Agenda packet — Monterey City Council, January 20, 2026 (part 2 of 2)

Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 125, Packet Page 142 Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 150, Packet Page 291 Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 1/20/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 162, Packet Page 222 § 81033. Investigation; geologic and soil engineering studies;..., CA EDUC § 81033 © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 West’s Annotated California Codes
Education Code (Refs & Annos)
Title 3. Postsecondary Education (Refs & Annos)
Division 7. Community Colleges (Refs & Annos)
Part 49. Community Colleges, Education Facilities (Refs & Annos) Chapter 1. School Sites (Refs & Annos)
Article 2. School Sites (Refs & Annos)
West’s Ann.Cal.Educ.Code § 81033
§ 81033. Investigation; geologic and soil engineering studies; airport in proximity Currentness
(a) The governing board of a community college district, prior to acquiring any site on which it proposes to construct any school building as defined in Section 81130.5, shall have the site, or sites, under consideration investigated by competent personnel to ensure that the final site selection is determined by an evaluation of all factors affecting the public interest and is not limited to selection on the basis of raw land cost only. If the prospective college site is located within the boundaries of any special studies zone or within an area designated as geologically hazardous in the safety element of the local general plan as provided in subdivision (g) of Section 65302 of the Government Code, the investigation shall include any geological and soil engineering studies by competent personnel needed to provide an assessment of the nature of the site and potential for earthquake or other geological hazard damage.

The geological and soil engineering studies of the site shall be of a nature that will preclude siting of a college in any location where the geological and site characteristics are such that the construction effort required to make the school building safe for occupancy is economically unfeasible. No studies are required to be made if the site or sites under consideration have been the subject of adequate prior studies. The evaluation also shall include location of the site with respect to population, transportation, water supply, waste disposal facilities, utilities, traffic hazards, surface drainage conditions, and other factors affecting the operating costs, as well as the initial costs, of the total project.

For the purposes of this article, a special studies zone is an area that is identified as a special studies zone on any map, or maps, compiled by the State Geologist pursuant to Chapter 7.5 (commencing with Section 2621) of Division 2 of the Public Resources Code. A copy of the report of each investigation conducted pursuant to this section shall be submitted to the board of governors.
(b) Geological and soil engineering studies as described in subdivision (a) shall be made, within the boundaries of any special studies zone, for the construction of any school building as defined in Section 81130.5 or, if the estimated cost exceeds twenty thousand dollars ($20,000), for the reconstruction or alteration of or addition to that building for work which alters structural elements. The Department of General Services may require similar geological and soil engineering studies for the construction or alteration of any building on a site located outside of the boundaries of any special studies zone. These studies need not be made if the site under consideration has been the subject of adequate prior studies.

Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 126, Packet Page 143 Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 151, Packet Page 292 Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 1/20/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 163, Packet Page 223 § 81033. Investigation; geologic and soil engineering studies;..., CA EDUC § 81033 © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2 No school building shall be constructed, reconstructed, or relocated on the trace of a geological fault along which surface rupture can reasonably be expected to occur within the life of the school building.

A copy of the report of each investigation conducted pursuant to this section shall be submitted to the Department of General Services pursuant to Article 7 (commencing with Section 81130) and to the Chancellor’s office of the California Community Colleges. The cost of geological and soil engineering studies and investigations conducted pursuant to this section may be treated as a capital expenditure.
(c) To promote the safety of students, comprehensive community planning, and greater educational usefulness of community college sites, the governing board of each community college district, if the proposed site is within two miles, measured by air line, of that point on an airport runway, or runway proposed by an airport master plan, which is nearest the site and excluding them if the property is not so located, before acquiring title to property for a new community college site or for an addition to a present site, shall give the board of governors notice in writing of the proposed acquisition and shall submit any information required by the board of governors.

Immediately after receiving notice of the proposed acquisition of property which is within two miles, measured by air line, of that point on an airport runway, or runway proposed by an airport master plan, which is nearest the site, the board of governors shall notify the Division of Aeronautics of the Department of Transportation, in writing, of the proposed acquisition. The Division of Aeronautics shall make an investigation and report to the board of governors within 30 working days after receipt of the notice. If the Division of Aeronautics is no longer in operation, the board of governors, in lieu of notifying the Division of Aeronautics, shall notify the Federal Aviation Administration or any other appropriate agency, in writing, of the proposed acquisition for the purpose of obtaining from the authority or other agency any information or assistance it may desire to give.

The board of governors shall investigate the proposed site and, within 35 working days after receipt of the notice, shall submit to the governing board a written report and its recommendations concerning acquisition of the site. The governing board shall not acquire title to the property until the report of the board of governors has been received. If the report does not favor the acquisition of the property for a community college site or an addition to a present community college site, the governing board shall not acquire title to the property until 30 days after the department’s report is received and until the board of governors’ report has been read at a public hearing duly called after 10 days’ notice published once in a newspaper of general circulation within the community college district, or if there is no such newspaper, then in a newspaper of general circulation within the county in which the property is located. (d) If, with respect to a proposed site located within two miles of an operative airport runway, the report of the board of governors submitted to a community college district governing board under subdivision (c) does not favor the acquisition of the site on the sole or partial basis of the unfavorable recommendation of the Division of Aeronautics of the Department of Transportation, no state agency or officer shall grant, apportion, or allow to that community college district for expenditure in connection with that site, any state funds otherwise made available under any state law whatever for community college site acquisition or college building construction, or for expansion of existing sites and buildings, and no funds of the community college district or of the county in which the district lies shall be expended for those purposes. However, this section shall not be applicable to sites acquired prior to January 1, 1966, or to any additions or extensions to those sites.

If the recommendation of the Division of Aeronautics is unfavorable, the recommendation shall not be overruled without the express approval of the board of governors and the State Allocation Board.

Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 127, Packet Page 144 Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 152, Packet Page 293 Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 1/20/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 164, Packet Page 224 § 81033. Investigation; geologic and soil engineering studies;..., CA EDUC § 81033 © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3 (e) No action undertaken by the board of governors or by any other state agency or by any political subdivision pursuant to this chapter, or in compliance with this chapter, shall be construed to affect any rights arising under Section 19 of Article I of the California Constitution.

Credits
(Stats.1976, c. 1010, § 2, operative April 30, 1977. Amended by Stats.1977, c. 36, § 315, eff. April 29, 1977, operative April 30, 1977; Stats.1981, c. 470, p. 1764, § 206; Stats.1984, c. 1009, § 1.1; Stats.1990, c. 1372 (S.B.1854), § 538; Stats.1993, c. 272 (A.B.301), § 3, eff. Aug. 2, 1993; Stats.1995, c. 758 (A.B.446), § 109.) Notes of Decisions (3)
West’s Ann. Cal. Educ. Code § 81033, CA EDUC § 81033
Current with urgency legislation through Ch. 79 of 2025 Reg.Sess. Some statute sections may be more current, see credits for details.

Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 128, Packet Page 145 Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 153, Packet Page 294 Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 1/20/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 165, Packet Page 225 • Outlook
Support of Approving Montessori School - 2400 Garden Road, Monterey From Dadwal, Navdeep (F)
Date Tue 8/26/2025 12:19 PM
To Oncall Planning <[email protected]>
You don't often get email fron
Navdeep Dadwal
Monterey, CA 93940
August 26th, 2025
rn wh this is imP.ortant
To the Monterey County Board and Community Members:

My name is Navdeep Dadwal, and I am the parent of Amira & Ariya Dadwal who are two years of age. I am writing in support of approving the Montessori school for toddlers in our community.

As a parent, I believe the earliest years of a child's life are the most important for building the foundation of who they will become. The Montessori approach provides a nurturing, respectful, and developmentally appropriate environment where children can explore, learn, and grow at their own pace. It emphasizes independence, hands-on learning, and kindness - qualities I want to see fostered in my own child and in the next generation of our community.

In recent years, Monterey County has seen growth in the number of young professionals moving here to build careers and raise families. With this growth comes a greater need for high-quality early childhood education and care. Families like mine are seeking programs that not only prepare our children academically but also support their social and emotional development. A Montessori toddler program would meet that need, offering a trusted and enriching option that aligns with the values of today's parents.

I respectfully urge the County to approve this proposal. By doing so, you will be supporting families, responding to the needs of a growing community, and investing in the future of Monterey County.

Thank you for your consideration and for your dedication to the well-being of our children.

Sincerely,
Navdeep Dadwal
Parent of Amira & Ariya Dadwal
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 129, Packet Page 146 Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 154, Packet Page 295 Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 1/20/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 166, Packet Page 226 Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 130, Packet Page 147 Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 155, Packet Page 296 Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 1/20/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 167, Packet Page 227 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
Legend
:"_ "_ ·_ ·_: Municipal Boundary
D Airport Property Line -UrbanArea1
Safety Zones
-Runway Protection LJ Inner Approach/Departure
-lnnerTurning
-Outer Approach/Departure
-Sideline -Airport Property
-Airport Influence Area
1Urban Areas are based on "mixed used
use areas" identified in the City of
Monterey General Plan dated August
2013.

Source:

ESRI Basemap Imagery
N
A
I- Ir-eel
0 6,800
1"=7,000'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- w i bit 4C
MONTEREY lr!EGIONIIL il.lRPORT s:.fEn' ZONES
Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 131, Packet Page 148 Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 156, Packet Page 297 Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 1/20/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 168, Packet Page 228 Planning Commission & City Council
8/26/25
Dear Monterey Planning Commission and City Council,
My name is Madelynn. I am here to speak as a former Montessori child, current Montessori parent of two, and longstanding Montessori Director. A parent’s goal for their child is the same--to be benevolent, honorable, confident, successful, and a good and moral citizen of the world. This goal is inherent in each of us parents. I believe deeply in Montessori education because this is not only my goal as a parent, but it encompasses the vision and focus of Maria Montessori. Montessori education is not focused on rote memorization or play-based learning. Montessori education focuses on each child’s whole and individualized development and guiding them through these formative years so they can have a foundation in life based on the above goal. A child will build his/her personality before the age of 6; it is critical that we provide the best environment to support this development so we can support our children, which are the future of our world. This is what we want to bring to the Monterey area. I could go on and on about the benefits of a Montessori education, but in my short, allotted time I want to focus on how illogical it is to prevent our Montessori school from opening in the community.

The whole premise of this recommended denial is based on irrational fear. The fear that something so improbable and extremely rare would happen to our school. There is risk in absolutely everything we do. Using this same logic, children and elderly would be banned from flying in an airplane for the risk of it crashing. The same logic would also ban children from driving for the risk of crashing, which is an exponentially higher risk. The same fearbased logic would not allow a daycare from opening along any street for the risk of a car going through, which would also be a higher probability. Instead, in these scenarios our community allows the parents to decide what is safe for their family and make their own choices. That is what I am asking for you to allow. Let each parent decide what is safe, just like deciding to allow their child in a car.

As you have heard from countless people, and I am sure you are already aware of, Monterey is simply in need of childcare options. Childcare is essential to a community, and without it, parents cant work. Our school is not only offering that essential need, but also an environment designed just for the child, focused on their whole development. A place where parents can feel confident about leaving their children. A place that is focused on partnering with parents to raise benevolent, honorable, confident, successful, and good Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 132, Packet Page 149 Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 157, Packet Page 298 Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 1/20/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 169, Packet Page 229 and moral citizens of the world. Please do not rob our community of that. Parents should have the right to decide what is best and safe for their family.

Thank you for your consideration,
Madelynn Van Den Heuvel
Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 133, Packet Page 150 Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 158, Packet Page 299 Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 1/20/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 170, Packet Page 230 • Outlook
Montessori Community School Comment
From Aurora Tershy
Date Thu 9/4/2025 3:41 PM
To Oncall Planning <[email protected]>
You don't often get email fro
Dear Planning Commission,
arn wh this is important
Monterey County is in dire need of childcare and it is unfair to try to stop a high quality preschool from joining this community over a hypothetical fear. The comment from the aerodynamics department was made under the understanding that this was a public or charter school which it is not. It would make more sense if it was a public or charter school because some families have to put their children there without choice but this is a private preschool where families are able to make that choice themselves.

Parents should be able to make the choice on whether or not they send their children to a school nearby an airport rather than the planning commission taking away the choice from parents and leaving them in a terrible spot where they have to stay home from work, not socialize their children in a school setting, put them in a low quality daycare or even put them in an unlicensed daycare where they are not supervised properly and could face neglect, abuse, serious injury, or sadly death like how we have seen at the incident in Salinas. If there were more preschools open with financial assistance options would that death have been preventable? The Monterey Airport said that they are denying it so it won't be on their conscience if something happened from the airport but if this is the case how will you all feel if there is another death in an unlicensed daycare in the area. That will too be on your conscience. I urge you to allow parents to make the choice on whether or not the school is too close to the airport themselves and not take away the parents choice and leave some with their only option being an unsafe or low quality school.

Thank you,
Aurora Tershy
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 134, Packet Page 151 Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 159, Packet Page 300 Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 1/20/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 171, Packet Page 231 • Outlook
Montessori Community School hearing
From Keanna Miller
Date Fri 9/5/2025 2:29 PM
To Oncall Planning <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from
Dear Planning Commission and City Council,
I am the mother of Malia , and member of our Monterey Community. Over the past three years, when my oldest was born, I have struggled finding childcare in the area. I have toured multiple campuses, all with long waitlists and inexperienced teachers. I ultimately settled on hiring a nanny since I couldn't find one adequate enough and available. Having a nanny allows us to work, however, I constantly feel guilt because my children are not having the socialization and education needed at this age, ultimately not meeting their growing needs. When I heard there was an accredited Montessori school potentially coming to our area, I was overjoyed and got on the waiting list as soon as possible. Having this school is exactly what our community needs and is lacking. A safe, nurturing, and educational early childhood establishment.

I understand there is concern about the proximity to the airport, but why is that any different than everything else around the airport? There are children's doctor offices, other schools, homes, all within the same radius. It doesn't make sense to me that this project would be denied. The daily need far outreaches the extremely small potential risk. Parents should have the right to make that decision for their own. Our community needs this establishment. It will not only benefit every family in the area, but also make Monterey City a better community focused City.

Thank you
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 135, Packet Page 152 Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 160, Packet Page 301 Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 1/20/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 172, Packet Page 232 • Outlook
Montessori Community School Monterey-- Use Permit Hearing 9/23 From Nido Montessori
Date Wed 9/17/2025 10:15 PM
To Oncall Planning <[email protected]>
@ 1 attachment (37 KB)
Use Permit Hearing 9_23 DORAN.pdf;
Y u 't fte get email fr m
Hello!
earn wh this is i111P.ortant
I would like my letter in support of opening the new Montessori School in Monterey to be added to the record for their use permit hearing on September 23rd. Please feel free to contact rne via email or phone at�hank you!
Montessori Community School
Monterey
2400 Garden Rd, Monterey, CA, 93940
Contact:
-Zoe Doran
she/her/hers
MCS, Lead Nido Guide
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 136, Packet Page 153 Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 161, Packet Page 302 Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 1/20/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 173, Packet Page 233 Monterey Campus–MCS
Use Permit Hearing
Septmber 23rd, 2025
To whom it may concern.

I have been fortunate to be part of Montessori Community School for the past six years, and I have seen numerous families go through our Infant, or Nido, Program. Finding quality and dependable care for infants is can be challenging. Our program offers a safe, licensed community where parents can bring their young babies, enabling them to continue their careers, improve themselves, and maintain a healthy work-life balance. This program genuinely serves families. Opening another location in Monterey will help support even more families.

Families research, tour, and apply to multiple preschools to find the best fit for their children. The effort they put in ensures they can confidently choose the right school. While we recognize the board’s dedication to public safety, we strongly believe that families are capable of making informed decisions about their children's education and well-being. Parents carefully research where they send their children, considering all relevant factors, including the school's location. This is their choice, and they are fully capable of assessing the risks and benefits.

Denying this permit would unfairly limit educational options for families and ignore their ability to make decisions based on their individual research and circumstances.

The opening of our school would not only meet a vital educational need but also attract new families and residents to the area, boosting the local economy and strengthening the community's reputation for educational excellence. Montessori education encourages independence, community, and a sense of belonging. A new campus would expand the prepared environment for children, create a broader network for families, and foster deeper social connections. This school will truly serve the people of Monterey. Thank you. -Zoe Doran
Lead Nido Guide
M. Ed. Montessori Education
Planning Commission Meeting, 9/23/2025, Item No. 4., Item Page 137, Packet Page 154 Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 162, Packet Page 303 Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 1/20/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 174, Packet Page 234 October 3, 2025
City of Monterey
Planning Department
Attn: Levi Hill, Planning Manager
Re: Appeal of Planning Commission denial of use-permit for Montessori Community School
Dear Planning Manager Hill:

We are appealing the September 23, 2025, use permit denial made by The Planning Commission for the following reasons:

First, 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. A Planning Commission member questioned whether or not these liability issues would then be transferred to the City of Monterey if the project were approved.

Unfortunately, the city attorney was not at the meeting, nor was the question of liability addressed in the staff report. Discussions related to liability, liability waiver to the City and liability waivers for students. 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.

Second, 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. Monterey County ALUC Planning Staff mistakenly contacted DTDA assuming our project was a public-school entity which could require DTDA approval. In addition, there has never been any formal or written referral to DTDA or any written or formal response from DTDA. The reference to DTDA is hearsay and should never been included as part of the Planning Commission staff report or included in the resolution to deny.

Third, 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.

Fourth, the discussion also revolved around how close the location is to the airport, when the zone 7 does not have a sliding scale. The zone is the zone.

Meaning, 5,999 feet and 1 foot into the zone are to be treated the same.

That effectively is the only place to put the Montessori School, is in New Monterey and that the number of possible locations is zero to almost zero (one that meets the criteria necessary to operate).
2340 Garden Road
Suite 100
Monterey, CA
93940-5347
T: (831) 649-4642
F: (831) 649-3530
www.wrdarch.com
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 163, Packet Page 304 Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 1/20/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 175, Packet Page 235

Page 2 of 2 ends

The Montessori Community School is needed by our community as evidenced by the overwhelming community support for this project. Planning Commission clearly errored in the decision to deny the project. We request the City Council overturn Planning Commission’s decision and approve the use permit.

Best Regards,
Henry Ruhnke, Principal
Wald, Ruhnke & Dost Architects, LLP
Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 164, Packet Page 305 Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 1/20/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 176, Packet Page 236

M I N U T E S

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, September 23, 2025
7:00 PM
COUNCIL CHAMBER, 580 PACIFIC STREET

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

Absent: Dawson, Silva
Staff Members Present: Planning Manager Hill, Principal Planner Roveri, Principal Planner Sabdo, Senior Associate Planner Schmidt, Recording Secretary Barrera
***Evening Session***
7:00 p.m.

CALL TO ORDER
Vice-Chair Latasa called the meeting to order at 7:00 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 11, 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 Brassfield seconded by Commissioner Bluth and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission approved the September 11, 2025, Minutes:

AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Latasa, Bluth, Brassfield, Freeman NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Dawson, Silva
ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None

GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.

PUBLIC HEARING

3. Recommend the City Council Amend 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))
Docusign Envelope ID: 2AB9551C-7A98-49A7-A1B5-0C4D38ADA9D7 Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 165, Packet Page 306 Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 1/20/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 177, Packet Page 237 Planning Commission Minutes
Tuesday, September 23, 2025
2 ACTION: Approved a Resolution Recommending that the City Council Amend Chapter 38, Section 38-112.5 of the Monterey City Code to Establish Local Density Incentives for Qualifying Housing Projects
Staff Presentation/Commissioner Questions
Planning Manger Hill presented the Agenda Report and answered the Commissioners’ questions regarding potential development challenges, water limitations and future water allocations.

Commissioner Freeman asked clarifying questions regarding the definition of density bonus and what it means for affordable housing.

Public Comments
Public comments were received from Jean Rasch.

On a motion by Commissioner Brassfield seconded by Commissioner Freeman and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission approved a resolution recommending that the City Council amend Chapter 38, Section 38-112.5 of the Monterey city code to establish local density incentives for qualifying housing projects:

AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Latasa, Bluth, Brassfield, Freeman NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Dawson, Silva
ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None

4. Consider 2400 Garden Road: Use Permit Application UP-25-0013 for a Day Care-General 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)
ACTION: Denied Use Permit Application UP-25-0013 for a Day Care-General Use and Approved Variance Application VA-25-0075 for Reduced Front and Side Yard Setbacks at 2400 Garden Road
Staff Presentation/Commissioner Questions
Senior Associate Planner Schmidt presented the agenda report and answered the Commissioners’ questions regarding the Airport Land Use Commission’s (ALUC) reasons for denial, setback requirements, and proposed tree removal.

Vice-Chair Latasa mentioned various surrounding institutions and questioned their proximity to the runway. Planning Manager Hill clarified that city staff analyzed the findings rather than the precedent for approval.

Docusign Envelope ID: 2AB9551C-7A98-49A7-A1B5-0C4D38ADA9D7 Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 166, Packet Page 307 Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 1/20/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 178, Packet Page 238 Planning Commission Minutes
Tuesday, September 23, 2025
3 Applicant
Applicant Shawn Capps gave a presentation and answered Commissioners’ questions regarding operating locations.

Owner
Bill Tershy gave a presentation answered Commissioner questions regarding drop off and pick up times and the proposed location of the deck and play area. Mr. Tershy stated they were willing to indemnify the city.

Madelynn Van Den Heuvel answered Commissioner questions regarding the play time and after care itinerary.

Public Comments
Comments were received from Madelynn Van Den Heuvel, Alex Swartz, Aurora, Melissa Copt, Shikha Kaushik, Kim, Ernie Lostrom, Dylan, Samantha, Jean Rasch, Gracie Teramo, Hansen Reed, Zoe Doran, Gerard Tershy.

Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Bluth shared safety concerns relating to pollution and liability. Commissioner Bluth suggested consideration of indemnification due to potential safety concerns.

Mr. Hill said that the Commission must decide on the use permit, explaining that if denied, the applicant could appeal; if approved, the project would require an ALUC override request which would come from City Council.

Commissioner Brassfield echoed concerns about safety, noise, and pollution impacts on children and nearby residents. Commissioner Brassfield acknowledged the need for this type of school in the community but stated that he could not support the project.

Commissioner Freeman agreed with Commissioner Bluth and Commissioner Brassfield, noting that while the Garden Road area is appropriate for development in general, safety and environmental concerns remain. Commissioner Freeman spoke in support of variance but opposed the use permit due to liability and safety issues.

Vice-Chair Latasa recognized the community’s need for childcare but questioned whether the proposed site was appropriate. Vice-Chair Latasa encouraged the applicant to coordinate with the City Attorney regarding indemnification before the project proceeds to Council and noted that the map provided is misleading regarding the airport approach zones.

On a motion by Commissioner Freeman seconded by Commissioner Bluth and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission denied Use Permit Application UP-25-0013 for a day care-general use at 2400 Garden Road:

AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Latasa, Bluth, Brassfield, Freeman NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Dawson, Silva
ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
Docusign Envelope ID: 2AB9551C-7A98-49A7-A1B5-0C4D38ADA9D7 Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 167, Packet Page 308 Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 1/20/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 179, Packet Page 239 Planning Commission Minutes
Tuesday, September 23, 2025
4 On a motion by Commissioner Brassfield seconded by Commissioner Bluth and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission approved Variance Application VA-25-0075 for waste enclosure within front and side yard setbacks and variance for deck in side yard setback at reduced front and side yard setbacks at 2400 Garden Road:

AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Latasa, Bluth, Brassfield, Freeman NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Dawson, Silva
ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None

COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Commissioner Bluth mentioned an upcoming tour at Monterey One Water.

INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS
Mr. Hill provided an update mentioned an upcoming American Planning Association (APA) Conference that will be hosted in the city.

ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:06 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted, Approved,
Levi Hill
Planning Manager
Chair
Planning Commission
Docusign Envelope ID: 2AB9551C-7A98-49A7-A1B5-0C4D38ADA9D7 Council Regular Meeting, 11/4/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 168, Packet Page 309 Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 1/20/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 180, Packet Page 240 Council
Agenda Report
№11/25
FROM: Kimberly Cole, AICP, Community Development Director SUBJECT: 1
st Reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 31 of the Monterey City Code to Add a Five-Foot Spacing Requirement Between Temporary Signs on Private Property (Exempt from CEQA Article 19, Section 15303, Class 3) RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council pass a 1st reading of the ordinance to add a five foot (5’) spacing requirement between
temporary signs on private property.

VALUE DRIVERS:

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

On November 4, 2025, the City Council considered and
approved a request from Mayor Williamson to agendize
this matter. Mayor Williamson described the purpose of
the proposed revision as follows: “[d]uring our most
recent election, several properties displayed multiple
temporary signs placed directly adjacent to each other, effectively creating the appearance of a single, large
sign. While current code limits the total allowable sign area, it does not specify minimum spacing between
signs. This omission has led to inconsistent application of the ordinance and diminished the visual character of our neighborhoods.”
“Local regulation of signs must be consistent with the
constitutionally protected First Amendment right to free speech. In general, cities have more leeway to regulate commercial speech than noncommercial speech.” (City Attorneys’ Dep’t, League of Cal. Cities, The California Municipal Law Handbook (Cont.Ed.Bar 2025 ed.) §9.145, p. 1076.) The City may limit signs by size or number of signs per parcel of land if the limits are reasonable and apply equally to all types of noncommercial messages, and there is no favoring of commercial speech.

Generally, display time limits have been stricken by courts.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

Agenda Report Highlights
• The proposed ordinance adds a
five-foot spacing requirement
between temporary signs on private
property to prevent visual clutter.
• Temporary signs must display
noncommercial messages and
cannot exceed 16 square feet per
sign or 80 square feet total per
property.
• The ordinance prohibits placing
signs next to each other to create
the appearance of a single large
sign.
• Alternatives considered include
larger spacing requirements for
bigger parcels and limiting the
number of signs per property
frontage.
• The ordinance aims to balance free
speech rights with maintaining
neighborhood aesthetics.

Date: 1/20/2026
Item No.: 11.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/20/2026, Item No. 11., Item Page 1, Packet Page 241 №11/24
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no fiscal implications associated with the recommended action.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines per Article 19, Section 15303, Class 3 because the proposed ordinance establishes a minimum distance between temporary signs (construction and location of limited numbers of new small structures). 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 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 ordinance creates a minimum distance between temporary signs. The environment is not considered sensitive.

Exception b - Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. The ordinance establishes regulations to minimize the cumulative impact of temporary signs (distance between temporary signs).

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 ordinance would not have a significant effect on the environment because there are no unusual circumstances created by establishing a minimum distance between temporary signs.

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 ordinance will not impact scenic highways since it creates a minimum distance between temporary signs.

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 proposed ordinance creates a minimum distance between temporary signs. No impact to hazardous waste sites will 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 proposed ordinance creates a minimum distance between temporary signs. No impact to historic resources will occur.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/20/2026, Item No. 11., Item Page 2, Packet Page 242 №11/24
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

Regulating “campaign signs” as a distinct class of signs is not a recommended alternative. This is because an ordinance that is applicable only to political signs is content based, and subject to a strict scrutiny test. Content based rules are not likely to withstand a constitutional challenge unless the content based restrictions are necessary to serve a compelling interest and are narrowly drawn to achieve that end. While aesthetics may be a substantial government interest, case law has not found this to be a compelling interest.

Mayor Williamson proposed the following alternatives:

1. Alternative A: Require 10 feet minimum spacing for parcels larger than one-half acre to reduce visual clutter on larger lots.

2. Alternative B: Limit the number of temporary signs per property frontage (e.g., one per 10 linear feet of frontage) to balance expression and aesthetics.

DISCUSSION:

Current Code:

A temporary sign is defined as:

A sign constructed of cloth, canvas, light fabric, cardboard, wallboard, poster board, or other light materials, with or without frames, and mounted in a nonpermanent manner, displaying a noncommercial message which remains in use not more than forty-seven (47) consecutive days. Temporary signs are not durable and therefore may not be used for more than forty-seven (47) days. (City Code section 31-10(51.)
Temporary private party ground-mounted signs on private property are exempt from the City’s sign permitting process. The maximum aggregate area of 16 square feet per individual sign and 80 square feet cumulative total area for all signs on a property.

Proposed Revision:

The proposed ordinance revision does not change the definition of a temporary sign or the size or total display area. The proposed revision adds a five-foot spacing requirement between signs as follows (new text in bold):

City Code section 31-3, Table 31-1.1 Exempt Signs:

Temporary signs displaying a noncommercial (e.g., ideological, religious, political) message
Temporary Private Party
GroundMounted Signs on
Private Property
Maximum aggregate area of 16 square feet per individual sign and 80 square feet cumulative total area for all signs on a
property. Individual signs must be placed a minimum of five feet (5’) apart from each other. The placement of signs next to each other to create the appearance of a single large sign is prohibited.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/20/2026, Item No. 11., Item Page 3, Packet Page 243 №11/24
KC/CD
Attachments: 1. Ordinance
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 1/20/2026, Item No. 11., Item Page 4, Packet Page 244 ORDINANCE NO. ____ C.S.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№09/24
AMENDING CHAPTER 31 OF THE MONTEREY CITY CODE TO ADD A FIVE-FOOT

SPACING REQUIREMENT BETWEEN TEMPORARY SIGNS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY DOES ORDAIN, as follows:

SECTION 1:

WHEREAS, on November 4, 2025, the City Council considered and approved a request from Mayor Williamson to agendize this matter. Mayor Williamson described the purpose of the proposed revision as follows: “[d]uring our most recent election, several properties displayed multiple temporary signs placed directly adjacent to each other, effectively creating the appearance of a single, large sign. While current code limits the total allowable sign area, it does not specify minimum spacing between signs. This omission has led to inconsistent application of the ordinance and diminished the visual character of our neighborhoods”; WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Monterey has determined that this amendment is necessary to control the location of signs to prevent the combining of signs to create the appearance of a large sign that detracts from, and obscures, the scenic qualities of the City of Monterey and its individual neighborhoods;
WHEREAS, this amendment does not change the number of signs or the aggregate area of square feet allowed per individual sign. Rather, this amendment is intended to prohibit the placement of otherwise legally sized signs together to create the image of one large sign of a size that would be prohibited under existing law;
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines per Article 19, Section 15303, Class 3 because the proposed ordinance establishes a minimum distance between temporary signs (construction and location of limited numbers of new small structures). Furthermore, the project does not qualify for any of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions found at CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/20/2026, Item No. 11., Item Page 5, Packet Page 245 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 ordinance would not have a significant effect on the environment because there are no unusual circumstances created by establishing a minimum distance between temporary signs.

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 31, Section 31-3, Table 31-1.1 Exempt Signs, is amended to read as follows:

SECTION 4: The Community Development Director is authorized to ministerially update the Citywide Sign Guidelines to be consistent with this amendment.

SECTION 5: All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

SECTION 6: If any section, sub-section, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted the Ordinance and each section, sub-section, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact Council Regular Meeting, 1/20/2026, Item No. 11., Item Page 6, Packet Page 246 that any one or more sections, sub-sections, sentences, clauses, phrases or portions to be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 7: 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, 1/20/2026, Item No. 11., Item Page 7, Packet Page 247 Council
Agenda Report
№12/25
FROM: Christine Davi, City Attorney
Prepared By: Karin Krattli, Assistant City Attorney
SUBJECT: Receive a Presentation on the Brown Act (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council receive a presentation on the Brown Act.

VALUE DRIVERS:

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

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

None.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

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

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council could choose to receive the presentation on a different date.

DISCUSSION:

The City Attorney’s Office will present on the Ralph M. Brown Act.

CD/kk
Date: 1/20/2026
Item No.: 12.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/20/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 1, Packet Page 248 №11/25
e: Trustees. Commissioners, and Committee Members
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, 1/20/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 2, Packet Page 249 Council
Agenda Report
№07/19
FROM: Nat Rojanasathira, Assistant City Manager
Prepared by: Rafaela T. King, Finance Director Manager
SUBJECT: Receive Presentation on Round Two of Phase 1 Poll of Likely Voters: Potential Tax Measures to Reduce the City's $10 Million Structural (Annual) Budget Deficit and Provide Direction to Staff (Not a Project Under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council receive a presentation on round
two of Phase 1: poll of likely voters on the potential tax measures to reduce the City’s $10 million structural
(annual) budget deficit and provide direction to staff.

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.

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

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE
ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The City is facing a $10 million structural deficit that started in FY 2025-26 and has held several meetings to
discuss potential strategies to reduce the deficit. At its September 16, 2025 meeting, the City Council agreed to
engage a public opinion research firm to poll and analyze public support for various tax measures.

The cost for the fall 2025 public opinion survey design, implementation, and analysis is $35,500.

Unassigned fund balance was utilized for this engagement.

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 Agenda Report Highlights
• The City of Monterey faces a $10
million annual structural budget
deficit due to expenses outpacing
revenue growth.
• Public opinion research is essential
to assess voter support for potential
tax measures before the June and
November 2026 elections.
• A two-phase polling approach was
approved to evaluate support for a
sales tax increase and renewal of
Measure P/S.
• The Phase 1 poll conducted in
November 2025 focused on voter
sentiment regarding a sales tax
increase / extension and potential
parking tax.

Date: 1/20/2026
Item No.: 17.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/20/2026, Item No. 17., Item Page 1, Packet Page 250 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 opt not to receive a presentation on public opinion research strategies, but that is not recommended. Local governments are advised to move forward on tax measures only after determining if there is sufficient support for the measure(s) to have a chance of success.

DISCUSSION:

Addressing the City’s $10 million Structural Deficit
The City’s expense growth is outpacing the City’s revenue generation. Addressing the $10m structural deficit requires additional ongoing revenue or ongoing reductions in expenditures. At its meetings on August 27, September 2, October 13, and October 21, 2025, the City Council reviewed options to reduce the deficit that involves both increasing ongoing revenue and reducing ongoing expenditures. Discussions regarding long-term structural deficit solutions will continue.

Public Opinion Research Approach
At its meeting on September 16, 2025, the City Council agreed with the approach of conducting public opinion research in two phases: one poll in fall 2025 in advance of the June 2026 election, and another in mid-2026 ahead of the November 2026 election. The two-phased approach was recommended to gauge voter sentiment at different times, given the five-month gap between elections.

Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates (FM3), the same polling firm that conducted polling for the City in 2014, 2018 and 2019, conducted the first phase of the polling in November 2025 in the two weeks immediately following the November 4, 2025 Statewide Special Election.

The fall survey of likely voters focuses on voter sentiment regarding a sales tax increase or extension and a potential parking tax. The survey results of likely voters conducted in midNovember 2025 are being analyzed and will be presented to the City Council on December 2, 2025.

During the December 2, 2025 City Council meeting the Council members raised questions related to the wording of the question for the Sales Tax Measure. The council expressed concerns that the verbiage may appear to be misleading and directed staff and FM3 to re-do the survey with language that left no ambiguity.

Staff worked closely with FM3 to revise the language in the survey questions. The second round of Phase 1 Poll of Likely Voters took place during the first two weeks of January 2026.

Council Regular Meeting, 1/20/2026, Item No. 17., Item Page 2, Packet Page 251 The second round of the survey results of likely voters are being analyzed and will be presented to the City Council on January 20, 2026. Council may choose to provide direction to staff at this meeting to begin planning for one or more ballot measures for the June 2026 ballot.

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:
monterey.gov/submittedcomments
Council Regular Meeting, 1/20/2026, Item No. 17., Item Page 3, Packet Page 252

Monterey City CouncilJanuary 20, 2026

Monterey City Council
January 20, 2026