation (inches/year) Enter Effective Precipitation 0.00Eppt (in/yr)(25% of total annual precipitation) Results: MAWA = [(ETo - Eppt) x (0.62)] x [(0.45 x LA) + ((1.0 - 0.45) x SLA)] - Gallons - Cubic Feet - HCF- Acre-feet - Millions of Gallons Messages and Warnings Maximum Applied Water Allowance Calculations for New and Rehabilitated Non-Residential Landscapes Irrigation Efficiency Default Value for overhead 0.75 and drip 0.81. Plant Water Use Type Plant Factor Very Low 0 - 0.1 Low 0.2 - 0.3 Medium 0.4 - 0.6 High 0.7 - 1.0 SLA 1.0 HydrozoneSelect System From the Dropdown List click on cell below Plant Water Use Type (s) (low, medium, high) Plant Factor (PF) Hydrozone Area (HA) (ft2) Without SLA Irrigation Efficiency (IE) (PF x HA (ft2))/IE Zone 1 Drip Low 0.30 2 ,544 0.81 942 Zone 2 Drip Medium 0.40 1 60 0.81 79 1,021 SLA 0 0 Sum 2,704 Results MAWA = 27,159 ETWU = 22,794Gallons ETWU complies with MAWA 3,047Cubic Feet 30.47HCF 0.07Acre-feet 0.02Millions of Gallons Estimated Total Water Use Equation: ETWU = ETo x 0.62 x [((PF x HA)/IE) + SLA]; Considering precipitation ETWA = (ETo-Eppt) x 0.62 x [((PF x HA)/IE) +SLA] Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 37, Packet Page 54 Attachment 2 Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 80, Packet Page 221 SYMBOL MANUFACTURER/MODEL/DESCRIPTION QTY PSI Hunter RZWS-SLEEVE-18-CV 18in. long RZWS with Filter Fabric Sleeve, .50 gpm bubbler options, Check Valve, 1/2in. swing joint for connection to 1/2in. pipe 20 15 SYMBOL MANUFACTURER/MODEL/DESCRIPTION QTY Hunter ICZ-101-25 Drip Control Zone Kit. 1" ICV Globe Valve with 1" HY100 filter system. Pressure Regulation: 25psi. Flow Range: 2 GPM to 20 GPM. 150 mesh stainless steel screen. 4 Hunter AFV-T Automatic flush valve with 1/2in. MPT connection. Removable top for diaphragm maintenance.4 Hunter ECO-ID-12 ECO-ID: 1/2in. FPT connection with 15 psi - 100 psi operating pressure. Specify with Hunter SJ swing joint.4 Area to Receive Drip Emitters Rain Bird XB-PC (2) Single Outlet, Pressure Compensating Drip Emitters. Flow rates of 0.5gph=blue, 1.0gph=black, and 2.0gph=red. Comes with a self-piercing barb inlet x barb outlet. 2,544 s.f. Emitter Notes: 0.5 GPH emitters (2 assigned to each 1 gal plant) 1.0 GPH emitters (2 assigned to each 5 gal plant) 2.0 GPH emitters (4 assigned to each 15 gal plant) 0.25 0.50 IRRIGATION SCHEDULE Valve Number Valve Size Valve Flow Valve Callout #
# #"
FH WV

WATER METER
HB
HB
SSCO
LP
LP
12"P
12"P
12"P
12"P
10"P
10"P
10"P
10"P
10"P
10"P
10"P
10"P
10"Q
6"Q
6"Q
14"P
14"P
14"P
24"P
24"P
6"P
6"P
6"P
6"P
6"P
16"P
18"P
18"P
8"P
8"P
8"P
6"P
8"P

TELECOM

VAULT MANHOLE

TELECOM

GAS METER
24"P
ACU
ACU
ACUACU
SSCO
SSCO

ELECTRICAL PANEL
FDC
12"P
12"P
8"T
6"T
2-PRONG
PINE, 12"-14"
18"P
16"P
16"P
LP
GARDEN ROAD 3" S1.5" M 1.5" M 1.5" M 3" S 1" L C-1 3.6 1" C-2 3.3 1" 3.7 C-31" C-4 2.7 1" C-5 5.0 1" C-6 5.0 1" 1" L SYMBOL MANUFACTURER/MODEL/DESCRIPTION QTY Hunter IBV-BSP-FS 1in., 1-1/2in., 2in., and 3in. Brass Electric Remote Control Valve, Globe Configuration, with BSP Threaded Inlet/Outlet, for Commercial/Municipal Use. With Filter Sentry Factory Installed Option. 2 Rain Bird 44-LRC 1" Brass Quick-Coupling Valve, with Corrosion-Resistant Stainless Steel Spring, Locking Thermoplastic Rubber Cover, and 2-Piece Body. 3 Nibco T-580-S6-R-66-LL Stainless steel ball valve shut off valve 2 Febco 825Y 1" Reduced Pressure Backflow Preventer. Install 12in. above highest downstream outlet and the highest point in the downstream piping. 1 Hunter PHC-600 Wi-Fi enabled, full-functioning controller with touchscreen, 6-Station fixed controller, 120 VAC, Outdoor model. 1 Hunter SOIL-CLIK The Soil-Clik probe uses proven technology to measure moisture within the root zone. When the probe senses that the soil has reached its desired moisture level, it will shut down irrigation, preventing water waste. 1 Hunter WRF-CLIK Rain/freeze Sensor, install within 1000 ft of controller, in line of sight. 22-28 VAC/VDC 100 mA power from timer transformer. Mount as noted. Includes Gutter Mount. 1 Irrigation Lateral Line: 1" PVC Class 315 SDR 13.5 240 l.f. Irrigation Mainline: 1.5" PVC Schedule 40 400 l.f. Pipe Sleeve: 3" PVC Schedule 80 80 l.f. PRINT DATE: DRAWN BY: JOB NO. 2340 GARDEN ROAD, SUITE 100 MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA 93940 PHONE: 831.649.4642 FAX: 831.649.3530 WWW.WRDARCH.COM A.P.N. NO.: SHEET NAME: SHEET NO.: FILE NAME.: SET ISSUED: CHECKED BY: THE USE OF THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS IS RESTRICTED TO THE ORIGINAL SITE FOR WHICH THEY WERE PREPARED, AND PUBLICATION THEREOF IS EXPRESSLY LIMITED TO SUCH USE. REUSE, REPRODUCTION OR PUBLICATION BY ANY METHOD IN WHOLE OR IN PART IS PROHIBITED. TITLE TO THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS REMAINS WITH THE ARCHITECT, AND VISUAL CONTACT WITH THEM CONSTITUTES PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS. PLOT DATE: 24094 MONTESSORI COMMUNITY SCHOOL T.I. 2400 GARDEN ROAD

MONTESSORI COMMUNITY SCHOOL
2400 GARDEN ROAD
MONTEREY, CA 93940 013-322-008-000 L-2.1 MAA IRRIGATION PLAN SCHEDULE & NOTES existing tree to remain existing tree to remain drip zone 2 drip zone 1 drip zone 4 drip zone 3

N O R T H
0SCALE: 10 20 30 feet 1" = 10' Point of Connection to existing water service line to be verified in field manual shut off valve manual shut off valve backflow device rain sensor on corner of building irrigation controller on outside of building - provide AC power to this location soil moisture sensor 3.14.2025 Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 38, Packet Page 55 Attachment 2 Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 81, Packet Page 222 PRINT DATE: DRAWN BY: JOB NO. 2340 GARDEN ROAD, SUITE 100 MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA 93940 PHONE: 831.649.4642 FAX: 831.649.3530 WWW.WRDARCH.COM A.P.N. NO.: SHEET NAME: SHEET NO.: FILE NAME.: SET ISSUED: CHECKED BY: THE USE OF THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS IS RESTRICTED TO THE ORIGINAL SITE FOR WHICH THEY WERE PREPARED, AND PUBLICATION THEREOF IS EXPRESSLY LIMITED TO SUCH USE. REUSE, REPRODUCTION OR PUBLICATION BY ANY METHOD IN WHOLE OR IN PART IS PROHIBITED. TITLE TO THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS REMAINS WITH THE ARCHITECT, AND VISUAL CONTACT WITH THEM CONSTITUTES PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS. PLOT DATE: 24094 MONTESSORI COMMUNITY SCHOOL T.I. 2400 GARDEN ROAD

MONTESSORI COMMUNITY SCHOOL
2400 GARDEN ROAD
MONTEREY, CA 93940 013-322-008-000 L-2.2 MAA IRRIGATION DETAILS NOTES: 1- See irrigation legend for mainline and lateral line pipe size and type. 2- Direct burial control wires shall be installed in Sch. 40 PVC electrical conduit if required. 3- 2-wire irrigation wire shall be installed in Sch. 40 PVC electrical conduit. 4- Detectable locator tape shall be located six inches (6") above the entire mainline run. Direct burial low voltage control wires. Pavement. IRRIGATION TRENCHING 1 1/2" = 1'-0" 24" min. 1'-0"
In planting area
1'-6" in planting area
3'-0" underneath pavement Non-pressurized line (lateral line). Detectable locator tape. Pressurized line (mainline). 6" Finished grade. URBAN TREE FOUNDATION © 2014 OPEN SOURCE FREE TO USE FX-IR-FX-AUXEQ-08 1 1" = 1'-0" REDUCED PRESSURE BACKFLOW DEVICE FX-IR-FX-BACK-03 2 I-X WALL MOUNTED CONTROLLER 1/2" = 1'-0" Notes: 1- Common and controller wire to be bundled using electrical tape at 10'-0" on center. 2- Grounding rods shall be located between 8"- 0" to 12'- 0" away from the controller. Grounding rods shall be 3 8" in diameter x 8' in length. Connect the grounding rod to the controller using 6 gauge bare copper wire or per the manufacturer's specifications.See grounding rod detail. 3- ET Station shall be installed no further than 90' away from the controller and a minimum of 15' off of the ground, out from under any overhead obstructions such as, but not limited to, building overhangs, trees, or utilities. Wall, fence, or building. Wall mounted controller. Install per manufacturer's specifications and recommendations. (See irrigation legend for controller make and model number). 3 4" knockout for earth ground wire. 2" PVC electrical conduit for irrigation valves, master valve, and flow sensor wires. Optional 3" knockout if more wires are needed. Secure conduit to wall using stainless steel clamp. 1" PVC electrical conduit for electrical power per local and national electrical codes. 1" PVC electrical conduit for ET sensor. (optional). SECTION VIEW SIDE VIEW Finished grade.18" Min. 5'-0" URBAN TREE FOUNDATION © 2014 OPEN SOURCE FREE TO USE FX-IR-FX-CONT-06 1 1/2" = 1'-0" QUICK COUPLING VALVE IN BOX FX-IR-FX-QUIC-04 4 1 1/2" = 1'-0" ELECTRIC REMOTE CONTROL VALVE FX-IR-FX-RCV-04 5 MANUAL CONTROL VALVE IN BOX 1 1/2" = 1'-0" 45 DOWN AS REQ. TO LATERAL PIPE DEPTH. 2" MINIMUM, 4" MAXIMUM BELOW TOP OF BOX. 10X15 RECTANGULAR VALVE BOX. MANUAL VALVE AS SPECIFIED. OUTLET PIPE SAME SIZE AS VALVE, 24" MIN. TO FIRST FITTING. SCHEDULE 80 RISER AND ELL. MAIN LINE. 1/2" WIRE CLOTH GOPHER SCREEN, WRAP UP SIDES. TWO 6X2X16 CONC. BLOCK CAPS, ONE ON EACH SIDE OF BOX. INCREASE LATERAL LINE AS PER IRRIGATION PLAN. 12" BELOW GRADE
2"-4" 2" CLR. FLUSH TO GRADE AT LAWN. 2" ABOVE FINISH GRADE AT SHRUBS. 6 FX-IR-FX-MCV-02 ICZ-101 DRIP CONTROL ZONE 1 1/2" = 1'-0" 18-24" COILED WIRE WATERPROOF CONNECTORS (2) DRIP ZONE KIT MODEL ICZ-101-XX WITH FILTER (TIP 45 DEGREES) REGULATOR 25 OR 40 PSI FINISH GRADE JUMBO VALVE BOX SCH 80 T.O.E. NIPPLE (2) MAIN LINE PIPE & FITTINGS BRICK SUPPORTS (4) 3/4" MINUS WASHED GRAVEL 7 FX-IR-HUNT-DRIP-18 1 1/2" = 1'-0" TYPICAL DRIP TUBING COMPRESSION FITTING. PLANT GRAPHIC DRIPLINE EDGE. TYPICAL 1/4" TUBE STAKE WITH EMITTER OR CAP. TYPICAL 1/4" DISTRIBUTION TUBING, 48" MAX. LENGTH. TYPICAL 1/2" DRIP TUBING STAKE. MULTI-OUTLET EMITTER OR TRANSFER. EMITTER OR BUBBLER ON 12" DRIP STAKE. TRANSFER BARB TEE FOR DOUBLE EMITTER. TYPICAL COMPRESSION FITTING. TYPICAL 12" DRIP TUBING. NOTE: 1. PLACE EMITTERS 3 4 BETWEEN THE TRUNK AND OUTTER DRIPLINE. 2. EVENLY SPACE EMITTERS AROUND PLANT. 3. STAKE THE DRIP TUBING AT EACH TEE, ELL, COUPLER, AT EACH EMITTER OR TRANSFER, AND AT 6'-0" MAX O.C. USE BUBBLERS FOR TREES AS NOTED IN LEGEND; USE TUBING FOR ALL SHRUBS FX-IR-FX-DRIP-01 8 WIRELESS RAIN-CLIK 3" = 1'-0" NOTE: MOUNT SENSOR ON ANY SURFACE WHERE IT WILL BE EXPOSED TO UNOBSTRUCTED RAINFALL, BUT NOT IN PATH OF SPRINKLER SPRAY, NO MORE THAN 1000' FROM RECEIVER UNIT. MOUNT RECEIVER UNIT NO FURTHER THAN 6' FROM CONTROLLER. WRC RECEIVER MODEL WRC MOUNTING WALL 10 FX-IR-HUNT-SENS-17 SOIL CLIK SENSOR INSTALLED IN SHRUB AREA NOT TO SCALE SHRUB FINISHED GRADE SOIL CLIK CABLE TO CONTROLLER SOIL CLIK SENSOR INSTALLED AT 50% OF ROOT DEPTH ROOT DEPTH ROOTS 11 FX-IR-HUNT-SENS-09 FLUSH VALVE AUTO 1 1/2" = 1'-0" 18" FINISH GRADE 10" ROUND VALVE BOX HUNTER PLD-050 OR 1/2" FPT ADAPTER LINE FLUSHING VALVE LATERAL OR HEADER BRICK SUPPORTS (3) SEE SPECS 3/4" GRAVEL SUMP 9 FX-IR-HUNT-DREQ-03 ROOT ZONE WATERING SYSTEM - 18" NOT TO SCALE 1 LEGEND: 18" ROOT ZONE WATERING SYSTEM PER PLAN 23 MULCH 7 NATIVE SOIL FINISHED GRADE 4 LATERAL PIPE - SIZE PER PLAN 65 ROOT BALL NOTES INSTALL RZWS SLEEVE OVER TUBE TO HELP PREVENT SOIL INTRUSION 1234567 AMENDED SOIL MEDIA (PER SOILS REPORT) 12 3.14.2025 Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 39, Packet Page 56 Attachment 2 Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 82, Packet Page 223 RESOLUTION NO. __ Date: September 23, 2025
Item No: 4

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
№07/19
APPROVING VARIANCE APPLICATION VA-25-0075 FOR WASTE ENCLOSURE

WITHIN FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS AND DENYING VARIANCE FOR DECK IN SIDE YARD SETBACK AT 2400 GARDEN ROAD
WHEREAS, Shawn Capps, Wald Ruhnke and Dost Architects, applicant, submitted applications for a use permit for a day care use and variance application for a replacement waste enclosure and deck setback reduction;
WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to convert the existing building to a Montessori community school for children ages 6 weeks to 6 years old; WHEREAS, the subject site is an approximately 32,700 square foot lot which fronts both Garden Road and Garden Court, and contains an existing commercial office building and parking lot;
WHEREAS, the site is designated Employment on the General Plan Land Use Map, and is zoned I-R-130-RA-ES-MF1 (Industrial, Research and Administration Zoning District with Religious Assembly, Emergency Shelter and South Side of Garden Road Multifamily Overlay Districts). The I-R zoning district requires a use permit for the day care, general, use classification; WHEREAS, the applicant proposed a new waste enclosure at distances of 1-foot, 2- inches, from the South side lot line and 12-feet, 10-inches from the Garden Court frontage front lot line; and, a new deck located 1-foot from the West side lot line. Both features are subject to the I-R zoning district 50-foot setbacks;
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1 and Section 15303, Class 3) because the project proposes minor alterations to the exterior of a developed site in an urbanized area, and construction of small structures. The project would not involve an expansion of the existing use. Furthermore, the project does not qualify for any of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions found at CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2.

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

Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 40, Packet Page 57 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 83, Packet Page 224 2 Exception b - Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. The proposed accessory structure is a minor alteration to the site, which is already developed. No cumulative impacts are anticipated due to the project’s limited scope and distinct location.

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 significant effects are anticipated due to the project’s limited scope and distinct location.

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

Exception f - Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a properly noticed public hearing on September 23, 2025 carefully considered all of the information presented to it, including the agenda report and information submitted at the public hearing by interested persons; WHEREAS, notice is hereby given that decisions of the Planning Commission are appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the date of this action pursuant to Monterey City Code section 38-205;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby approves Variance Application VA-25-0075 for a replacement waste enclosure setback reduction and denies the deck setback reduction, as illustrated and/or described in Exhibits A and B with the following findings and conditions:

FINDINGS:

Variance VA-25-0075 Findings for Approval
1) With regards to the proposed waste enclosure, special circumstances or conditions applicable exist at the subject property (including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings), strict application of the requirements of this ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under an identical zoning Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 41, Packet Page 58 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 84, Packet Page 225 3 classification. The subject property is significantly smaller than the minimum lot size required in the I-R-130 district: approximately 32,700 square feet where 130,000 square feet is the standard. The combination of its small size, unique lot dimensions, existing development footprint, and site topography limits the ability to relocate necessary site infrastructure such as the waste enclosure. The proposed waste enclosure location, within the south side and front setbacks, has been determined by the City and the waste hauler to be the only feasible and functional location for safe and efficient trash service. Strict application of the 50-foot setback standard would effectively preclude the site from accommodating an enclosure that can be adequately accessed by waste collection trucks, thereby depriving the property of a basic operational feature that other similarly zoned properties can provide.

The City does not support a side yard setback variance for the proposed deck play area.

Although the site has some size and design constraints, the applicant has not demonstrated that a setback variance is necessary to provide outdoor play space. Alternative options exist to reconfigure play areas within the site without encroaching into the required setback. The deck is considered an amenity rather than an operational necessity, and strict application of the setback does not deprive the site of a privilege or right enjoyed by other properties. 2) Granting the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity of the development site, or to the public health, safety, or general welfare. The proposed waste enclosure will replace an inadequate existing enclosure and will comply with the City’s waste enclosure design guidelines, improving the site’s overall sanitation, health, and safety. Although it is located at the front of the site, it is positioned away from the main pedestrian and customer access points and will be properly screened. Granting the variance will improve waste management operations and will not create adverse impacts on adjacent properties or the public realm.

Although the deck is located close to the west property line, it abuts a City-owned retention basin rather than private development, reducing the likelihood of adverse noise, privacy, or other impacts. With appropriate construction standards and buffering, the deck is not expected to be detrimental to surrounding properties or the general welfare. 3) Granting the application for the waste enclosure is consistent with the purposes of this ordinance and will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district. The enclosure variance accommodates a basic site function (waste management) that would otherwise be impractical given the site’s size, layout, and topographic constraints. This flexibility aligns with the purpose of the ordinance and does not create a special privilege.

Granting a variance for the deck would constitute a special privilege, as other properties in the district are required to meet setback requirements for accessory structures, and no unique hardship has been shown to warrant relief. The deck’s encroachment into the Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 42, Packet Page 59 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 85, Packet Page 226 4 setback does not address an operational necessity and could be redesigned or relocated to comply with the ordinance.

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Standard:

1. That, prior to submittal for building permits, the applicant shall provide a copy of these Conditions of Approval on the front page of any plans to be included in the Building Permit submittal.

2. That any modification to the approved plans requires review and approval by Planning staff or the Planning Commission, as necessary.

3. That the hours of construction shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 am to 7:00 pm Monday through Friday, 8:00 am to 6:00 pm Saturday and 10:00 am to 5:00 pm Sunday.`

4. That the project is subject to the categorical water allocation program approved by the City Council and subject to the rules and regulations as adopted by the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District. The applicant proceeds at his own risk that water may not be available at the time he requests building permits. No building permits will be issued if water is not available for this project.

5. During construction, the developer shall employ temporary storm water best management practices (BMPs) for erosion and sediment control, prevention of non-storm water discharges, and implement good housekeeping and construction waste management practices to protect the storm drainage system and water quality as required by City Code Section 31.5-15(c), City Phase II Permit, State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Construction General Permit (CGP), and MRSWMP. Plans for the implementation of during-construction storm water management and BMPs, such as a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), shall be submitted to the City and subject to review and approval of the City Engineer and Building Official prior to issuance of a grading and/or building permit.

6. Tree protection shall be installed prior to initiation of any site disturbance as required by Municipal Code Chapter 37.

7. That this approval will expire 24 months from the date of approval by the City of Monterey unless the required building permits are issued for the project. It is the applicant’s responsibility to track the expiration date and any request for extension must be made a minimum of 60 days prior to expiration. No renewal notice will be sent to the applicant or property owner.

8. This approval shall become effective on the day after the tenth day of September 23, 2025, unless appealed by the applicant or other interested party under the provisions of Article 27.

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

Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 43, Packet Page 60 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 86, Packet Page 227 5 AYES: COMMISSIONERS:

NOES: COMMISSIONERS:

ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:

ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Planning Commission Chair
Project Planner
Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 44, Packet Page 61 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 87, Packet Page 228 April 7, 2025
Chris Schmidt
Senior associate planner
City of Monterey
570 Pacific Street
Monterey, CA 93940
Regarding 2400 Garden Rd UP-25-0013 variance for trash enclosure and exterior deck along west property line :

Dear Chris:

We are requesting a setback variance to allow for a replacement trash enclosure along the south property line and a new exterior deck along the west property line located at 2400 Garden Road in Monterey.

The first setback variance request is to allow for a replacement trash enclosure within the required rear yard setback. The existing trash enclosure is in the same location. We met with Ted Terrasas with City of Monterey and Tom Parola with Monterey Disposal and they said that a new trash enclosure would be required to replace the existing trash enclosure. The existing trash location is within the setback. Ted Terrasas and Tom Parola both agreed that the existing trash location would be the best location for the replacement trash enclosure for weekly pick up due to the site topography.

The second setback variance request is to allow for a new exterior play yard deck along the west property line. The site topography limits the ability to provide open outdoor areas. Providing the exterior deck will give the Montessori Community School additional outdoor area. The property that is adjacent to the western property line is owned by the City of Monterey and has a retention basin located on that property. There are no negative impacts to the adjacent property created by allowing the deck to encroach in this setback. The only other practical place to locate this deck would be along the Garden Road side of the building which would entail removal of (9) pine trees and force development to occur on a steeply sloped portion of the site.

Thank you for your consideration in allowing the replacement trash enclosure and new exterior deck along the west property line. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments.

Sincerely,
Shawn Capps
WRD Architects
2340 Garden Road
Suite 100
Monterey, CA
93940-5347
T: (831) 649-4642
F: (831) 649-3530
www.wrdarch.com
Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 45, Packet Page 62 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 88, Packet Page 229

BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Carl Miller, Chair
John Gaglioti
Jonathan Ahmadi
Danial Pick
Mary Ann Leffel

EXECUTIVE STAFF
Chris Morello
Interim Executive Director
Scott Huber
District Counsel
June 16, 2025
TO: City of Monterey Planning Commission Permit Application UP-25-0013:

Monterey Regional Airport was involved in the preparation of the 2019 Monterey Regional Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) and appreciates the Airport Land Use Commission’s efforts to use the ALUCP to protect and promote the safety and welfare of residents, businesses, and airport users near the Airport, while supporting the continued operation of MRY.

Based on the Monterey Regional Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan adopted in 2019, the proposed Day Care – General Use designation is located within Zone 7 – Airport Influence Area (AIA) and is located approximately 1,395 feet south of the south side of Runway 10R28L, as noted on the attached exhibit. Given the location of the proposed development, Monterey Regional Airport provides the following observations related to key airport land use compatibility criteria outlined in the ALUCP:

Vulnerable Occupants: As noted in Section 4.2.2.2 – Safety Zone Criteria, the ALUCP compatibility standards in Table 4B restrict the development of land uses that could pose hazards to the public or vulnerable populations in the event of an aircraft accident. Vulnerable occupants are defined in footnote 12 of Table 4B as “children, the elderly, and people with disabilities.” Table 4B provides additional guidance on vulnerable occupants in the “Other Development Conditions” column, which states that any proposed uses involving vulnerable occupants within 6,000 feet of the side of the runway or 10,000 feet of the runway’s end shall require ALUC review and is strongly discouraged.

Prohibited Uses: Hazards to flight, classified as “Prohibited Uses” in Table 4B, include physical obstructions (e.g., tall objects), as well as visual and electronic forms of interference with the safe operation of aircraft. If there are any proposed modifications that would affect the building’s exterior, an FAA Form 7460-1 Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration must be filed to determine if the proposed project would introduce a hazard to flight. As noted in the attached Notice Criteria Tool report, the site is located “in proximity to a navigation facility and may impact the assurance of navigation signal reception.” Due to the potential presence of vulnerable occupants within the vicinity of the airport, Monterey Regional Airport does not support the proposed use of 2400 Garden Road as a Day Care Center.

Again, we appreciate the opportunity to provide input on the proposed Day Care – General Use designation near Monterey Regional Airport. If you have any questions about the information we have provided, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,
Monterey Regional Airport
Chris Morello
Interim Executive Director

ATTACHMENT
Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 64, Packet Page 81 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 89, Packet Page 230 0 6,800
Feet
¯
Source:ESRI Basemap Imagery
1"=7,000'
Legend
Municipal BoundaryAirport Property LineUrban Area1
Safety Zones
Runway ProtectionInner Approach/DepartureInner TurningOuter Approach/DepartureSidelineAirport PropertyAirport Influence Area City of
Del Rey Oaks
Pacific Ocean
Monterey County
City of Seaside
City of Monterey
City of
Sand City
City of
Pacific Grove
City of
Pacific Grove
City of
Sand City
City of
Seaside
Pacific Ocean
Inset
1Urban Areas are based on "mixed used
use areas" identified in the City of Monterey General Plan dated August 2013.

Exhibit 4C

MONTEREY REGIONAL AIRPORT SAFETY ZONES
Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 65, Packet Page 82 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 90, Packet Page 231 28L
28R
10L
10R
28L
28R
10L
10R2 1 4
6 5
5 2 2
3 3
3 13 3
6 6 6
6 4
4 6 3 6
5 3
3 3 5
6 6
1 1 2 4
5 5 2
Legend
Municipal BoundaryRunway Protection Zone (Zone 1)Approach Protection Zone (Zone 2) Inner Turning Zone (Zone 3)Outer Approach/Departure Zone (Zone 4)Sideline Zone (Zone 5) Airport Property Zone (Zone 6)Parcels
0 1,200
Feet ¯
1,395 ft
2400 Garden Road
Exhibit 4C (conƟnued)

MONTEREY REGIONAL AIRPORT SAFETY ZONES
Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 66, Packet Page 83 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 91, Packet Page 232

COUNTY OFMONTEREY

MEMORANDUM
To: Airport Land Use Commission
From: Edgar Sanchez, ALUC Staff; July 20, 2025
(831) 783-7058, [email protected]
Meeting
Date: July 28, 2025
Subject: Scheduled Item 7a – REF250022 - 2400 Garden Road Montessori Day Care Project
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the Monterey County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) find the proposed conversion of an existing 11,177 SF commercial office building into a day care facility and accompanying proposed improvements (ALUC File No. REF250022 is consistent with the 2019 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for Monterey Regional Airport.

PROPOSED PROJECT:

On June 30, 2025, the City of Monterey submitted an application (ALUC File No.

REF250022 to ALUC staff requesting consideration of a proposed project to convert an existing 11,177 SF commercial office building into a new Montessori Community School. The subject property is located at 2400 Garden Road, Monterey (APN: 013-322- 008-000). The Montessori Community School provides infant and toddler daycare and educational programs for children up to 6 years old. The proposed project includes the demolition and reconstruction of approximately 8,136 square feet of the interior portions of the upper floor area of the existing office building to accommodate new classroom spaces and support areas. Additional site improvements include construction of a new waste enclosure, reconfiguration of the parking lot to meet current standards and provide the required number of parking spaces, and modifications to existing landscaped areas.

The project also proposes new exterior playground areas to support outdoor activities for the daycare/school. Existing exterior windows will be modified to include new exterior doors providing direct access from classrooms to the playground decks.

CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION ANALYSIS:

ALUC staff reviewed the City’s proposed development in accordance with the adopted ALUCP as discussed below:

NOISE COMPATIBILITY
The proposed development was reviewed for consistency with Table 4A and Exhibit 4B of the ALUCP (Noise Compatibility Criteria and Long Range Noise Exposure Contours.

Table 4A identifies “Educational facilities (including daycare centers with more than 14

AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 67, Packet Page 84 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 92, Packet Page 233 children, K–12 schools, adult schools, colleges, and universities)” as incompatible land uses within the 65–69, 70–74, and 75+ CNEL noise contour ranges. However, the subject property is located outside of the 65-75 CENL contours and, therefore, is not expected to be exposed to loud airport noise and is considered a compatible use. The project will conform to noise standards pursuant to the California Building Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24).

AIRSPACE PROTECTION
ALUCP Policy 4.2.3 addresses the objective of airspace protection to avoid the development of land use conditions that would pose hazards to flight, such as airspace obstructions, wildlife hazards, and land use characteristics that pose other potential hazards to flight by creating visual or electronic interference. The site is located entirely inside the 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 77 horizontal surface elevation of 406.6’ feet above mean sea level (AMSL). Currently, there is no existing development on the site that penetrates the Part 77 airspace surfaces. As proposed, the project does not involve increasing the height of any structure beyond what currently exists on site. The proposed development will not interfere with airspace protection and is an allowed use.

SAFETY COMPATIBILITY
The Site is within Safety Zone 7 (Airport Influence Area). Safety Zone 7 is the most permissible safety zone of the ALUCP. This Safety Zone allows for residential development at unrestricted densities, a maximum intensity of 300 persons per acre for non-residential land uses, and all development types, except hazards to flight, outdoor stadiums, and similar very high intensity uses. The proposed site is approximately 0.75 acres in size, and the proposed daycare/school facility would have a maximum on-site occupancy of 120 persons (104 students and 16 staff). No exterior modifications, including to existing exterior lighting, are proposed. The proposed daycare/school facility is not a hazard to flight, or a very high intensity use, and complies with the maximum allowed intensity of 300 persons per acre (Table 4B). In accordance with Table 4B, Condition No. ALUC-7, requires recordation of the airport disclosure notice.

In addition to the prohibited uses of each Safety Zone, Table 4B of the ALUCP establishes various development conditions per Safety Zone. Although daycares and schools are not prohibited uses within Safety Zone 7, projects that involve or would be occupied by “vulnerable occupants” (defined as children, the elderly, and people with disabilities) within 6,000 feet from the side of the runway shall require ALUC review, and such use is “strongly discouraged”. The California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (CALUPH) states that in cases where such uses should be avoided, it may be allowed only if a site outside the zone would not serve the intended function.

Additionally, the CALUPH places a higher level of emphasis on limiting schools and daycares at the ends of runways than parallel to runways.

The subject property is located approximately 1,395 feet from the Monterey Regional Airport runway 10R-28L. Although Safety Zone 7 policies discourage the siting of land uses involving vulnerable populations, such as daycare centers and schools, it is important to note that Safety Zone 7 encompasses a substantial portion of the City of Monterey. Per the applicant, “there are no other sites that are suitable within the Montessori Community School target area which includes the housing developments along Garden Road. Zone 7 is a very large zone that encompasses most of Monterey, Pacific Grove and parts of Seaside. Locating the school outside of this zone would be Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 68, Packet Page 85 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 93, Packet Page 234 outside of the target area.” Prohibiting these types of uses across the entirety of this broad area would significantly restrict uses throughout the City’s jurisdiction.

Additionally, the existing building was previously used as a church, and thus would be occupied by children, the elderly, and people with disabilities. Since the introduction of vulnerable populations within 6,000 feet of the runway is only discouraged, rather than prohibited, staff does not believe the prior church use is considered “nonconforming” (defined as “an existing land use or building that does not comply with the ALUCP”).

Therefore, ALUCP Policy 4.1.4.1 (Modifications to Nonconforming Uses) does not strictly apply in this case, but does provide context for the ALUC to consider. ALUCP Policy 4.1.4.1 states:
“[The] modification of existing nonconforming land uses shall be permissible, provided that the modification does not increase the magnitude of the nonconformity when compared to Table 4B. The magnitude of nonconformity shall be measured by:

1. For residential land uses, the number of dwelling units and size of the structure on the lot;

2. For nonresidential land uses, the size of the nonconforming use in terms of lot area and building floor area.” [Emphasis added]
The proposed daycare/school would occupy the same building as the prior church.

Therefore, if ALUCP Policy 4.1.4.1 applied, the proposed daycare/school would not increase the nonconformity.

On the other hand, regardless of the project site’s prior land use, the proposed project still introduces vulnerable occupants into an area subject to greater airport-related risks (6,000 feet from the side of the runway). As described above, allowing a use that introduces vulnerable occupants at this site is strongly discouraged by the ALUCP. The Monterey Regional Airport District has commented on the project, stating, “Due to the potential presence of vulnerable occupants within the vicinity of the airport, Monterey Regional Airport does not support the proposed use of 2400 Garden Road as a Day Care Center” (Exhibit D). Staff also contacted the California Division of Aeronautics, which verbally stated its general discouragement for such use to be introduced at this site.

Nonetheless, given the project site’s prior land use history and the limited areas that would better comply with ALUCP Policies relative to safety compatibility, staff recommends that the ALUC find the proposed use compatible with the ALUCP. Should the ALUC exercise its discretion and find that the proposed use is not compatible with the ALUCP, the City of Monterey would have the ability to overrule this decision, subject to making the required findings of Government Code Section 65302.3 and PUC Section 21676.

MONTEREY REGIONAL AIRPORT REVIEW:

On July 18, 2025, ALUC staff forwarded project information to Monterey Airport District (District) staff for review. The District provided comments to ALUC staff, which are attached as Exhibit D. The District opposes the introduction of the proposed use due to the “potential presence of vulnerable occupants within the vicinity of the airport”.

Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 69, Packet Page 86 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 94, Packet Page 235 CONCLUSION:

Based on review and analysis of the proposed project, staff recommends that the ALUC adopt a resolution finding the proposed project consistent with the 2019 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for Monterey Regional Airport.

Attachments:

Attachment A - Draft ALUC Resolution Monterey Regional Airport Attachment B – Project Plans
Attachment C – City of Monterey Consistency Analysis Letter Attachment D – MRY District Comments
cc: ALUC Commissioners; ALUC Counsel; Monterey Peninsula Airport District (C.

Morello); City of Monterey (Chris Schmidt); Shawn Capps, Applicant; ALUC File No.

REF250022
Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 70, Packet Page 87 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 95, Packet Page 236

DRAFT RESOLUTION
Before the Monterey County Airport Land Use Commission, State of California
Resolution No. 25-
Finding the proposed conversion of an
existing 11,177 SF commercial office
building into a day care/school facility and
accompanying proposed improvements
consistent with the 2019 Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for Monterey
Regional Airport.

Monterey City CouncilNovember 4, 2025

Monterey City Council
November 4, 2025