Agenda packet — Monterey City Council, April 21, 2026

Council Chamber
580 Pacific St.

Monterey, California

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Council Regular Meeting and
Closed Session
Tuesday, April 21, 2026
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
Dante G. Hall
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.

April 21, 2026 4:00 PM
2 Call to Order
AFTERNOON SESSION: 4:00 p.m.

Presentations (Afternoon)

1. Recognition of Defense Language Institute Quarterly Joint Service Awards Second Quarter FY26 (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

2. Receive Update from Monterey One Water (M1W) on Capital Projects, Rate Study and Strategic Priorities (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
General Public Comments
The public may speak to any item that is not on the agenda and that is in the City of Monterey’s subject matter jurisdiction.

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

Consent: Approval of Minutes

3. April 7, 2026 Regular Meeting (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Consent: Resolutions
A resolution is an expression of opinion or evidence of a decision made by the City Council and often relates to administrative business of the City. Resolutions generally become effective immediately upon adoption.

4. Approve Calle Principal Street Maintenance District 00-1 Engineer's Report; Adopt a Resolution of Intention to Levy Assessment; and Set Time for Public Hearing (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

5. Approve Alvarado Street Maintenance District 85-1 Engineer's Report; Adopt a Resolution of Intention to Levy Assessment; and Set Time for Public Hearing (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

6. Authorize the Police Chief to Execute Memorandums of Understanding with the Cities of Del Rey Oaks, Sand City, and Pacific Grove for California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System Services (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

7. Authorize Agreement to Transfer $7,269,813 Held in Escrow for the Benefit of the City of Monterey and the City of Del Rey Oaks for the South Boundary Road Project Into an Interest Bearing Escrow Account (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Consent: Other

8. Approve Deaccession of 22 Objects and Artwork from City Museums Collection (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
April 21, 2026 4:00 PM
3 End of Consent Agenda
Afternoon Session Items
Public Appearance (Afternoon)
Public Appearance items are on non-routine issues that might stimulate public interest and comments.

9. Approve Recommendation for Lower Presidio Historic Park Lease Operations (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

10. Adopt and Approve Funding for the Fiscal Year 2025/26 Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program ***NCIP*** (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061; and Article 19, Sections 15301, 15306, and Classes 1, and 6)
Adjourn to Closed Session
The City Council will take public comments on closed session items before convening to closed session.

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

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

1. Deseree Albert v. City of Monterey (Monterey County Superior Court Case No. 25CV006534)

2. Monique Arge v. City of Monterey (United States District Court, Northern District of California Case No. 5:25-CV-09710 NC

3. Emilio Montero v. City of Monterey (Monterey County Superior Court Case No. 26CV001211)

4. City of Monterey v. Leslie J. Flores, Trustee (Monterey County Superior Court Case No. 24CV000750)

5. Shai and Mira Nissim v. City of Monterey (Monterey County Superior Court Case Nos. 25CV004945 and 25CV004949)

6. Stronghold Engineering, Inc. v. City of Monterey (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 18CV329015)

7. Save Tarpy Flats v. City of Monterey (Monterey County Superior Court Case No. 24 CV005125)

8. Cynthia Wills v. City of Monterey (United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Case No. 25-720)

9. Richard and Mildred Zilinskas v. City of Monterey (United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 5:25-CV-07506) (Not a Project under CEQA 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
April 21, 2026 4:00 PM
4 General Public Comments, Continued
Any person who did not offer a general public comment in the afternoon session may speak to any item that is not on the agenda and that is in the City of Monterey’s subject matter jurisdiction.

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

12. Authorize Staff to Draft Proposed Changes to Chapter 37 of Monterey City Code "Preservation of Trees and Shrubs" Ordinance and Authorize Paying for the Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

13. Provide Direction on Polling Topics for Potential Ballot Measures for the November 2026 Election (Not a Project Under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
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.

14. Mayor Williamson’s Request to Agendize a Discussion Regarding Review of the Council Governance Policy: Agendizing Process and Meeting Efficiency (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.

April 21, 2026 4:00 PM
5 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: Nat Rojanasathira, Assistant City Manager
Prepared By: Hayley Goodwein, Administrative Assistant
SUBJECT: Recognition of Defense Language Institute Quarterly Joint Service Awards Second Quarter FY26 (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council recognize the winners of the
Second Quarter FY26 Joint Enlisted Board (JEB)
Awards.

VALUE DRIVERS:

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 Agenda Report Highlights
• The recommendation to City
Council is to recognize the winners
of 2nd 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.
• There are no fiscal or environmental
implications associated with this
recognition.
• The three winners are from the U.S.

Marine Corps.

Date: 4/21/2026
Item No.: 1.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 1., Item Page 1, Packet Page 6 №10/24
cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council could choose not to recognize the winners of the Second Quarter FY26 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 Second Quarter FY26 DLIFLC Quarterly Joint Service Awards at its meeting on April 21, 2026. • Staff Sergeant Gloria Campbell, from the U.S. Marine Corps • Lance Corporal Zarchary Gonzalez, from the U.S. Marine Corps • Staff Sergeant Erubey Martinez, from the U.S. Marine Corps 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, 4/21/2026, Item No. 1., Item Page 2, Packet Page 7 Proclamation Honoring
The Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center's Quarterly Joint Service Award Recipient
Staff Sergeant Gloria Campbell
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, Staff Sergeant Gloria Campbell, 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 Staff Sergeant Gloria Campbell, United States Marine Corps, for a job well done, and thank them for their continuing contributions to the Armed Services and to our Nation.

April 21, 2026 ______________________
Tyller Williamson, Mayor
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, 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 Zachary Gonzalez
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 Zachary Gonzalez, 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 Zachary Gonzalez, United States Marine Corps, for a job well done, and thank them for their continuing contributions to the Armed Services and to our Nation.

April 21, 2026 ______________________
Tyller Williamson, Mayor
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 1., Item Page 4, Packet Page 9 Proclamation Honoring
The Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center's Quarterly Joint Service Award Recipient
Staff Sergeant Erubey Martinez
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, Staff Sergeant Erubey Martinez, 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 Staff Sergeant Erubey Martinez, United States Marine Corps, for a job well done, and thank them for their continuing contributions to the Armed Services and to our Nation.

April 21, 2026 ______________________
Tyller Williamson, Mayor
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 1., Item Page 5, Packet Page 10 Council
Agenda Report
№12/25
FROM: Nat Rojanasathira, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Receive Update from Monterey One Water (M1W) on Capital Projects, Rate Study and Strategic Priorities (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council receive a presentation from Paul
Sciuto, Executive Officer of Monterey One Water.

VALUE DRIVERS:

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The City of Monterey is a founding member of the Joint
Powers Agency (JPA) known as Monterey One Water,
formerly Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control
Agency. It is within the City Council’s purview to receive presentations and updates from agencies in which the
City participates.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There is no cost associated with receiving this presentation.

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 Agenda Report Highlights
• The Council is recommended to
receive the attached presentation
from Monterey One Water, a public
utility agency that treats and
recycles wastewater (sewage) and
protects the environment.
• Paul Sciuto will provide an overview
of M1W's strategic priorities,
projects, rate setting, and future
initiatives related to water and
resource recovery, including the
Pure Water Monterey expansion
project.

Date: 4/21/2026
Item No.: 2.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 2., Item Page 1, Packet Page 11 №12/25
be assessed for CEQA applicability.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council could choose not to receive the presentation.

DISCUSSION:

The City of Monterey is a founding member, since 1972, of the Joint Powers Agency (JPA) now known as Monterey One Water (“M1W”), formerly the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency. Paul Sciuto, M1W Executive Officer, will present the attached presentation to the City Council, providing an overview of M1W's strategic priorities, projects, rate setting, and future initiatives related to water and resource recovery, including the Pure Water Monterey expansion project.

NR
Attachments: 1. Presentation
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 2., Item Page 2, Packet Page 12 1 Capital Projects, Rate Study, and Strategic Priorities Paul A. Sciuto, Executive Officer

INFORMATIONAL
UPDATE:

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 2., Item Page 3, Packet Page 13 2 OUR ROLE

MONTEREY ONE WATER
Water & Energy
Industry Policy & Position
Technology
Employer of Choice
Community Mission
Working together for
safe, resilient water
solutions that benefit
our community and
environment

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 2., Item Page 4, Packet Page 14 3 SERVICES & FACILITIES

MONTEREY ONE WATER

WASTEWATER

CONVEYANCE

WASTEWATER

TREATMENT

RESOURCE

RECOVERY
Recycled Water
Agriculture
Recycled Water
Potable + Landscape
Energy
Wastewater Solids
+ Food Waste

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 2., Item Page 5, Packet Page 15 4 SERVICES & FACILITIES

MONTEREY ONE WATER

WASTEWATER

CONVEYANCE

WASTEWATER

TREATMENT

RESOURCE

RECOVERY
Recycled Water
Agriculture
Recycled Water
Potable + Landscape
Energy
Wastewater Solids
+ Food Waste
35 Years Old

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 2., Item Page 6, Packet Page 16 5 PUBLIC WORKS IN ACTION

MONTEREY ONE WATER

PUMP STATION

UPGRADE

TREATMENT PLANT

MAINTENANCE

REPLACEMENT &

EFFICIENCIES
Example:

Rebuild of two coastal
pump stations (new pumps,
electrical, instrumentation)
Example:

Cleaning and inspection of
treatment steps
Example:

New instrumentation
for power generation

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 2., Item Page 7, Packet Page 17 6 WHAT’S IN THE WORKS

MONTEREY ONE WATER
Current Priorities
Electrical Reliability
Biosolids Management
Treatment Master Plan

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 2., Item Page 8, Packet Page 18 7 CUSTOMER GROUPS

MONTEREY ONE WATER

WASTEWATER
Funding “Bank Accounts”

RECYCLED WATER

RECYCLED WATER
ENERGY
Municipal Non-Potable
Potable Onsite

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 2., Item Page 9, Packet Page 19 8 SUPPORTING OUR PRIORITIES

MONTEREY ONE WATER
Wastewater Rate Study
WHAT DRIVES RATES?
Reliable Service • Rising Costs (chemicals/power) • Capital Projects

FINANCIAL
PLAN
Financial analysis
and revenue
requirements

COST OF

SERVICE
Analysis of revenue
needed to serve each
user group
RATE
DESIGN
Monthly rate
schedule
over set period

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 2., Item Page 10, Packet Page 20 9 SUPPORTING OUR PRIORITIES

MONTEREY ONE WATER
Wastewater Rate Study Recommendation
Current
Rate (per unit)
Projected for FY Ending June 30
2027 2028 2029 2030 2031
$54.00 $57.27 $61.86 $66.80 $72.82 $79.37
M1W Proposed FY27: $57.27 | FY27 Member Entity Average: $22.57 | Total: $79.84 M1W Proposed Monthly Rates: Residential

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 2., Item Page 11, Packet Page 21 10 PUBLIC RATE SETTING

MONTEREY ONE WATER
APRIL

BOARD ACTION
• Accept Rate Study
• Initiate Prop 218 process
MAY

CUSTOMER NOTIFICATION
• Mail Prop 218 notice by May 8
Including right to formally protest or object
to proposed rate changes

JUNE PUBLIC HEARING
• June 29, 2026 at 6:00 pm

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 2., Item Page 12, Packet Page 22 11 COMMUNITY OUTREACH

MONTEREY ONE WATER
Public Info Sessions
Understanding Your Wastewater Rates
Tuesday, June 2 at 6 p.m.

El Gabilan Library
1400 N Main Street, Salinas
MontereyOneWater.org/Rates
• Rate Study
• Proposed Rates
• Protest and Objection Details
• FAQs
• Spanish Resources
• Questions? Email [email protected]
Wednesday, June 3 at 6 p.m.

Community Center at Soper Field
200 Coe Ave, Seaside
Monday, June 8 at 6 p.m.

Marina Library
190 Seaside Circle, Marina
Virtual participation available
Spanish interpretation in person
wash dishes, or flush the
toilet, Monterey One Water
safely cleans and treats
that water to reintroduce
it into the environment
and protect public health.
1400 N Main Stre

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 2., Item Page 13, Packet Page 23 12 Paul A. Sciuto
Executive Officer
[email protected]

THANK YOU

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 2., Item Page 14, Packet Page 24

MINUTES

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING

CITY OF MONTEREY
Tuesday, April 7, 2026
4:00 PM
COUNCIL CHAMBER, 580 PACIFIC ST.

MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
Councilmembers

Present: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson

Absent: None
City Staff

Present:

City Manager, City Attorney, Assistant City Manager, Finance Director, Fire Chief, Human Resources Director, Library & Museums Director, Parks and Recreation Director, Police Chief, Public Works Director, City Clerk, Property Manager, Assistant Police Chief, Deputy Public Works Director/City Engineer, Police Lieutenant, Planning Manager, Chief Information Officer, Assistant Human Resources Director, Senior Associate Planner, Recreation Manager, Parking Superintendent, Assistant Parking Superintendent, Senior Administrative Analysts (Fire and Police), Human Resources Analyst, Housing and Community Development Coordinators (x2), Associate Planner, Engineering Assistant, Police Officer, Division Chief, Acting Division Chief, Fire Engineers (x3), Firefighters (x3) Call to Order
Mayor Williamson called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. City Clerk Klein called the roll with the Council present as indicated above.

AFTERNOON SESSION: 4:00 p.m.

Presentations (Afternoon)

1. Welcome and Introduce Dante G. Hall as the New City Manager for the City of Monterey (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Welcomed and introduced City Manager Hall
City Manager Hall introduced himself to the community. He spoke about his goals and plans to understand Monterey's important issues and find ways to move forward. The Council made remarks welcoming City Manager Hall.

Public comment welcoming City Manager Hall was received from: Michele Pierce of See Monterey, Esther Malkin of the Laguna Grande Neighborhood Association, Diego Quevedo of the Old Monterey Business Association, and Nina Beety.

2. Recognize April 2026 as Fair Housing Month (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Recognized April 2026 as Fair Housing Month
Mayor Williamson read the proclamation. Public comment recognizing the importance of fair housing was received from Esther Malkin and Nina Beety.

Date: 4/21/2026
Item No.: 3.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 1, Packet Page 25 City Council Minutes April 7, 2026
2 General Public Comments
Public comment on non-agendized matters was limited to one and a half minutes per person based on the number of persons intending to speak, and was received from: Dan Turner; Kim Evert of St. James Episcopal Church; Nancy Soule; Bradley J. Strawser of the Naval Postgraduate School; Sam Shokir and Youssef Abdelrehem of the Habibi Cafe; Bob Faulis; James MacFarlane; Tom Reeves of the New Monterey Neighborhood Association; Heidi Bean; Janine Chicourrat of See Monterey and Portola Hotel & Spa; Nina Beety; and loved ones of Marcos Antonio Ruiz-Salafai: the mother of his son; Chelsea, the mother of his son Noah; his sister Tailinda Ruiz; his cousin Nancy Morales; and his cousin Christina.

Consent Agenda
Items 10 and 11 were requested by Council to be pulled from the Consent agenda. Public comment was given at this time on Item 10, as reflected below.

On a motion by Councilmember Barber, seconded by Councilmember Rasch, and carried by the following vote, the City Council approved the Consent Agenda except Items 10 and 11:

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

3. February 17, 2026 Regular Meeting (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Approved

4. March 17, 2026 (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Approved
Consent: Award of Construction Contracts

5. Award Construction Contract for the Rehabilitation of a City Owned Inclusionary Unit under the Purchase & Resale Program (CDBG P&R Rehabilitation (585-1)) in an Amount Not to Exceed $87,000 (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061, and Categorically Excluded per 24 CFR

58.34(a)(12), 24 CFR 58.35(a)(5), 24 CFR 58.35(a)(3)(ii)) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 26-044 C.S.

Consent: Resolutions

6. Authorize Agreement with Dell, Inc. for Microsoft Server Licensing in the amount of $114,638.08 (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 26-045 C.S.

7. Award Two (2) Professional Services Agreements with a Not-to-Exceed Annual Limit of $1,000,000 Each for Traffic Signal Maintenance Services to: 1) Bear Electrical Solutions, LLC. and 2) St Francis Electric, LLC. ***CIP/NCIP*** (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Adopted Resolution Nos. 26-046 and 26-047 C.S.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 2, Packet Page 26 City Council Minutes April 7, 2026
3 8. Amend Resolution 25-071 and Approve a New Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Between the Monterey Regional Waste Management District (ReGen Monterey) and Member Agencies Regarding Compliance with Organic Waste Recycling and Food Recovery Laws (SB 1383) for $43,178 for these Services for Fiscal Year 2025-26 (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 26-048 C.S.

9. Authorize the City of Monterey Cemetery El Encinal to Buy Back Cemetery Lot 2A in Block 97 for $4,963 Payable to Mr. Jim Sleeper and Mrs. Jill Sleeper (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 26-049 C.S.

10. Authorize the City Manager to Sign an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement Extension with MidPen Housing for Development of Affordable Housing at 587 and 593 Van Buren Street, 424 and 450 Madison Street (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Pulled from Consent; Adopted Resolution No. 26-050 C.S.

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

Public comment on the matter was received, prior to the approval of the Consent Agenda items, from: Alice Wik-Crosby, who asked the Council to postpone the matter, stating that MidPen Housing had not shown the ability to get funding for the project; and Esther Malkin, who asked for an update and a timeline for the affordable housing project behind City Hall.

On a motion by Councilmember Rasch, seconded by Councilmember Smith, and carried by the following vote, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 26-050 C.S.:

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

11. Proclamation Recognizing the 50th Anniversary of the Laguna Grande Regional Joint Powers Agency (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Pulled from Consent; Issued proclamation
Councilmember Garcia, representative to the Laguna Grande Regional Joint Powers Agency, made brief remarks about current efforts toward conservation and safety at the park, and presented the proclamation.

Public comment was received from Esther Malkin of the Laguna Grande Neighborhood Association, who expressed appreciation for the City's efforts to improve conditions in the Laguna Grande Regional Park and asked City staff to continue to seek funding sources for continued improvements.

On a motion by Councilmember Garcia, seconded by Councilmember Smith, and carried by the following vote, the City Council issued the proclamation:

AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 3, Packet Page 27 City Council Minutes April 7, 2026
4 End of Consent Agenda
Afternoon Session Items
Public Hearing (Afternoon)

12. Application AP-25-0236 and 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)

1. Adopt Findings to Overrule the Monterey County Airport Land Use Commission’s Consistency Determination for a Day Care, General, Use at 2400 Garden Road, and

2. Grant Appeal and Overturn the Planning Commission’s Decision and Approve Use Permit UP-25-0013 for a Day Care, General, Use at 2400 Garden Road Action: Conducted Public Hearing; Adopted Resolution Nos. 26-051 and 26-052 C.S.

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

Public comment was limited to two minutes per person based on the number of persons intending to speak, and was received from: Esther Malkin, who expressed concern about the safety of children being exposed to lead in airplane fuel due to proximity to the airport; Fionna Jensen of the County of Monterey Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), who argued against overruling the ALUC's determination, making statements that included asserting that the proposed daycare would be well within the restricted area and therefore considered unsafe, and that State law prioritized minimizing safety hazards over other preferences; Madelynn Van Den Heuvel, Aurora Tershy, and Bill Tershy of Montessori Community School, who all spoke in favor of approving the use permit, citing the great need for childcare; Henry Ruhnke of Wald, Ruhnke & Dost Architects on behalf of the applicant, who said that Monterey County staff's initial report to the ALUC had recommended approval of the project; and Nina Beety, who raised safety concerns about environmental factors that she said could harm children.

The Council discussed the matter. Appreciation was expressed for those who had raised concerns about children's safety. It was stressed that State and local inspections and environmental safeguards would ensure that children would be safe from hazards. It was stated that the area's zoning allowed the use and that it would be contradictory to allow the church on Garden Road to operate a daycare but not allow this daycare to operate there; rather, it was stated that daycare use by the applicant would be equitable. It was noted that the site had multi family overlay zoning and stated that there were families living there, that the area was already residential and woulld become more so in the future with conversions of commercial uses to residential uses. It was stressed that children were the utmost concern of the Council, and it was stressed that in fact the risks of driving longer distances to daycare facilities would introduce more risk than the risk of an aircraft crash in the area of the proposed Garden Road daycare and that reducing vehicle miles traveled would be better for safety and sustainability. It was acknowledged that the daycare would be in a specific proximity to the airport but it was stressed that its proximity was in the zone parallel to the runway and not in the end areas used for aircraft approaches, and that the site presented no inherent safety risk. It was stressed that Monterey was a small community and that the available building sites were limited especially when factoring in the airport's limited zones.

Comments of appreciation were made for the fact-finding and the data that was presented. It was asserted that other uses were already in the zone in question and that if the area were determined Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 4, Packet Page 28 City Council Minutes April 7, 2026
5 in the future to be unsafe based on environmental conditions or air quality, such concerns would have to be mitigated or many tenants and residents of the area would have to retreat. It was stressed that it would be up to the parents to decide whether this daycare would be right for their children.

A motion was introduced by Councilmember Garcia, and seconded by Councilmember Rasch, to approve the staff recommendation and adopt Resolution Nos. 26-051 and 26-052 C.S.

On question from the Council regarding statements made by the County of Monterey representative, Planning Manager Hill said that no changes to the findings in the resolution were recommended by City staff. He said that the finding that was referenced was referenced inaccurately, that the resolution's finding did identify the site's location along the side of the runway and did acknowledge that occupation by “vulnerable occupants” within 6,000 feet from the side of the runway was discouraged. He said that the findings were accurate as-is.

The motion carried by the following vote:

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

13. Receive Update from the Housing Authority of the County of Monterey (HACM) on Status of Displaced Tenants Resulting from the Fire at 800 Casanova Avenue and Authorize the City Manager to Donate From the Available Balance from the FY 25-26 Budget for the Rental Assistance Program to HACM and/or Other Organizations to Continue Support of the Displaced Tenants as Needed (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Received update; Adopted Resolution No. 26-053 C.S. and directed staff to work with the recipient(s) of the City's donation to facilitate and coordinate provision of case management services
Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira gave a verbal staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions. During the presentation Mayor Williamson left the Chamber from 5:40 p.m. to 5:41 p.m. Zulieka Boykin of the Housing Authority of the County of Monterey (HACM) addressed the Council, providing an update on the response to help fire victims, and requesting funding to assist HACM in its efforts to continue providing displaced residents with hotel housing.

During the question and answer period, Councilmember Smith left the Chamber from 6:02 p.m. to 6:04 p.m. and Councilmember Rasch left the Chamber from 6:12 p.m. to 6:14 p.m.

Public comment was received from: Tanya Kosta of All In Monterey, who requested funding for her non-profit organization to assist in their efforts to help fire victims; Bob Faulis, who suggested that faith-based organizations could help with case management; Esther Malkin, who said that this unexpected event demonstrated the value of offering a rental assistance program; and Lori Mazzuca, who said that the priority should be placing the remaining fire victims in available housing. During public comment, Councilmember Barber left the Chamber from 6:41 p.m. to 6:43 p.m. and Councilmember Garcia left the Chamber from 6:50 p.m. to 6:53 p.m.

The Council discussed the matter. It was suggested that nurse navigators could be hired to assist with medical issues. On question from the Council, Ms. Kosta provided further information about how All-In Monterey had helped and would continue to help the residents displaced by the fire, and Ms. Boykin provided context on issues still to be resolved for the residents.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 5, Packet Page 29 City Council Minutes April 7, 2026
6 An initial motion was introduced by Mayor Williamson, and seconded by Councilmember Garcia, to direct staff to move forward with a contract for case management at a cost up to $200,000, contingent on the receipt of funding support that had been committed, to donate $20,000 to All In Monterey, and to work with the Housing Authority on their request contingent on the additional information being provided.

On question from the Council, Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira and City Attorney Davi clarified that the resolution was drafted to be broad to allow for flexibility in donating toward the needs of the displaced tenants, as opposed to involving the City directly in case management.

She recommended the City earmark a donation for case management, instead of taking on that work itself.

The Council and staff discussed case management services and what kinds of entities or agencies could best provide them. It was expressed that a professional being paid a salary would be best equipped to provide these services.

A friendly amendment was introduced by Councilmember Rasch to donate $20,000 to All In Monterey and $105,000 to HACM for continued hotel services, and to direct staff to try to bring in the Community Foundation for more support. The friendly amendment was not taken by the mover.

City Attorney Davi recommended that the Council use its broad authority to donate money and said that oversight of case work and hiring of medical providers would need more evaluation.

Concern was expressed by the Council about the notion of the City taking on social work and case management. It was stated that the $125,000 donation recommended by staff should be leveraged to stimulate additional funding by the County and non-profit organizations. It was stated that City staff could facilitate the best distribution of the $125,000 in available funds to All In Monterey and the HACM, and it was stressed that the Council should not create an additional impact to the general fund. It was proposed that the $125,000 be distributed with $105,000 going to the HACM and $20,000 to All In Monterey as suggested by the speakers.

The mover began to modify his motion to provide flexibility to staff to work with partner organizations to help faciliate a case manager being put into place at a cost up to $200,000, contingent on the receipt of contributions from non-profits. The Council discussed the $200,000 and it was stated it would come from additional pledged contributions from non-profits and that the City's only contribution would be the $125,000 remaining in the Rental Assistance Program's budget for the year.

Ms. Boykin provided context on other organizations' limited ability to provide services.

City Attorney Davi noted that the Council's discussion was heading back in the direction of the staff recommendation to donate $125,000 from the Rental Assistance Program account for assisting displaced tenants with matters including but not limited to case management services.

Mayor Williamson modified his motion, which as modified was seconded by Councilmember Garcia, and carried by the following vote, to approve the staff recommendation, adopting Resolution No. 26-053 C.S., and to direct staff to work with the recipient(s) of the City's donation to facilitate and coordinate provision of case management services:

AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
The Council recessed at 7:33 p.m. and reconvened at 7:52 p.m.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 6, Packet Page 30 City Council Minutes April 7, 2026
7 Pledge of Allegiance
Councilmember Smith led the Pledge.

General Public Comments, Continued
Continued public comment on non-agendized matters was received from: Paul Hierling, Lori Mazzuca, Tom Reeves, and Chelsea Lenowska of the Casanova Oak Knoll Neighborhood Association.

Requests from Councilmembers to Agendize New Matters

14. Councilmember Rasch’s Request to Agendize a Discussion Regarding Council Expenses and Benefits (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Agreed on consensus to agendize the matter
Councilmember Rasch gave a brief verbal presentation supporting her request, and answered Councilmembers' questions.

Public comment in favor of agendizing the matter was received from Lori Mazzuca and Tom Reeves.

Support was expressed by a second member of the Council for receiving a staff presentation, achieving the minimum consensus required for agendizing the matter pursuant to the Council's governance policy.

15. Councilmember Rasch’s Request to Agendize a Discussion Regarding ADA Parking in Public Lots (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Requester withdrew her request
Councilmember Rasch withdrew her request, stating that she had researched and investigated the matter further and and felt that the City's parking signage regarding fees was very clear. She expressed a preference for Parking staff to focus on its residential parking program.

Public comment was received from Esther Malkin, who clarified her understanding of a recent public comment regarding Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)-accessible parking.

Councilmember Rasch noted that street parking was already free for disabled individuals and said there would be a fiscal impact associated with eliminating a fee for ADA-accessible parking. The Council noted that there could be an educational opportunity for the City to be more clear with residents about disabled parking fees.

Evening Session Items
Public Appearance (Evening)

16. Receive Police Department Annual Report - 2025 (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Received report
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 7, Packet Page 31 City Council Minutes April 7, 2026
8 Police Chief Hober gave the staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions.

Public comment was received from: Dennis Duke and Esther Malkin, who both noted conditions challenging the Police Department's ability to recruit effectively, such as the state of the police facility.

The Council discussed the matter, focusing on appreciation for the Police Chief and his staff, and concern around staffing levels and budget constraints. It was stressed that more funding would be needed to increase staffing to the level needed to allow for more proactive police services desired by the community, and for the public safety facility project which was stated to be a high priority.

17. Receive Annual Report of the Police Automated License Plate Recognition (ALPR) System (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15376 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Received report
Police Chief Hober gave the staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions. During the presentation, Mayor Williamson left the Chamber from 9:27 p.m. to 9:2 p.m.

Public comment was received from: Kris Richardson of the Monterey Police Association, who provided context on how officers used the ALPR system not only to catch criminals but also to keep the wrong people from being arrested; Dennis Duke, who spoke in support of the use of the ALPR system, citing the importance of finding serious criminals; Esther Malkin, who expressed concern about the Flock company given the national political environment; Nina Beety, who spoke opposing the use, citing concern about abuses and privacy violations; Michelle Welsh of the American Civil Liberties Union, Monterey County Chapter, who requested the Flock ALPR system be immediately suspended, citing data breaches and misuses. During public comment, Councilmember Barber left the Chamber from 10:19 p.m. to 10:22 p.m.

The Council provided brief input, stating that the policy in place helped to prevent against abuses due to the regular audits that were required, and that the City's higher level of caution and constraint were appropriate. It was noted that the Police Chief and his team were constantly investigating and would continue to monitor Flock, the Police Department's use of the system, and the collected data's use and access by other agencies and entities. It was stressed how serious the Council's trust in the Monterey Police Department was, given the issues at stake. Benefits to the system were noted, such as being able to review the history of a vehicle of concern. It was stressed that it was important to continue to deploy the remaining cameras for the benefit of the City's order and safety.

On the other hand, serious concerns were expressed about the statewide lookup feature that had been activated without clear authorization, potentially allowing Monterey's data to be accessed or shared outside of the approved policy, and whether any other features could be present on the system without the department's awareness; the searches that had been conducted without the required entering of case numbers; the process for determining which agencies Monterey shares data with, and the risk that other agencies may not have as strict requirements for documenting search purposes; reports of improper or illegal practices in other jurisdictions and past illegal practices by Flock Safety; whether the city was getting sufficient value for the cost of the system; whether camera placement was effective; and the implications of the "worldwide rights" clause in the Flock contract. It was expressed that ALPR systems posed a serious ethical dilemma, citing the importance of safety that their use could provide, but also the seriousness of the risks that the data's abuse could present. It was requested that the item come back to the Council in the future for a deeper discussion and more information about concerns about Flock, related legal issues, breaches and data misuse, potential other vendors, and other related issues.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 8, Packet Page 32 City Council Minutes April 7, 2026
9 18. Receive Annual Report and Renew the Military Equipment Purchase and Use Ordinance – Monterey City Code, Chapter 27, Article 3, Section 27-10 (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Received report; Adopted Resolution No. 26-054 C.S.

Assistant Police Chief Bruno gave the staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions. During the presentation, Councilmember Garcia left the Chamber from 10:35 p.m. to 10:37 p.m. and Councilmember Smith left the Chamber from 10:38 p.m. to 10:40 p.m.

Public comment was received from: Dennis Duke, who asked if the requested truck was similar to the Fire Department's Division Chief trucks. On question, Assistant Police Chief Bruno agreed that the truck was similar to what a Division Chief would use in running an incident for the Fire Department.

On a motion by Councilmember Smith, seconded by Councilmember Rasch, and carried by the following vote, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 26-054 C.S.:

AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
Council Comments
Councilmember Smith referred to commentary received from residents about the residential parking program and its upcoming deadline for participation, and said that the public needed questions answered and to understand the program better. He asked staff to consider pausing the program in order to fine-tune its launch. He said that he may request to agendize modifications to the program in the future if needed.

Mayor Williamson echoed the interest in discussing potential modifications to the residential parking program. He said that the executive director of Monterey One Water would present at an upcoming City Council meeting. He invited all to an upcoming welcoming event for meeting City Manager Hall. He asked the community to consider that All In Monterey could use additional financial support to keep up their work assisting people impacted by the 800 Casanova Avenue fire.

City Manager Reports
None made, in the interest of time.

Adjournment
The Council adjourned at 10:53 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted, Approved,
Clementine Bonner Klein Tyller Williamson
City Clerk Mayor
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 9, Packet Page 33 Council
Agenda Report
№12/25
FROM: Andrea Renny, P.E., PTOE, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Cody Hennings, Associate Engineer
SUBJECT: Approve Calle Principal Street Maintenance District 00-1 Engineer's Report; Adopt a Resolution of Intention to Levy Assessment; and Set Time for Public Hearing (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council:

1. Approve the Engineer’s Report ordered by
Resolution No. 26-015, on file with the City Clerk,
which contains a full and detailed description of
the improvements, the boundaries, and the
proposed assessments upon assessable lots
and parcel of land within the district;

2. Adopt a Resolution of intention to levy and
collect an annual assessment against the
properties within the Calle Principal Street
Maintenance District No. 00-1 as set forth in the
Engineer’s Report; and

3. Set a public hearing for June 16, 2026 at 4:00
p.m. in the Council Chamber, Few Memorial Hall
of Records, City Hall, Monterey, California to
consider the levy of assessment.

This is a property-based district in which liability for the assessment is premised upon a person’s property
ownership.

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. Serve as stewards of the City’s financial resources through sound economic vitality
efforts, streamlining operations, reasonable revenue
Agenda Report Highlights
• The City Council is considering the
approval of the Engineer's Report
and a resolution of intention to levy
assessments for the Calle Principal
Street Maintenance District 00-1.
• A public hearing regarding the
proposed levy of assessments is
scheduled for June 16, 2026, in the
City Hall Council Chamber.
• The proposed assessment rate for
the 2026/27 fiscal year is set at
$0.73 per linear foot per month for a
total district assessment of
$24,946.09.
• Assessment funds will be used for
special benefit services such as
quarterly sidewalk cleaning and
grounds maintenance that exceed
standard city maintenance levels.
• Approval of the assessment is
subject to a weighted majority
protest proceeding where votes are
weighted based on the size of the
proposed assessment for each
parcel.

Date: 4/21/2026
Item No.: 4.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 4., Item Page 1, Packet Page 34 №12/25
enhancements, visionary long-term planning, fiscal transparency, and community partnerships.

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The Calle Principal Maintenance District 00-1 was established on March 7, 2000 with the adoption of Resolution 00-54. The Calle Principal Street Maintenance District was formed under the 1972 Landscaping and Lighting Act (Streets & Highways Code section 22500 et seq.), which authorizes assessments to install, construct, and maintain landscaping, lighting, and park and recreational facilities, including graffiti removal.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The Calle Principal Street Maintenance District funds maintenance above and beyond normal maintenance activities, with the cost of the improvements reasonably apportioned among the benefited parcels. General benefits to the public at large are not paid from special assessments.

The assessment rate will be $0.73 per linear foot/month and a total amount of $24,946.09 will be assessed in FY 26/27. The City of Monterey will be responsible for paying for the assessments for the City owned parcels within the district. Funds to pay the assessment levied on City owned parcels within the district will come from:
• The Parking Fund for the Calle Principal garage and surface lot; • The General Fund for the park parcel frontage; and the City-owned portion of the assessment for 408 Alvarado Street (Monterey Hotel).

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 may approve the engineer’s report, as submitted, or it may modify the report in any particular and approve it as modified. (Streets & Highways Code section 22623.) The City Council could set a different date and time for the hearing.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 4., Item Page 2, Packet Page 35 №12/25
The City Council could choose to suspend the collection of an assessment for this district for another year.

The City Council could initiate dissolution proceedings at a future meeting by adopting a resolution of intention. (Streets & Highways Code section 22610.) This is not recommended as the assessment pays for maintenance and improvements that benefit the property owner by adding to the character of Calle Principal.

DISCUSSION:

Background
The Calle Principal Maintenance District 00-1 was established in 2000 under the 1972 Landscape and Lighting Act (Streets and Highways Code section 22500 et seq.), which authorizes assessments to install, construct, and maintain landscaping, lighting, and park and recreation facilities, including graffiti removal. The boundaries of the district include the entire length of Calle Principal. All parcels that receive a special benefit have been identified and included in the engineer’s report. The Calle Principal Maintenance District has been in effect since it was created in 2000, however the collection of the assessment was suspended for Fiscal Year 2024-2025 after it was determined that ballots may not have been received by the property owners.

The staff recommendation continues a legal process, which began at the Council's meeting of February 3, 2026, when the Council ordered the preparation of the Engineer's Report to establish the annual assessment for the maintenance of Calle Principal Improvements. The Engineer’s Report separates the general benefits to the public from the special benefits the assessed parcels will receive. Property-based assessments may only be used to pay for the special benefits provided by the improvements and activities of a district and may not be used to pay for general benefits (California Constitution Art XIIID §4(a)). Therefore, the Engineer’s Report separates and quantifies the special and general benefits and assesses property owners only for the portion of the cost representing special benefits.

General Benefits Charges
The City provides several services to the maintenance district that would be provided to the same area regardless of the existence of the district. These services are referred to as general benefit services and are not assessed to the district. General benefit services include tree maintenance, touch-up maintenance, sewer, and street maintenance. These are itemized in the report to reflect the City’s cost-burden and are subsequently deducted from the total cost of the district.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 4., Item Page 3, Packet Page 36 №12/25
After approval of the Engineer’s Report, staff recommends the City Council adopt a resolution of intention to levy and collect assessments and give notice of a public hearing on June 16, 2026, at 4:00 p.m. on the question of whether to levy the proposed assessment. The approval process requires 45 days’ prior notice of a public hearing for this assessment. After the public hearing, if a majority protest is not received, Council will be asked to adopt a resolution certifying compliance with State law relating to the assessment prior to the County’s August 1, 2026 deadline. A majority protest is measured by the areas of the parcels owned by those who are not in favor of the assessment. In other words, ballots received are weighted so that parcels proposed to have a larger assessment count more. It is not a “one parcel, one vote” proceeding.

Unless a majority of the weighted ballots are in favor of the proposed assessment, the City may not impose the assessment. A majority protest exists if 50% plus one of the record owners of the parcels subject to the charge submit a timely written protest. To be timely, the written protest must be submitted prior to the conclusion of the public hearing.

AR/ch
Attachments: 1. Resolution

2. Exhibit A: Engineer’s Report
e: Sabrina Hiltunen, Executive Director, Old Monterey Business Association Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 4., Item Page 4, Packet Page 37 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№011/24
APPROVING CALLE PRINCIPAL STREET MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 00-1 ENGINEER'S REPORT; ADOPTING A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO LEVY ASSESSMENT;

AND SETTING TIME FOR PUBLIC HEARING
WHEREAS, the Calle Principal Maintenance District was established in 2000 under the 1972 Landscaping and Lighting Act (Streets & Highways Code section 22500 et seq.), which authorizes the assessment to install, construct, and maintain landscaping, lighting, and park and recreational facilities, including graffiti removal on Calle Principal; WHEREAS, the general description of the district boundaries is Calle Principal between Del Monte Avenue and Polk Street in the City of Monterey, County of Monterey, State of California. The initial proceedings for formation of the district, on file in the office of the Clerk of the City of Monterey, are referred to for a detailed description of the district boundaries and improvements;
WHEREAS, the cost of the improvements has been reasonably apportioned among the benefitted parcels, according to the special benefits;
WHEREAS, this maintenance work will result in a special benefit to the properties assessed by maintaining landscaping, providing cleaning of sidewalks and litter pickup; WHEREAS, the Calle Principal Maintenance District has been renewed annually and assessments have been collected with the exception of fiscal year 2024/2025, during which the mailed ballots were not received by the property owners and therefore collection of the assessment was suspended but the district was not dissolved. The district has remained in effect since the establishment of the district;
WHEREAS, all parcels that receive a special benefit are included in the district and the cost of the benefits are reasonably apportioned among the benefitted parcels according to special benefits;
WHEREAS, general benefits available to the public at large are not paid from special assessments;
WHEREAS, the Calle Principal Maintenance District funds extra maintenance, which benefits the property owners ;
WHEREAS, the benefiting property owners agreed to a level of service that results in an assessment rate of $0.73/foot/month; 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 Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 4., Item Page 5, Packet Page 38 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 FO 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.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it:

1. Adopts the Engineer’s Report ordered by Resolution No. 26-015 C.S. as submitted.

2. Intends to levy and collect an assessment against the properties within the Calle Principal Street Maintenance District 00-1 as set forth in the Engineer’s Report.

3. Authorizes the Finance Director, or their designee, to post the necessary administrative budget adjustments to the City’s financial system so the system matches the budget total presented in Part A of the Engineer’s Report.

4. Sets a public hearing for June 16, 2026 at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, Few Memorial Hall of Records, City Hall, Monterey, California to consider the levy of said assessment.

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

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 4., Item Page 6, Packet Page 39 1 ENGINEER'S REPORT
CALLE PRINCIPAL MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 00-1
PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR FY 2026/2027
(Pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972)
Andrea Renny, P.E., PTOE, Public Works Director, Engineer of Work for the Calle Principal Maintenance District, City of Monterey, Monterey County, California, makes this report, as directed by the City Council, pursuant to Section 22585 of the Streets and Highways Code (Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972).

The improvements, which are the subject of this report are briefly described as follows:

The maintenance and installation, including but not limited to, street improvements, landscaping and street furniture, cleaning of sidewalks, upgrading street trees, and litter pickup on Calle Principal between Del Monte Avenue and Polk Street, and side streets of Franklin Street and Bonifacio Plaza.

This report consists of five parts as follows:

PART A - An estimate of the cost of the improvements.

PART B - An assessment of the estimated cost of the improvements on each benefited parcel of land within the assessment district.

PART C - A statement of the method by which the undersigned has determined the amount proposed to be assessed against each parcel.

PART D - A list of the names and addresses of the owners of real property within this assessment district, as shown on the last equalized assessment roll for taxes, or as known to the Clerk. The list is keyed to Part C by assessment number.

PART E - A diagram showing all of the parcels of real property within this assessment district. The diagram is keyed to Part B by assessment number.

Respectfully submitted,
Andrea Renny , P.E., PTOE
Engineer of Work

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 4., Item Page 7, Packet Page 40 2 ENGINEER'S REPORT
CALLE PRINCIPAL MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 00-1
(Pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972)
The undersigned respectfully submits the enclosed report as directed by the City Council.

Dated: _________________ Andrea Renny, Public Works Director City of Monterey, Engineer of Work
By:_______________________________
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed Engineer's Report together with Assessment and Assessment Diagram thereto attached, was filed with me on the _____ day of ___________, 2026.

CLEMENTINE BONNER KLEIN, City Clerk
City of Monterey, Monterey County, California
By:___________________________
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed Engineer's Report, together with Assessment and Assessment Diagram thereto attached, was approved and confirmed by the City Council of the City of Monterey, California on the ______ day of _____________, 2026.

CLEMENTINE BONNER KLEIN, City Clerk
City of Monterey, Monterey County, California
By:___________________________
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed Engineer's Report, together with Assessment and Assessment Diagram thereto attached, was filed with the County Auditor of the County of Monterey on the ________ day of ____________, 2026.

CLEMENTINE BONNER KLEIN, City Clerk
City of Monterey, Monterey County, California
By:___________________________

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 4., Item Page 8, Packet Page 41 CALLE PRINCIPAL MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 00-1
Estimated Costs for FY 2026-2027
2/20/26

ACCOUNT ENGINEER'S BUDGET
Personnel
Salaries $7,770.05
Benefits $6,216.04
SUBTOTAL $13,986.09
Operating supplies 4205 $500.00
Contractual services 4220 $9,250.00
Street lighting 4236 $70.00
City truck 4248 $1,140.00
SUBTOTAL $10,960.00
General Benefit Charges
Tree Maintenance $2,000.00
Spot Maintenance $4,000.00
Sewer $4,200.00
Street Maintenance $5,700.00
SUBTOTAL $15,900.00
TOTAL $40,846.09
($15,900.00)
$24,946.09
$0.73
Total Linear Feet (LF) of Frontage = 2842.68 LF
Contractual 4220 $750.00
$7,300.00
$1,200.00
SUB TOTAL $9,250.00
Assessment Dist Coordinator
Grounds maintenance
Basic Assessment District Cost: Provides current level of service for sidewalk cleaning and grounds maintenance, and allows the ability to pursue additional Capital Outlay.

Cost per LF/month
Sidewalk cleaning (4)
Net amount to be assessed
General Benefit Charges Covered by the City
PART A

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 4., Item Page 9, Packet Page 42 Assessment
Number Assessor Parcel Number
Calle Principal Frontage
(ft)
Percentage of Total
Calle Principal Frontage Annual Assessment
1 001-525-009 23 0.81% $201.84
2 001-525-006 40 1.41% $351.02
3 001-525-005 60 2.11% $526.53
4 001-525-022 53.3 1.87% $467.74
5 001-525-021 86.5 3.04% $759.09
6 001-525-003 42 1.48% $368.57
7 001-525-002 59 2.08% $517.76
8 001-525-020 146.1 5.14% $1,282.11
9 001-534-010 40.78 1.43% $357.87
10 001-534-009 85 2.99% $745.92
11 001-534-008 69.77 2.45% $612.27
12 001-534-007 69.77 2.45% $612.27
13 001-534-011 176.66 6.21% $1,550.29
14 001-535-001 60 2.11% $526.53
15 001-534-001 35 1.23% $307.14
16 001-534-003 50 1.76% $438.78
17 001-534-002 71.8 2.53% $630.08
18 001-384-003 303.7 10.68% $2,665.14
19 001-385-001 102.01 3.59% $895.19
20 001-385-002 138.47 4.87% $1,215.15
21 001-385-004 20.23 0.71% $177.53
22 001-385-0005 45 1.58% $394.90
23 001-572-017 20.31 0.71% $178.23
24 001-572-025 124.86 4.39% $1,095.72
25 001-572-013 69.16 2.43% $606.92
26 001-572-021 22.17 0.78% $194.55
27 001-572-020 35.58 1.25% $312.23
28 001-572-010 51 1.79% $447.55
29 001-572-009 50.99 1.79% $447.47
30 001-572-032 5.02 0.18% $44.05
31 001-572-031 122.56 4.31% $1,075.53
32 001-572-004 104.24 3.67% $914.76
33 001-572-003 61.75 2.17% $541.89
34 001-572-018 124.5 4.38% $1,092.56
35 001-571-004 32 1.13% $280.82
36 001-571-002 170.52 6.00% $1,496.41
37 001-571-001 69.93 2.46% $613.67
Totals 2842.68 100.00% $24,946.09
FY 26/27 Assessment will be $0.73/LF/month
CALLE PRINCIPAL MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 00-1
Annual Assessment for FY 2026/2027
PART B

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 4., Item Page 10, Packet Page 43 PART C

METHOD OF ALLOCATING COSTS ON THE BASIS OF BENEFIT
CALLE PRINCIPAL MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 00-1
FISCAL YEAR 2026/2027
The method utilized to allocate the costs associated with the benefits of the district shall be based upon lineal footage of frontage. The total cost necessary to be collected will be divided by the total frontage of the district. This will result in a cost per lineal foot. This amount will be multiplied by the lineal footage of each property frontage on Calle Principal.

The cost per lineal foot of frontage for the FY 2026/2027 is $0.73 per month.

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 4., Item Page 11, Packet Page 44 # APN PARCEL ADDRESS OWNER NAME
1 001-525-009 232 Madison Street PANETTA LEON E & SYLVIA M TRS PO BOX 42 Carmel Valley, CA 93924 2 001-525-006 590 Calle Principal State of California 2211 Garden Road Monterey, CA 93940 3 001-525-005 580 Calle Principal Monterey Museum of Art Association 559 Pacific Street Monterey, CA 93940 4 001-525-022 559 Calle Principal City of Monterey 580 Pacific Street Monterey, CA 93940 5 001-525-021 559 Calle Principal Monterey Museum of Art 559 Pacific Street Monterey, CA 93942 6 001-525-003 540 Calle Principal The House of the Four Winds Foundation PO Box 1408 Monterey, CA 93942 7 001-525-002 535 Pacific Street Monterey Masonic Temple Corporation 525 Pacific Street Monterey, CA 93940 8 001-525-020 464 Calle Principal State of California 2211 Garden Road Monterey, CA 93940 9 001-534-010 499 Pacific Street Rossman James M & Giovanna C TRS 700 Briggs 27 Pacific Grove, CA 93950 10 001-534-009 490 Calle Principal Hugo H & Linda TRS 583 Viejo Road Carmel, CA 93923 11 001-534-008 480 Calle Principal Hugo H & Linda TRS 583 Viejo Road Carmel, CA 93923 12 001-534-007 468 Calle Principal Craft Charles Nicholas TR ET AL PO Box 167 Carmel Valley, CA 93924 13 001-534-011 438 Calle Principal City of Monterey 580 Pacific Street Monterey, CA 93940 14 001-535-001 426 Calle Principal Casa De Calle Principal INC ET AL 426 Calle Principal, Suite 203 Monterey, CA 93940 15 001-534-001 410 Calle Principal Monterey Institute of International Studies 460 Pierce Street Monterey, CA 93940 16 001-534-003 414 Calle Principal Professional Building of Monterey PO Box 3080 Monterey, CA 93942 17 001-534-002 201 West Franklin Street PB + FH of Monterey LLC PO Box 3080 Monterey, CA 93942 18 001-384-003 350 Calle Principal San Carlos Associates LLC 1111 Third Avenue, Suite 3030 Seattle, WA 98101 19 001-385-001 316 Alvarado Street JMDJ Company 165 West Franklin Street Monterey, CA 93940 20 001-385-002 351 Calle Principal City of Monterey 580 Pacific Street Monterey, CA 93940 21 001-385-004 351 Calle Principal City of Monterey 580 Pacific Street Monterey, CA 93940 22 001-385-005 398 Alvarado Street Ordway Building LLC 888 Munras Avenue, Suite 200 Monterey, CA 93940 23 001-572-017 400 Alvarado Street JMDJ Company 165 West Franklin Street Monterey, CA 93940 24 001-572-025 417 Calle Principal PRI LLC 2905 Burton Drive Cambria, CA 93428 25 001-572-013 416 Alvarado Street Singh Dheeraj & Suvarna 6590 Tam Oshanter Drive San Jose, CA 95120 26 001-572-021 426 Alvarado Street FRE 553 LLC PO Box 5903 Carmel, CA 93921 27 001-572-020 432 Alvarado Street Silacci Family Investments LLC 110 John Street Salinas, CA 93901 28 001-572-010 434 Alvarado Street Teaby John E & Moraz Andrea TRS 57 Castro Road Monterey, CA 93940 29 001-572-009 440 Alvarado Street Bonifacio Plaza Associates 801 Lighthouse Avenue, Suite 109 Monterey, CA 93940 30 001-572-032 449 Calle Principal Davi Anthony G TR PO Box 2350 Monterey, CA 93940 31 001-572-031 449 Calle Principal Davi Anthony G TR PO Box 2350 Monterey, CA 93940 32 001-572-004 464 Alvarado Street Tyler Taren TR ET AL PO Box 87 Monterey, CA 93942 33 001-572-003 482 Alvarado Street Chyr Robert TR 3436 Peachwillow Ln Walnut Creek, CA 94598 34 001-572-018 Calle Principal (Parking) City of Monterey 580 Pacific Street Monterey, CA 93940 35 001-571-004 Calle Principal (Parking) City of Monterey 580 Pacific Street Monterey, CA 93940 36 001-571-002 516 Polk Street Casa Amesti Foundation 516 Polk Street Monterey, CA 93940 37 001-571-001 565 Calle Principal Stone Candice M TR ETAL 565 Calle Principal Monterey, CA 93940

MAILING ADDRESS
CALLE PRINCIPAL MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 00-1

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 4., Item Page 12, Packet Page 45 ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS MAP.DWG SCALE: DEPARTMENT OF PLANS AND PUBLIC WORKS CITY OF MONTEREY NO. DATE REVISION DATE: SHEET: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: CAD DWG NAME: TEL: 831.646.3921 WEBSITE: WWW.MONTEREY.ORG 580 PACIFIC STREET, MONTEREY, CA 93940 SHEET 1 OF 1 CALLE PRINCIPAL PART E MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 00-1 ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 00-1 - PART E - CALLE P - C1 SWJFG JFG C-1 APR 19, 2016 NOT TO SCALE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 26 28 29 31 30 32 33 34 35 36 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 CALLE PRINCIPAL ALVARADO STREET

BONIFACIO PLACE

FRANKLIN STREET

DEL MONTE AVENUE

PEARL STREET
PACIFIC STREET LEGEND ASSESSMENT DISTRICT BOUNDARY PROPERTY BOUNDARY # ASSESSMENT NUMBER ASSESSMENT NUMBER ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER FRONTAGE (FT) 1 001-525-009 23 2 001-525-006 40 3 001-525-005 60 4 001-525-022 53.3 5 001-525-021 86.5 6 001-525-003 42 7 001-525-002 59 8 001-525-020 146.1 9 001-534-010 40.78 10 001-534-009 85.0 11 001-534-008 69.77 12 001-534-007 69.77 13 001-534-011 176.66 14 001-535-001 60 15 001-534-001 35 16 001-534-003 50 17 001-534-002 71.8 18 001-384-003 303.7 19 001-385-001 102.01 20 001-385-002 138.47 21 001-385-004 20.23 22 001-385-005 45 23 001-572-017 20.31 24 001-572-025 124.86 25 001-572-013 69.16 26 001-572-021 22.17 27 001-572-020 35.58 28 001-572-010 51 29 001-572-009 50.99 30 001-572-032 5.02 31 001-572-031 122.56 32 001-572-004 104.24 33 001-572-003 61.75 34 001-572-018 124.5 35 001-571-004 32.0 36 001-571-002 170.52 37 001-571-001 69.93

JEFFERSON STREET
POLK STREET 37

MADISON STREET
PART E
EXHIBIT A Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 4., Item Page 13, Packet Page 46 Council
Agenda Report
№12/25
FROM: Andrea Renny, P.E., PTOE, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Cody Hennings, Associate Engineer
SUBJECT: Approve Alvarado Street Maintenance District 85-1 Engineer's Report; Adopt a Resolution of Intention to Levy Assessment; and Set Time for Public Hearing (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council:

1. Approve the Engineer’s Report ordered by
Resolution No. 26-014, on file with the City Clerk,
which contains a full and detailed description of
the improvements, the boundaries, and the
proposed assessments upon assessable lots
and parcels of land within the district;

2. Adopt a resolution of intention to levy and collect
an assessment against the properties within the
Alvarado Street Maintenance District No. 85-1 as
set forth in the Engineer’s Report; and

3. Set a public hearing for June 16, 2026, at 4:00
p.m. in the Council Chamber, Few Memorial Hall
of Records, City Hall, Monterey, California to
consider the levy of said assessment.

VALUE DRIVERS:

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

Agenda Report Highlights
• The City Council is considering the
approval of an updated Engineer's
Report and a resolution of intention
to levy assessments for the
Alvarado Street Maintenance
District 85-1.
• Proposed assessments for the
upcoming fiscal year are set at
$4.09 per linear foot per month to
fund enhanced maintenance
services like sidewalk cleaning and
landscaping.
• Property owners requested service
increases for the new year including
a falconer to mitigate bird issues
and additional sidewalk pressure
washing sessions.
• A public hearing is scheduled for
June 16, 2026, where the
assessment will be subject to a
weighted majority protest
proceeding.
• The City will continue to fund
general benefit maintenance costs
such as street and sewer repairs
amounting to $42,700.00 for the
next fiscal year.

Date: 4/21/2026
Item No.: 5.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 5., Item Page 1, Packet Page 47 №12/25
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The Alvarado Street Maintenance District 85-1 was established on May 7, 1985 with the adoption of Resolution 85-066. The Alvarado Street Maintenance District was formed under the 1972 Landscaping and Lighting Act (Streets & Highways Code section 22500 et seq.), which authorizes assessments to install, construct, and maintain landscaping, lighting, and park and recreational facilities, including graffiti removal.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The Alvarado Street Maintenance District funds maintenance above and beyond normal maintenance activities, with the cost of the improvements reasonably apportioned among the benefited parcels. The FY26/27 assessment rate will be $4.09 linear foot/month for a total cost of $133,100.01 to be assessed.

Fees collected under this process must be for services that are over and above fees attributed to the general benefit of the public. Prior to the establishment of the district, the City performed services and provided enhanced facilities in the Alvarado Street assessment area. The City continues to pay for its "general benefit" maintenance costs. For the next fiscal year, the City’s "general benefit" portion will amount to $42,700.00. In addition to the general benefit costs, the City will be responsible for paying for the assessments levied on City-owned parcels within the district.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council could choose to suspend the collection of an assessment for this district for another year.

The City Council could initiate dissolution proceedings at a future meeting by adopting a resolution of intention. (Streets & Highways Code section 22610.) This is not recommended as Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 5., Item Page 2, Packet Page 48 №12/25
the assessment pays for maintenance and improvements that benefit the property owner by adding to the character of Alvarado Street.

DISCUSSION:

Background
The Alvarado Street Maintenance District 85-1 was formed on May 7, 1985, pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (Streets & Highways Code section 22500 et seq.). The purpose of the district is to make minor improvements along the length of Alvarado Street identified in the report. All parcels that receive a special benefit have been identified and included in the report. The district has operated continuously since its inception, however the collection of the assessment was suspended for Fiscal Year 2024-2025 after it was determined that ballots may not have been received by the property owners The staff recommendation continues a legal process, which began at the Council's meeting of February 3, 2026, when the Council ordered the preparation of the Engineer's Report to establish the annual assessment for the maintenance of Alvarado Street improvements. The Engineer’s report separates the general benefits to the public from the special benefits the assessed parcels will receive. Property-based assessments may only be used to pay for the special benefits provided by the improvements and activities of a district and may not be used for general benefits (California Constitution Art XIIID 4(a)). Therefore, the Engineer’s Report separates and quantifies special and general benefits and assesses property owners only for the portion of the costs representing special benefits.

General Benefit Charges
The City provides several services to the maintenance district that would be provided to the same area regardless of the existence of the district. These services are referred to as general benefit services and are not assessed to the district. General benefit services include tree maintenance, touch-up maintenance, sewer, and street maintenance. These are itemized in the report to reflect the City’s cost burden and are subsequently deducted from the total cost of the district.

Stakeholder Meetings
Staff met with the stakeholder Property Owners a total of three (3) times, on January 23, February 20, and March 27, 2026. At the meetings, staff presented information on the current assessment district services. The current level of service for sidewalk cleaning is approximately one (1) pressure washing session every three (3) weeks. The district services include charging City administrative costs that would not be incurred were it not for the existence of the businesses in the district. The assessment district maintains current contractual and capital outlay items as well. These services include an assessment district coordinator, landscaping, sidewalk cleanings, plant material and pots, tree light maintenance and utility costs, and minor painting (of pots and light poles). Members of the district recommended adding 11 additional sidewalk cleanings for a total of 27 sidewalk cleanings throughout the year and a falconer in addition to the current level of service. Property owners requested additional sidewalk cleanings to account for more frequent cleaning in the summer months, and the falconer was requested to mitigate issues with bird droppings that make up a significant portion of mess on the sidewalks.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 5., Item Page 3, Packet Page 49 №12/25
Conclusion
Upon receipt of the Engineer’s Report, staff recommends holding a public hearing on June 16, 2026, at 4:00 p.m. regarding the report. The approval process requires 45 days prior notice of a public hearing for this assessment. After the public hearing, if a majority protest is not received, Council will be asked to adopt a resolution certifying compliance with state law concerning the assessment and ordering that it be filed with the County Auditor's office prior to the County’s August 1, 2026, deadline. A majority protest is measured by the areas of the parcels owned by those who are not in favor of the assessment. In other words, ballots received are weighted so that parcels proposed to have a larger assessment count more. It is not a “one parcel, one vote” proceeding. Unless a majority of the weighted ballots are in favor of the proposed assessment, the City may not impose the assessment. A majority protest exists if 50% plus one of the record owners of the parcels subject to the change submit a timely written protest. To be timely, the written protest must be submitted prior to the conclusion of the public hearing.

AR/ch
Attachments: 1. Resolution

2. Exhibit A: Engineers Report
e: Sabrina Hiltunen, Executive Director, Old Monterey Business Association Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 5., Item Page 4, Packet Page 50 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№011/24
APPROVING ALVARADO STREET MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 85-1 ENGINEER'S REPORT; ADOPTING A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO LEVY ASSESSMENT;

AND SETTING TIME FOR PUBLIC HEARING
WHEREAS, the Alvarado Street Maintenance District was established in 1985 to maintain improvements and fund beneficial improvements on Alvarado Street; WHEREAS, the general description of the district boundaries is Alvarado Street between Munras Avenue and Del Monte Avenue, and Alvarado Mall between Del Monte Avenue and Custom House Plaza, City of Monterey, County of Monterey, State of California. The initial proceedings for formation of the district, on file in the office of the Clerk of the City of Monterey, are referred to for a detailed description of the district boundaries and improvements; WHEREAS, the cost of the improvements has been reasonably apportioned among the benefitted parcels, according to the special benefits;
WHEREAS, this maintenance work will result in a special benefit to the properties assessed by maintaining landscaping, providing cleaning of sidewalks and litter pickup; WHEREAS, the Alvarado Street Maintenance District has been renewed annually and assessments have been collected with the exception of fiscal year 2024/2025, during which the mailed ballots were not received by the property owners and therefore collection of the assessment was suspended but the district was not dissolved. The district has remained in effect since the establishment of the district;
WHEREAS, the Alvarado Street Maintenance District funds maintenance, which contributes to a clean and create a safe environment is beneficial to the property owners; WHEREAS, the benefiting property owners agreed to a level of service that results in an assessment rate of $4.09/foot/month; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines”), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 5., Item Page 5, Packet Page 51

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it:

1. Adopts the Engineer’s Report ordered by Resolution No. 26-014 C.S. as submitted.

2. Intends to levy and collect an assessment against the properties within the Alvarado Street Maintenance District No. 85-1 as set forth in the Engineer’s Report.

4. Sets a public hearing for June 16, 2026 at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, Few Memorial Hall of Records, City Hall, Monterey, California to consider the levy of said assessment.

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

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 5., Item Page 6, Packet Page 52 1 ENGINEER'S REPORT
ALVARADO STREET MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 85-1
PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR FY 2026/2027
(Pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972)
Andrea Renny, P.E., PTOE, Public Works Director, Engineer of Work for the Alvarado Street Maintenance District, City of Monterey, Monterey County, California, makes this report, as directed by the City Council, pursuant to Section 22585 of the Streets and Highways Code (Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972).

The improvements, which are the subject of this report are briefly described as follows:

The maintenance activities of: sidewalk cleaning, litter pickup, landscaping, and street lighting facilities installed pursuant to the Alvarado Street Improvement Assessment District.

This report consists of five parts as follows:

PART A - An estimate of the cost of the improvements.

PART B - An assessment of the estimated cost of the improvements on each benefited parcel of land within the assessment district.

PART C - A statement of the method by which the undersigned has determined the amount proposed to be assessed against each parcel.

PART E - A diagram showing all of the parcels of real property within this assessment district. The diagram is keyed to Part B by assessment number.

Respectfully submitted,
Andrea Renny, P.E., PTOE
Engineer of Work

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 5., Item Page 7, Packet Page 53 2 ENGINEER'S REPORT
ALVARADO STREET MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 85-1
(Pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972)
The undersigned respectfully submits the enclosed report as directed by the City Council.

CLEMENTINE BONNER KLEIN, City Clerk
City of Monterey, Monterey County, California
By:___________________________
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed Engineer's Report, together with Assessment and Assessment Diagram thereto attached, was filed with the County Auditor of the County of Monterey on the ________ day of ____________, 2026.

CLEMENTINE BONNER KLEIN, City Clerk
City of Monterey, Monterey County, California
By:___________________________

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 5., Item Page 8, Packet Page 54 ALVARADO STREET MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 85-1
Estimated Costs for FY 2026-2027
3/27/26

ACCOUNT ENGINEER'S BUDGET
Personnel
Wages $23,310.56
Benefits $18,648.45
SUBTOTAL $41,959.01
Operating supplies 4205 $2,800.00
Contractual services 4220 $74,901.00
Lighting 4236 $3,800.00
City truck 4621 $1,140.00
SUBTOTAL $82,641.00
Capital Outlay - Special Projects 4285 $8,500.00
SUBTOTAL $8,500.00
General Benefit Charges
Tree Maintenance $8,500.00
Spot Maintenance $12,000.00
Hydrojetting $4,200.00
Street Maintenance $18,000.00
SUBTOTAL $42,700.00
TOTAL $175,800.01
($42,700.00)
$133,100.01
$4.09
Total LF of Frontage = 2713.35 LF
Contractual 4220 $7,126.00
$49,275.00
$3,600.00
$14,900.00
$74,901.00
Capital Outlay - Special Projects $5,000.00
$3,000.00
$500.00
$8,500.00
Hope Services
Basic Assessment District Cost: Provides current level of service for sidewalk cleaning and grounds maintenance, and allows the ability to pursue additional Capital Outlay.

General Benefit Charges Covered by the City
Net amount to be assessed
Cost per LF/month
Sign repair
TOTAL
Sidewalk cleaning (27)
Assessment Dist. Coordinator
Landscaping/Watering
TOTAL
Tree lights maintenance
Supplies
PART A

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 5., Item Page 9, Packet Page 55 Assessment
Number Assessor Parcel Number Alvarado St. Frontage (ft) Percentage of Total
Alvarado St. Frontage Annual Assessment
1 001-572-019 123.83 4.56% $6,074.33
2 001-572-003 53.28 1.96% $2,613.58
3 001-572-004 111.24 4.10% $5,456.74
4 001-572-030 19.95 0.74% $978.62
5 001-572-029 52.75 1.94% $2,587.59
6 001-572-028 53.94 1.99% $2,645.96
7 001-572-009 52 1.92% $2,550.80
8 001-572-010 52.05 1.92% $2,553.25
9 001-572-020 25.26 0.93% $1,239.10
10 001-572-021 43.57 1.61% $2,137.27
11 001-572-013 67.5 2.49% $3,311.13
12 001-572-022 33.72 1.24% $1,654.09
13 001-572-025 92.8 3.42% $4,552.19
14 001-572-017 20 0.74% $981.08
15 001-385-005 31 1.14% $1,520.67
16 001-385-002 106.48 3.92% $5,223.24
17 001-385-001 101.72 3.75% $4,989.75
18 001-567-019 269.2 9.92% $13,205.27
19 001-567-014 380.49 14.02% $18,664.46
20 001-386-001 194.01 7.15% $9,516.92
21 001-386-002 40 1.47% $1,962.15
22 001-386-003 50 1.84% $2,452.69
23 001-388-001 70.5 2.60% $3,458.29
24 001-573-015 27.15 1.00% $1,331.81
25 001-573-006 86.98 3.21% $4,266.70
26 001-573-005 50 1.84% $2,452.69
27 001-573-003 21 0.77% $1,030.13
28 001-573-002 23.25 0.86% $1,140.50
29 001-573-012 36.25 1.34% $1,778.20
30 001-574-011 30 1.11% $1,471.61
31 001-574-028 82.6 3.04% $4,051.84
32 001-574-029 115.94 4.27% $5,687.29
33 001-574-030 64.99 2.40% $3,188.00
34 001-574-004 19.92 0.73% $977.15
35 001-574-016 49.04 1.81% $2,405.60
36 001-574-012 60.94 2.25% $2,989.34
Totals 2713.35 100.00% $133,100.01
FY 26/27 Assessment will be $4.09/LF/month
ALVARADO STREET MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 85-1
Annual Assessment for FY 2026/2027
PART B

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 5., Item Page 10, Packet Page 56 PART C

METHOD OF ALLOCATING COSTS ON THE BASIS OF BENEFIT
ALVARADO STREET MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 85-1
FISCAL YEAR 2026/2027
The method utilized to allocate the costs associated with the benefits of the district shall be based upon lineal footage of frontage. The total cost necessary to be collected will be divided by the total frontage of the district. This will result in a cost per lineal foot. This amount will be multiplied by the lineal footage of each property frontage on Alvarado Street and Alvarado Mall.

The cost per lineal foot of frontage for the FY 2026/2027 is $4.09 per month.

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 5., Item Page 11, Packet Page 57 # APN PARCEL ADDRESS OWNER NAME
1 001-572-019 486 Alvarado Street Postolica Zenaida & Danut 221 Asilomar Ave Pacific Grove, CA 93950 2 001-572-003 482 Alvarado Street Chyr Robert TR 3436 Peachwillow Ln Walnut Creek, CA 94958 3 001-572-004 464 Alvarado Street Tyler Taren TR ET AL PO Box 87 Monterey, CA 93940 4 001-572-030 462 Alvarado Street Davi Anthony G TR PO Box 2350 Monterey, CA 93940 5 001-572-029 458 Alvarado Street Davi Anthony G TR PO Box 2350 Monterey, CA 93940 6 001-572-028 452 Alvarado Street Davi Anthony G TR PO Box 2350 Monterey, CA 93940 7 001-572-009 440 Alvarado Street Bonifacio Plaza Associates 801 Lighthouse Ave, Suite 109 Monterey, CA 93940 8 001-572-010 434 Alvarado Street Teaby John E & Moraz Andrea TRS 57 Castro Road Monterey, CA 93940 9 001-572-020 432 Alvarado Street Silacci Family Investment LLC 110 John Street Salinas, CA 93901 10 001-572-021 426 Alvarado Street FRE 553 LLC PO Box 5903 Carmel, CA 93921 11 001-572-013 416 Alvarado Street Singh Dheeraj & Suvarna 6590 Tam Oshanter Drive San Jose, CA 95120 12 001-572-022 414 Alvarado Street Sanchez Adobe LLC 39 Wharf No 1 Monterey, CA 93940 13 001-572-025 406 Alvarado Street PRI LLC 2905 Burton Drive Cambria, CA 93428 14 001-572-017 400 Alvarado Street JMDJ Company 165 West Franklin Street Monterey, CA 93940 15 001-385-005 398 Alvarado Street Ordway Buildings LLC 888 Munras Avenue, Suite 200 Monterey, CA 93940 16 001-385-002 351 Calle Principal City of Monterey 580 Pacific Street Monterey, CA 93940 17 001-385-001 316 Alvarado Street JMDJ Company 165 West Franklin Street Monterey, CA 93940 18 001-567-019 2 Portola Plaza Custom House Hotel Co LTD 2 Portola Plaza Monterey, CA 93940 19 001-567-014 201 Alvarado Street Custom House Hotel Co LTD 2 Portola Plaza Monterey, CA 93940 20 001-386-001 301 Alvarado Street Paseo De Alvarado Associates PO Box 2350 Monterey, CA 93942 21 001-386-002 399 Alvarado Street WFC Holdings Corporation PO Box 2609 Carlsbad, CA 92018 22 001-386-003 399 Alvarado Street WFC Holdings Corporation PO Box 2609 Carlsbad, CA 92018 23 001-388-001 401 Alvarado Street 401 Alvarado LLC 101 Laurel Street San Franciso, CA 94118 24 001-573-015 409 Alvarado Street JMDJ Company 165 West Franklin Street Monterey, CA 93940 25 001-573-006 417 Alvarado Street Monterey Historical Development LLC 417 Alvarado Street Monterey, CA 93940 26 001-573-005 423 Alvarado Street Carmel TDK LLC 25459 Carmel Knolls Drive Carmel, CA 93921 27 001-573-003 429 Alvarado Street Davi Anthony G TR PO Box 2350 Monterey, CA 93940 28 001-573-002 435 Alvarado Street Beck Stuart B & Ivancko D TRS PO Box 87 Monterey, CA 93942 29 001-573-012 439 Alvarado Street Faia Tina Davi & Davi Real Estate LLC 8 Sommerset Rise Monterey, CA 93940 30 001-574-011 447 Bonifacio Place Saucito Land Company 447 Bonifacio Pl Monterey, CA 93940 31 001-574-028 449 Alvarado Street Holman Building Associates LP ET AL 2 Dorey Way Monterey, CA 93940 32 001-574-029 459 Alvarado Street Saucito Land Company PO Box 87 Monterey, CA 93942 33 001-574-030 475 Alvarado Street Saucito Land Company PO Box 87 Monterey, CA 93942 34 001-574-004 481 Alvarado Street John A Crivello Family Partners LP PO Box 3311 Monterey, CA 93942 35 001-574-016 487 Alvarado Street Churchill Monica M TR 124 Soledad Drive Monterey, CA 93940 36 001-574-012 499 Alvarado Street Davi Real Estate LLC & Its Hot Outside LLC 484 Washington St STE D Monterey, CA 93940

MAILING ADDRESS
ALVARADO MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 85-1
2026
PART D

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 5., Item Page 12, Packet Page 58 ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS MAP.DWG SCALE: DEPARTMENT OF PLANS AND PUBLIC WORKS CITY OF MONTEREY NO. DATE REVISION DATE: SHEET: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: CAD DWG NAME: TEL: 831.646.3921 WEBSITE: WWW.MONTEREY.ORG 580 PACIFIC STREET, MONTEREY, CA 93940 SHEET 1 OF 1 ALVARADO STREET PART E MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 85-1 ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 85-1 - PART E - ALVARADO ST - C1 SWJFG JFG C-1 APR 19, 2016 NOT TO SCALE 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 27 28 33 32 31 30 29 34 36 35 13 14 15 16 17 18 12 10 11 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8CALLE PRINCIPAL ALVARADO STREET TYLER STREET

BONIFACIO PLACE

FRANKLIN STREET

DEL MONTE AVENUE PEARL STREET
PACIFIC STREET ASSESSMENT NUMBER ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER FRONTAGE (FT) 1 001-572-019 123.83 2 001-572-003 53.28 3 001-572-004 111.24 4 001-572-030 19.95 5 001-572-029 52.75 6 001-572-028 53.94 7 001-572-009 52.0 8 001-572-010 52.05 9 001-572-020 25.26 10 001-572-021 43.57 11 001-572-013 67.5 12 001-572-022 33.72 13 001-572-025 92.6 14 001-572-017 20 15 001-385-005 31 16 001-385-002 106.48 17 001-385-001 101.72 18 001-567-019 269.20 19 001-567-014 380.49 20 001-386-001 194.01 21 001-386-002 40 22 001-386-003 50 23 001-388-001 70.3 24 001-573-015 27.15 25 001-573-006 86.98 26 001-573-005 50 27 001-573-003 21 28 001-573-002 23.25 29 001-573-012 36.25 30 001-574-011 30 31 001-574-028 82.6 32 001-574-029 115.94 33 001-574-030 64.99 34 001-574-004 19.92 35 001-574-016 49.04 36 001-574-012 60.94 LEGEND ASSESSMENT DISTRICT BOUNDARY PROPERTY BOUNDARY # ASSESSMENT NUMBER PART E EXHIBIT A Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 5., Item Page 13, Packet Page 59 Council
Agenda Report
№12/25
FROM: David J. Hober, Chief of Police
Prepared By: Alma A. Murphy, Senior Administrative Analyst SUBJECT: Authorize the Police Chief to Execute a Memorandum of Understanding with the Cities of Del Rey Oaks, Sand City, and Pacific Grove for California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System Services (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council authorize the Chief of Police to
execute the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
outlining a collaborative relationship between the
Monterey Police Department (MPD) and the Cities of
Del Rey Oaks Police Department (DROPD), Sand City
Police Department (SCPD), and Pacific Grove Police
Department (PGPD), for the purpose of providing
California Law Enforcement Telecommunications
System (CLETS) coverage for these agencies.

VALUE DRIVERS:

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

It is within the Council’s purview to authorize the Chief of Police to execute new MOUs outlining a collaborative
relationship between the MPD and the DROPD, SCPD,
and PGPD. It is consistent with the City Council’s Value Drivers and Quality of Life and Fiscal Stewardship
Strategic Priorities: Recognize that public safety is a priority to ensure that our city is safe and welcoming to all, contributing to our economic vitality as a destination City; consider appropriate revenue enhancements to support City services and operations.

Agenda Report Highlights
• The Chief of Police is seeking
authorization to execute a
Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) with Del Rey Oaks, Sand
City, and Pacific Grove.
• The purpose of the MOU is to
provide California Law Enforcement
Telecommunications System
(CLETS) coverage for these
neighboring agencies.
• The Monterey Police Department
will handle time-sensitive data
entries, modifications, and
cancellations to ensure compliance
with CLETS procedures.
• The City will receive initial revenue
of $7,500, followed by $2,500 per
agency for every subsequent batch
of 30 entries.
• This partnership aims to enhance
regional public safety and
operational support while providing
revenue to support City services.

Date: 4/21/2026
Item No.: 6.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 6., Item Page 1, Packet Page 60 №12/25
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

Initial revenue to the City will be $7,500 upon execution of all three MOUs. Thereafter, revenue of $2,500 will be received on a per-agency, per-batch basis as subsequent batches of 30 entries are submitted. The $2,500 fee resets at the start of each fiscal year regardless of the number of remaining entries in the current 30-entry batch.

Agency Cost per batch (30 entries) Revenue to the City
Del Rey Oaks Police Dept. $2,500.00 $2,500.00 per 30 entries Pacific Grove Police Dept. $2,500.00 $2,500.00 per 30 entries Sand City Police Dept. $2,500.00 $2,500.00 per 30 entries Total: Three (3) agencies $7,500.00 $7,500 initial revenue ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

Council could choose not to authorize the Chief of Police to execute the MOUs; however, this is not recommended. Declining to do so would forgo revenue-enhancement opportunities for the City and preclude the establishment of cooperative partnerships with neighboring jurisdictions aligned with shared goals and community needs.

DISCUSSION:

The proposed MOUs are intended to promote public safety and reduce adverse community impacts in and around the City of Monterey. Partnering with these agencies provides mutual benefits in terms of operational support, enhanced safety outcomes, and financial considerations. Under these MOUs, the MPD will provide CLETS coverage during agencyspecific hours. CLETS coverage responsibilities include time-sensitive entries, locates, modifications, and cancellations, ensuring compliance with the CLETS Policies, Practices, and Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 6., Item Page 2, Packet Page 61 №12/25
Procedures. The MPD will exercise reasonable discretion in a manner consistent with applicable laws and the protection of confidential information and recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution authorizing the Chief of Police to execute the MOUs.

DJH/am
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, 4/21/2026, Item No. 6., Item Page 3, Packet Page 62 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

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

AUTHORIZING THE CHIEF OF POLICE TO EXECUTE NEW MEMORANDUMS OF

UNDERSTANDING WITH THE CITIES OF DEL REY OAKS, PACIFIC GROVE, AND

SAND CITY FOR CALIFORNIA LAW ENFORCEMENT TELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM

SERVICES (CLETS)
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey Police Department aims to promote a collaborative partnership with neighboring cities, promoting public safety and revenue enhancements for the City by providing CLETS coverage for these agencies;
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 the above recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated and adopted as findings of the City Council as if fully set forth herein.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby authorizes the Chief of Police to execute the Memorandums of Understanding with the Cities of Del Rey Oaks, Pacific Grove, and Sand City for the purpose of providing California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System services. The MOUs remain in effect until modified or terminated by either party with 30 days’ written notice.

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, 4/21/2026, Item No. 6., Item Page 4, Packet Page 63 Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 6., Item Page 5, Packet Page 64 Council
Agenda Report
№11/25
FROM: Rafaela T. King, CPA, Finance Director
SUBJECT: Authorize Agreement to Transfer $7,269,813 Held in Escrow for the Benefit of the City of Monterey and the City of Del Rey Oaks for the South Boundary Road Project Into an Interest Bearing Escrow Account (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council authorize the City Manager to
execute an agreement to transfer $7,269,813 from the
Escrow Trust account held with Fidelity National Title
Company designated for the South Boundary Road
project into an interest-bearing escrow account selected by the City’s Finance Director.

VALUE DRIVERS:

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Timely election and maintaining long-term financial
stability for the City supports Council’s Value Driver of “Working to improve the quality of life of our residents.

The Council is committed to ensuring that Monterey
retains its special character, which derives from its
heritage, size and location. The Council also is
committed to ensuring that Monterey remains a safe and
welcoming place to live, work and visit.”

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE
ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

This action will allow for the transfer of $7,269,813 designated by the Fort Ord Reuse Authority (“FORA”) for construction of the South Boundary Road project from the established escrow account held with Fidelity National Title Company to a designated interest-bearing escrow account as determined by the Finance Director.

Agenda Report Highlights
• Staff recommends that the City
Council authorize the transfer of
$7,269,813 from a non-interestbearing account into an interestbearing escrow account • The funds were originally allocated
by the now-dissolved Fort Ord
Reuse Authority (FORA) for the
construction and planning of the
South Boundary Road project.
• As joint signatories for the project,
the cities of Monterey and Del Rey
Oaks are seeking this transfer to
better manage the project's financial
resources while construction is
pending.
• Use of these funds is strictly limited
to costs associated with project
plans, specifications, bid
documents, and construction,
including related legal and
administrative fees.

Date: 4/21/2026
Item No.: 7.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 7., Item Page 1, Packet Page 65 №11/25
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The South Boundary Road Project was previously approved by the FORA Board of Directors.

Specifically, in August 2010, the FORA Board approved an initial study and mitigated negative declaration for the South Boundary Road Project. FORA filed a Notice of Determination (NOD) for the Project on August 17, 2010. Any subsequent discretionary approvals required for the South Boundary Road project will be assessed for CEQA applicability at the time of the approvals.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

Council could choose not to authorize the transfer of funds held in escrow for the South Boundary Road Project into an interest-bearing escrow account; however, that is not advised.

BACKGROUND:

FORA was established in 1994 under California law to plan, facilitate and manage the transfer of former Fort Ord property from the Army to the governing local jurisdictions. FORA dissolved on June 30, 2020.

In 2010, FORA approved a project to realign and improve South Boundary Road (the South Boundary Road Project”) and approved an initial study and mitigated negative declaration for the project.

FORA was unable to proceed with the South Boundary Road Project for several years due to funding constraints. In 2017, FORA hired Whitson Engineers to prepare final plans and provide construction management services for the Project as well as the General Jim Moore Boulevard/South Boundary Road intersection improvement project. As of June 2020, Whitson had not completed the final construction plans and specifications.

Prior to dissolution, FORA allocated funds in its budget to mostly fund the South Boundary Road Project ($7,269,813). Given that FORA would dissolve prior to completion of the project, FORA’s Executive Officer was authorized to fund an escrow account with Fidelity National Title Company to hold and disburse funds designated by the FORA board for this transportation improvement project.

The FORA Board approved the escrow terms on March 12, 2020, and the City of Del Rey Oaks approved them on March 24, 2020. Under the adopted escrow agreement, the cities of Del Rey Oaks and Monterey were appointed signatories for the South Boundary Road Project escrow Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 7., Item Page 2, Packet Page 66 №11/25
account as the Project spans both cities. Eligible uses for the South Boundary Road escrow funds are for costs related to completion of plans and specifications, bid documents, and construction, as well as related administrative and legal costs. If construction is not started within ten years of the creation of the escrow account or if there are remaining funds postconstruction, then the funds shall be distributed in equal share (20% each) to the County of Monterey and cities of Monterey, Del Rey Oaks, Seaside, and Marina.

Staff for the City of Del Rey Oaks and the City of Monterey are developing a proposed agreement to structure implementation of and oversight for the South Boundary Road Project.

The proposed agreement will be considered by both City Councils upon completion. In order to preserve the City’s ability in the future to use the $7,269,813 FORA allocated for the South Boundary Road project, staff recommended authorization to enter into an escrow agreement with the City of Del Rey Oaks on the terms outlined above. Since FORA is no longer an entity, it is unable to enter into this agreement.

DISCUSSION:

On June 2, 2020, the City of Monterey council authorized the City Manager to enter into the escrow agreement with the Fort Ord Reuse Authority (FORA) and the City of Del Rey Oaks to transfer $7,269,813 for the South Boundary Road Project into an escrow account with Fidelity National Title Company. (Reso 20-076)
At this time, the project has not started, no funds have been spent, and the funds remain in the escrow account. The City of Del Rey Oaks and the City of Monterey as joint signatories would like to transfer the funds ($7,269,813) from Fidelity National Title Company into an interestbearing escrow account. The original terms of the agreement with FORA, as noted above, remain intact. Namely, if the construction is not started within ten years of creation of the escrow account or if there are remaining funds post-construction, then the funds shall be distributed in equal share (20% each) to the County of Monterey and cities of Monterey, Del Rey Oaks, Seaside, and Marina.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommend Council approve the transfer of the funds from the noninterest-bearing escrow account into in interest bearing escrow account, authorize the finance director to determine the most appropriate firm, and the City Manager to sign all documents to execute the escrow agreement.

RTK
Attachments: 1. Resolution
c: Scott Donaldson, Del Rey Oaks Mayor
John Guertin, Del Rey Oaks City Manager
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 7., Item Page 3, Packet Page 67 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№011/24
AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT TO TRANSFER $7,269,813 HELD IN ESCROW FOR THE

BENEFIT OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY AND THE CITY OF DEL REY OAKS FOR THE

SOUTH BOUNDARY ROAD PROJECT INTO AN INTEREST-BEARING ESCROW ACCOUNT WHEREAS, in 2010, the Fort Ord Reuse Authority (“FORA”) Board of Directors approved a project to realign and improve South Boundary Road (the “South Boundary Road Project”) and approved an initial study and mitigated negative declaration for the project; WHEREAS, in 2017 FORA hired Whitson Engineers to prepare final plans and provide construction management services for the Project as well as the General Jim Moore Boulevard/South Boundary Road intersection improvement project. As of June 2020, Whitson, had not completed the final construction plans and specifications., FORA allocated funds in its budget to mostly fund the South Boundary Road Project ($7,269,813) and to fully fund the General Jim Moore Boulevard/South Boundary Road intersection improvement project; WHEREAS, pursuant to state law of FORA ceased to exist on June 30, 2020. Given that FORA would dissolve prior to completion of the project, FORA’s Executive Officer was authorized to fund an escrow account with Fidelity National Title Company to hold and disburse funds designated by the FORA board for this transportation improvement project; WHEREAS, the cities of Del Rey Oaks and Monterey are signatories for the South Boundary Road Project escrow account as the Project spans both cities. Eligible uses for the escrow funds are for costs related to completion of plans, and specifications, bid documents, and construction, as well as related administrative and legal costs; WHEREAS, if construction is not started within ten years of the creation of the escrow account or if there are remaining funds post-construction, then the funds shall be distributed in equal share (20% each) to the County of Monterey and cities of Monterey, Del Rey Oaks, Seaside, and Marina;
WHEREAS, on June 2, 2020, the City of Monterey council authorized the City Manager to enter into the escrow agreement with the Fort Ord Reuse Authority (FORA) and the City of Del Rey Oaks to transfer $7,269,813 for the South Boundary Road Project into an escrow account with Fidelity National Title Company;
WHEREAS, the project has not started, no funds have been spent, and the funds remain in the escrow account. The City of Del Rey Oaks and the City of Monterey as joint signatories would like to transfer the funds ($7,269,813) from Fidelity National Title Company into an interest-bearing escrow account. The original terms of the agreement with FORA, as noted above, remain intact; 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 Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 7., Item Page 4, Packet Page 68 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.

The South Boundary Road Project was previously approved by the FORA Board of Directors.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby authorizes the City Manager, or designee, to execute an agreement to transfer the $7,269,813 from the escrow trust account held with Fidelity National Title Company designated for the South Boundary Road project into an interest-bearing escrow account as determined by the Finance Director.

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

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 7., Item Page 5, Packet Page 69 Council
Agenda Report
№12/25
FROM: Brian Edwards, Library & Museums Director
SUBJECT: Approve Deaccession of 22 Objects and Artwork from City Museums Collection (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council approve the list of deaccession of artwork and furniture from the Museums & Cultural Arts
Collection.

VALUE DRIVERS:

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

City Council approval is required for approval of the
Museums & Cultural Arts Commission recommendation
to deaccession items per Museums and Cultural Arts
Collection Policy, Council Resolution No. 08-038 C.S.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE
ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

Per the Museums & Cultural Arts Collection Policy, all
funds from the sale or auction of all deaccessions items shall be deposited to the Museums Trust Fund and used
solely for the acquisitions or preservation of Museum
collections.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey determined that the proposed
action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on Agenda Report Highlights
• Staff is requesting City Council
approval to deaccession 22 objects
and pieces of artwork from the
Museums & Cultural Arts Collection.
• The items include one piece of
artwork currently at the Monterey
Conference Center and various nonhistoric chairs and benches from Colton Hall.
• Criteria for removal include objects
being outside the collection's scope,
deteriorating, or exceeding the
staff's resources for proper
maintenance and storage.
• Proceeds from any sale or auction
of these items must be deposited
into the Museums Trust Fund to be
used specifically for future
acquisitions or preservation.
• The Museums and Cultural Arts
Commission reviewed and approved
this recommendation during their
meeting on March 5, 2026.

Date: 4/21/2026
Item No.: 8.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 1, Packet Page 70 №12/25
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 approve the Museums & Cultural Arts Commission recommendation, but that is not recommended.

DISCUSSION:

The City of Monterey Museums & Cultural Arts has an extensive collection of art and objects throughout the City on public display and in storage. The Library & Museums Director and Artifact Specialist have reviewed collections that were on display at Colton Hall and artwork from the Monterey Conference Center renovation. Items identified are consistent with the Collections Policy in that they are either outside of the scope, deteriorating, or staff lack the resources to house, maintain, or preserve the object.

In 2017, artwork was removed during the Monterey Conference Center renovation project.

Artwork that was deemed outside of the scope was auctioned or transferred in accordance with the Collections Policy (Reso 17-145). One piece of artwork was not sold and is again recommended for deaccession. The piece Welcomed Coast is currently on display at the Monterey Conference Center and the Conference Center prefers to remove this from their public art collection. Museums staff do not have the resources to permanently store or perform necessary maintenance on this object.

In 2025, the Museums division received a Community Foundation for Monterey County grant to update displays and furniture inside of Colton Hall. New chairs were added for public use during programs and educational tours, and historically accurate benches and chairs were kept inside Colton Hall. Chairs that were functionally broken and not historically accurate were removed from Colton Hall as they impeded access and could not be used by the public. Chairs and benches identified for removal were primarily purchased by City of Monterey for use inside of Colton Hall Museum. These chairs are not historically accurate and are not recommended for use inside Colton Hall. These chairs are also not suitable for use in an office setting.

The Museums and Cultural Arts Commission (MCAC) approved the recommendation to deaccession the items in accordance with the Collection Policy (Reso 08-038 C.S.) at the March 05, 2026 Commission meeting. Commissioners approved that the Objects identified for removal be deaccessioned and recommended that specific items be offered to an appropriate agency in accordance with the Policy. Staff identifies that items will continue to deteriorate without proper long-term storage or maintenance, which will impact limited Museums department Trust Fund and General Fund.

BE
Attachments: 1. List of items recommend for deaccession

2. Council Resolution No. 08-038 C.S.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 2, Packet Page 71 №12/25
e: Museums and Cultural Arts Commission
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 3, Packet Page 72 ATTACHMENT 1
Museums and Cultural Arts Deaccession List -- April 2026 1951.PBS.005d Chair, Captain’s (Deteriorating Condition - Broken) Recommended disposal method: public auction or sale or disposal 1958.PBS.060 Chair (Not from Colton Hall – outside of scope) Recommended disposal method: public auction or sale
1958.011.001 thong-bottom straight chair (Not from Colton Hall – outside of scope) Recommended disposal method: public auction or sale Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 4, Packet Page 73 ATTACHMENT 1
1958.011.002 thong-bottom straight chair (Not from Colton Hall – outside of scope) Recommended disposal method: public auction or sale 1960.002.001 chair, cane bottom (Not original to Merrit desk, Not in Scope) Recommended disposal method: public auction or sale Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 5, Packet Page 74 ATTACHMENT 1
1965.008.004a Chair, Dining (Not from Colton Hall – outside of scope) Recommended disposal method: public auction or sale
1965.008.004b Chair, Dining (Not from Colton Hall – outside of scope) Recommended disposal method: public auction or sale
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 6, Packet Page 75 ATTACHMENT 1
1965.008.008a Pennsylvania style bench (outside of scope - not original to Monterey or Colton Hall) Recommended disposal method: public auction or sale, or exchange or transfer
1965.008.008b Pennsylvania style bench (outside of scope - not original to Monterey or Colton Hall) Recommended disposal method: public auction or sale, or exchange or transfer
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 7, Packet Page 76 ATTACHMENT 1
1962.003.001 Antique Meeting House Bench (outside of scope - not from Colton Hall or Monterey) Recommended disposal method: public auction or sale or exchange/transfer
2006.001.001 chair (Not from Colton Hall – outside of scope) Recommended disposal method: public auction or sale
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 8, Packet Page 77 ATTACHMENT 1
17th century German Table (outside of collection scope) Recommended disposal method: public auction or sale
1968.101.001 Rolltop Desk (Lack resource to house and maintain) Recommended disposal method: public auction or sale
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 9, Packet Page 78 ATTACHMENT 1
Rolltop Desk (outside of scope, deteriorating condition, duplicate item) Recommended disposal method: public auction or sale
1975.010.001 “Abraham Lincoln” Artist: Unknown (Outside of scope) Recommended disposal method: public auction or sale
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 10, Packet Page 79 ATTACHMENT 1
1977.209.001 “Flying Object” Artist: Savo, Joan (Lack resource to house and maintain) Recommended disposal method: public auction or sale 1977.212.001 “Silver Collage/Wharf” Artist: Gonzalez, Alex (Lack resource to house and maintain) Recommended disposal method: public auction or sale
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 11, Packet Page 80 ATTACHMENT 1
1977.213.001 “Welcomed Coast” Artist: Wilce, Leroy (Lack resource to house and maintain) Recommended disposal method: public auction or sale
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 12, Packet Page 81 ATTACHMENT 1
1984.206.001 “Thrust” Wool Tapestry Artist: Ferrini-Tuttle, Ilene (Lack resource to house and maintain) Recommended disposal method: public auction or sale
1992.PBS.001 Path of History Mural (Lack resource to house, preserve and maintain) Recommended disposal method: transfer or exchange 2006.501.365 “City of Monterey Aerial View 1978” (Lack resource to house and maintain) Recommended disposal method: transfer or exchange Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 13, Packet Page 82 ATTACHMENT 1
“Narrows of Escalante” Artists: Sylvia & Roger Lovell-Cooper (Approved for deaccession in 2016 - Lack resource to house and maintain) Recommended disposal method: public auction or sale
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 14, Packet Page 83 RESOLUTION NO. 08-038 C.S.

RESOLUTION ADOPTING CITY OF MONTEREY

MUSEUM AND CULTURAL ARTS DIVISION COLLECTION POLICY
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY RESOLVES that property for the City of Monterey Museums and Art Collection shall be acquired and managed in accordance with the Charter and ordinances of the City of Monterey and the laws of the State of California, and shall conform to the following policy:

1. Scope of Museum Collections
The City of Monterey Museums shall acquire, preserve, manage, and interpret artifacts, documents, books, and art objects documenting the history, culture, and artistic representation of the City of Monterey. Artifacts and art objects created in or depicting the Monterey area (Santa Cruz, San Benito, and Monterey counties) and early California are acquired if they document the history and culture of the City of Monterey. Significant art objects created in or representing other parts of the State of California may be acquired if they illuminate the history and culture of the Monterey Area. Art objects may also be acquired for installation in public places based on policies and procedures established by the Colton Hall Museum and Cultural Arts Commission.

Acquisitions are the property of the City of Monterey, held in public trust by the Museums for the City of Monterey.

In this policy, Museums refers to the Colton Hall Museum and the Old Jail, The Presidio of Monterey Museum, Pacific Biological Laboratory, the Workers Shacks, the City of Monterey Art Collection, and all related art, artifact, and document collections managed by the City of Monterey Museum and Cultural Arts Division.

2. Collection Objectives
A. Colton Hall Museum and the Old Jail
The primary purpose of the Colton Hall Museum of the City of Monterey is to preserve the buildings, Colton Hall and the Old Jail, and to interpret their significance in the history of the City of Monterey, in California, and in the United States. In addition, the Museum will interpret the culture, life, history and art of the City of Monterey and its environs. (Monterey City Code Sec. 21-2) 1 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 15, Packet Page 84 Because Colton Hall was the first publicly funded American building in California and the site of the 1849 California Constitutional Convention, emphasis is placed on the American period of the City of Monterey, from 1846 to the present.

The collection includes artifacts and documents:
1) Pertaining to the buildings, Colton Hall and the Old Jail. 2) Pertaining to the 1849 Constitutional Convention, including individual delegates and their families.
3) Pertaining to the history of the City of Monterey from 1846 to the present. 4) Reflecting the lives and perspectives of the residents of Monterey from its settlement to the present.

The collection includes artifacts and documents housed and exhibited in Colton Hall and the Old Jail as well as other artifacts and documents within the scope and objectives stated in this policy which may support or enhance future exhibits or programs of the Colton Hall Museum and the Old Jail.

B. Presidio of Monterey Museum
Because the Presidio of Monterey Museum is located in the Lower Presidio Historic Park, emphasis is placed on activities in the Presidio of Monterey area during the Native American, Spanish, Mexican, and American periods and on military activities in the City of Monterey.

The collection includes artifacts and documents housed and exhibited in Presidio of Monterey Museum as well as other artifacts and documents within the scope and objectives stated in this policy which may support or enhance future exhibits or programs of the Presidio of Monterey Museum.

C. Pacific Biological Laboratory and the Workers Shacks The Pacific Biological Laboratory building on Cannery Row was Edward F. Ricketts' home and business and a meeting place for Ricketts and several historically significant associates. Since Ricketts' death in 1948, a second group of local artists and other notables have used the building as a meeting place. The Workers Shacks on Bruce Ariss Way recreate the living conditions of cannery workers during the first half of the 20th century. The collection includes artifacts and documents on:
1) The history of the fishing and canning industries in all periods of Monterey history.
2) Cannery Row.
3) Edward F. Ricketts, John Steinbeck, and their associates.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 16, Packet Page 85 4) The Pacific Biological Laboratory group.
5) Activities in the Laboratory since Ricketts moved his business to the property in 1928.

The collection includes City-owned artifacts and documents located in the buildings as well as other artifacts and documents within the scope and objectives stated in this policy which may support or enhance future exhibits or programs interpreting the Laboratory and Cannery Row.

D. City of Monterey Art Collection
The City of Monterey Art Collection includes:
1) Works by Monterey area artists or representing the Monterey area, and unusually significant works by other California artists and/or representing other parts of California if they illuminate the history and culture of the Monterey area. 2) Recognized artwork in public places acquired to increase the understanding and enjoyment of art by presenting a variety of styles and themes, and to enhance the area by recognizing and promoting the unique cultures and environment of the Monterey region. The Colton Hall Museum and Cultural Arts Commission will establish policies and procedures for any public art acquisitions.

3. Acquisition Policy
A. Acquisition Criteria
Art and artifacts must meet the following criteria before being acquired by the City of Monterey:
1) The acquisition must conform to the scope and objectives stated in this policy. 2) The present owner must have clear title.
3) Any donor, seller, or creator restrictions on the use, display or disposition of acquired art and artifacts must be approved in advance by the Museum and Cultural Arts Manager.
4) Museum and Cultural Arts Division staff must have evaluated the proposed acquisition based on on professional curatorial judgment regarding relevance of the objects to the Collection Objectives, relation to other objects already in the collection, and the physical condition of the object.
5) The Museum and Cultural Arts Division must have the resources and expertise to house, maintain and preserve the acquired object.

B. Authority
3 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 17, Packet Page 86 1) Art and artifacts for Colton Hall Museum, the Old Jail, and the City of Monterey Art Collection are acquired by authority of the Colton Hall Museum and Cultural Arts Commission. The Commission may delegate such authority to the Museum and Cultural Arts Manager, subject to such limitations as the Commission may impose.
2) Artifacts for the Presidio of Monterey Museum, Pacific Biological Laboratory, and the Workers Shacks are acquired by authority of the Museum and Cultural Arts Manager or designated staff in accordance with this policy.

C. Acquisition may be by any of the following means:
1) Gift or transfer
2) Bequest
3) Purchase
4) Reproduction for exhibit
5) Conversion of unclaimed loans
D. Acquisition by Gift or transfer
1) The City of Monterey solicits and accepts gifts of tangible personal property and transfers from other institutions or agencies. Gifts or transfers become the property of the City of Monterey. All gifts must be accompanied by a signed Contract of Gift,
2) Museum and Cultural Arts Division staff will make reasonable efforts to determine that the donor or transferring party has the legal right to give or transfer the object(s). In signing the Contract of Gift, the donor or transferring party warrants that they do have such a right.
3) Gifts or transfers shall be unconditional and without restriction except with the advance written approval of the Museum and Cultural Arts Manager. 4) Staff will provide donors with a receipt and a copy of the Contract of Gift for income tax purposes. However, no staff member shall offer estimates or appraisals of the monetary value of materials or objects to donors. Donors desiring to establish fair market value for tax purposes are encouraged to obtain an appraisal from a qualified independent appraiser. By special arrangement, staff may assist donors in obtaining an independent financial appraisal.

E. Acquisition by Bequest
1) Generally, the museums accept objects unconditionally and without restrictions.

If a bequest is made with restrictions, the Museum Division retains the right to ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 18, Packet Page 87 refuse the request based on this policy and the best interests of the City of Monterey.
2) Unless restrictions prohibit, the Museum Division reserves the right to accession all or part of bequests and to sell all or part of bequests based on this policy. 3) All proceeds resulting from the sale of objects acquired by bequest shall be deposited in the Museum Trust Fund.

F. Acquisition by Purchase
1) Art and artifacts may be purchased only after funding has been secured following City of Monterey ordinances, polices, and procedures.
2) Purchases of art and artifacts for the Museum Collections become the property of the City of Monterey regardless of the source of funds used for the purpose.

G. Acquisition by Reproduction
The Museum may arrange for reproduction of art or artifacts owned by another institution or individual(s) for study or display by written agreement with owners and copyright holders. If they meet the acquisitions criteria in this policy, such reproductions may be accessioned into the Museums' collections as permitted by the reproduction agreement.

H. Acquisition by Conversion of Unclaimed Loans
The Museums may have custody of objects which were acquired through expired loans or loans of unlimited duration. If lenders or their heirs cannot be contacted or do not act to reclaim loaned property following required notification, the City of Monterey may acquire title to such unclaimed property in compliance with the provisions of California Civil Code Sec. 1899.

I. Acquisition of Native American Art and Artifacts
The City of Monterey does not acquire human remains or associated funerary objects. Acquisition and deaccession of other Native American art and artifacts will be in compliance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.) and the California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (California Health and Safety Code Sec. 8010 et seq.) J. Loans to the Museums
Long-term or permanent loans to the Museums are not accepted. Short-term loans of objects for study or exhibit may be arranged in writing following established policies and procedures. Objects loaned to the Museums are not accessioned into the collections.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 19, Packet Page 88

4. Accession Policy
A. Accession
Accession is the formal process used to accept and record work of art and artifacts, thus incorporating them into the City of Monterey's permanent collection. All accessioned objects are acquired, but acquired objects are not accessioned if they are intended for temporary study and/or display.

B. Accession Records
The Museum and Cultural Arts Division will maintain permanent records of all accessions including all legal documents pertaining to the acquisition of each object accessioned. All permanent collection objects shall be accessioned and processed in compliance with this policy and procedures approved by the Museum and Cultural Arts Manager.

C. Acquisition of Copyrights
1) The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs reproduction and other uses of copyrighted material.
2) Reasonable efforts will be made to identify the holders of rights to objects acquired for the Museums collections. The City of Monterey will attempt to secure exclusive copyrights on all objects accessioned. When artists or other copyright holders are unwilling to relinquish their rights, the Museums may request nonexclusive or limited rights based on the intended use of the acquired object(s).
3) Museum and Cultural Arts Division staff may lack information on the copyright status of objects in the Museums collection. It is the customer's responsibility to secure legally required permissions for the use of Museums objects from the holders of any copyrights or other rights. Users are liable for any infringement.

Staff will assist customers by providing any available information. 4) Rights to reproduce or use art, artifacts, and documents in the Museums' collections for commercial purposes will be granted only if such use is consistent with the Museums' educational mission and if all required permissions have been obtained.
5) All requests to reproduce, exhibit, or make other use of art, artifacts, and documents in the Museum collections must be approved in writing by the Museum and Cultural Arts Manager or designated staff subject to donor or other restrictions and this policy.
6 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 20, Packet Page 89

5. Deaccession Policy
A. Deaccession and Disposal
Deaccession is the process by which the City of Monterey decides and declares that an object may be removed from the Museums collections. Disposal is the action taken regarding the object after a deaccession decision. Objects which have not been formally accessioned must be approved for disposal following this policy.

Deaccession of objects from the Museums collections is undertaken with prudence for the protection of the Museums, the City of Monterey which owns the collections, City staff, and the donors who provided the objects or funds to purchase the objects for the collections. The deaccession process shall be cautious, deliberate and scrupulous, and in conformance with the following policies and criteria:

B. Deaccession Criteria
Museum artifacts and art objects to be considered for deaccession must meet at least one of the following criteria:
1) The object is outside the scope of the Museums collections based on this policy. 2) The object is in irreversibly deteriorating condition or the Museum and Cultural Arts Division lacks the resources and expertise necessary to house, maintain and preserve the object.
3) Physical deterioration has removed the identifying characteristics of the object. 4) The object's authenticity has been conclusively disproved. 5) The object has been lost or stolen and has not been recovered after at least two years.
6) The object is a duplicate of another object already in the collection. 7) The object has inadvertently been accessioned more than once.

C. Deaccession Procedures
1) The Museum and Cultural Arts Manager may recommend deaccessioning an object if, in the Museum and Cultural Arts Manager's judgment, one or more criteria for deaccession have been met and deaccessioning the object is in the best interests of the Museums and the City of Monterey. The Museum and Cultural Arts Manager's recommendation will specify the source or provenance of the art or artifact, any relevant conditions or restrictions of acquisition, the reason deaccession is recommended, the estimated market value, and the recommended means of disposal.
7 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 21, Packet Page 90 2) The Museum and Cultural Arts Manager's recommendation will be submitted in writing to:
a. The Colton Hall Museum and Cultural Arts Commission for objects in the Colton Hall Museum and Old Jail, the City of Monterey Art Collection, and related collections.
b. The Library, Museum, and Cultural Arts Director for objects in the Presidio of Monterey Museum, Pacific Biological Laboratory, the Workers Shacks, and related collections.
3) The Colton Hall and Cultural Arts Commission or the Library, Museum, and Cultural Arts Director shall recommend approval or disapproval and designate the recommended means of disposal to the City Council for final action.

D. Disposal of deaccessioned objects
1) Disposal of deaccessioned objects may be by exchange with or transfer to an appropriate museum, library, or nonprofit organization, public auction, private sale, return to the donor, repatriation, or destruction in accordance with the policies and procedures of the City of Monterey and as approved by the City Council.
2) Sale at public auction is preferred over private sale. In cases where private sale is appropriate, the Museums will obtain an independent appraisal of the fair market value of all objects sold. Objects may be consigned to a dealer with the provision that the name of the City of Monterey Museums not be used in connection with the sale.
3) In unusual cases, items of religious or cultural sensitivity may be repatriated to cultural groups to meet legal requirements or cultural standards. 4) If objects deaccessioned by the Museums based on this policy retain significant value for the history and culture of the Monterey area, reasonable effort will be made to transfer such objects to a publicly accessible collection in the Monterey area.
5) Objects shall not be given, sold, or otherwise transferred publicly or privately, directly or indirectly, to Museum employees, members of the Colton Hall Museum and Cultural Arts Commission, other City of Monterey employees, officers or officials, or their immediate families or representatives. 6) All proceeds resulting from the deaccession of objects from the permanent collections of the museums or art collection shall be deposited in the Museum ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 22, Packet Page 91 Trust Fund and used solely for future acquisitions or preservation of Museum collections.

E. Deaccession and Disposal Records
The Museum and Cultural Arts Division will maintain permanent records of all deaccessions including all legal documents pertaining to the acquisition, deaccession, and disposal of each object deaccessioned.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this 19th day of February 2008, by the following votes:

AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Della Sala, Downey, Haferman, Selfridge, Sollecito
NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
APPROVED:
caL,A. crie.e& ,S7:0.420,
Mayor of said City
ATTEST:
9 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 23, Packet Page 92 Council
Agenda Report
№12/25
FROM: Brian Edwards, Library & Museums Director
SUBJECT: Approve Recommendation for Lower Presidio Historic Park Lease Operations (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council approve a recommendation for the
City’s Lease Agreement with the Army at the Lower
Presidio Historic Park.

VALUE DRIVERS:

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

City Council approval is required if chosen to terminate the lease early.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE
ACT) APPLIES: No, however, action to approve or
terminate a contract (lease) is subject to the Levine Act.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The City spends approximately $80,000 annually for
ongoing maintenance costs, including Museum restroom
cleaning and general park maintenance such as mowing
and litter control.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

Army for the Lower Presidio Historic
Park until a long-term management
solution is identified.
• Community and commission
feedback emphasized the
importance of maintaining public
access to the 25.15-acre site while
seeking federal protection.
• City staff and Congressman
Panetta’s office are pursuing a
Special Resource Study to evaluate
the park for potential inclusion in the
National Park Service.
• Ongoing annual maintenance for the
park, including restroom cleaning
and groundskeeping, costs the City
approximately $80,000.
• A planned retaining wall project for
slope stabilization along Lighthouse
Avenue will be managed and is
expected to be entirely funded by
the United States Army.

Date: 4/21/2026
Item No.: 9.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 1, Packet Page 93 №12/25
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 has expressed an interest in gathering public feedback about Lower Presidio Historic Park. Council could choose not to approve recommendation for the lease, but that is not recommended.

DISCUSSION:

The City of Monterey currently maintains a lease with the U.S. Army for public use of the Lower Presidio, a portion of the U.S. Army Garrison Presidio of Monterey. The lease term is from August 16, 1996 to September 30, 2046 for the 25.15 acre publicly accessible park. The City has the right to terminate the lease early by providing one year's prior written notice. It is within the City Council’s purview to discuss how it would like to approach gathering public feedback on the future of the Lower Presidio and the City’s Lease Agreement with the Army.

In 2021, the City was contacted by the Army related to slope stabilization and construction of a retaining wall along the Lighthouse curve. Maintenance and construction challenges on a historically and culturally sensitive archaeological site would require extensive consultation with both state (AB52) and federal (Section 106) regulatory requirements, along with fiscal challenges with the city. At the October 1, 2024 City Council meeting, the Library & Museums Director presented to City Council related to the lease operations, challenges and opportunities for the Lower Presidio Historic Park. At the March 18, 2025 City Council meeting, Council approved the staff process of soliciting feedback on Lower Presidio Historic Park and report back to Council. The process included creating a public survey, presenting at City commissions, and hosting a public program at the Presidio of Monterey Museum.

The Library & Museums Director presented on park operations, history, and challenges to each of the Parks & Recreation Commission, Museums & Cultural Arts Commission, and the Historic Preservation Commission. A representative from each of these three commissions attended a public meeting at the park on March 1, 2026. The public meeting included a tour of the park, historical significance, discussion on alternate management, and park operations. Three openended questions were facilitated by the commissioners and Library Director from the survey:

1. What types of features or amenities would you like to see at the Lower Presidio Historic Park? (Parks & Recreation Commission)

2. What types of historic or cultural programs would you like to see at this park? (Museums & Cultural Arts Commission)

3. What are your thoughts on another entity maintaining operations/access to the Park, other than the City of Monterey? (Historic Preservation Commission) The public survey was created in English and Spanish and open on “Have Your Say Monterey” between October 21, 2025 and March 2, 2026. The survey was highlighted in the City Focus newsletter, Monterey Matters email, library newsletter, and highlighted on the Have Your Say Monterey website. The survey and public meeting information was also sent to community partners and neighborhood representatives from Old Town and New Monterey.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 2, Packet Page 94 №12/25
During this time, the United States Army Garrison released a proposal for community feedback on building and funding a retaining wall to assist with the slope stabilization and erosion on the hillside. At the March 3, 2026 City Council meeting, Council approved the mayor signing a letter in support of the retaining wall construction on Lighthouse entering Pacific Street on Federal property. City staff have been in contact with the Army regarding this project, and the retaining wall project construction and consultation will be entirely federally funded and managed by the United States Army.

The Assistant City Manager and Library & Museums Director have been working with Congressman Panetta’s office on introducing a House Resolution (H.R.) for a Special Resource Study for the park. The Special Resource Study is the first step for the Secretary of the Interior to evaluate potential sites for inclusion in the National Park Services operations. As this site is historically significant and currently on the National Register of Historic Places, staff believe that National Parks Services operations would bring additional resources and funding to manage the site.

From community feedback, survey feedback, and input from commissioners the Library & Museums Director recommends that the City continue the lease with the Lower Presidio Historic Park until a long-term solution can be identified. Feedback consistently identified the need for continued public access to the Lower Presidio along with Federal protection of the site. Staff believe that the National Park Service and Secretary of Interior direction would provide longterm public access and management of the park.

BE
Attachments: 1. Have Your Say Monterey Survey Results
e: Parks and Recreation Commission
Historic Preservation Commission
Museums and Cultural Arts Commission
Old Monterey Foundation
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 3, Packet Page 95 Lower Presidio Historic Park Community Survey
1 / 24
Q1 How often do you visit Lower Presidio Historic Park? ¿Con qué frecuencia visitas el Parque Histórico Lower Presidio?
Answered: 95 Skipped: 0
Never / Nunca
Rarely (a few times a year)
/ Raramente (algunas
veces al año)
Occasionally (once a
month) / Ocasionalmente
(una vez al mes)
Frequently (weekly or
more) / Frecuentemente
(semanal o más)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 10…
Answer Choices Percentage Responses
Never / Nunca 4.21% 4
Rarely (a few times a year) / Raramente (algunas veces al año) 44.21% 42 Occasionally (once a month) / Ocasionalmente (una vez al mes) 28.42% 27 Frequently (weekly or more) / Frecuentemente (semanal o más) 23.16% 22 Total 95

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 4, Packet Page 96 Lower Presidio Historic Park Community Survey
2 / 24
Q2 What is your primary reason for visiting the park?¿Cuál es tu razón principal para visitar el parque?
Answered: 93 Skipped: 2
Recreation (walking,
jogging, relaxing) /
Recreación (caminar,
correr, relaja...

Historical interest / Interés
histórico
Educational purposes /
Fines educativos
Attending events / Para
asistir a eventos
Scenic views/photography /
Vistas
panorámicas/fotografía
Driving to DLI / Presidio
Conduciendo hacia el
Instituto de Idiomas de
Defens...

Other / Otro
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 1…
Answer Choices Percentage Responses
Recreation (walking, jogging, relaxing) / Recreación (caminar, correr, relajación) 35.48% 33 Historical interest / Interés histórico 21.51% 20
Educational purposes / Fines educativos 0% 0
Attending events / Para asistir a eventos 4.30% 4
Scenic views/photography / Vistas panorámicas/fotografía 24.73% 23 Driving to DLI / Presidio Conduciendo hacia el Instituto de Idiomas de Defensa - Presidio

4.30% 4
Other / Otro 9.68% 9
Total 93

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 5, Packet Page 97 Lower Presidio Historic Park Community Survey
3 / 24

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 6, Packet Page 98 Lower Presidio Historic Park Community Survey
4 / 24
Q3 On a scale of Excellent to Poor, how would you rate the overall condition of the cleanliness of the park?En una escala del Excelente al Muy Pobre, ¿cómo calificaría el estado general de limpieza del parque? Answered: 93 Skipped: 2
Excellent / Excelente
Good / Bueno
Fair / Justo
Poor / Pobre
Very Poor / Muy Pobre
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 10…
Rating Percentage Responses
Excellent / Excelente 22.58% 21
Good / Bueno 59.14% 55
Fair / Justo 17.20% 16
Poor / Pobre 1.08% 1
Very Poor / Muy Pobre 0% 0
Average 4.03 93

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 7, Packet Page 99 Lower Presidio Historic Park Community Survey
5 / 24
Q4 On a scale of Excellent to Very Poor, how would you rate the overall condition of the maintenance of the park?En una escala del Excelente al Muy Pobre, ¿cómo calificaría el estado general del mantenimiento del parque?
Answered: 91 Skipped: 4
Excellent / Excelente
Good / Bueno
Fair / Justo
Poor / Pobre
Very Poor / Muy Pobre
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 10…
Rating Percentage Responses
Excellent / Excelente 12.09% 11
Good / Bueno 59.34% 54
Fair / Justo 27.47% 25
Poor / Pobre 1.10% 1
Very Poor / Muy Pobre 0% 0
Average 3.82 91

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 8, Packet Page 100 Lower Presidio Historic Park Community Survey
6 / 24
Q5 On a scale of Excellent to Very Poor, how would you rate the overall condition of the safety and access of the park?En una escala del Excelente al Muy Pobre, ¿cómo calificaría el estado general de la seguridad y el acceso al parque?
Answered: 93 Skipped: 2
Excellent / Excelente
Good / Bueno
Fair / Justo
Poor / Pobre
Very Poor / Muy Pobre
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 10…
Rating Percentage Responses
Excellent / Excelente 18.28% 17
Good / Bueno 54.84% 51
Fair / Justo 22.58% 21
Poor / Pobre 4.30% 4
Very Poor / Muy Pobre 0% 0
Average 3.87 93

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 9, Packet Page 101 Lower Presidio Historic Park Community Survey
7 / 24
Q6 What features or amenities do you feel are missing from the park? ¿Qué características o comodidades cree usted que faltan en el parque? Answered: 64 Skipped: 31
# RESPONSES DATE
1 a picnic area 3/2/2026 3:37 PM
2 Seems to have confusing traffic pattern. 3/2/2026 10:26 AM 3 Restroom access. No solution since minimal staffing available so maint and protection from vandalism would be all but impossible.
3/2/2026 9:22 AM
4 Outdoor/picnic seating (shaded) would be nice, as I have brought out-of-town visitors to the park on several occasions. The status of the bathroom is... unclear. Is there a drinking fountain? All in all, there are not many amenities in this park location, especially considering it's important to our local/Monterey/California history. 3/1/2026 9:07 PM
5 I love this park and use it almost everyday. 3/1/2026 5:53 PM 6 More tables, better restrooms, shaded seating. 3/1/2026 5:19 PM 7 Functioning Bathrooms 3/1/2026 3:56 PM
8 A dog park!! 2/28/2026 5:15 PM
9 Safer walking trail from Van Buren, across bridge, to lower Presidio property -- keep these areas clean, free of overhanging vegetation & consider adding some solar lighting 2/27/2026 2:59 PM
10 More native american history. Grinding stones highlighted. 2/26/2026 12:29 PM 11 Nothing about Ohlone, Costanoan and Esselen habitation on the grounds. More about the cannons on display near Sloat Monument.
2/24/2026 11:25 AM
12 More seating opportunities on path to Sloat Monument 2/20/2026 8:00 AM 13 more benches, open bathrooms 2/19/2026 8:56 PM
14 Benches placed to appreciate view. Picnic tables. Map of trails in obvious place. 2/19/2026 6:27 PM 15 Interpretation! Needed for site overall and especially for early life of native tribes. 2/13/2026 2:31 PM 16 The grass could be cut more frequently. 2/2/2026 1:46 PM 17 A dedicated native monterey rumsen tribal educational center and gathering venue 12/31/2025 2:30 PM 18 It just does not always look clean and inviting. 12/20/2025 1:48 PM 19 Pathways, benches, restrooms 12/19/2025 2:50 PM
20 Restrooms 12/13/2025 4:21 PM
21 Seating - Shaded, benches with views up to Sloat Monument. Complete circular pathway to Sloat Monument and back down
12/12/2025 1:48 PM
22 A clea, easy to follow path to go from Bolio gate to Artillery Street without having to walk on the road.
12/12/2025 8:25 AM
23 None. Leave it natural. That is what makes it so wonderful. Do not clutter it up with signs, shaded umbrellas, children’s play area toys, etc. All of that junk is in other parks. Go there instead. The view is magnificent.
12/12/2025 7:42 AM
24 Improved walking options - sidewalks / paths. Improved police action to discourage speeders.

Improved signage to encourage walkers and cyclers
12/12/2025 5:10 AM
25 A restroom would be appreciated. 12/11/2025 8:16 PM

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 10, Packet Page 102 Lower Presidio Historic Park Community Survey
8 / 24
26 We didn’t know we could still go there after 9/11 shut down military properties. We will have to figure out how to get there!! Path by Mayo Hayes O’Donnell Library? 12/11/2025 7:07 PM
27 Easier access 12/11/2025 6:46 PM
28 a bathroom, cleaner benches and tables 12/11/2025 6:29 PM 29 Pedestrian ccess from Seano is somewhat overgrown atctimes 12/9/2025 9:39 PM 30 The squirrel holes and weeds make much of the grass areas unusable and uninviting. Often there is trash near the parking areas. I'd prefer useful features like a dog park or pump track. 12/7/2025 9:14 PM
31 Picnic facilities 12/6/2025 1:52 PM
32 Fenced dog park. Restrooms that are open more hours. 12/6/2025 10:05 AM 33 safe and secure pathway to the Custom House State Park 12/6/2025 7:56 AM 34 Easy access to the bikepath. 12/5/2025 8:58 PM
35 More or better marked trail? More tables, benches 12/5/2025 8:43 PM 36 Perhaps restrooms by the overlook area. 12/5/2025 5:42 PM 37 More benches looking out to the beautiful views. 12/5/2025 5:41 PM 38 It is a hidden treasure 12/5/2025 4:05 PM
39 Night lighting 12/5/2025 3:52 PM
40 A pathway with handrails might be acceptable for seniors to get to the hilltop monument memorializing the beginning of American California.
12/5/2025 3:30 PM
41 New roof for Museum. 11/9/2025 1:47 PM
42 scale model of spanish Presidio 11/7/2025 3:33 PM
43 Moreinfo on Native Americans 11/7/2025 9:05 AM
44 Playground 10/29/2025 7:17 PM
45 History history tours lectures special events civil workshops reenactments July 4th 10/29/2025 2:45 PM 46 A crosswalk and pedestrian path access from the Pacific entrance would be nice. It currently is not great because you have to walk in the driveway. A nicer pedestrian path from the Lighthouse/Bilbo entrance would be good too.
10/29/2025 1:59 PM
47 Wind break where picnic tables are. The winds up there can be fierce and some days we pass on our picnic as there is nothing to stop the winds from blowing our picnic away. Perhaps a one sided heavy plastic wall to hide behind?
10/29/2025 12:59 PM
48 Lower Presidio Park could be a premier destination park if more events were planned there.

Outdoor movie night, quirky youth/adult sports event, outdoor festivals, concerts, Oktoberfest, etc.
10/29/2025 12:37 PM
49 More places to sit along the paths 10/29/2025 11:10 AM 50 It kind of feels like wasted space. Can't we do something with the large open field next to the museum?
10/28/2025 10:06 AM
51 Stop sign 10/27/2025 9:58 PM
52 Benches 10/27/2025 9:27 PM
53 Public restrooms. + See ideas below. 10/27/2025 7:02 PM 54 Signs to get to the park 10/27/2025 5:52 PM
55 A fenced area for dogs to run off leash would be the BEST improvement you could make!!!!! It is a little unsettling that homeless people camp in their cars overnight and over several days.

When walking alone there, I am on guard. Sometimes I see Monterey PD cars parked on the end of the old building closest to the highway, out of sight almost- kinda weird? 10/27/2025 5:37 PM
56 More advertisements for the park would help get more people aware of the great location 10/27/2025 5:00 PM

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 11, Packet Page 103 Lower Presidio Historic Park Community Survey
9 / 24
looking over the wharf and harbor. Not to leave out the historic significance of the location.

More volunteers & outdoor functions like a farmers market & more historical docents available to make attendees more aware.
57 Clearer entrance and access from Lighthouse Ave. It is not obvious this area is accessible 10/27/2025 4:55 PM 58 Recycling bin 10/27/2025 10:19 AM
59 More frequent landscaping maintenance and cleanup around the buildings; better maintenance of buildings; one of the concrete steps by the museum has damage 10/27/2025 8:22 AM
60 Security guards on site in the park and a walking path towards Pacific Street for closer views of the harboer
10/25/2025 3:35 PM
61 If it's supposed to be a historic park, it might help to place an interpretive sign or two along the DG path to inform walkers of this. There are no guidance signs outside of the Presidio to inform visitors of this site such as in Custom House Plaza. I think we should try to discourage pedestrians and cyclists from going around Lighthouse curve because it's dangerous and instead to walk or bike through the Lower Presidio.
10/24/2025 8:13 AM
62 More hours for the museum. More presentations at the museum 10/21/2025 5:40 PM 63 I would like to see the horse stables reconstructed so that there would be a meeting space for the public and additional historical exhibits regarding the Buffalo Soldiers. 10/21/2025 5:14 PM
64 More seating areas from favorable viewpoints throughout the park 10/21/2025 3:22 PM

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 12, Packet Page 104 Lower Presidio Historic Park Community Survey
10 / 24
Q7 How important are the following improvements to you? ¿Qué importancia tienen para usted las siguientes mejoramentos? Answered: 93 Skipped: 2
More seating or shaded
areas / Más asientos o
áreas sombreadas
Improved signage or
historical interpretation /
Señalización mejorada o
inter...

Better trail & path
maintenance / Mejor
mantenimiento de caminos
Enhanced accessibility for
people with disabilities /
Accesibilidad mejorada ...

More community events or
programming / Más
eventos o programación
comunitaria
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 10…
Extremely important / Extre... Very important / Muy import...

Moderately important / Mode... Slightly important / Poco i...

Not important / Nada import...

Extremely
important /
Extremadamente
importante
Very
important
/ Muy
importante
Moderately
important /
Moderadamente
importante
Slightly
important
/ Poco
importante
Not
important
/ Nada
importante
Total
More seating or shaded
areas / Más asientos o áreas
sombreadas

12.90%
12 25.81%
24 39.78%
37 11.83%
11 9.68%
9 93
453

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 13, Packet Page 105 Lower Presidio Historic Park Community Survey
11 / 24
Extremely
important /
Extremadamente
importante
Very
important
/ Muy
importante
Moderately
important /
Moderadamente
importante
Slightly
important
/ Poco
importante
Not
important
/ Nada
importante
Total
Improved signage or
historical interpretation /
Señalización mejorada o
interpretación histórica

17.98%
16 31.46%
28 37.08%
33 8.99%
8 4.49%
4 89
Better trail & path
maintenance / Mejor
mantenimiento de caminos

14.29%
13 36.26%
33 35.16%
32 9.89%
9 4.40%
4 91
Enhanced accessibility for
people with disabilities /
Accesibilidad mejorada para
personas con
discapacidades

15.38%
14 27.47%
25 37.36%
34 10.99%
10 8.79%
8 91
More community events or
programming / Más eventos
o programación
comunitaria

21.35%
19 28.09%
25 24.72%
22 19.10%
17 6.74%
6 89
453

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 14, Packet Page 106 Lower Presidio Historic Park Community Survey
12 / 24
Q8 What types of historical or cultural programming would you like to see more of at the park?¿Qué tipos de programación histórica o cultural le gustaría ver más en el parque?
Answered: 53 Skipped: 42
# RESPONSES DATE
1 Indigenous people celebration 3/2/2026 3:37 PM
2 Open it for use by local groups and their activities. Seems to have ample parking for one-day events either historical or non.
3/2/2026 10:26 AM
3 Reenactments - Somehow encourage (occasional) community events that would expose the area to more people.
3/2/2026 9:22 AM
4 The little museum there is so very well done. Additional programming that focused on the earliest known inhabitants of the park -- and of the earliest Spanish visitors to the region -- would be most interesting to me.
3/1/2026 9:07 PM
5 Fiestas with music and gun salutes. 3/1/2026 5:53 PM
6 Storytelling events, so many cultures and histories intertwined here. Would like to know more about each of these separately and how they clashed.
3/1/2026 5:19 PM
7 Living history events would enhance public understanding of the areas social and historic significance. Coastanoan historic and/or cultural activities would be particularly interesting. 3/1/2026 3:56 PM
8 I like the seclusion. 2/27/2026 2:59 PM
9 Historical reenactments. Walks teaching the indigenous culture that lived here, ie grinding stone.
2/26/2026 12:29 PM
10 Bring back Civil War reenactors. Tell anything about the Buffalo Soldiers at Presidio. 2/24/2026 11:25 AM 11 I would like more programming through the week. 2/20/2026 8:00 AM 12 Civil war encampments were fun and educational. 2/19/2026 6:27 PM 13 Bring back Civil War reenactors. Renaissance Fair. Kite flying. Anything for children and families to enjoy.
2/13/2026 2:31 PM
14 Civil war encampment started up again in October . 1/7/2026 3:23 AM 15 Native education and returning the land to the rumsen descendents 12/31/2025 2:30 PM 16 not sure 12/19/2025 2:50 PM
17 I think what is available now is sufficient. Parking and physical access to the site should limit the size of any events.
12/12/2025 1:48 PM
18 More about the people who lived on the land prior to the Spanish colonization 12/12/2025 8:25 AM 19 None. People can see this on their TV or read about it in a library book. Keep i5 clear, natural, and free of all this debris.
12/12/2025 7:42 AM
20 None 12/12/2025 7:32 AM
21 Music or dance 12/11/2025 9:31 PM
22 Historical tours of the park. 12/11/2025 8:47 PM
23 Perhaps a history walk, food trucks or art sketching. I do like how peaceful it is overlooking busy lighthouse curve. I would like to see the additional buildings be restored and opened to the public periodically.
12/11/2025 8:16 PM

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 15, Packet Page 107 Lower Presidio Historic Park Community Survey
13 / 24
24 Relevant talks about Monterey history regarding the site, poetry, period music connected to the Mexican & early US history periods.
12/11/2025 7:07 PM
25 Historic walks 12/11/2025 6:46 PM
26 interesting stuff 12/7/2025 9:14 PM
27 Unsure at this time. 12/7/2025 9:16 AM
28 Don't know 12/6/2025 10:05 AM
29 None 12/5/2025 8:58 PM
30 Native American time period through current history of Monterey and local military 12/5/2025 8:43 PM 31 Info on fishing industry Animals/birds of the area Mapping of key spots during development of Monterey
12/5/2025 5:42 PM
32 Artisan Craft Fair, or Farmers Market. THE parking area is big enough. Or outdoor movie nights, with the ocean view as a backdrop.
12/5/2025 5:41 PM
33 none 12/5/2025 4:34 PM
34 tours, presentations, celebrations 12/5/2025 4:20 PM 35 Hiistory day celebrations. Most people don’t know the presidio museum exists— or when it’s open.
12/5/2025 3:52 PM
36 None. History, if presented properly with no bias speaks for itself. It is high time that people determine what history means to them without being told and spoken down to for some political purpose.
12/5/2025 3:30 PM
37 More walking tours 11/9/2025 1:47 PM
38 Native American local history 11/7/2025 3:33 PM
39 Guided tours 11/7/2025 9:05 AM
40 none 10/29/2025 1:59 PM
41 None. There is enough in all other parts of the city. 10/29/2025 12:59 PM 42 Outdoor movie night, quirky youth/adult sports event, outdoor festivals, concerts, Oktoberfest, etc.
10/29/2025 12:37 PM
43 Guided historical walks with someone that can describe the history 10/29/2025 11:10 AM 44 Seems like any event there would be welcome. Lots of space but doesn't seem used for events very often. Everything there seems to have historic ties. How about music event or handicraft fair?
10/28/2025 10:06 AM
45 It’s a beautiful space. Moving more Monterey-specific historical celebrations there versus Custom House Plaza could be interesting. Even better would be to invite the Ohlone, Esselen, and/or Amah Mutsun tribes to celebrate on their ancestral lands. It would also be fun to create an easy way for local businesses to use the space, a la Sand City’s Art Park/First Fridays.

There’s excellent parking and great walking access from surrounding neighborhoods. Movies! Concerts! Farmer’s markets! There really is a lot that could happen there, free and revenuegenerating. 10/27/2025 7:02 PM
46 Maybe concerts? Reenactments? 10/27/2025 5:37 PM
47 Reenactments of historical horse soldiers. Historical Tours available to tourist. 10/27/2025 5:00 PM 48 Meetup events for people with similar interests 10/27/2025 10:19 AM 49 Events that are centered around the history of the presidio, similar to what State Parks does with hands-on arts and craft projects for kids, etc.
10/27/2025 8:22 AM
50 Concerts and lectures 10/25/2025 3:35 PM
51 An emphasis should be placed on Indigenous people and less on the military. 10/24/2025 8:13 AM 52 History walks, special social events--photo day, picnic day, meet the monument day, etc 10/21/2025 5:40 PM

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 16, Packet Page 108 Lower Presidio Historic Park Community Survey
14 / 24
53 How the Buffalo Soldiers used the area and their march to Yosemite. 10/21/2025 5:14 PM

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 17, Packet Page 109 Lower Presidio Historic Park Community Survey
15 / 24
Q9 Have you ever attended an event or program at the park? If yes, what was your experience like?¿Has asistido alguna vez a algún evento o programa en el parque? En caso afirmativo, ¿cómo fue tu experiencia? Answered: 66 Skipped: 29
# RESPONSES DATE
1 no 3/2/2026 3:37 PM
2 Went to one of the civil war re-enactments years ago. Nice. I go once in a while to look over the harbor or climb up to the battery for the view.
3/2/2026 10:26 AM
3 Yes but forget for certain which - Bouchard Maybe? 3/2/2026 9:22 AM 4 Yes, a tour. Excellent experience. 3/1/2026 9:07 PM
5 Breathtakingly beautiful. 3/1/2026 7:50 PM
6 I go alone usually or with friends. 3/1/2026 5:53 PM
7 No 3/1/2026 5:19 PM
8 Yes, I've visited the museum on several occasions. Additionally, I participated in Scouting activities conducted in and around the park.
3/1/2026 3:56 PM
9 no 2/27/2026 2:59 PM
10 Yes, historical reenactments, which I liked very much. Also our neighborhood assn used grounds for a presentation on indigenous plants.
2/26/2026 12:29 PM
11 Have done tours of PoM Museum and Lower Historic Park for clubs/NGOs. Fond memories of Civil War events over multiple years past.
2/24/2026 11:25 AM
12 DLI Historian does walks for alumni at their reunion. Hearing about and seeing where the historical events happened is great.
2/20/2026 8:00 AM
13 History Day re-enactments. There used to be reenactments of Sloat’s landing in 1846 but that was with State Parks. Maybe more coordinating with MSHP would have posyresults? 2/19/2026 6:27 PM
14 No 2/15/2026 9:41 AM
15 Civil War reenactors very memorable. Have worked as a docent in museum. Have led tours of the LPHP as well.
2/13/2026 2:31 PM
16 Yes positive 2/2/2026 1:46 PM
17 Civil War encampment weekend . 1/7/2026 3:23 AM
18 Yes 12/31/2025 2:30 PM
19 No 12/20/2025 1:48 PM
20 have not 12/19/2025 2:50 PM
21 I've never seen an organized event at the park. People do skateboard, play frisbee and run their dogs
12/12/2025 1:48 PM
22 I did a walk with Tim Thomas that was excellent. I’ve also visited the museum a number of times and taken visitors there
12/12/2025 8:25 AM
23 Over programmed, amateurish, not enough people for the cost and effort. Parking too far away, people leave their trash
12/12/2025 7:42 AM
24 None 12/12/2025 7:32 AM
25 Yes. Wonderful vista for a memorial service. 12/11/2025 8:59 PM

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 18, Packet Page 110 Lower Presidio Historic Park Community Survey
16 / 24
26 I was a volunteer docent up until the covid epidemic. I attended the Civil War reenactment. 12/11/2025 8:47 PM 27 No 12/11/2025 8:16 PM
28 Never been there 12/11/2025 7:07 PM
29 I did a historic walk with the Boy Scouts in the 1990s. It was very informative 12/11/2025 6:46 PM 30 I have not yet attended an event or program at the Lower Presidio.0 12/9/2025 9:39 PM 31 primarily Cub Scout stuff. other bigger events are tricky with parking and the holes in the ground
12/7/2025 9:14 PM
32 I have not. 12/7/2025 9:16 AM
33 Yes, it was a re-enactment of an event that happened there a long time ago. It was fun and educational.
12/6/2025 6:51 PM
34 Visited the museum. Interesting historical display. 12/6/2025 10:05 AM 35 No 12/5/2025 8:58 PM
36 Museum visits 12/5/2025 8:43 PM
37 Attended encampment reenactment in park number of years ago. It was interesting and well done.
12/5/2025 7:48 PM
38 No 12/5/2025 5:42 PM
39 NO 12/5/2025 5:41 PM
40 no 12/5/2025 4:34 PM
41 No 12/5/2025 4:05 PM
42 Years ago there was a celebration, annually maybe?, with people camped out in period dress, horses, and exhibits. I’ll never forget the man with the doctor instruments collection from the Civil War period.
12/5/2025 3:52 PM
43 Yes, some time ago. A history tour that started near the museum and went to various sites on the actual base (inside the gate); and an open house type deal with reenactors, a historic camp setup, access to the museum. Both were excellent.
12/5/2025 3:39 PM
44 No. I am an infrequent visitor, but I see that many many events are set up to be politically slanted.
12/5/2025 3:30 PM
45 yes , I used to lead tours. Now am too old and infirm. 11/9/2025 1:47 PM 46 Language Day Really Great 11/7/2025 3:33 PM
47 Attended several Very informative 11/7/2025 9:05 AM
48 No 10/29/2025 7:17 PM
49 yes. 10/29/2025 3:38 PM
50 Yes before historic buildings were demolished historic events 10/29/2025 2:45 PM 51 no 10/29/2025 1:59 PM
52 No 10/29/2025 12:59 PM
53 My children have BSA Scouts meetings at the Scout hut, some camp events, and I have been to several military fitness events there.
10/29/2025 12:37 PM
54 Yes, since it is such a special area, it was nice to be there with other people 10/29/2025 11:10 AM 55 I've been to the museum a couple times and have climbed up to the monument a few times.

We also stop on occasion to look at the view from the J. Serra statue area. Once went to a reenactment/encampment there, but that was years ago. Not bad. 10/28/2025 10:06 AM
56 Once. Very informative 10/27/2025 9:27 PM

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 19, Packet Page 111 Lower Presidio Historic Park Community Survey
17 / 24
57 Nope. I think most of the programming has been for groups I’m not a part of — Scouts of America; veteran stuff.
10/27/2025 7:02 PM
58 No- wasn't aware there were programs and events in the park. 10/27/2025 5:37 PM 59 Yes, we have attended both the museum & a day outdoors with information booths were out from all the local historic references.
10/27/2025 5:00 PM
60 No 10/27/2025 10:19 AM
61 no 10/27/2025 8:22 AM
62 Interesting and fun 10/25/2025 3:35 PM
63 Yes. I happened by the Civil war reenactment once. 10/24/2025 8:13 AM 64 Very informative, but there is always more that I would like to know 10/21/2025 5:40 PM 65 The reenactment of Battle of Monterey and the landing of Bouchard. This happened twice and was both informative and fun!
10/21/2025 5:14 PM
66 No 10/21/2025 3:22 PM

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 20, Packet Page 112 Lower Presidio Historic Park Community Survey
18 / 24
Q10 What concerns, if any, do you have about safety or accessibility in the park?¿Qué preocupaciones, si algunas, tiene usted sobre la seguridad o la accesibilidad en el parque?
Answered: 59 Skipped: 36
# RESPONSES DATE
1 I have safety concerns. Sometimes have seen homeless camping in cars/RVs - but not often.

That concerns me safety-wise since it's a little remote and unpopulated. 3/2/2026 10:26 AM
2 None 3/2/2026 9:22 AM
3 The access, whether coming from Monterey or Pacific Grove, is a little tricky, but I think it's navigable. Perhaps the signage could be improved a little, so that the actual exit didn't come as such a surprise?
3/1/2026 9:07 PM
4 No worries except in the trees where someone might hide. 3/1/2026 5:53 PM 5 N/A 3/1/2026 5:19 PM
6 The Scout Lodge requires renovation to bring it up to current safety codes as well as to protect the overall integrity of the structure.
3/1/2026 3:56 PM
7 See my comment above from Van Buren to park From Lighthouse to park -- add more solar lighting
2/27/2026 2:59 PM
8 Walkway/bridge from Van Buren needs repair (on ncip list). Sidewalk around bend too close to oncoming traffic. needs barrier?
2/26/2026 12:29 PM
9 Not any kind of problem in my experience. 2/24/2026 11:25 AM 10 None during daylight 2/20/2026 8:00 AM
11 Would never walk up there at night, especially alone. Good Lighting, cameras needed for a start.
2/19/2026 6:27 PM
12 Nothing comes to mind. 2/13/2026 2:31 PM
13 Homeless person vandalized items I left on the picnic table. Stole medals and strew my items all over the ground.
2/2/2026 1:46 PM
14 Limited access and unwelcoming barren environment 12/31/2025 2:30 PM 15 No 12/20/2025 1:48 PM
16 lighting 12/19/2025 2:50 PM
17 Access is extremely limited. The path from Lighthouse is very steep and the traffic on Lighthouse is very heavy, fast and loud. The entire site is also quite steep limiting accessibility to older people and the disabled.
12/12/2025 1:48 PM
18 Lots of fast moving cars cut through the park especially since the Taylor gate is no longer accessible and the Franklin gate has limited hours.
12/12/2025 8:25 AM
19 None. 12/12/2025 7:42 AM
20 None 12/12/2025 7:32 AM
21 Speeding traffic especially the Presidio staff 12/12/2025 5:10 AM 22 Traffic has been known to speed. 12/11/2025 8:47 PM
23 Don’t know, sounds like there are safety issues? 12/11/2025 7:07 PM 24 The access off Bolio is difficult 12/11/2025 6:46 PM

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 21, Packet Page 113 Lower Presidio Historic Park Community Survey
19 / 24
25 cars often fly through very fast 12/7/2025 9:14 PM
26 I have none. 12/7/2025 9:16 AM
27 No concerns, easy to access the park and I always feel safe to walk around here even if alone.
12/6/2025 6:51 PM
28 None 12/6/2025 10:05 AM
29 the pathway to the Custom House State Park is in need of repair 12/6/2025 7:56 AM 30 The park would have more use if there was better access from the bike path and the wharf. 12/5/2025 8:58 PM 31 Maintained trails 12/5/2025 8:43 PM
32 Walk areas can be tricky. I've never seen anyone monitoring the area. 12/5/2025 5:42 PM 33 Attractiveness to homeless population is a concern. 12/5/2025 4:34 PM 34 Parking lot is sometimes being used by unusual visitors 12/5/2025 4:05 PM 35 I wouldn’t park there at night. Too ‘off the beaten path’. 12/5/2025 3:52 PM 36 Better night time lighting 12/5/2025 3:34 PM
37 I have none. If you are unable to handle this park, then you are unable to understand what it took to create the Republic of California.
12/5/2025 3:30 PM
38 too Many loose dogs. bites and coyotes. 11/9/2025 1:47 PM 39 NoneOpen on weekdays 11/7/2025 3:33 PM
40 None 11/7/2025 9:05 AM
41 None 10/29/2025 7:17 PM
42 just that we have to walk in the driveway with vehicle traffic 10/29/2025 1:59 PM 43 None except that there are gopher/moles that create holes where hikers could fall. 10/29/2025 12:59 PM 44 unregulated overnight parking is a concern, and the two large buildings, while they have been there since the early 1900s are not providing any historic/public benefit and look to be in disrepair. The park could be overhauled to be a main point of interest if they were taken down.

This is coming from a person who loves preserving history. If the buildings aren't going to be maintained and used for the city's benefit they should be removed. 10/29/2025 12:37 PM
45 None 10/29/2025 11:10 AM
46 None. The traffic flow is kind of weird. The road meanders quite a bit as it went around the old stables and such.
10/28/2025 10:06 AM
47 Speeding cars 10/27/2025 9:58 PM
48 None 10/27/2025 9:27 PM
49 I often walk there near sundown and it gets quite dark, fast. I never walk through at night because it doesn’t feel safe.
10/27/2025 7:02 PM
50 Talked about the safety up above. 10/27/2025 5:37 PM 51 No concerns 10/27/2025 5:12 PM
52 With better signage people would flow better in & out of the lower location. I think non-military motorists freak out when they see the gaurd station.
10/27/2025 5:00 PM
53 Bicycle safety and visibility when cars are around 10/27/2025 10:19 AM 54 uneven pavement, people occasionally camping in cars in the parking lot and behind buildings 10/27/2025 8:22 AM 55 Security and a path for walking toward white fence on pacific street side 10/25/2025 3:35 PM 56 During hours of darkness, it's pitch black and therefore it discourages people from transiting. I don't want it to be over lit though.
10/24/2025 8:13 AM

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 22, Packet Page 114 Lower Presidio Historic Park Community Survey
20 / 24
57 none 10/21/2025 5:40 PM
58 At some times the route from the Private Bollio gate and Pacific Ave. is used as a short cut and some drivers go too fast.
10/21/2025 5:14 PM
59 None 10/21/2025 3:22 PM

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 23, Packet Page 115 Lower Presidio Historic Park Community Survey
21 / 24
Q11 Would you support community-led volunteer efforts to help improve the park?¿Apoyarías los esfuerzos voluntarios led? por la comunidad para ayudar a mejorar el parque?
Answered: 93 Skipped: 2
Yes / Si
No / No
Maybe / Quizas
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 10…
Answer Choices Percentage Responses
Yes / Si 70.97% 66
No / No 2.15% 2
Maybe / Quizas 26.88% 25
Total 93

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 24, Packet Page 116 Lower Presidio Historic Park Community Survey
22 / 24
Q12 I would support another qualified public entity maintaining and providing public access to Lower Presidio Historic Park other than the City of Monterey, provided that the park would remain accessible and well maintained.Yo apoyaría a otra entidad pública calificada que mantenga y proporcione acceso público al Parque Histórico Lower Presidio aparte de la Ciudad de Monterey, siempre que el parque permanezca accesible y bien mantenido.

Answered: 93 Skipped: 2
Strongly Agree / Totalmente
en acuerdo
Agree / En acuerdo
Neutral
Disagree / En desacuerdo
Strongly Disagree /
Totalmente en desacuerdo
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 10…
Answer Choices Percentage Responses
Strongly Agree / Totalmente en acuerdo 19.35% 18
Agree / En acuerdo 27.96% 26
Neutral 32.26% 30
Disagree / En desacuerdo 11.83% 11
Strongly Disagree / Totalmente en desacuerdo 8.60% 8
Total 93

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 25, Packet Page 117 Lower Presidio Historic Park Community Survey
23 / 24
Q13 Please share any other ideas, feedback, or suggestions to help improve Lower Presidio Historic Park.Por favor comparta cualquier otra idea, comentario, o sugerencia para ayudar mejorar el Parque Histórico Lower Presidio.

Answered: 44 Skipped: 51
# RESPONSES DATE
1 Events that would draw/expose people to the park 3/2/2026 9:22 AM 2 Without knowing more, I can't answer #12. I do not want even fewer resources devoted to the park! It is important it be accessible and maintained because of its incredible importance to the history of Monterey and California.
3/1/2026 9:07 PM
3 I like it the way it is. Bare the buildings for rent for events? That would be nice. 3/1/2026 5:53 PM 4 More museum hours and events. 3/1/2026 5:19 PM
5 As mentioned, renovation and a long-term maintenance plan is needed to preserve the Scout lodge building. If the city is concerned about governance of the site, I suggest forming a consortium be formed of all the groups associated with the site such as local Coastanoans, the Army, and Scout communities. These communities could for a collective body to govern the site.
3/1/2026 3:56 PM
6 Dog park! 2/28/2026 5:15 PM
7 Museum access very limited, need more docents and training. Thank you. 2/24/2026 11:25 AM 8 See above 2/19/2026 6:27 PM
9 The museum is so excellent, should be more visible to public and should be open more often.

Add weekdays!
2/13/2026 2:31 PM
10 Formal recognition and dedication to the native Indians of the Presidio land and return it to the rumsen people.
12/31/2025 2:30 PM
11 Should be run by locals. Like me. People who have a genuine care and concern for Monterey. 12/20/2025 1:48 PM 12 none 12/19/2025 2:50 PM
13 I think the Park functions fine the way it is. It could use some sprucing up, some improvements to the paths and access but I don't think the expense outlined in this proposal will ever convert it to a huge draw to visitors.
12/12/2025 1:48 PM
14 Do not encourage more people to go there. They would just ruin it. Let it be a little obscure then people that do want to go will find it and care for it when they do visit. 12/12/2025 7:42 AM
15 The park is fine as it is. 12/12/2025 7:32 AM
16 It’s time the government deed the lower presidio park to the city like government turnover in San Francisco. Residents and city staff would be more inclined to direct public dollars (NCIP) if the 50 year lease was suspended.
12/12/2025 5:10 AM
17 I visited the museum once. While interesting, I haven't had reason to go again. 12/11/2025 8:59 PM 18 Speed bumps; organized tours. 12/11/2025 8:47 PM
19 Sorry to hear there are problems? 45+ years here & we don’t know about it or how to get there.

That says something.
12/11/2025 7:07 PM
20 The park needs to be left accessible to the public and recognized for its immense historic importance
12/11/2025 6:46 PM
21 Access via a second foot bridge from Upper Seano 12/9/2025 9:39 PM

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 26, Packet Page 118 Lower Presidio Historic Park Community Survey
24 / 24
22 I have been coming to this park to birdwatch for over 10 years and personally have documented over 100 species in or flying over the park area. I have always felt safe here if by myself. The riparian corridor on the north side is good habitat for migrant birds as well as resident birds. I have seen illegal encampments in the lower area, but have never been harassed by anyone, however, would prefer not to see that there. The open fields provide habitat for other types of birds which is very important to the area. 12/6/2025 6:51 PM
23 I use the lower Presidio as an alternative to the Rec Trail for walking between Old Town and New Monterey. Improvements to that route would be beneficial. 12/6/2025 1:52 PM
24 More activity areas - dog park, pickleball courts - things that will draw people to the park. 12/6/2025 10:05 AM 25 Expand the museum? 12/5/2025 8:43 PM
26 Our family has used the picnic facilities overlooking the bay on the lower part of the Presideo.

It has some historic interpretation. Great trees for older children to climb, there were picnic tables and it is certainly under utilized. It's a great spot for a family picnic with wonderful views.
12/5/2025 7:48 PM
27 Alternate public entity for maintenance - land should not be signed over to another agency/organization even if access is maintained.
12/5/2025 6:14 PM
28 It's actually a nice secret jewel for locals. I don't want it to get too well-known. Being sekfish here:)
12/5/2025 5:42 PM
29 It's a beautiful spot that needs to be used more, with events...If people knew events were there, it really could be something very special.
12/5/2025 5:41 PM
30 Do not over-develop the park; keep it clear of homeless. 12/5/2025 4:34 PM 31 Public access is most important for the Lower Presidio Park. It would be nice if the park becomes more popular and visited.
12/5/2025 4:05 PM
32 More picnic tables or welcoming benches to enjoy the view. 12/5/2025 3:52 PM 33 Open on weekdays 11/7/2025 3:33 PM
34 More events Museum open more 11/7/2025 9:05 AM
35 A playground with adjoining coffee / sandwich shop would be nice :) 10/29/2025 7:17 PM 36 Lower Presidio park should have food truck events, concerts, events, start/finish of 5k, 10k, 1/2 marathon, etc.
10/29/2025 12:37 PM
37 Private/public use of the area like Cooper-Molera would be welcome. 10/28/2025 10:06 AM 38 I would be interested in volunteering to help with the park if I knew how/there was an easy way to do that like what Sam Winter does for other CA State Parks. (Maybe I’ve missed it!) Re question 12, it’s just important this be a nonpartisan entity. 10/27/2025 7:02 PM
39 A dog park, please!!! A perfect area, there is a lot of space for one, no houses nearby to disturb anyone10/27/2025 5:37 PM
40 I think it’s important to improve & promote local historical knowledge & awareness. We (Monterey) are lucky to have access to this space. Traffic has been re-routed over the years with access cutoff on the upper Pine Street gate… I think that’s the greatest challenge in promoting this space.
10/27/2025 5:00 PM
41 I don't think the City should be spending more of its funds to maintain the park. They should get volunteers or partner with an organization to share maintenance costs 10/27/2025 10:19 AM
42 Questions 3 and 4 are asking the same basic question. In general, I think that the Lower Presidio is not well advertised; not noticed by visitors; lacks interest to visitors because there's nothing to learn about unless you happen to be there when the museum is open and you know it's a museum. Thank you for asking!
10/24/2025 8:13 AM
43 It needs to have more publicity. Few visitors even know of its existence Unfortunately, we no longer have a Visitor's Center like the two in Pacific Grove 10/21/2025 5:40 PM
44 The Old Monterey Foundation has contributed a lot to the LPP in the past. 10/21/2025 5:14 PM

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 27, Packet Page 119 Council
Agenda Report
№12/25
FROM: Andrea Renny, P.E., PTOE, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Reginald Paulding, P.E., Senior Engineer
SUBJECT: Adopt and Approve Funding for the Fiscal Year 2025/26 Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program ***NCIP*** (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061; and Article 19, Sections 15301, 15306, and Classes 1, and 6)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt the attached resolution
approving the proposed Neighborhood and Community
Improvement Program (NCIP) project list and budget for
Fiscal Year (FY) 2025/26, attached hereto as Exhibit A.

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.

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

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The determination of the projects, priorities and
expenditures shall be within the sound discretion of the City Council. (City Charter section 6.6(e).)
The recommended action is consistent with Council policy to approve all budget recommendations and with
established policy and procedures for adopting the annual Agenda Report Highlights
• The City Council is asked to
approve the Neighborhood and
Community Improvement
Program (NCIP) project list and
budget for Fiscal Year 2025/26.
• Approximately $6,098,107 is
available for funding new projects
after accounting for administrative
expenses, existing
encumbrances, and a
recommended 10% revenue holdback for contingencies.
• The NCIP Committee
recommended funding the top 14
projects, which include significant
allocations for Fire Station 13
rehabilitation, Police Station
improvements, and forest
management.
• Six major projects account for
78% of the available funding
cycle, totaling $4,711,767 for
infrastructure, safety, and
accessibility upgrades.
• A current backlog of 76 approved
projects exists, with engineering
staffing shortages limiting the
City's completion rate to
approximately 14 to 15 projects
per year.

Date: 4/21/2026
Item No.: 10.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 1, Packet Page 120 №12/25
NCIP project list and budget (NCIP Policies and Procedures Manual, September 7, 2021).

On December 17, 2025, the NCIP Committee voted on proposed projects for the Fiscal Year 2025/26 NCIP. On January 21, 2026, the NCIP Committee met to review the NCIP FY 2025/26 voting ranked project list and recommend projects to the City Council for approval of funding.

On February 11, 2026, the Parks and Recreation Commission found the five proposed Parks and Recreation-related projects to be consistent with the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. On February 24, 2026, the Planning Commission confirmed the proposed projects to be consistent with the General Plan, specific plans, area plans, master plans, coastal plans, traffic calming plans, and the Move Monterey Multimodal Plan.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The City Council will have approximately $6,098,107 available for NCIP project funding in FY 2025/26 as shown in the table below.

Funding Sources/Accounts Funds
FY 2025/26 Estimated Beginning Fund Balance $ 19,129,138 FY 2025/26 Budgeted TOT Tax and Interest Revenue $ 6,100,581 FY 2025/26 Budgeted Administrative Expenses $ (387,131) FY 2025/26 Project Expenses, Including Encumbrances (as of 1/31/2026) $ (2,278,581)) NCIP Fund Committed Projects (as of 1/31/2026) (15,855,842) Finance Recommended “Hold Back” (10% of projected annual revenue) $ (610,058) NCIP Available Funding $ 6,098,107
The NCIP Committee concurred with the Finance Department recommendation to hold back 10% of the projected annual revenue for contingency. The Finance Department discontinued the NCIP Contingency and NCIP Unappropriated Funds (End Balance) project accounts in December 2025 in accordance with core public-finance principles around transparency, legality, and fiscal control. City staff presented this change in process to the NCIP Committee on December 17, 2025.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey Planning Office determined that the following actions are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Sections 15301 and 15306, and Classes 1 and 6) because the proposed actions involve the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, mechanical equipment or topographical features involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use; or basic data collection, research, experimental management, and resource evaluation activities 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).

Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 2, Packet Page 121 №12/25
These exempt projects include:

Exempt Projects: CEQA Exemption
(Article, Section, Class):

Monterey Fire Station 13 – Additional Funding for Remodel (MN-16) Not a Project
Police Department – Interim Interior Improvements (MN-18) 19, 15301, 1 Replace or Repair Speed Signs throughout City (MN-05)
(Note: No digging proposed) 19, 15301, 1
Public Safety Building Alternatives Feasibility Study (MN-03) 19, 15306, 6 Hilltop Park Center – Additional Funding for Renovations Phase 2 and Exterior and Interior Improvements (NM-04)
Not a Project; 19, 15301,
1 Improve Path and Replace Stairs on Irving Avenue Right-of-Way Between Parcel & Lyndon (NM-01) 19, 15301, 1
Casanova Oak Knoll Park - Replace Gates and Improve
Restroom Lights (COK-6) 19, 15301, 1
Wharf II Feasibility Study (MN-14) 19, 15306, 6
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. Exemption a – Location – does not apply to projects which are exempt under Class 1 or 31. The projects which are exempt under Class 6 would have no effect on the environment because they consist of studies and information gathering only.

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. Projects exempt under Class 1 are limited in scope and would only include negligible construction/expansion of structures or paved surfaces. Therefore, no cumulative impacts are anticipated.

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 projects 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 Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 3, Packet Page 122 №12/25
highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The projects would not be visible from any scenic highways; 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.

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. None of the projects exempt under CEQA would involve historic properties; therefore, there would be no impacts to historic resources. Those projects exempt under Class 6 would have no effect on historic resources because they consist of studies and information-gathering only. Some of the projects which are exempt under Class 1 are in a sensitive archeological area as shown in the General Plan EIR (Figure 8, Archeological Sensitivity Map); however, these projects would require negligible expansion of paved surfaces and minimal excavation of previously disturbed ground; no improvements are proposed in native soil. Therefore, projects which are exempt under Class 1 would not affect historic or archaeological resources. In the case of an inadvertent archaeological discovery at any of the project sites, the City’s standard archaeological procedures shall be followed, making impacts to archaeological resources less than significant.

For the remaining projects listed below, project-specific environmental review has either been conducted and completed or will be conducted as projects are proposed. As currently conceived, the projects are consistent with the City’s plans, and project-specific impacts could be reduced to a less than significant level through project design and specifications.

Further Review Required:

Colton Hall/Old Jail Drainage Improvement & Building Upgrades (OT-02) Monterey Public Library ADA Compliance and Facility Renovations (DT-07) Citywide Underground Utility Conversion (MN-17)
Install Railing at Boardwalk Stairs (DMB-01)
Replace Pedestrian Path North Van Buren Street ROW (OT-01) Replace Retaining Wall Recreation Trail (MN-02)
ADA Improve Public Facilities (MN-06)
Hartnell Gulch Barrier Upgrade (DT-01)
Final IS-MND
Citywide Fuel Reduction (MN-15) [Greenbelt Fuel Reduction Final IS-MND adopted by the Planning Commission on October 25, 2022 (Resolution No. P22-024) (SCH#2022080742].

Wharf II Repairs (MN-10) Monterey Municipal Wharves I and II – Structural Maintenance Program Final IS-MND adopted City Council on January 21, 2020 (Resolution No. 20-009 C.S.) (SCH#2019049147).

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council has several alternatives to consider for this item:

1. Council may choose to approve the NCIP projects as recommended by the NCIP Committee;

2. Council may re-prioritize the list of proposed projects; Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 4, Packet Page 123 №12/25

3. Council may choose not to fund specific project(s) from the recommended list of projects;

4. Council may choose to allocate a different amount of funding held in the NCIP Fund than recommended;

5. Council may request project re-scoping (greater or lesser) and refer this item back to the NCIP Committee for possible revisions to the recommended NCIP program; or

6. Council may determine that there are insufficient funds available to provide for the ordinary and necessary services in any budget year, and may, by an affirmative vote of four (4) members of the City Council, reduce the amount to be appropriated.

DISCUSSION:

On December 17, 2025, the NCIP Committee voted on recommended NCIP projects for FY 2025/26. Voting night is the culmination of the annual NCIP program cycle, resulting in prioritization of the projects that have been nominated. The NCIP Committee voted and ranked 54 nominated projects. Fifteen neighborhoods were represented by their representative or alternate. Each neighborhood representative voted from 1 to 10 points for each project giving a maximum vote of 150 points for a project. Following the vote, the projects were ranked in order of the total number of points received. When two or more projects received the same number of votes, they were ranked by alphabetical order based on the neighborhood in which the project would be located. The FY 2025/26 NCIP Project Voting Results and Ranking are presented in Attachment 2.

Following NCIP Committee project ranking, staff determined the project cut-off based on the estimated costs for the projects. Cost estimates were revised prior to voting night and subtracted from the funding available to determine how many projects can be funded in FY 2025/26. Projects were recommended for approval until the available program funding level was reached.

On January 21, 2026, the NCIP Committee met to review the project list recommended to City Council, and to make a final recommendation of projects for City Council approval. Staff recommended a minimum balance of 10% of projected annual revenue be held in the account as contingency. The NCIP Committee recommended that City Council approve and fund the top rated 14 projects through OT-01 with four (4) cut-off projects for a total of 18 projects. Staff did not recommend project MN-8 since it is a duplicate forest management project and MN-15 was ranked higher. The NCIP Committee concurred with Staff’s recommendation. Project names, descriptions, and estimated costs are presented in Attachment 3.

On February 11, 2026, the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) reviewed five Parks and Recreation-related projects, including one cut-off project. The PRC determined that the proposed projects that fall under Parks and Recreation Commission purview are consistent with the Parks and Recreation Master Plan (PRMP). On February 24, 2026, the Planning Commission reviewed all recommended NCIP projects and determined the proposed projects to be consistent with the General Plan, specific plans, area plans, master plans, traffic calming plans, coastal plans, and the Move Monterey Multimodal Plan.

Projects recommended for approval by the NCIP Committee are based on an understanding of the project that was nominated. Preliminary designs will be prepared after project approval and funding have been received. Most projects will require additional work and coordination with various stakeholders to determine feasibility. As the project progresses, the scope will become more clear with an understanding of the design, environmental studies, permitting, construction, inspection, and testing required; this will allow for more detailed estimates of probable costs.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 5, Packet Page 124 №12/25
Should the Council decide to eliminate one or more of the projects on the recommended projects list, funding from those projects would become available for the cutoff projects and other projects lower on the priority list. Completed projects will be closed, with any unused funding going into the NCIP Fund Balance, which will then be available for allocation to other projects after City Council approval.

Recommended Projects
The list of recommended NCIP Projects contains 14 projects that can be funded based on their cost estimates and four (4) additional cut-off projects. These recommended projects include critically necessary infrastructure projects across the City including:
• MN-16 to provide additional funding to the existing Fire Station 13 rehabilitation project; • MN-18 for Police Station improvements;
• MN-15 for forest management and fuel reduction;
• MN-10 for Wharf II Repairs;
• NM-04 for Hilltop Park Center Phase 2 funding for the existing renovations project; and • DT-01 to make much needed accessibility and infrastructure improvements to the Library.

The funding for these six projects totals $4,711,767 or 78% of the available NCIP funding this cycle.

The NCIP Committee also ranked the replacement of nonfunctional radar speed signs and rapid flashing beacons high and recommended $175,000 for this effort.

To preserve Monterey’s historic treasures, the NCIP Committee recommended the necessary work at Colton Hall and the Old Jail to improve site drainage with a recommended funding amount of $350,000.

The Committee also prioritized path improvements across the City with three projects:
• NM-01 to improve the path along Irving Ave Between Parcel St and Lyndon St; • DMB-01 to install railing along the stairs down to the beach at the corner of Surf Ave and Tide Ave; and
• OT-01 to improve the path along N. Van Street ROW entering the Lower Presidio Park.

The funding for these three projects totals $205,000.

The Committee also prioritized $2,000 to make park improvements in Casanova Oak Knoll Park playground area.

Finally, the Committee is recommending that the City set aside an additional $500,000 this cycle for the Underground Utility Conversion Program. These funds would combine with the existing $2,248,573 to provide a total of $2,748,573 that will be available for utility undergrounding efforts and provide funding for the Rule 20A effort in conjunction with PG&E.

Current Status of the NCIP Program (April 6, 2026)
• Over the past 3 years, 105 projects were funded ($22 million) • 43 projects were completed in the last three years (2023, 2024 & 2025) Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 6, Packet Page 125 №12/25
• Average completion rate: 14 per year
• Average new projects added: 35 per year
• 14 new projects for fiscal year (FY) 25/26 cycle
• 76 current approved NCIP projects ($16.84 million)
o 42 Projects in progress ($10.12M)
o 21 Projects that have not been started and 4 that are inactive ($6.14M) o 9 Projects nearing close out ($0.58M)
The backlog of NCIP projects is not a new trend, and it is something that has been a challenge over the course of the program. Many project nominations appear straightforward but are actually far more complex and can require extensive planning, permitting and design that can extend the project schedule. The projects completed over the last three years are more of the straightforward projects in nature, and the more complex projects are starting to come on board which may extend project delivery times.

The Engineering Division has faced a staffing shortage for several years, which has limited the City's ability to deliver projects at the desired pace, to include NCIP projects. To supplement capacity, the City has engaged consultants alongside existing staff as well as seasonal interns.

However, at current staffing levels, the NCIP program's project output is expected to remain largely the same at roughly 15 projects per year. To meaningfully reduce the existing backlog and keep pace with new projects each year, staff estimates that a minimum of four (4) additional engineers and/or project managers would need to be dedicated to the NCIP program, bringing the total to five (5), including the one Senior Engineer currently assigned full time. Given the City’s fiscal challenges, these engineers would need to be funded entirely by NCIP funds. An additional challenge in recent years has been the ability to recruit and hire, as well as retain, qualified engineers among the limited talent pool that exists in the Monterey Bay Area.

AR/rp
Attachments: 1. Resolution

2. Exhibit A – FY 2025/26 NCIP Project Titles and Descriptions

3. FY 2025/26 NCIP Project Voting Results and Ranking
e: Lew Bauman, Interim City Manager
Nat Rojanasathira, Assistant City Manager
Rafaela King, Finance Director
Kimberly Cole, Community Development Director
Nicole Banks, Parks and Recreation Director
Shannon Leon, Recreation Manager
Thys Norton, Park Operations Manager
Levi Hill, Planning Manager
Christy Sabdo, Associate Planner
Kyle Olsen, Finance Analyst
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, 4/21/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 7, Packet Page 126 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№011/24
ADOPTING AND APPROVING FUNDING FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2025/26 NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ***NCIP*** WHEREAS, on the 17th day of December 2025, the Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program (NCIP) Committee voted to recommend ranked projects for funding; WHEREAS, on the 11th day of February 2026, the Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the proposed projects and determined that the recommended Parks and Recreationrelated projects to be consistent with the Parks and Recreation Master Plan; WHEREAS, on the 24th day of February 2026, the Planning Commission reviewed the ranked NCIP projects and confirmed the projects to be consistent with the General Plan, specific plans, area plans, master plans, traffic calming plans, coastal plans, and the Move Monterey Multimodal Plan;
WHEREAS, the Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program will receive $6,100,581 in Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) collected in FY 2025/26, less NCIP Program Administrative Expenses of $387,131;
WHEREAS, the FY 2025/26 total projected available funding for NCIP is $6,098,107.

Therefore, there is sufficient funding available for these actions; WHEREAS, the ranked project list with a description of each project, the number of votes it received, and estimated costs are detailed in Exhibit A; and, WHEREAS, the City of Monterey Planning Office determined that the following actions are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Sections 15301 and 15306, and Classes 1 and 6) because the proposed actions involve the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, mechanical equipment or topographical features involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use; or basic data collection, research, experimental management, and resource evaluation activities 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).

These exempt projects include:

Exempt Projects: CEQA Exemption
(Article, Section, Class):

Monterey Fire Station 13 – Additional Funding for Remodel (MN-16) Not a Project
Police Department – Interim Interior Improvements (MN-18) 19, 15301, 1 Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 8, Packet Page 127 Exempt Projects: CEQA Exemption
(Article, Section, Class):

Replace or Repair Speed Signs throughout City (MN-05)
(Note: No digging proposed) 19, 15301, 1
Public Safety Building Alternatives Feasibility Study (MN-03) 19, 15306, 6 Hilltop Park Center – Additional Funding for Renovations Phase 2 and Exterior and Interior Improvements (NM-04) Not a Project; 19, 15301, 1 Improve Path and Replace Stairs on Irving Avenue Right-of-Way Between Parcel & Lyndon (NM-01) 19, 15301, 1
Casanova Oak Knoll Park - Replace Gates and Improve
Restroom Lights (COK-6) 19, 15301, 1
Wharf II Feasibility Study (MN-14) 19, 15306, 6
Furthermore, the exempt projects do not qualify for any of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions found at CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2.

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 projects would not be visible from any scenic highways; therefore, no impacts to scenic highways would occur.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 9, Packet Page 128 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.

Further Review Required:

Wharf II Repairs (MN-10) Monterey Municipal Wharves I and II – Structural Maintenance Program Final IS-MND adopted City Council on January 21, 2020 (Resolution No. 20-009 C.S.) (SCH#2019049147).

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby approves the proposed Neighborhood and Community Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 10, Packet Page 129 Improvement Program (NCIP) project list and authorizes an appropriation of $6,018,767 to the top ranked 14 NCIP FY 2025/26 projects, attached hereto as Exhibit A.

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

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 11, Packet Page 130 Exhibit “A”
FY2025/26 Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program (NCIP) NCIP Committee Recommended Project List
1 Projec
t Rank
Vote
Tota
l
Project
Numbe
r
Project Title Project Description Proposed
Budget
1 135 MN-16
MN – MFD
STATION 13

ADDITIONAL

FUNDING FOR

REMODEL
Additional funding for
Fire Station 13
rehabilitation project
recommended from
FY25
$400,000
2 135 MN-18
MN – PD

INTERIM

IMPROVEMENTS
Interim improvements for
office, locker room, and
storage space at Police
Department
$500,000
3 131 MN-05
MN – REPLACE

SPEED SIGNS AT

SLOAT/ENGLISH/

PRESCOTT/IRIS

CANYON/DAVID
AVE
Replace/repair
nonfunctional radar
speed signs throughout
City including Sloat
Avenue, English Avenue,
Prescott Avenue, Iris
Canyon, and David
Avenue, Casanova Ave
and rabid flashing
beacon at Glenwood
Circle
$175,000
4 130 OT-02
OT – COLTON

HALL/OLD JAIL
DRAIN

IMPROVEMENT
& BUILDING

UPGRADES
Implement Colton Hall
and Old Jail site
drainage improvement
recommendations made
in Building Condition
Assessment Report
$350,000
5 128 MN-03
MN – PUBLIC

SAFETY BLDG

ALTERNATIVES
Public Safety Building
analysis of alternatives $75,000
6 127 MN-15
MN – CITY-WIDE
FUEL

REDUCTION
Clean up of fallen trees,
underbrush, and
unhealthy growth of
forested lands
$1,250,000
7 126 MN-10 DT – WHARF II

REPAIRS
Infrastructure
Repairs/Grant Matching
Funds for Municipal
Wharf II
$800,000
8 125 NM-04
NM – HILLTOP

PARK CENTER

RENOVATIONS
PHASE 2
Additional funding to
complete Hilltop Park
Center renovations. $1,000,000
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 12, Packet Page 131 Exhibit “A”
FY2025/26 Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program (NCIP) NCIP Committee Recommended Project List
2 Projec
t Rank
Vote
Tota
l
Project
Numbe
r
Project Title Project Description Proposed
Budget
9 121 DT-07
DT – MONTEREY

PUBLIC LIBRARY
ADA

COMPLIANCE

AND FACILITY

RENOVATIONS
ADA compliance,
community resilience,
archival preservation,
facility renewal $761,767
10 121 NM-01
NM – IMPROVE
PATH &

REPLACE

STAIRS ON

IRVING AVE

ROW BETWEEN

PARCEL &
LYNDON
Improve path by
replacing stairs on Irving
Ave right-of-way
connecting Lyndon
Street and Parcel Street $80,000
11 120 MN-17
MN – CITYWIDE

UNDERGROUND

UTILITY

CONVERSION
Undergrounding
Program – Underground
overhead utility lines and
removal of poles
$500,000
12 119 COK-06
COK – REPLACE

GATES &

IMPROVE

RESTROOM
LIGHTS
Replace park gates
around playground and
improve lighting in
restrooms.
$2,000
13 114 DMB-01
DMB – INSTALL

RAILING AT

BROADWALK
STAIRS
Installation of railing to
stairs leading to beach
from boardwalk at corner
of Surf and Tide
Avenues.
$50,000
14 111 OT-01
OT – REPLACE

PED PATH

NORTH VAN

BUREN ST ROW
Replace stairs on rightof-way path between
Van Buren Street and
Artillery Street
pedestrian bridge.
$75,000

CUT-OFF PROJECTS
15 111 MN-08
MN – FOREST

MNGMNT &

FUEL RDCT
Continued and
increased efforts to
remove the build-up of
fuel in wooded areas
and promote other fire
prevention efforts.

N/A
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 13, Packet Page 132 Exhibit “A”
FY2025/26 Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program (NCIP) NCIP Committee Recommended Project List
3 Projec
t Rank
Vote
Tota
l
Project
Numbe
r
Project Title Project Description Proposed
Budget
16 108 MN-02
MN – REPLACE

RETAINING

WALL REC TRAIL
Replace failing sections
of retaining wall along
Recreation Trail
$250,000
17 108 MN-14
MN – WHARF II

FEASIBILITY
STUDY
Assess conditions of
Wharf II to develop
better strategies for
future use/improvements
$200,000
18 106 MN-06
MN – ADA

IMPROVE
PUBLIC

FACILITIES
ADA Improvements for
public facilities $300,000
19 95 DT-01
DT – HARTNELL
GULCH

BARRIER

UPGRADE
Upgrade the barrier for
pedestrians passing by
the Hartnell Creek on
both ends
$200,000
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 14, Packet Page 133 FY 2025/26 NCIP Project Voting Results and Ranking
Rank Project No. Modified Project Title High Level
Estimate* AO AM COK DF DMB DMG DT FF GW MV NM OG OT SK VDM VOTE TOTAL Estimated Cost*
(Running Total)
VOTE %

OF TOTAL
1 MN-16 MN-MFD STATION 13 ADDITIONAL
FUNDING FOR REMODEL 400,000.00
10 10 10 10 8 10 10 9 10 8 10 9 10 10 1
135 400,000.00 $ 90%
1 MN-18 MN-PD INTERIM IMP 500,000.00 10 10 9 10 7 10 10 9 10 8 10 9 7 10 6 135 $ 900,000.00 90% 3 MN-05

MN-RPL SPEED SIGNS AT

SLOAT/ENGLISH/PRESCOTT/IRIS

CYN/DAVID AVE
175,000.00
8 9 9 10 10 10 9 9 10 6 10 10 10 10 1
131 1,075,000.00 $ 87%
4 OT-02 OT-CTH/OJ DRAIN IMPR & BUILDING
UPG 350,000.00 10 8 8 10 10 10 10 9 10 8 8 10 10 8 1
130 1,425,000.00 $ 87%
5 MN-03 MN-PUBLIC SAFETY BLDG
ALTERNATIVES 75,000.00 10 10 9 10 7 10 10 9 10 4 10 10 8 10 1 128 1,500,000.00 $ 85%
6 MN-15 MN-CW FUEL RED 1,250,000.00 10 9 10 10 10 7 10 9 10 1 10 10 10 10 1 127 $ 2,750,000.00 85% 7 MN-10 DT-RPR WHF #2 800,000.00 10 9 8 10 1 9 10 9 9 8 10 8 10 10 5 126 $ 3,550,000.00 84% 8 NM-04 NM-HILLTOP PK CENTER RENO 1,000,000.00 10 9 8 10 5 10 10 9 7 3 10 8 10 10 6 125 $ 4,550,000.00 83% 9 DT-07 DT-MPL ADA FAC RENO 761,767.00 10 9 10 10 2 10 10 9 10 10 8 10 10 2 1 121 $ 5,311,767.00 81% 9 NM-01

NM-IMPR PATH & RPL STAIRS OF

IRVING AVE ROW BETWEEN PARCEL
& LYNDON
80,000.00
8 8 8 9 10 9 8 9 7 5 8 8 10 9 5
121 5,391,767.00 $ 81%
11 MN-17 MN-CW UNGRD UTILITIES 500,000.00 8 3 9 10 7 9 9 9 8 10 6 8 10 10 4 120 $ 5,891,767.00 80% 12 COK-06 COK-RPL GATES & IMPR RR LIGHT 2,000.00 8 8 9 10 10 10 9 9 7 6 10 7 7 8 1119 5,893,767.00 $ 79% 13 DMB-01 DMB-INSTL RAILING AT BRDWLK
STAIRS 50,000.00 10 8 9 10 10 7 3 9 8 3 10 9 10 7 1
114 5,943,767.00 $ 76%
14 OT-01 OT-RPL PED PATH NORTH VAN
BUREN ST ROW 75,000.00 6 2 8 10 8 7 9 9 8 4 10 8 10 7 5 111 6,018,767.00 $ 74%
14 MN-08 MN-FOREST MNGMNT & FUEL RDCT N/A 8 4 10 10 1 10 3 9 10 10 1 10 10 10 5111 6,018,767.00 $ 74% 16 MN-02 MN-RPL RETAINING WALL REC TRAIL 250,000.00 10 8 9 9 1 8 8 9 10 2 10 9 8 6 1 108 6,268,767.00 $ 72%
16 MN-14 MN-WHF II FS 200,000.00 8 2 6 10 6 10 9 9 9 1 10 7 5 10 6 108 $ 6,468,767.00 72% 18 MN-06 MN-ADA IMPR: PUBLIC FACILITIES 300,000.00 8 5 10 1 10 10 3 9 10 1 10 8 10 10 1106 6,768,767.00 $ 71% 19 DT-01 DT-HARTNELL GULCH BARRIER UPG 200,000.00 2 3 8 10 1 5 8 9 10 3 10 9 10 6 195 6,968,767.00 $ 63% 19 MN-01 MN-UPG PED BARRIER ON REC
TRAIL ALONG LIGHTHOUSE 250,000.00 8 2 9 10 1 2 8 9 10 2 10 9 8 6 1 95 7,218,767.00 $ 63%
21 DT-12 DT- EL ESTERO PK FCLTY IMPR 1,000,000.00 10 4 8 1 1 10 9 9 10 1 3 7 5 7 6 91 $ 8,218,767.00 61% 21 NM-09 NM-SCHOLZE PARK IMPR 250,000.00 8 7 8 9 1 10 1 9 9 1 1 9 9 6 3 91 $ 8,468,767.00 61% 23 DT-15 DT- EL ESTERO PK IMPR 125,000.00 2 8 7 5 10 4 3 2 7 4 6 7 8 4 10 87 $ 8,593,767.00 58% 24 COK-05 COK-INTL GARBAGE RECEPTACLES 5,000.00 2 6 6 7 7 10 3 9 7 6 6 5 1 6 586 8,598,767.00 $ 57% 24 DT-04 DT-RPL SOL PWR SYS 735 PACIFIC ST 200,000.00 4 7 7 1 2 10 7 2 7 6 4 8 4 7 10 86 8,798,767.00 $ 57% 24 NM-07 NM-INST PUBLIC RR ON CANNERY
ROW 250,000.00 6 6 9 10 10 1 6 9 10 1 1 7 1 1 8
86 9,048,767.00 $ 57%
27 DT-08 DT- RPR DISPLAY BOAT
WASHINGTON & DEL MONTE 150,000.00 10 1 3 9 1 6 10 9 9 1 1 7 5 8 5 85 9,198,767.00 $ 57%
28 DT-05 DT-CNSTR BIKE LN EB PEARL ST TO
3RD ST, INST PED WLK & WALL 500,000.00
10 4 8 5 3 4 8 9 7 1 4 7 6 6 1
83 9,698,767.00 $ 55%
28 MN-04 MN-REMOD PUBLIC RR High Use
Areas 800,000.00 10 2 8 1 1 10 3 9 8 2 10 8 8 2 1
83 10,498,767.00 $ 55%
30 COK-03 COK-PARK WATER FOUNTAIN 8,000.00 2 1 6 10 8 9 3 9 6 6 8 5 1 7 1 82 $ 10,506,767.00 55% 54 NM-08 NM-LIGHTHOUSE EROSION REHAB 1,000,000.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 11,506,767.00 $ 0% 31 DT-11 DT- INST OLD MONTEREY WELCOME
SIGN 25,000.00 2 1 2 10 6 5 3 9 6 5 1 7 7 7 8
79 11,531,767.00 $ 53%
32 MV-02 MV-INST SW EL DORADO/900
MUNRAS 75,000.00 1 9 8 1 1 7 8 9 8 2 5 7 1 3 7
77 11,606,767.00 $ 51%
33 MN-12 MN-INSTL CW BK INFRA 10,000.00 4 1 4 9 10 3 5 9 7 6 2 8 5 1 1 75 $ 11,616,767.00 50%

Page 1 of 2 ends

ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 15, Packet Page 134 FY 2025/26 NCIP Project Voting Results and Ranking
Rank Project No. Modified Project Title High Level
Estimate* AO AM COK DF DMB DMG DT FF GW MV NM OG OT SK VDM VOTE TOTAL Estimated Cost*
(Running Total)
VOTE %

OF TOTAL
34 NM-10 NM-OAK ST WIDENING, PH 2 1,500,000.00 1 2 7 1 2 2 8 9 7 1 9 7 9 1 7 73 $ 13,116,767.00 49% 35 COK-04 COK-RSF BBALL & HANDBALL CT 225,000.00 4 6 0 8 8 1 3 8 6 1 1 7 6 3 10 72 $ 13,341,767.00 48% 36 DT-03 DT-CALLE P PATH CONNECTION 250,000.00 2 2 8 1 3 8 3 9 8 1 2 8 1 7 5 68 $ 13,591,767.00 45% 36 OG-01 NM-RAISED X-WALK AT PARK AVE 250,000.00 7 2 8 5 4 1 2 9 8 4 1 10 1 5 168 13,841,767.00 $ 45% 38 DT-09 MN-REHAB DG WALKWAY ON N.

FREMONT 100,000.00 2 2 8 5 1 8 3 9 8 4 2 7 5 2 1
67 13,941,767.00 $ 45%
39 DT-13 DT- HARTNELL PK IMPR 250,000.00 4 4 4 1 4 1 3 9 7 4 2 9 5 5 3 65 $ 14,191,767.00 43% 40 OG-03

OG-IMPR SW SAFETY AT
UNDERPASS OF HWY 1 AT SLOAT
AVE AND 10TH ST
555,000.00
2 2 7 1 7 1 2 9 5 2 1 10 3 2 10
64 14,746,767.00 $ 43%
40 MN-11 MN-INSTL NTV AMRCN CW ART 100,000.00 4 1 3 1 3 1 3 7 5 2 2 10 10 7 5 64 $ 14,846,767.00 43% 42 DMB-04 DMB-TRAFFIC CALMING 50,000.00 1 6 2 1 1 5 3 9 7 1 6 7 1 6 6 62 $ 14,896,767.00 41% 43 COK-08 COK-REHAB MONTEREY ENTRY SIGN
ON N. FREMONT 25,000.00 2 3 5 5 4 1 3 9 4 4 1 5 1 4 10 61 14,921,767.00 $ 41% 44 NM-06 NM-RPR SW 800 PINE 20,000.00 2 1 2 9 8 5 3 2 7 2 4 8 1 5 1 60 $ 14,941,767.00 40% 45 NM-05 NM-INST SW ADJ 499 DRAKE/LAINE
ST 75,000.00 6 4 8 1 3 6 3 2 7 2 4 6 1 5 1
59 15,016,767.00 $ 39%
46 COK-07 COK-INSL CALISTHENICS GYM AT
COK PARK 125,000.00 2 2 0 5 4 1 3 2 8 1 1 8 8 3 10 58 15,141,767.00 $ 39% 47 DMB-03 DMB-INSTL TOY LIBRARY BOXES AT
DMB ACCESS POINTS 2,000.00 1 1 2 10 8 1 3 2 4 1 1 6 1 6 10 57 15,143,767.00 $ 38% 47 DT-02 DT-HARTNELL GULCH IMPR-STREAM
RSTR-PH1 350,000.00 4 3 7 1 1 1 3 9 8 2 2 9 1 5 1
57 15,493,767.00 $ 38%
49 SK-01 SK-IMP PATH & SD SKYLINE DR 750,000.00 1 1 9 1 1 1 1 7 10 1 1 8 10 0 4 56 $ 16,243,767.00 37% 50 DMB-02 DMB-INSTL RECYCLE CANS AT TIDE
AVE BEACH ENTRANCE 2,000.00 1 3 4 10 9 1 3 2 7 1 1 6 1 2 1 52 16,245,767.00 $ 35%
51 AM-01 AM-IMPR LAGUNITA MIRADA PARK 1,200,000.00 2 4 6 1 1 1 1 9 6 1 3 6 5 2 2 50 17,445,767.00 $ 33% 52 NM-11 NM-HILLTOP PK CENTER ART
MURAL EXP 750,000.00 2 1 3 1 2 2 8 2 4 1 1 7 1 2 10 47 18,195,767.00 $ 31% 53 NM-03 NM-INST ST SIGNS REDUCE VEH
NOISE 5,000.00 1 2 2 5 7 1 2 2 4 1 1 5 1 6 1
41 18,200,767.00 $ 27%
*Estimated Costs Are High Level Estimates Subject to Change Following Review 12-Dec-25

Page 2 of 2 ends

ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 16, Packet Page 135 Council
Agenda Report
№12/25
FROM: Nicole Banks, Parks and Recreation Director
Prepared By: Mark Ackermann, Management Analyst
SUBJECT: Authorize Staff to Draft Proposed Changes to Chapter 37 of Monterey City Code "Preservation of Trees and Shrubs" Ordinance and Authorize Paying for the Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council: (1) receive a report on the
proposed updates to Chapter 37 of the Monterey City
Code (Preservation of Trees and Shrubs Ordinance); (2)
provide direction to staff on the proposed policy
changes; and (3) authorize paying for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed
ordinance update.

VALUE DRIVERS:

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The proposed changes have been produced in response
to evolving community expectations, operational
experience since the last update, and as an effort to
streamline processes and improve clarity for the public.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE
ACT) APPLIES No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

Adoption of the proposed ordinance amendments
themselves carries no direct fiscal impact. However, if the City Council authorizes ordinance amendments as
proposed, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be
required prior to adopting the updated ordinance. The
estimated cost is approximately $150,000 to $200,000.

Given the City's current budget constraints, staff is
Agenda Report Highlights
• The City Council is reviewing
proposed updates to Chapter 37 of
the Monterey City Code,
"Preservation of Trees and Shrubs,"
to address public concerns
regarding wildfire risks and to
streamline the permit process.
• A proposed change includes raising
the "protected tree" threshold from 6
inches to 8 inches for native species
(Oaks, Pines, Cypress) and to 12
inches for all other species.
• The update would eliminate the 2-
inch diameter threshold for vacant
lots and remove the distinction
between developed and vacant
parcels entirely.
• New regulations would introduce
tiered civil penalties for unpermitted
removals, ranging from $1,000 to
$10,000 based on the tree's
diameter.
• Because raising removal thresholds
may lead to more tree removals, an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
costing between $150,000 and
$200,000 may be required.

Date: 4/21/2026
Item No.: 12.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 1, Packet Page 136 №11/25
requesting Council authorization to fund the EIR before committing to that expenditure. If supported by the City Council, staff would budget for this expense as part of the FY 2026-27 budget.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

Take no action and retain the current Chapter 37 ordinance.

Adopt limited, targeted amendments addressing only the most urgent administrative and fire safety provisions where the City’s requirements for tree removal would not change. In other words, the limited amendments would not reduce the protection for trees in the City, and broader policy changes would be deferred to a later date. This approach would reduce potential CEQA review.

DISCUSSION:

Background
Monterey's urban forest is one of its most defining characteristics. Monterey Pines, Monterey Cypress, and Coastal Live Oaks define the City's visual character and contribute substantially to its environmental health, property values, and sense of place. Monterey City Code (MCC) Chapter 37, the “Preservation of Trees and Shrubs Ordinance,” has been the primary regulatory mechanism for protecting these resources since its last comprehensive revision in 2009.

However, over the past several years, there has been increased public concern regarding potential wildfire and storm-related risks posed by the urban forest. Additionally, staff has identified a number of areas where the ordinance could benefit from procedural updates.

The current ordinance defines a protected tree on private, developed property as any tree with a trunk diameter of six (6) inches or more at breast height (DBH), which has generated public friction, as some residents view it as applying to relatively small trees. The ordinance also contains appeal standards not in line with the majority of California cities, does not explicitly recognize the goal to remove invasive species, and can benefit from updates regarding how replacement trees are managed, what information is required with a permit application, and what civil penalties are appropriate.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 2, Packet Page 137 №11/25
In response, the Parks and Recreation Department and City Attorney's Office, in consultation with the Community Development Department, undertook a comprehensive review of Chapter

37. That proposed update is summarized in this report.

Community Engagement
Staff conducted an extensive community engagement process prior to finalizing the recommendations for the ordinance update:
• Two (2) public town hall meetings were held in October and November 2025. Combined attendance was approximately 100 residents, property owners, arborists, and other stakeholders. Both meetings generated substantive discussion on permit thresholds, fire safety tradeoffs, and enforcement.
• An online community survey was distributed and received 317 completed responses - a strong participation rate for a municipal code update process. The survey addressed nine (9) substantive policy questions covering permit thresholds, replacement requirements, penalties, and fire safety considerations. Key results are summarized in the table below.

Summary of Community Survey Results (317 respondents)
Survey Question Top Response Share Consensus
Current 6" DBH threshold for tree
permits for private, developed parcels
Too strict — should
apply only to larger
trees

67.8% Raise
threshold
2" DBH for private, vacant lot permit
threshold — should it change?
Yes — change it 69.1% Raise
threshold
Should non-native trees have a larger
DBH threshold?
Yes (split opinion) 48.6% Yes
/ 39.1% No
Mixed
Preferred type of tree replacement
when removal occurs
Based on lot size
and existing trees
on site

26.8% Contextbased
Should utilities be responsible for
replacement if they remove a tree
without approval?
Yes 75.4% Strong yes
Should pruning permits be required for
major alterations (>25% canopy,
topping, etc.)?
No 58.7% Reduce
burden
How should fines for unpermitted
removal be assessed?
Keep at $1,000 /
Base on native vs.
non-native (close
split)

23.3% /

22.4%
No
consensus
Same-species replacement required for
native oaks/pines/cypress?
No (slight majority) 48.9% No /

38.2% Yes
Mixed
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 3, Packet Page 138 №11/25
Survey Question Top Response Share Consensus
Should the ordinance proactively
address Zone 0 fire safety
requirements?
Wait — may not be
fully adopted vs.

Yes, eventually
(close split)

44.5% /

39.7%
Divided
Key Survey Takeaway: Respondents broadly supported raising the DBH thresholds for trees to be considered “protected,” which then requires a permit for removal, reducing administrative burden for pruning, and holding utility companies accountable for tree replacement. Views were more divided on species-specific replacement requirements, fine structures, and Zone 0 integration. These areas of divided opinion are precisely the policy questions on which staff is seeking Council direction.

Proposed Changes
Staff approached potential changes to the ordinance by trying to meet the community’s requests to the greatest extent possible within legal and operational requirements. The proposed updates to Chapter 37 are organized below into four district components. Each item represents a genuine departure from the current code, not a restatement of existing provisions.

Component 1 — Who and What Is Regulated: Protected Tree Definition and Permit Structure
The most consequential change in the proposed ordinance update is a complete restructuring of how "protected trees" are defined. Currently, protected status turns on parcel type: any tree over 2" DBH on a vacant lot, and any tree over 6" DBH on a developed parcel, requires a permit for removal regardless of species. Staff recommends eliminating the developed/vacant parcel distinction entirely and replacing it with a species-based threshold:
• Coastal Live Oak, Monterey Pine, and Monterey Cypress: protected at 8" DBH or greater (up from 6", but now species-specific rather than parcel-based). • All other tree species (native or non-native): protected at 12" DBH or greater (up from 6" on developed parcels and 2" on vacant lots).
• Vacant lot threshold eliminated: The current 2" DBH threshold for vacant parcels, which many residents identified as particularly burdensome, is removed entirely. The 69% of survey respondents who supported changing the vacant lot threshold are addressed by this change.

The proposed ordinance also introduces three formal permit categories. Currently, there is one permit type reviewed by the City Forester, and applications based on reasons other than tree health or safety are simply denied or referred to the Appeals Hearing Board. The proposed categories create distinct pathways:
• Category I: Removal of dead trees or trees within five (5) feet of a structure - streamlined approval.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 4, Packet Page 139 №11/25
• Category II: Health or safety-based removals - reviewed by the Director against enumerated criteria.
• Category III: Removals concurrent with new development - referred to Community Development Department (this referral process exists in current MCC §37-10 but would be further clarified as a distinct category with its own criteria in the proposed update).

Component 2 — Replacement Requirements, Penalties, and Enforcement Several replacement and enforcement provisions are being substantively changed, not just reorganized:
• Replacement ratios tied to permit category (new): Currently, the no-replacement exception applies only when a tree is removed to relieve overcrowding. Under the proposal, Category I removals for trees near structures would require no replacement.

Category II removals require 1:1 replacement unless based on overcrowding. Category III removals (development-related) or other removals subject to the appeal process may require up to 3:1.
• Replacement planting infeasibility standard (new): The current code does not define when on-site replacement is infeasible. The proposal adds an explicit standard:
replacement is infeasible if it would place trees within five (5) feet of a structure or if an arborist report confirms the planting would violate state defensible space spacing guidelines. This creates a clear pathway for property owners navigating potential future fire safety requirements.
• Replacement timing and 5-year survival requirement (new): The current code contains no planting deadline or survival requirement. The proposal requires replacement trees to be planted between October and April, within 60 days of permit approval or within the calendar year (whichever is longer), and mandates replacement if trees die within five (5) years of planting.
• Tiered civil penalties (new): The current code refers violations to the general penalty provisions in Chapter 1, with no tree-specific penalty schedule. The proposed ordinance adds a dedicated penalty table based on trunk diameter, ranging from $1,000 for trees under 12" DBH to $10,000 for trees over 48" DBH, with penalties doubling for repeat violations on the same property. The administrative citation process would remain the primary vehicle for addressing violations, but the civil penalty provision will offer an avenue to address egregious and repeat violations.

Component 3 — Fire Safety
Chapter 37 currently contains no provisions addressing state defensible space requirements or the removal of trees to comply with proposed state-level fire safety mandates. The City’s proposed amendment begins to address this gap:
• Defensible space as grounds for replacement infeasibility (new): the proposal allows inlieu fees when an arborist certifies that replanting would violate state defensible space spacing guidelines. Additionally, the proposal would allow trees within five (5) feet of an existing structure to be removed.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 5, Packet Page 140 №11/25
• Undesirable non-native species list — expanded specificity (modified): The current §37- 10 already lists "undesirable non-native species" as a criterion for removal. The proposed ordinance retains this criterion but adds a specific named list (Acacia, Eucalyptus, palms, Saltcedar, Tree of Heaven) and expands the rationale to include potential for degrading the local canopy and environment. This is a refinement of an existing provision, not an entirely new one.

Component 4 — Governance, Authority, and Process Changes Several structural governance changes are proposed that alter who makes decisions and how oversight is conducted:
• Permit approval authority shifted from City Forester to Director (new): Currently, all tree permit approvals are issued by the City Forester. The proposed ordinance shifts this authority to the Parks and Recreation Director, with delegation to the Urban Forester or Park Operations Manager. This change is intended to address operational continuity when the Urban Forester position is vacant and to align with how authority is structured elsewhere in the City Code.
• Landmark tree designation body changed (new): Currently, landmark trees are designated by the Architectural Review Committee, with decisions appealable to the Planning Commission and City Council. The proposed ordinance transfers this authority to the Parks and Recreation Commission and makes Commission decisions final with no appeal path.
• View trimming provision removed (new): The current §37-3 allows permit applications for view trimming of public trees, subject to compliance with the City's view trimming guidelines. This provision is removed in its entirety from the proposed ordinance. The City will maintain public trees in accordance with accepted forestry practices. • Private property owner maintenance responsibility codified (new): The current code does not explicitly address maintenance responsibility for trees in the public right-of-way. It is proposed that language be added to explicitly state that except for trees planted and/or maintained by the City, it is the adjacent property owner’s responsibility to maintain trees in the public right-of-way. This is consistent with Chapter 32 and state law more broadly. • Prior condition compliance check added (new): The proposed ordinance requires staff to verify that all conditions from tree removal permits issued within the prior five (5) years on the same parcel have been fulfilled before a new application will be processed. No such requirement exists in the current code.
• Certified Arborist report required for all appeals (new): Currently, appeals may be brought by any interested party without a specific evidentiary requirement. The proposed amendment would require all Category I and II appeals to be accompanied by a report from an ISA-certified arborist addressing tree health and safety. This will ensure that the Appeals Hearing Board has adequate information on which to base its review appeal decisions.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 6, Packet Page 141 №11/25
Environmental Review and EIR Considerations
Before proceeding with the ordinance amendment process, clear policy direction is necessary so that the potential effects of environmental impacts can be analyzed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Based on the policy direction received, Planning staff and the City Attorney’s Office will then evaluate whether the proposed amendments would qualify for a CEQA exemption or require preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

Factors that may support an exemption include the ordinance's purpose to protect rather than remove trees, while factors that would require an EIR include increasing DBH thresholds, which is likely to result in the removal of a greater number of trees. To use a categorical exemption from CEQA, the City bears the burden of proof to demonstrate with substantial evidence that the project constitutes an action to assure the maintenance, restoration, or enhancement of the environment. In Save Our Big Trees v. City of Santa Cruz (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 694, the court determined that Santa Cruz’ tree ordinance amendments, taken together, removed rather than secured protections from some undefined number of heritage trees, and that the CEQA categorical exemptions from CEQA did not apply. Santa Cruz’ replanting requirement did not alter the court’s conclusion.

Cost Consideration: Staff estimates the cost of preparing an EIR at approximately $150,000 to $200,000. Given current budget constraints, staff is requesting City Council direction on whether to proceed with the project before engaging environmental consultants. If the scope of proposed changes does not warrant an EIR, staff will document the basis for a CEQA exemption and bring the ordinance forward for adoption. If, based on the policy direction received from Council, an EIR is required, staff will prepare a scope of work based on said direction and engage an environmental consultant to prepare the EIR. Staff estimates that preparation of the draft EIR will take 6-8 months, after which it will be subject to a public review period prior to the Final EIR being brought to Council. It should also be noted that if the policy direction changes following preparation of the EIR, a revision or addendum would be required, and this would incur additional consultant costs.

Staff is requesting that the City Council provide direction on the following questions:
• Does the Council support the four (4) ordinance amendment components discussed above and is there any guidance or direction on the amendment components? • If the policy direction from Council would require preparation of an EIR pursuant to state law, does Council authorize staff to proceed with an EIR or does it prefer not to move forward with the ordinance amendment at this time?
NB/ma
Attachments: None
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 7, Packet Page 142 Council
Agenda Report
№07/19
FROM: Nat Rojanasathira, Assistant City Manager
Rafaela T. King, Finance Director
SUBJECT: Provide Direction on Polling Topics for Potential Ballot Measures for the November 2026 Election (Not a Project Under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council provide direction on polling topics for potential ballot measures for the November 2026
election.

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:

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. Other topics for ballot measures or charter amendments could be
included in the polling effort.

The cost for the public opinion survey design,
implementation, and analysis of Phase 1 (Fall 2025) was $31,500, its follow-up was $26,750, and the Phase 2
survey (Spring 2026) will be $31,500, for a total cost of $89,750.Unassigned fund balance has been and will be
utilized for this engagement.

Agenda Report Highlights
• The City Council is asked to provide
direction polling topics for potential
ballot measures for the November
2026 election.
• Polling could evaluate public
support for the renewal of Measure
S, a half-cent special tax dedicated
to infrastructure that requires a twothirds supermajority for approval. • Public opinion research could test
variables for a potential parking lot
tax, including student exemptions
and applying the tax to city-owned
lots to address equity concerns.
• The survey may gauge voter
interest in a 5% streaming service
tax, which is estimated to generate
between $350,000 and $500,000 in
annual revenue.
• Phase 2 interviews with likely voters
are tentatively scheduled for midMay 2026 with results to be presented at a subsequent City
Council meeting.

Date: 4/21/2026
Item No.: 13.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 1, Packet Page 143 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 opt not to provide direction on which measures to engage in public opinion research strategies, but that is not recommended. Local governments are advised to move forward on ballot measures, including tax measures and charter amendments, 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 and 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 and January 2026.

The fall survey of likely voters focused 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 were analyzed and presented to the City Council on December 2, 2025.

The second round of Phase 1 Poll of Likely Voters took place during the first two weeks of January 2026. The second round of the survey results of likely voters were analyzed and presented to the City Council on January 20, 2026. The Council decided to include the 0.375 Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 2, Packet Page 144 sales tax measure on the June 2, 2026 election and to postpone the Parking Tax measure until more information could be gathered.

This agenda item is to explore Phase 2 survey topics for the November 2026 election. The polling is tentatively planned for the first and second weeks in June 2026.

Timeline and Milestones
To meet election deadlines and get prior approval from the State for ballot measure language, the following schedule is proposed.
• April 2026 – FM3 and City team prepare survey
• May 2026 – Data collection and analysis
• TBD – City Council meeting presentation of results
For the second phase of polling before the November 2026 General Election, the City Council can test multiple potential ballot measures and/or charter amendments, however the recommendation from FM3 is to test no more than two (2) ballot questions. Other items can be tested conceptually, but FM3 advises that adding more items will limit the City’s ability to test educational statements and specifics on the high priority measures.

Polling Options
Measure P/S Renewal
The Council is considering the renewal of Measure S, the half-cent (0.5%) special tax originally approved by Monterey voters in 2014 (as Measure P) and extended in 2019. These funds are dedicated to infrastructure, including streets, sidewalks, and storm drain projects. The current measure is set to expire on March 31, 2027.

Because this is a "special tax" (dedicated to specific purposes), the renewal requires a twothirds (66.6666%) supermajority for approval, even if the ballot language remains unchanged from the previous version.

A/B testing is a research method that presents two slightly different versions of a proposal to separate groups to determine which one performs better. In the context of public polling, it helps the City Council identify which specific tax rates or exemptions resonate most with voters before finalizing ballot language. To maximize the chances of success, the Council can use A/B testing to gauge voter sensitivity toward the following variables:
• Sunset Provisions: Compare support for a fixed term (e.g., 9 years) versus an openended measure (e.g., "until ended by voters"). • Expansion of Use: Test public appetite for broadening the tax's scope to include City facility maintenance (e.g., fire and police stations, libraries, and community centers). Note: Staff does not recommend this expansion, as it may dilute the core "fix our streets" message and risk falling below the required 2/3rds threshold.

Parking Lot Tax
Throughout 2025 and early 2026, the City Council evaluated a potential Parking Lot Tax for the November 2026 ballot. In January 2026, Council directed staff to prepare materials to place the tax of 8% on the June ballot.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 3, Packet Page 145 At the March 3, 2026 meeting, when staff brought forward the proposed parking lot tax for the June 2026 ballot, concerns were expressed from the business community and taxpayer advocates regarding impacts on the hospitality sector has led the Council to reconsider its approach. Public concerns centered on three key areas: structural inequities (the exemption of public lots), revenue reliability (projections falling below staff estimates), and the disproportionate burden on students, specifically those purchasing permits at Monterey Peninsula College. Council directed staff to bring back additional information and consider a parking tax in November. Council may also choose to poll again on this topic. Staff would bring additional information about the proposed Parking Tax to Council in late May or early June, along with the results of the poll.

To evaluate the viability of a Parking Lot Tax, the Council can test the following variables to see if they mitigate public opposition:
• Equity (Public vs. Private): Compare voter support for a tax that applies only to private commercial lots versus a "universal" tax that includes both private and City-owned public parking.
• Targeted Exemptions (Students): Test if support increases when students at Monterey Peninsula College are fully exempt from the tax.

Streaming Tax
In the "index card exercise" during the August and September 2025 meetings, the City Council reviewed several revenue-generating options. For the Streaming Tax (specifically a Video Users Tax or modernizing the existing Utility Users Tax), the revenue projections discussed estimated $350,000 to $500,000 in revenue based on a proposed tax rate of 5%. In early 2026, the California Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the City of Santa Barbara, establishing a precedent that cities can indeed apply these taxes to streaming services if their local ordinance language is "technology neutral." Council may want to poll on this tax for the November 2026 ballot.

Additional Ballot Measures or Charter Amendments
The Council may also identify other potential measures for inclusion in this polling phase, however staff recommends that the Council consider FM3’s recommendation to limit the number of measures polled as is discussed in the Timeline and Milestones section above.

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, 4/21/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 4, Packet Page 146 Council
Agenda Report
№11/25
FROM: Tyller Williamson, Mayor
SUBJECT: Mayor Williamson’s Request to Agendize a Discussion Regarding Review of the Council Governance Policy: Agendizing Process and Meeting Efficiency (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION: Direct staff on whether to agendize the discussion.

VALUE DRIVERS: As provided in the attached request.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The City Council’s Governance Policy (Resolution No. 25-082 C.S.) provides:

Agendizing of City Council Items by Individual Councilmembers.

1. A Councilmember may submit an agenda report to the City Clerk’s Office outlining a request to agendize a matter of business on a future agenda. This agenda report should, in 350 words or less, describe what, how, and why the matter of business should be considered by the City Council. The City Clerk’s Office will add the item to an upcoming agenda.

2. At the Council Meeting where the request is considered, the Councilmember who submitted the request will deliver a verbal report consistent with the agenda report. This verbal report should not exceed three minutes. The City Council may ask questions pertaining to whether the item should be agendized (e.g., the required amount of staff time, the priority level to be assigned to the item, etc.).

3. Public comment will be received.

4. In deliberating the request, 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.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: Agendizing a matter does not have a fiscal implication. Fiscal implications of the suggested changes will be included in the future agenda item, if agendized.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 1, Packet Page 147 №11/25
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 Council could choose not to agendize the matter.

DISCUSSION:

On April 16, 2026, Mayor Williamson provided a written request to agendize, which is attached as Attachment 1.

At its meeting on April 21, 2026, the City Council will consider whether this item should be added to a future City Council meeting agenda. Consistent with the City Council’s Governance Policy, the member of Council who submitted the request will deliver a verbal report consistent with the agenda report. This verbal report should not exceed three minutes. The City Council may ask questions pertaining to whether the item should be agendized (e.g., the required amount of staff time, the priority level to be assigned to the item, etc.). Public comment will then be received. In deliberating the request, 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.

TW/cbk
Attachments: 1. Request
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 2, Packet Page 148

ATTACHMENT
Date: April 16, 2026
From: Tyller Williamson, Mayor
Subject: Council Governance Policy Review: Agendizing Process and Meeting Efficiency Summary:

This item requests City Council consideration to review and discuss potential updates to the Council’s governance policy, focusing on the process for agendizing items and improving overall meeting efficiency.

Discussion:

The Council will review the current procedure by which individual Councilmembers place items on a future agenda. At present, a Councilmember must submit a request and obtain support from at least one additional Councilmember during a public meeting to advance the item. This discussion will include whether such support could be obtained outside of a meeting in a manner consistent with the Brown Act.

The Council will also consider whether to formalize a practice of consulting with staff to determine appropriate timing and readiness before scheduling items for Council discussion.

Additional discussion may include meeting management practices, such as establishing clearer expectations or guidelines regarding the length and structure of Council questions and deliberation.

This item is intended to allow for a broader conversation among Councilmembers, staff, and the public regarding potential improvements to governance processes. Based on Council direction, staff may return with recommended policy updates for formal adoption.

Recommendation:

Discuss and provide direction to staff regarding potential updates to the Council’s governance policy.

Council Regular Meeting, 4/21/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 3, Packet Page 149

Monterey City CouncilApril 21, 2026

Monterey City Council
April 21, 2026