Agenda packet — Monterey City Council, May 19, 2026

Council Chamber
580 Pacific St.

Monterey, California

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Council Regular Meeting and
Closed Session
Tuesday, May 19, 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.

May 19, 2026 4:00 PM
2 Call to Order
AFTERNOON SESSION: 4:00 p.m.

Presentations (Afternoon)

1. Recognize National Public Works Week 2026 (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

2. Receive Presentation from Montage Health (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 29, 2026 Special Meeting (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

4. May 5, 2026 (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.

5. Authorize Renewal Agreement for 9-1-1 Emergency Communication Services and Governance with Multiple Public Agencies in Monterey County (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

6. Identify Franklin at Calle Principal and Alvarado Street ADA Improvements as the Project to be Funded by SB 1: The Road Repair and Accountability Act (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

7. Authorize a Contract with Washington Western Systems, Inc. in the Amount of $472,340.65 for the Purchase of Adaptive Traffic Control System and Traffic Management Software for the Citywide Traffic Signal System Project ***CIP*** (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

8. Adopt the Annual Reports and Approve Resolutions to Set a Public Hearing Date to Levy the Annual Assessment for the Cannery Row Business Improvement District, the New Monterey Business Improvement District, and the North Fremont Business Improvement District (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
May 19, 2026 4:00 PM
3 9. Accept the Traffic Signal Warrant Evaluation and Approve the Removal of the Traffic Signal at Prescott Avenue and Taylor Street ***CIP/NCIP***(Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1)
Consent: Other

10. Authorize Master Programs Funding Agreement with the Transportation Agency for Monterey County to Receive Allocations from Regional Surface Transportation Program, Regional Development Impact Fee, and Transportation Development Act 2% Program and Authorize the Finance Director to Increase FY26 Revenue and Appropriate Regional Surface Transportation Funds in the Amount of $209,442.61 ***CIP*** (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

11. Approve Installation of Public Trash Receptacle Art on Fisherman's Wharf (Not a project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

12. Support the Transportation Agency for Monterey County's Application to the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) for the Safe Streets for All Discretionary Grant Opportunity for Fiscal Year 2026 (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) End of Consent Agenda
Afternoon Session Items
Public Hearing (Afternoon)
Public Hearings are held to receive a staff presentation and public comment on certain items prior to City Council action. NOTICE CONCERNING YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS: If you challenge the City Council’s zoning, planning, or land use decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing on the matter, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at the time of or prior to the public hearing. (Government Code section 65009.)

13. Adopt Citywide Fee Schedule (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

14. Receive a Report on Compliance with Assembly Bill 2561 / Government Code Section 3502.3 regarding Vacancies, Recruitment and Retention Efforts (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20 Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5 Section 15061) Public Appearance (Afternoon)
Public Appearance items are on non-routine issues that might stimulate public interest and comments.

15. Amend and Restate Resolution 25-112 to Adopt a Refined Residential Parking Permit (RPP) Program Framework (Exempt from CEQA, Article 19, Section 15306, Class 6) Adjourn to Closed Session
The City Council will take public comments on closed session items before convening to closed session.

May 19, 2026 4:00 PM
4 Closed Session (Afternoon)
Part or all of a meeting may be closed to the public under special conditions. Council can consider only matters covered in the agenda descriptions.

16. Conference with Legal Counsel, Existing Litigation Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(1): Frank Russo, Workers Compensation Appeals Board Case No.

ADJ18027057 (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

17. Conference with Legal Counsel, Existing Litigation Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(1): Stronghold Engineering, Inc. v. City of Monterey (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 18CV329015) (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Recess
Reconvene
EVENING SESSION AGENDA: Approximately 7:00 p.m.

No discussion of a new item will be started after 10:30 p.m. unless agreed upon by Council.

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

Announcements from Closed Session
Evening Session Items
Presentations (Evening)

18. Recognize May 2026 as Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Public Hearing (Evening)
Public Hearings are held to receive a staff presentation and public comment on certain items prior to City Council action. NOTICE CONCERNING YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS: If you challenge the City Council’s zoning, planning, or land use decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing on the matter, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at the time of or prior to the public hearing. (Government Code section 65009.)

19. Adopt the Planning Commission Recommendation to Adopt a 1st Reading of Ordinance to Prohibit Roosters (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

20. Adopt the Planning Commission Recommendation to Adopt a 1st Reading of Ordinance to Clarify the City’s Reasonable Accommodation Regulations (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
May 19, 2026 4:00 PM
5 21. Adopt the Planning Commission Recommendation to Adopt a 1st Reading of Ordinance Amending the Monterey City Code to Prohibit Vehicle Storage on Properties with Both Industrial, Administration, Research (I-R) and Multi Residential Family (MF) Zoning (Not a Project Under CEQA per 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.

22. Councilmember Garcia's Request to Agendize a Discussion Regarding Options to Support Casanova Oak Knoll Neighborhood’s Request for an Air Quality Study (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Council Comments
Councilmembers may ask a question for clarification, make a brief announcement, or make a brief report on their activities. In addition, Councilmember or the City Council may provide a referral to staff or other resources for factual information. (Government Code section 54954.2(a)(3).)
City Manager Reports
The City Manager may make a brief report on their activities or a brief announcement. They may also ask for clarification or direction regarding scheduling of Council meetings and study sessions.

Adjournment
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on these matters within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, are available at: monterey.gov/submitted-comments and in the City Manager’s Office at 580 Pacific St., Room 1, Monterey, CA 93940 during regular business hours. All comments and materials provided to the Council become part of the public record. Members of the public who comment in any fashion on an agenda item may be subject to the Levine Act which requires disclosure of campaign contributions of more than $500 to an officer of the City within the preceding 12 months.

INTERPRETATION: The Monterey City Council invites and encourages public participation at its meetings.

Requests for language interpretation may be made by contacting the City Clerk at [email protected] or 831-646-3935. The City Clerk will make every effort to accommodate requests for interpreter assistance.

Requests should be made as soon as possible in advance of any meeting of the City Council. The City is committed to addressing language interpretation requests swiftly in order to maximize public participation.

ACCESSIBILITY: The City of Monterey is committed to including people with disabilities in all of its services, programs and activities. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, including to coordinate the use of a hearing device, please contact [email protected] or (831) 646-3935. Notification 30+ hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting [28 CFR 35.102-

35.104 ADA Title II]. Later requests will be accommodated to the extent feasible. For communication-related assistance, dial 711 to use the California Relay Service (CRS) to speak to City offices. CRS offers free text-tospeech, speech-to-speech, and Spanish-language services 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

CITY OF MONTEREY 24-HOUR SUGGESTION HOTLINES: (831) 646-3799 or [email protected] Upcoming city meetings are listed at monterey.gov/agendas For more information, call (831) 646-3935 Council
Agenda Report
№12/25
FROM: Andrea Renny, PE, PTOE, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Megan Beckman, Administrative Analyst
SUBJECT: Recognize National Public Works Week 2026 (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council receive a presentation to
recognize National Public Works Week 2026.

VALUE DRIVERS:

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

It is within the City Council’s purview to acknowledge the people and services delivered by the City of Monterey
by recognizing the contributions of its workforce.

National Public Works Week 2026 is an appropriate
recognition by the City Council.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE
ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey determined that the proposed
action is not a project as defined by the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14,
Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section
15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061
includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to
activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any Agenda Report Highlights
• The City Council is receiving a
presentation to recognize National
Public Works Week 2026, which
takes place from May 17–23.
• The American Public Works
Association (APWA) has designated
the theme for 2026 as "Rooted in
Service, Powered by Community".
• Public Works is the City of
Monterey’s largest department,
consisting of 167 employees across
seven specialized divisions.
• The department’s responsibilities
are vast, including the maintenance
of 108 miles of roadway, 56
signalized intersections, and 31
parking facilities.
• Essential services provided by the
department include 24/7 emergency
response for infrastructure damage,
management of the Harbor and
Fleet, and building maintenance for
both City and military partners.

Date: 5/19/2026
Item No.: 1.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 1., Item Page 1, Packet Page 6 №12/25
reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED: None.

DISCUSSION:

For National Public Works Week, many states, provinces, cities/towns and municipalities from across North America come together to celebrate with official government proclamations and resolutions in honor of the contribution Public Works makes to their communities: in planning, building, managing and operating the heart of our local communities and in building the quality of life. The American Public Works Association (APWA) announced “Rooted in Service, Powered by Community” as the theme for the 2026 National Public Works Week.

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

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

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

Parking Division
This division operates 31 parking facilities with approximately 3,500 off-street parking spaces. In addition to off-street parking spaces, there are over 3,000 on-street spaces in the Downtown, Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 1., Item Page 2, Packet Page 7 №12/25
Cannery Row and Lighthouse Avenue areas of the City. The Parking Division works with businesses, residents, institutions and visitors alike to meet parking needs.

General Services
The General Services Division of the City of Monterey provides building maintenance and custodial services for all City buildings and facilities through cost effective repair, renovation and routine maintenance. The General Services Division also provides these same services to military partners. Monterey is proud to celebrate almost 30 years of partnership with its military partners!

Street & Utilities Division
The mission of the Streets Division is to maintain the City of Monterey’s roadways, sanitary sewers, storm drains, signage, traffic signals, and related infrastructure. The Streets Division maintains 108 centerline miles of roadway, 101 miles of sanitary sewer, 44 miles of storm drain culverts, over 5,000 regulatory signs, and 56 signalized intersections. Streets crews are on standby, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year to respond to sanitary sewer overflows, vehicle accidents where City infrastructure is damaged, and to support public safety.

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

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

Public Works Administration
The Public Works Administration division provides professional and executive-level support to its six diverse operating divisions with a total of 167 full-time and regular part-time employees.

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

AR/mb
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 1., Item Page 3, Packet Page 8 Council
Agenda Report
№12/25
FROM: Nat Rojanasathira, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Receive Presentation from Montage Health (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 Mike
McDermott, MD, President and CEO for Montage
Health.

VALUE DRIVERS:

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The City of Monterey maintains a collaborative
relationship with Montage Health, the largest non-profit healthcare provider on the Monterey Peninsula. Given
its significant role as a regional employer and
landowner, sustaining a robust partnership with Montage Health is vital to the City’s operational success and
economic vitality.

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 Agenda Report Highlights
• Montage Health President/CEO
Dr. Mike McDermott will provide the
City Council with an update on
current and future Montage Health
initiatives.
• Montage Health operates a regional
network including Community
Hospital, MoGo Urgent Care, and
the Ohana Center.
• The organization collaborates with
local fire and police departments to
coordinate emergency medical
responses and mental health crises.

Date: 5/19/2026
Item No.: 2.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 2., Item Page 1, Packet Page 9 №12/25
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 receive the presentation.

DISCUSSION:

Montage Health serves as a vital community partner. A non-profit, locally governed healthcare system, Montage Health has expanded beyond its roots at Community Hospital in Monterey to provide a comprehensive network of wellness, urgent care, and specialized medical services.

Montage Health oversees a sophisticated network of facilities, anchored by the Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula (CHOMP). In Monterey, this network has grown to include the MoGo Urgent Care clinic, which provides accessible immediate care for residents, and the innovative Ohana Center, dedicated to transformative teen and adolescent behavioral health.

Furthermore, the Ryan Ranch campus hosts the Montage Medical Group, the Spine & Joint Center, and an array of specialized outpatient services that ensure the local community has access to top-tier medical expertise without leaving the region.

Beyond clinical care, the relationship between the City and Montage Health is foundational to local public safety. The organization maintains a seamless partnership with the Monterey Fire Department to coordinate emergency medical responses and clinical handoffs. Simultaneously, Montage Health works in lockstep with the Monterey Police Department to manage complex mental health crises at CHOMP, providing a clinical environment for those in need and assisting law enforcement in navigating behavioral health challenges.

This presentation from Dr. Mike McDermott, President and CEO of Montage Health, serves to update the Council on Montage Health’s new and ongoing initiatives.

As one of the largest employers and the largest nonprofit (property tax welfare exempt) landowners in Monterey, the City’s ongoing partnership with Montage Health is critical to Monterey’s operational efficiency, fiscal health, and long-term economic vitality.

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, 5/19/2026, Item No. 2., Item Page 2, Packet Page 10 Mike McDermott, MD, MBA
President and CEO, Montage Health
Monterey City Council Meeting — May 19, 2026

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 2., Item Page 3, Packet Page 11 Before Montage Health

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 2., Item Page 4, Packet Page 12 Our Conversation
 Access to care
 Growing our own
 Partnering for our community

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 2., Item Page 5, Packet Page 13 Access to Care: Primary, Specialty, and Urgent Care
Montage Medical Group
110+ providers
230,000 patient visits annually
NEW access: Building E
MoGo Urgent Care
48,000 patient visits annually
NEW: Montage Orthopedics
& Sports Medicine

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 2., Item Page 6, Packet Page 14 Access to Care: New Life-Saving Stroke Care

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 2., Item Page 7, Packet Page 15 Economic Vitality: Workforce Recruitment & Retention
Healthcare Careers Academy MPC & CSUMB partnerships Clinical Careers Program

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 2., Item Page 8, Packet Page 16 Monterey Spotlight: Community-based Programming
Healthy Habits & Nutrition Youth Mental Health Substance Use Prevention

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 2., Item Page 9, Packet Page 17 Working Together for a Healthier Monterey

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 2., Item Page 10, Packet Page 18

MINUTES

CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING

CITY OF MONTEREY
Wednesday, April 29, 2026
4:00 PM
COUNCIL CHAMBER, 580 PACIFIC ST., MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
AND TELECONFERENCE LOCATION: HILTON GARDEN INN, ROOM 105, 6070

MONTEREY ROAD, GILROY, CALIFORNIA
Councilmembers

Present: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith*, Williamson

Absent: None
* Attended remotely by teleconference at the duly noticed teleconference location listed above
City Staff

Present:

City Manager, City Attorney, Assistant City Manager, Community Development Director, Finance Director, Fire Chief, Human Resources Director, Library & Museums Director, Parks and Recreation Director, Police Chief, Public Works Director, City Clerk, Deputy Public Works Director/City Engineer, Recreation Manager, Assistant Police Chief, Fleet Manager, Finance Analyst, Park Operations Manager, Division Chief, Police Lieutenant, Harbormaster, Streets & Utilities Operations Manager, General Services Superintendent, Police Sergeant, Assistant Human Resources Director, Senior Administrative Analyst (Public Works), Senior Facility Specialist (Monterey Sports Center), Fire Captain Teleconference Notice
This meeting was held with a combination of in-person and teleconference attendance, pursuant to the Ralph M. Brown Act, Calif. Gov. Code sec. 54953(b).

AFTERNOON SESSION
Call to Order
Mayor Williamson called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. Mayor Williamson prompted Councilmember Smith to confirm that he could hear the meeting proceedings, the agenda had been posted 24 hours prior to the meeting at the teleconference location, and that the public could access the meeting at that location, pursuant to Calif. Gov. Code sec. 54953(b). City Clerk Klein called the roll with the Council present as indicated above.

Pledge of Allegiance
Councilmember Barber led the Pledge.

Afternoon Session Items
Public Appearance (Afternoon)

1. Study Primer for Fiscal Year 2026-27 Annual Budget and Provide Direction Regarding Alternative Budget Options (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Received presentation, discussed
Date: 5/19/2026
Item No.: 3.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 1, Packet Page 19 City Council Minutes April 29, 2026
2 City Manager Hall, Finance Director King, and Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira gave the staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions with additional input provided by Finance Analyst Olsen and Fleet Manager Van Slyke. Councilmember Garcia left the Chamber from 5:27 p.m. to 5:28 p.m.

Based on the number of people interested in speaking, Mayor Williamson limited the time for public comment to two minutes per person. Public comment was received from: Kevin Dayton of Monterey Peninsula Chamber of Commerce, who referred to a previous state of fiscal emergency and said that the City needed long-term solutions such as economic development; Kathie Buaya, who spoke in support of the proposed sales tax increase, citing the importance of addressing infrastructure issues for future generations, and suggested a commission to involve the community in budgeting decisions; Tom Reeves, who referenced various reasons for declining property taxes, and stressed the importance of filling engineer positions; Kris Richardson of Monterey Police Association, who warned about the operational impact of proposed Police Department staffing reductions; Dennis Duke, in favor of funding First Night, further analyzing the City's overtime and debt service, and preserving NCIP; Ellen Martin and Michael Houston of First Night Monterey, in favor of funding their First Night, citing the importance of the arts; Nelson Vega, who said the City needed to live within its means and not tax residents; Lori Mazzuca, who said there needed to be more sense of urgency on budget cuts, and inquired whether the City could hire contractors to reduce labor costs; Rick Heuer of the Monterey Peninsula Taxpayers Association, who said the community had a lack of trust with proposed new taxes, and echoed that the City needed to live within its means; Philip Bezouska of the Monterey Firefighters Association, who warned about the operational impact of proposed Fire Department staffing reductions; Kent Glenzer, who urged the Council and staff to focus on the structural part of the budget issue; Ken Peterson of First Night Monterey, who spoke in favor of funding First Night and suggested the City look into green energy and infrastructure bonds for future revenue; Diane Dahms, who urged the continued funding of First Night Monterey; and Esther Malkin, who spoke in support of maintaining, but not adding to, the City's fiscal reserves.

Based on the time remaining in the meeting, Mayor Williamson limited speaking time for the Council to two minutes per member. The Council briefly discussed the proposed budget reduction strategy.

In discussion regarding the sales tax measure for the June 2, 2026 ballot, it was noted that visitors pay the larger portion of the sales tax in the City and that using a sales tax to close budget gaps was a strategy used by the majority of cities. It was stressed that revenue generating sources like sales taxes were being suggested in conjunction with deep expenditure cuts by City departments, and that the Council and community needed to build a bridge to making difficult decisions and filling the budget gaps together. It was stressed that City staff had worked hard to make cuts. It was noted that if the City did not put forward the sales tax measure to reach the allowable maximum sales tax percentage, the County could do so, and at least this way if approved by the voters the tax would benefit the City.

In discussion regarding positions recommended to be frozen, it was stated that the suggested positions made sense. On the other hand, concern was expressed about not recruiting for the Economic Development Director position, stating that having someone in that role could make a difference for the City. Concern was expressed about cutting Fire and Police positions, and it was stressed that a deeper analysis was needed on issues including the impact of frozen safety positions on overtime costs and emergency readiness. It was stated that the staff positions suggested to be frozen had been identified to stop the bleeding but that the City ultimately needed to identify positions to cut on a long-term basis, and it was urged to identify what the community could and could not live without so that the City could make structural cuts to programs and jobs.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 2, Packet Page 20 City Council Minutes April 29, 2026
3 Caution was expressed for how to discuss savings from staff salaries and benefits, citing the need to retain and recruit high quality talent for City staff.

In discussion regarding community contributions, it was expressed that First Night Monterey did a great job with the alcohol-free family event, and that the Fourth of July and First Night events should continue to receive financial support from the City for community building.

Briefer remarks were made on the following subjects: expressing support for continuing to provide rental assistance, citing the need to take care of the community; expressing concern about limiting contributions to the City's reserves, stating that the reserves needed to be seen like any other funded project within the City; and expressing concern about the proposed lack of allocation to Capital Improvement Program (CIP).

City Manager Hall informed the Council that the budget adoption discussion would come forward on the June 2, 2026 agenda.

Adjournment
The Council adjourned at 6:08 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted, Approved,
Clementine Bonner Klein Tyller Williamson
City Clerk Mayor
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 3, Packet Page 21

MINUTES

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING

CITY OF MONTEREY
Tuesday, May 5, 2026
4:00 PM
COUNCIL CHAMBER, 580 PACIFIC ST.

MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
Councilmembers

Present: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Williamson

Absent: Smith
City Staff

Present:

City Manager, City Attorney, Assistant City Manager, Community Development Director, Finance Director, Parks and Recreation Director, Public Works Director, City Clerk, Police Lieutenant, Deputy Public Works Director/City Engineer, Housing Manager, Management Analyst (City Manager's Office), HCD Coordinator, Environmental Relations Analyst Call to Order
Mayor Williamson called the meeting to order at 4:01 p.m. City Clerk Klein called the roll with the Council present as indicated above.

AFTERNOON SESSION
Presentations (Afternoon)

1. Receive Presentation from the Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability at Hopkins Marine Station (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Received presentation
Bill Sherrod of Stanford University’s Doerr School of Sustainability gave the Hopkins Marine Station presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions. Public comment was received from Nina Beety, who asked questions relating to the effects of Fukushima radiation and U. S.

Naval equipment on sealife. On question from the Council, Mr. Sherrod said that the work at Hopkins overlapped with, but did not directly address, those specific subjects.

General Public Comments
Public comment on non-agendized matters was received from: Dan Turner, Jeffrey Glickman of Congregation Beth Israel, Sabrina Hiltunen of the Old Monterey Business Association, and Nina Beety.

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

On a motion by Councilmember Barber, seconded by Councilmember Garcia, and carried by the following vote, the City Council approved the Consent Agenda:

AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Smith
Date: 5/19/2026
Item No.: 4.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 4., Item Page 1, Packet Page 22 City Council Minutes May 5, 2026
2 Consent: Approval of Minutes

2. April 21, 2026 Regular Meeting (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Approved (4-0-1, Councilmember Smith absent)
Consent: Other

3. Appoint Agency Negotiators for Conference with Real Property Negotiators Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8; Property: A Portion of Land North of 731 Dry Creek Road (Assessor's Parcel No. 014-031-003-000); Agency Negotiators: Andrea Renny and Andrew Easterling; Negotiating Parties: Shad Thielman (California-American Water Company); Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment for Granting Easement (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Appointed agency real property negotiators Renny and Easterling (4-0-1, Councilmember Smith absent)

4. Authorize the Mayor to Sign Letter of Support Regarding Assembly Bill 1821 (Pacheco) - California Public Records Act: Agency Response Time (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Authorized letter (4-0-1, Councilmember Smith absent) End of Consent Agenda
Afternoon Session Items
Public Hearing (Afternoon)

5. Open a Public Hearing to Receive Protests of Proposed Stormwater Utility Fees and Adopt a Resolution Directing a Mailed Ballot Proceeding if a Majority Protest Does Not Exist (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) -- This item will be heard during the afternoon session at 4:00 p.m. and continued to 7:00 p.m., which is the time noticed for the hearing. The public hearing will be opened at 4:00 but it will not be closed until this item is considered at 7:00 p.m.

Action: Opened public hearing, received public feedback, continued to the evening session (4-0-1, Councilmember Smith absent)
Environmental Regulations Analyst Baggott gave a verbal staff presentation.

The public hearing was opened and public comment was received from: Bob Faulis, who said he would need to research the proposed fee; Fred Menezes, and Rick Heuer of Monterey Peninsula Taxpayers Association, who both spoke against the proposed fee, citing concerns about affordability and the City's budgeting choices; Marta Kraftzeck, who expressed concerns about properties being assessed identically regardless of permeability levels of properties; and Erica Walker, who spoke against the proposed fee and its proposed inclusion in the tax roll.

The Council discussed the matter. On question, City Engineer/Deputy Public Works Director Easterling explained that the fees had not been increased in over twenty years, that the amount ratepayers were paying was higher than the proposed new fee rate, and that the City was conducting a rate study. He detailed the allowable uses of Measure P & S funds and clarified that those funds allowed for rehabilitation and maintenance of existing facilities, but not expansion or Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 4., Item Page 2, Packet Page 23 City Council Minutes May 5, 2026
3 addition of facilities, and detailed the allowable uses of funds collected through a stormwater utility fee if it were to pass. He provided an account of the recent town hall meeting on the subjects of the City budget, sales tax measure, and the proposed stormwater fee. Environmental Regulations Analyst Baggott noted that the proposed fee would cover two-thirds of the operations and maintenance cost. She clarified that County Assessor parcel ownership data was used for the notice mailing.

The Council expressed gratitude for the feedback received, and emphasized that they were listening to the community. It was stressed that decisions on how to resolve the City's budget issues would be difficult and would require input and participation from the community. A brief overview of the City's budget history was provided, and focus was placed on a past lack of dedicated funding for maintenance of existing infrastructure and how this had strained the resources of the general fund. It was noted that the City had been making progress by putting away funds into reserve accounts and by investing in needing infrastructure such as by replacing aging fire trucks. It was noted that the City was not only looking for new revenue sources but also had cut expenditures, and was considering canceling its grants program, and that there was concern about finding balance in this process, citing the risk of businesses and events leaving the City. It was stressed that increasing a fee would not resolve the City's budget woes, and appreciation was expressed for the community's analysis and assistance in trying to find creative solutions.

On a motion by Mayor Williamson, seconded by Councilmember Barber, and carried by the following vote, the City Council continued the matter to the evening session:

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

6. Conduct a Public Hearing and Receive Public Comments on the Draft Fiscal Year 2026- 2027 Annual Action Plan for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds, Authorize Submittal to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Authorize the City Manager to Make Administrative Changes Requested by HUD, and Authorize Staff to Amend the Public Services Budget to Meet the CDBG 15% Funding Cap (Exempt from NEPA per 24 CFR Part 58 and from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15301, Class1, 15306, Class 6 and 15326, Class 26)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 26-059 C.S. (4-0-1, Councilmember Smith absent) Housing and Community Development Verania gave the staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions together with Housing Manager Wyatt and Community Development Director Cole. The public hearing was opened and public comment was solicited but not received.

On a motion by Councilmember Rasch, seconded by Councilmember Barber, and carried by the following vote, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 26-060 C.S.:

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

7. Issue Two (2) Storefront Retail Cannabis Business Permits, Contingent on Obtaining a Zone Clearance, to Waitlisted Applicants 1) Infinity Assets Monterey LLC and 2) Monterey Organic LLC (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 4., Item Page 3, Packet Page 24 City Council Minutes May 5, 2026
4 Action: Adopted Resolution Nos. 26-060 and 26-061 C.S. (4-0-1, Councilmember Smith absent)
Management Analyst Ackermann gave the staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions. Public comment was received from: Chris Hester, of Infinity Assets Monterey LLC, who let the Council know that he was present in the meeting remotely.

On a motion by Councilmember Rasch, seconded by Councilmember Garcia, and carried by the following vote, the City Council adopted Resolution Nos. 26-061 and 26-062 C.S.:

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

8. Conduct a Drawing to Determine the Commercial Cannabis Zones for Infinity Assets Monterey, LLC and Monterey Organic LLC to Operate Retail Cannabis Businesses (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Adopted the results of the random drawing through which the order was selected from which the applicants would have their choice of available zones: 1) First choice of zone to Monterey Organic LLC, 2) Remaining zone, if desired, to Infinity Assets Monterey LLC (4-0-1, Councilmember Smith absent) Management Analyst Ackermann gave a brief verbal staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions. Public comment was not received.

Pursuant to the stipulations of City Code section 7-7.07(c), Community Development Director Cole conducted the drawing. The process began with the two applicants selected by the Council during Item 7 of this meeting. Each applicant's name was drawn by Community Development Director Cole at random from a glass vase, to determine the order in which they would have their choice of the following two available storefront retail cannabis zones (the Wave Street area/CB3, and North Fremont Street/CB4 as defined in Monterey City Code section 38-99.8(B)(1)). The applicants were drawn in the following order: 1. First choice of zone to Monterey Organic LLC; and 2.

Remaining zone, if desired, to Infinity Assets Monterey LLC.

On a motion by Mayor Williamson, seconded by Councilmember Barber, and carried by the following vote, the City Council adopted the results of the drawing:

AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Smith
Requests from Councilmembers to Agendize New Matters

9. 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) Action: Directed staff to agendize the matter on May 27, 2026 (4-0-1, Councilmember Smith absent)
Mayor Williamson gave a brief verbal presentation supporting his request, and answered Councilmembers' questions. He suggested that adding an additional Council meeting per month could help with meeting management.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 4., Item Page 4, Packet Page 25 City Council Minutes May 5, 2026
5 Public comment was received from: Erica Walker, who expressed concern about a potential lack of transparency associated with Council's private coordination with staff; Alice Wik-Crosby, who said that the public would appreciate more explanatory agenda materials and more opportunity to provide input on agenda items; Rick Heuer, who said that less editorializing by the Council after public comments would shorten meeting time; and Lori Mazzuca, who suggested the Council hold a meeting on the governance policy and urged adopting a code of conduct.

The Council expressed an interest in discussing other aspects of the governance policy, to include Council's communication protocols with City staff, the use of letterhead outside of approved policy, and comments by Council toward members of the public. Interest was expressed in managing the timing for bringing forward requested topics that had already been approved by the Council but had not yet been agendized.

City Manager Hall said that it was the City staff's goal to be as transparent as possible but that a lot of staff work took place outside of Council meetings. He provided context for the timing of agenda production. He asked the Council to keep staff's timeline in mind, referencing statutory requirements.

Support was expressed for agendizing the discussion. It was stated that this topic being agendized would be a good opportunity to share information with the public about how these processes work internally. Support was expressed for scheduling a study session or "deep dive" into the Council's governance policy in full. The request was made to agendize discussion already approved for agendization before newer discussions approved for agendization.

On a motion by Mayor Williamson, seconded by Councilmember Garcia, and carried by the following vote, the City Council approved agendization of the requested discussion on the special meeting on May 27, 2026:

AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Smith
Adjourn to Closed Session
Public comment on the closed session was solicited but not received. The Council adjourned to closed session at 6:09 p.m.

Closed Session (Afternoon)

10. Closed Session Conference with Real Property Negotiators Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 Property: A Portion of Land North of 731 Dry Creek Road (Assessor’s Parcel No. 014-031-003-000)
Agency Negotiators: Andrea Renny and Andrew Easterling
Negotiating Parties: Shad Thielman (California-American Water Company) Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment for Granting an Easement (Not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 CEQA Guidelines Article 20, Section 15378)
Action: No reportable action taken

11. Conference with Legal Counsel, Existing Litigation Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(1): Stronghold Engineering, Inc. v. City of Monterey (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 18CV329015) (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: No reportable action taken
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 4., Item Page 5, Packet Page 26 City Council Minutes May 5, 2026
6 The Council recessed at 6:56 p.m. and reconvened at 7:02 p.m.

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

General Public Comments, Continued
Public comment on non-agendized matters was received from Hans Jannasch.

Evening Session Items
Public Hearing (Evening)

12. Continued Public Hearing to Receive Protests of Proposed Stormwater Utility Fees and Adopt a Resolution Directing a Mailed Ballot Proceeding if a Majority Protest Does Not Exist (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) -- This item is continued from 4:00 p.m.

Action: Adopted Resolution No. 26-062 C.S., 4-0-1 (Councilmember Smith absent) For the continuation of Item 5 in the afternoon session, Environmental Regulations Analyst Baggott gave the staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions.

The public hearing was reopened and further public comment was received from: Char Carter, who spoke against the proposed fee, citing concerns about the City's budgeting choices and about the potential to the fee on the tax roll; Jody Schisel, who expressed indecision, stressing that the whole Monterey Bay area should work together to preserve the bay's health, but expressing concern about potential uses of the fee's dedicated fund; and Tom Reeves, who asked a few questions.

On question from the Council, City Engineer/Deputy Public Works Director Easterling explained that staff had lowered the proposed rate to the two-thirds cost recovery level based on the level of support shown in the community survey, and that the rate study, which was currently available in draft form on the City website, would be approved in July after the vote.

The Council made remarks similar to those made in the afternoon discussion, regarding infrastructure deferred maintenance funding issues over the City's past history, and reserve accounts that were intended to prevent this issue from recurring. It was noted that the stormwater fee was previously paid by ratepayers, but was removed, which had contributed to the City's budget deficit. It was stressed that the reinstated fee, if approved, would be at a lower rate than what ratepayers paid previously.

At the conclusion of the public hearing, pursuant to the provisions in Resolution 26-037 C.S., City Clerk Klein reported to the Council that the number of protests had been received was substantially fewer than the number required to constitute a majority protest, and that therefore a majority protest had not been received.

On a motion by Mayor Williamson, seconded by Councilmember Rasch, and carried by the following vote, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 26-062 C.S.:

AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Smith
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 4., Item Page 6, Packet Page 27 City Council Minutes May 5, 2026
7 Council Comments
Councilmember Barber spoke about SB 1893 and gave residents advance notice that the State of California was planning upcoming efforts to increase compliance with food waste recovery requirements.

City Manager Reports
City Manager Hall invited all to the Planning Division's upcoming community workshop for the Open Space and Conservation Element, and shared that there was a Have Your Say Monterey outreach webpage on the City's website about the General Plan process.

Adjournment
The Council adjourned at 7:27 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted, Approved,
Clementine Bonner Klein Tyller Williamson
City Clerk Mayor
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 4., Item Page 7, Packet Page 28 Council
Agenda Report
№12/25
FROM: David J. Hober, Chief of Police
Patrick W. Moore, Fire Chief
Prepared By: Alma Murphy, Senior Administrative Analyst SUBJECT: Authorize Renewal Agreement for 9-1-1 Emergency Communication Services and Governance with Multiple Public Agencies in Monterey County (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager, or designee, to enter into renewal
agreement for 9-1-1 Emergency Communication
Services and Governance with the County of Monterey,
Big Sur Fire Brigade, City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, City of Del Rey Oaks, City of Gonzales, City of Greenfield, City of King, City of Marina, City of Pacific Grove, City of Salinas, City of Sand City, City of Seaside, City of
Soledad, California State University Monterey Bay, Mid
Coast Fire Brigade, Monterey Peninsula Airport District, Monterey County Regional Fire District, and North
County Fire Protection District.

VALUE DRIVERS:

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

This action will require the City to enter into an InterAgency Agreement with Monterey County and local and state entities. This agreement will allow the City to
continue to participate with other agencies in Monterey County for emergency communications. This
cooperative approach is aligned with the City Council’s desire to ensure public safety, prepare for emergencies and community resiliency, and ensure partnerships to
provide core services to the public.

Agenda Report Highlights
• The City Council is being asked to
authorize a renewal agreement with
the County and 17 other public
agencies to continue regional 9-1-1
emergency communication and
dispatch services.
• Projected costs for the City in Fiscal
Year 2027 are $1,284,648.59, which
have already been included in the
proposed operating budget with no
anticipated increases.
• The agreement ensures the City's
continued participation in the
countywide Next Generation Radio
System (NGEN).
• Updates to the agreement include
streamlined governance through
revised Executive and Operations
Boards, updated cost-sharing billing
language, and improved complaint
handling procedures.
• The renewed contract will span
three years plus the remainder of
the current fiscal year, featuring
automatic successive two-year
renewals to maintain service
continuity.

Date: 5/19/2026
Item No.: 5.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 5., Item Page 1, Packet Page 29 №12/25
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The fiscal implications associated with this agreement are proposed during the budget preparation for each fiscal year. The projected costs of $1,284,648.59 for FY 27 have already been incorporated into the proposed FY 27 operating budget with no anticipated increases to the City. However, approval of this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) binds the City to the financial obligations set forth in the agreement pursuant to the cost allocation formula included therein. Accordingly, the annual costs for this service will be incorporated into the operating budget of each applicable department on a fiscal year basis for the duration of the agreement.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

In 2009, the City entered into the Next Generation Radio System (NGEN) Financing Agreement, which included NGEN, Emergency Communications (9-1-1) and financing between the County and participating NGEN agencies. Agreements to facilitate this countywide initiative have evolved over time into several agreements, including the current proposed agreement. If Council chooses not to enter into the proposed agreement for 9-1-1 Emergency Communications Services and Governance, the City will not be allowed to participate in/with the countywide emergency radio system.

DISCUSSION:

History of the Next Generation Radio System (NGEN) in Monterey County In 2009, after four years of an iterative stakeholder process, the NGEN financing agreement (which included NGEN, Emergency Communications, and financing) was executed between Monterey County and the participating NGEN agencies (almost all public safety agencies in Monterey County). The City of Monterey signed the agreement on March 25, 2009, as approved by the Monterey City Council on March 17, 2009 (Resolution Number 09-030). The system was implemented to ensure compliance with federal mandates, improve interoperability and system coverage, ensure the aged system would function, and incorporate a regional emergency radio system for public safety and other local government users.

The original Next Generation Radio System (NGEN) was governed by the Emergency Communications Users Advisory Council (ECUAC) and included:

Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 5., Item Page 2, Packet Page 30 №12/25
• Regional 911 and emergency dispatch services – now referred to as Monterey County Emergency Communications
• The System or physical “backbone” (towers, transmitters, power, technology, etc.) – now referred to as NGEN System
• Financing by the County of Monterey and payment by the user agencies The City of Monterey has been a major partner since the beginning of the project, when former Monterey Assistant City Manager Fred Cohn in the late 2000s chaired the ECUAC while NGEN was envisioned and implemented. NGEN was envisioned to provide the necessary interoperability and capacity to meet the day-to-day and emergency/major-event needs of our regional public safety and local government users by replacing an aging system that suffered from significant interference and coverage problems.

Governance of NGEN and Monterey’s Representation
Over time, the agreements and governance have evolved. In 2016, the NGEN Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Service Level Agreement (SLA) was approved by the ECUAC Executive Board. In 2020, a new 9-1-1 Emergency Communications Services and Governance Agreement was executed, revoking existing governance structures that were in conflict, including the 2016 NGEN O&M SLA. Part of the evolution included the formal separation, governance and management of:
• Monterey County Emergency Communications – Executed on 06-22-2020 o Managed by Monterey County Emergency Communications Department (ECD) o Governed by the 9-1-1 Emergency Communications Services and Governance Agreement (this agreement was signed by the City of Monterey on 06-22-2020, as approved by the Monterey City Council on June 2, 2020, with Resolution 20- 070).
o Oversight through an Executive Board and Operations Board • NGEN System – Executed on March 21, 2023
o Managed by Monterey County Information Technology Department o Governed by the Agreement for NGEN Services and Governance o Oversight through an Executive Board and Operations Board The proposed action is a contract renewal of the 9-1-1 Emergency Communications Services and Governance Agreement, with fiscal implications. All associated costs have been incorporated into the proposed FY 27 budget, with no anticipated increases. The renewed agreement includes several updates to the governance structure, such as a provision formally allowing the appointment of alternates, a clarification that decisions shall be made by a majority vote of a quorum, and a requirement that the governing body meet no fewer than four times per year. On February 18, 2026, the ECD Executive Board approved the 2026 Agreement for 9-1-1 Emergency Communications Services and Governance.

The Executive Board is composed of seven voting members, including: four City Managers (one representing Salinas, one representing South County Cities, one representing Northern Peninsula Cities, and one representing Southern Peninsula Cities); a Fire District representative; the Monterey County Sheriff; and the County Administrative Officer. The City of Monterey is currently represented on the Executive Board by the City Manager of Del Rey Oaks (Southern Peninsula Cities representative).

Additionally, the composition of the Operations Board has been revised, reducing membership from ten to eight to reflect a more streamlined oversight structure. Both Monterey’s Police Chief Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 5., Item Page 3, Packet Page 31 №12/25
and Monterey’s Assistant Fire Chief are members of the Operations Board and have been involved in the review and recommendation process to the Executive Board.

Additional Elements of the New NGEN Agreement
The renewal also provides clarification on the relationship between the Emergency Communications Department (ECD) and the Next Generation Radio System (NGEN), as well as a more clearly defined scope of services for ECD to ensure alignment with current operational practices. The cost-sharing plan has been modernized to update and clarify billing language in a manner consistent with contemporary standards. Further amendments address complaint handling and reporting procedures to improve consistency and accountability. Finally, a number of grammatical and stylistic revisions have been incorporated throughout the document, including standardization of terminology, corrections to punctuation and grammar, removal of redundant or conflicting language, and alignment with County legal and policy style guidelines.

These updates collectively modernize the agreement and improve clarity without altering the contract's fundamental purpose or financial obligations.

The duration of the Agreement for 9-1-1 Emergency Communications Services and Governance will be three years, plus the remainder of the fiscal year in which the agreement is executed, and shall automatically renew for successive two-year periods.

Staff recommends City Council authorize the City Manager to execute the Agreement for 9-1-1 Emergency Communications Services and Governance.

DJH/am
Attachments: 1. Resolution
c: Finance Director
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 5., Item Page 4, Packet Page 32 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№011/24
AUTHORIZING RENEWED AGREEMENT FOR 9-1-1 EMERGENCY COMMUNICATION

SERVICES AND GOVERNANCE WITH MULTIPLE PUBLIC AGENCIES

IN MONTEREY COUNTY
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey entered into a multi-agency agreement to participate in the procurement of a new public safety and local government radio system in March 2009 that conformed to the narrow banding mandates issued by the FCC and improved radio communication capabilities within and between jurisdictions; WHEREAS, the parties to this agreement desire to maintain equipment and personnel for response to fire, law enforcement, emergency medical services and the management of other emergency incidents occurring within areas under their respective jurisdictions by participating in a county-wide Next Generation Radio System; WHEREAS, the renewed agreement provides details regarding revisions to the composition of the Operations Board, clarifications to the relationship between Emergency Communications Department and Next Generation Radio System, more defined scope of services, amendments addressing complaint handling and reporting procedures, standardization of terminology, and alignment with County legal and policy style guidelines; and WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability;

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

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby authorizes the City Manager, or designee, to enter into a renewed agreement for 9-1-1 Emergency Communication Services and Governance with the County of Monterey, Big Sur Fire Brigade, City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, City of Del Rey Oaks, City of Gonzales, City of Greenfield, City of King, City of Marina, City of Pacific Grove, City of Salinas, City of Sand City, City of Seaside, City of Soledad, California State University Monterey Bay, Mid Coast Fire Brigade, Monterey Peninsula Airport District, Monterey County Regional Fire District, and North County Fire Protection District:

Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 5., Item Page 5, Packet Page 33 PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this _____ day of _______, 202_, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 5., Item Page 6, Packet Page 34 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Andrea Renny, Public Works Director
Andrew Easterling, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Identify Franklin Street at Calle Principal and Alvarado ADA Improvements as the Project to be Funded by SB 1: The Road Repair and Accountability Act (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt the attached resolution
approving the Franklin Street at Calle Principal and
Alvarado Street ADA Improvements to be funded with
revenues from the Road Maintenance and
Rehabilitation Account (RMRA), created by SB 1: The
Road Repair and Accountability Act.

VALUE DRIVERS:

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

This Project is consistent with the City Council’s Value Drivers and Strategic Priorities of Quality of Life –
“Respond effectively to neighborhood concerns,” Fiscal
Stewardship – “Prioritize funding models and sources
for facility rehabilitation, repair, and replacement,” and Active Mobility – “Maintain and repair core street,
roadway, and storm drain infrastructure.”

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE
ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (SB 1 Beall) allocates various funds to state and local agencies for transportation purposes. Among those funds are formula-based Agenda Report Highlights
• City staff recommend designating the
Franklin Street ADA Improvements at
Calle Principal and Alvarado Street as
the primary project for upcoming SB 1
transportation funding.
• The City expects to receive
approximately $798,938 in Road
Maintenance and Rehabilitation
Account (RMRA) funds for Fiscal Year
2026-27 to support this work.
• The total construction cost for the
project is estimated at $2,800,000,
with additional funding provided by
Gas Tax revenues and Measure P/S.
• The project involves installing ADAcompliant ramps, curb bulb-outs, and traffic signal modifications that are
estimated to have a useful service life
of 50 years.
• Identifying a specific project is a state
requirement for receiving SB 1 funds,
and this location was selected
because it is already in the final design
phase and ready for construction in
2027.

Date: 5/19/2026
Item No.: 6.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 6., Item Page 1, Packet Page 35 №12/25
allocations from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA). The City of Monterey is projected to receive RMRA funds in the amount of $798,938 for Fiscal Year 2026-

27. The Franklin at Calle Principal and Alvarado ADA Improvements project is currently in final design with an estimated total construction cost of $2,800,000. This item will come back to Council as part of the FY26-27 Capital Improvement Program. Additional funding from HUTA (Gas Tax) and Measure P/S is anticipated to fully fund the project.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

City Council could choose not to identify a project to be funded by SB 1 funding, this is not recommended because identifying a project is required in order to receive funding.

City Council could choose not to approve the Franklin Street at Calle Principal and Alvarado Street ADA Improvements as the project to be funded by SB 1 and instead choose a different project; however, this is not recommended. This project is nearly ready for construction and includes necessary ADA improvements at the signalized intersections. There are other eligible projects, however, they are still in preliminary design and not ready for construction. Selection of the Franklin Street at Calle Principal and Alvarado Street ADA Improvements puts these funds to productive use in a timely manner.

DISCUSSION:

Cities and counties own and operate more than 81 percent of streets and roads in California, and from the moment we open our front door to drive to work, bike to school, or walk to a bus station, people are dependent upon a safe, accessible, and reliable local transportation network.

Police, fire, and emergency medical services all need safe reliable roads to react quickly to emergency calls.

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

The City must include a list of all projects proposed to receive funding from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA), created by SB 1, which must include a description and the location of each proposed project, a proposed schedule for the project’s Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 6., Item Page 2, Packet Page 36 №12/25
completion, and the estimated useful life of the improvements. The project locations are identified based on the City’s Capital Improvement Plan and ADA Transition Plan.

The Franklin at Calle Principal and Alvarado Street ADA Improvements Project, which includes, but is not limited to, the installation of ADA compliant ramps and traffic signal modifications, is a cost-effective use of RMRA funding that also meets the City’s priorities for ADA Improvements.

This project proposes installation of curb bulb-outs and retrofitting curb ramps and traffic signal modifications at the intersections of Franklin Street at Calle Principal and Alvarado Street. The estimated $798,938 in RMRA funding will be budgeted towards the completion of the project, which is estimated to begin construction in 2027. The traffic signal repairs and upgrades have an estimated useful service life of 50 years. This project will enhance access at our downtown area.

City Council will separately budget HUTA (Gas Tax) funds as part of the FY2026-27 CIP Budget for this project; however, SB 1 requires a specific Council action to identify where the RMRA funds will be utilized.

AR/ae
Attachments: 1. Resolution
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 6., Item Page 3, Packet Page 37 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

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

IDENTIFYING FRANKLIN AT CALLE PRINCIPAL AND ALVARADO STREET

ADA IMPROVEMENTS AS THE PROJECT TO BE FUNDED BY
SB 1: THE ROAD REPAIR AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017) was passed by the Legislature and signed into law by the Governor in April 2017 in order to address the significant multi-modal transportation funding shortfalls statewide;
WHEREAS, SB 1 includes accountability and transparency provisions that will ensure the residents of the City of Monterey are aware of the projects proposed for funding in our community and which projects have been completed each fiscal year; WHEREAS, the City must include a list of all projects proposed to receive funding from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA), created by SB 1 which must include a description and the location of each proposed project, a proposed schedule for the project’s completion, and the estimated useful life of the improvement; WHEREAS, the City will receive an estimated $798,938 in RMRA funding in Fiscal Year 2026-27 from SB 1;
WHEREAS, if the Legislature and Governor failed to act, city streets and county roads would have continued to deteriorate, having many and varied negative impacts on our community;
WHEREAS, cities and counties own and operate more than 81 percent of streets and roads in California, and from the moment we open our front door to drive to work, bike to school, or walk to the bus station, people are dependent upon a safe, accessible, and reliable local transportation network;
WHEREAS, the SB 1 project list and overall investment in our local streets and roads infrastructure with a focus on basic maintenance and safety, investing in complete streets infrastructure, and using cutting-edge technology, materials and practices, will have significant positive co-benefits statewide;
WHEREAS, based on the City’s Capital Improvement Plan, the Franklin at Calle Principal and Alvarado Street ADA Improvements Project, which includes, but is not limited to, the installation of ADA compliant ramps and traffic signal modifications, is a cost-effective use of RMRA funding that also meets the City’s priorities for ADA Improvements. This project proposes installation of curb bulb-outs and retrofitting curb ramps and traffic signal modifications at the intersections of Franklin at Calle Principal and Alvarado Street. The estimated $798,938 in RMRA funding will be budgeted towards the completion of the project, which is estimated to begin construction in 2027. The traffic signal repairs and upgrades have an estimated useful service life of 50 years; and
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 6., Item Page 4, Packet Page 38 WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines”), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project.

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

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby identifies the following project to be funded with Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) revenues:
• Franklin at Calle Principal and Alvarado Street ADA Improvements Project; Estimated Useful Service Life: 50 years; Anticipated Year of Construction: 2027.

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

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 6., Item Page 5, Packet Page 39 Council
Agenda Report
№12/25
FROM: Andrea Renny, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Marissa Garcia, Engineering Assistant II
SUBJECT: Authorize a Contract with Washington Western Systems, Inc. in the Amount of $472,340.65 for the Purchase of Adaptive Traffic Control System and Traffic Management Software for the Citywide Traffic Signal System Project ***CIP*** (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing a
contract with Washington Western Systems, Inc. in an
amount not-to-exceed $472,340.65 for the purchase of
the Adaptive Traffic Control System and Traffic
Management Software for the Citywide Traffic Signal
System Project (“Project”), and Authorizing the City
Manager, or his designee, to execute the contract.

VALUE DRIVERS:

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

This action is consistent with the General Plan Goal j “A transportation network that is more efficient through
demand management and intelligent transportation
technology”, Policy j.6 “Support the implementation and maintenance of a Citywide traffic signal adaptive
system” and Policy j.8 “Maintain traffic signal
management system to ensure continued operations.”

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE
ACT) APPLIES: No.

Agenda Report Highlights
• The City Council is considering a
$472,340.65 contract with
Washington Western Systems for
adaptive traffic control and
management software.
• The current traffic management
software is being phased out and
will lose all vendor support by the
end of 2027.
• Switching to a different software
provider is not recommended due to
proprietary compatibility issues and
the risk of losing grant funding.
• Implementation of this adaptive
system has already reduced local
traffic delays by as much as 54% on
completed corridors.
• Failing to renew this contract would
prevent staff from remotely
monitoring signals or coordinating
emergency vehicle preemption.
• Funding for the project is available
through Measure X (TAMC) rather
than the General Fund.

Date: 5/19/2026
Item No.: 7.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 7., Item Page 1, Packet Page 40 №12/25
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The City utilizes a central system traffic signal management software called Tactics. The version of Tactics the City uses is being phased out and will no longer be supported by the end of 2027.

Staff has negotiated a five-year service and support agreement with Washington Western Systems for adaptive traffic control system (SCOOT) and traffic management software (TACTICS). The negotiated software and support services include the implementation of Studio (replacement for the existing traffic management software (Tactics), training, upgrades, remote and onsite support. To ensure that there is a smooth transition and that the City maintains vendor support for the citywide traffic signal system without gaps in service, staff is recommending transitioning now.

Adaptive Traffic Signal System
(SCOOT)
Traffic Management Software
(Tactics/Studio)
Annual
Cost
Year 1 $54,753.13 $35,933.33 $90,686.46
Year 2 $54,753.13 $37,750.00 $92,503.13
Year 3 $54,753.13 $39,616.67 $94,369.80
Year 4 $54,753.13 $41,600.00 $96,353.13
Year 5 $54,753.13 $43,675.00 $98,428.13
Total $273,765.65 $198,575.00$472,340.65
There is sufficient funding available from the following accounts:

Account Available Balance
Measure X Citywide Adaptive Traffic Signal System (37C2050) $939,309.60 Measure X Critical Signal Operations (35C1850) $1,695,840.48 The cost associated with the Adaptive Traffic Signal System, SCOOT, will be funded from the CW Adaptive Traffic Signal System project (37C2050), the cost associated with Studio will come from the Critical Signature Operations project (35C1850). This contract does not include new SCOOT installation or expansion projects, or the purchase of new equipment, such as traffic signal controllers. These additional costs will be budgeted as part of the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program.

The Finance Department approved a sole source for the traffic signal software for the Traffic Management System and Adaptive Traffic Signal System on March 24, 2026. The Finance Department will require sole source requests for all additional purchases for the additional cost and services at the time they are known.

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 Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 7., Item Page 2, Packet Page 41 №12/25
cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

Council could decide not to renew services with Western System. This action is not recommended because Tactics is already in use and switching to a new traffic signal system software would introduce additional costs, training needs, and operational risks without providing a commensurate benefit. City staff are already familiar with the current platform, existing traffic signal infrastructure is configured to work with it, and upgrading allows the City to maintain continuity in operations while still gaining access to newer features, security improvements, and vendor support.

Council could decide not to approve the continuation of the use of Adaptive Traffic Signal Software. This is not recommended as it is against past Council direction, and staffing is insufficient to provide coordination through traditional time-of-day plans. Considering another Adaptive Traffic Signal Software is not a viable alternative as these types of software are proprietary and only work with certain other software platforms and equipment. This will also compromise existing Monterey Bay Air Resources District agreements which require the software to remain in place until the entire Adaptive Signal System, including the remaining Franklin Street Corridor, is fully implemented. If this contract is not renewed the Air District could chose to reclaim previously awarded grant funds. If this decision is deferred, the City will lose access to the traffic management and adaptive traffic signal software.

DISCUSSION:

Adaptive Traffic Control System (ATCS) are the latest technology for improving traffic conditions by better synchronizing and controlling traffic signals. ATCSs use vehicle detection and use artificial intelligence software to respond accurately and immediately to real-time traffic conditions. This enables the system to progress traffic through a corridor with less stops on the major street. This results in less fuel consumed and fewer emissions, and improves travel time, quality of life, and safety. It is estimated that by the time the City has its corridors running on an adaptive system that this will result in a yearly reduction of 20 tons of criteria pollutants (NOx, ROG and PM).

Purchasing an Adaptive Traffic Control System (ATCS) does not fit the typical competitive bid process. The traffic management and controller industry is a very specialized field with only a handful of vendors. These vendors typically are the sole manufacturer of the hardware and software, sole providers of technical support, and in many cases the sole manufacturers and providers of other required equipment that is compatible with their system. Thus, the selection of a particular ATCS frequently results in a de facto selection of a system vendor.

The City of Monterey staff extensively researched different adaptive systems and based on a study of 12 different systems conducted by Kimley Horn and Associates in 2016, the City chose to deploy the SCOOT (Split Cycle Offset Optimization Technique) system on the first corridor, Lighthouse Avenue, at the end of 2016. Travel times on Lighthouse Avenue before and after the adaptive system installation showed an average decrease in delays and average stops of 30%.

The ACTS effort began in 2015 and the City has been successful in funding this effort with Air District Grants, Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) Grants and Measure X, the City was awarded over $3.25 million in grant funding to implement this project, Staff also used Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 7., Item Page 3, Packet Page 42 №12/25
matching funds from Measure X, For every dollar used from Measure X, another $5.36 was obtained from grants and also NCIP. The implementation of the ACTS system has been managed in house by City Staff to save cost. By managing the projects inhouse including procurement and coordination of installations, the City saves between 15% to 20% when compared to a traditional procurement process using an engineering consulting firm - in other words: savings between $770,000 to $1 million. The City has worked collaboratively in the past with Western Systems and other vendors to implement this project. The City of Monterey has implemented ATCS on the following corridors: Lighthouse Avenue, Del Monte Avenue, North Fremont Street, Munras Avenue, Foam Street, and Pacific Street. The final corridor for implementation is Franklin Street; the implementation of Franklin Street has been delayed due to significant issues with underground utilities, as much of the traffic signal infrastructure has not been improved in over 50 years.

The Before and After Studies of completed corridors have found the following results:
a reduction of travel times ranging from 6% up to 31% depending on the corridor; a reduction of travel delays ranging from 7% up to 54%; and, an increase of average speeds ranging from 9% up to 52%. If the Adaptive Traffic Signal System software is not renewed all of these enhancements will be lost.

ATCS systems have been able to adapt to conditions that were unforeseen such as reduction and changes in traffic patterns during the Shelter in Place order issued due to Covid-19 or during special events. Reverting back to traditional time-of-day plans may result in significant costs in the long run; adaptive systems stay efficient even when traffic conditions change.

Traditional time-of-day plans require a lot of engineering hours to conduct counts, model traffic volumes, adjust signal timing, and evaluate results, repeated over and over again. This process is time intensive and does not respond to sudden changes in traffic patterns. Reliance on ATCS systems allows for more responsive signals with more automation while requiring less City staff time.

If the contract with Western Systems for Tactics, the Traffic Management Software, is not renewed, staff will not be able to remotely monitor or coordinate any traffic signal in the City; each signal would be isolated. Staff would also not be able to coordinate any Transit Signal Priority or Emergency Preemption. SCOOT, the adaptive traffic control system does not work without Tactics or its successor software, Studio.

AR/mg
Attachments: 1. Resolution
e: Western Systems, Inc., 1122 Industry Street, Bldg. B, Everett, WA 98203 Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 7., Item Page 4, Packet Page 43 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№011/24
AUTHORIZING A CONTRACT WITH WASHINGTON WESTERN SYSTEMS, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $472,340.65 FOR THE PURCHASE OF ADAPTIVE TRAFFIC CONTROL

SYSTEM AND TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE FOR THE CITYWIDE TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEM PROJECT ***CIP***
WHEREAS, adaptive traffic control systems are the latest technology for improving traffic conditions by better synchronizing and controlling traffic signals; WHEREAS, Sole Source for the purchase of the Siemens SCOOT Adaptive Traffic Signal Control System was first approved by Resolution 16-069 on April 27, 2016 and was reaffirmed in 2017 and 2020. The sole source for this purchase was approved by the Finance Department on March 24, 2026;
WHEREAS, sufficient funding is available for this authorization in the Measure X Citywide Adaptive Traffic Signal System (37C2050) and Measure X Critical Signal Operations (35C1850); and,
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project.

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

1. Authorizes a contract with Washington Western Systems, Inc. in an amount not-toexceed $472,340.65 for the purchase of the Adaptive Traffic Control System and Traffic Management Software for the Citywide Traffic Signal System Project; and,

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

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

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 7., Item Page 5, Packet Page 44 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 7., Item Page 6, Packet Page 45 Council
Agenda Report
№11/25
FROM: Kimberly Cole, AICP, Community Development Director Prepared By: Levi Hill, AICP, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Adopt the Annual Reports and Approve Resolutions to Set a Public Hearing Date to Levy the Annual Assessment for the Cannery Row Business Improvement District, the New Monterey Business Improvement District, and the North Fremont Business Improvement District (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council:

1. Approve each District’s Advisory Board;

2. Adopt the Annual Reports; and,

3. Approve the attached Resolutions to set a public
hearing date of Tuesday, June 2, 2026, to levy the
assessment for Fiscal Year 2026-27.

VALUE DRIVERS:

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Business Improvement Districts (BID) provide a
mechanism for a business district to collect money and
create work programs targeted at their specific needs.

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

Because 1989 Law assessments are not on real
property, they are not subject to Proposition 218. BIDs are regulated by the California Streets & Highways Code sections 36500 et seq. There is no intention to make a
change to any of the BIDs that would trigger the
application of Proposition 26, which places limitations on Agenda Report Highlights
• The City Council is being asked to
approve advisory boards and
annual reports for three Business
Improvement Districts (BIDs).
• Approval of the resolutions will set a
public hearing for June 2, 2026, to
levy assessments for the 2026-27
fiscal year.
• The three districts, Cannery Row,
New Monterey, and North Fremont,
collectively generate roughly
$178,000 to $188,000 in annual
revenue.
• Assessments are collected as
surcharges on business licenses
and passed directly to the districts
to fund area-specific improvements.
• No changes to district boundaries or
assessment rates are currently
proposed for any of the three
districts.
• Business owners have the right to
protest the levy.

Date: 5/19/2026
Item No.: 8.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 1, Packet Page 46 №10/24
local government fees. There are no changes proposed to boundaries or annual assessments for any of the BIDs.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

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

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

The Cannery Row BID was established in 2004, and it collects a 100% surcharge to the business license fee of each business up to a maximum assessment of $5,000 per business.

For businesses classified as professional services, the assessment is a 25% surcharge to the business license fee with a cap of $500. The amount of revenue collected annually is approximately $140,000 to $150,000.

The New Monterey BID was established in 1995, and it collects an annual assessment of 25% of the business license fee with a cap of $250. The amount of revenue collected annually is approximately $18,000.

The North Fremont BID was established in 2003, and it collects an annual assessment of 25% of the business license fee with a cap of $500. The amount of revenue collected annually is approximately $20,000.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey Planning Office determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Article 5, Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, this is not a project because it does not cause a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not subject to CEQA. Subsequent projects resulting from this funding will be reviewed for their CEQA status.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

Pursuant to Streets & Highways Code section 36533, the City Council could “modify any particular contained in the report and approve it as modified. The City Council shall not approve a change in the basis and method of levying assessment that would impair an authorized or executed contract to be paid from the revenues derived from the levy of assessments.” Increasing business-based assessments is not recommended without further study and determination that the increased assessment is limited to benefits or services provided directly to the charged businesses and not to others who are not charged.

DISCUSSION:

BIDs are required to annually prepare a report. This report must include:
• Any changes to the boundaries of the district.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 2, Packet Page 47 №10/24
• A list of the improvements and activities to be provided for that fiscal year. • An estimate of the cost of providing the improvements and the activities for that fiscal year.
• The method and basis of levying the assessment in sufficient detail to allow each business owner to estimate the amount of the assessment to be levied against his or her business for that fiscal year.
• The amount of any surplus or deficit revenues to be carried over from a previous year. • The amount of any contributions to be made from sources other than assessments levied.

After acceptance of the reports, the City Council shall adopt Resolutions of Intention to set a public hearing date to levy annual assessments for Fiscal Year 2026-27. The public hearing is set for Tuesday, June 2, 2026. At the public hearing, oral and written protests will be accepted.

California Streets & Highways Code sections 36524-36525 establish the process for protests to be considered. If written protests are received from the owners of businesses in the proposed area which pay 50 percent or more of the assessments proposed to be levied and protests are not withdrawn so as to reduce the protests to less than 50 percent, no further proceedings to levy the proposed assessment shall be taken for one year from the date of the finding of a majority protest by the City Council. If the majority protest is only against the furnishing of a specified type or types of improvement or activity within the area, those types of improvements or activities shall be eliminated.

The City of Monterey will hold the public hearing on Tuesday, June 2, 2026.

KC/lh
Attachments: 1. CRBID Resolution

2. NFBID Resolution

3. NMBID Resolution

4. CRBID Annual Report with District Boundary Map

5. NFBID Annual Report with District Boundary Map

6. NMBID Annual Report with District Boundary Map
e: Bonnie Adams, Cannery Row Business Association
Christina Riddoch, New Monterey Business Association
Kelly Violini, North Fremont Business Association
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 3, Packet Page 48 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

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

CONFIRMING THE REPORT OF THE CANNERY ROW BUSINESS ASSOCIATION,

AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING DATE TO ADOPT THE LEVY OF ASSESSMENT FOR THE 2026/2027 FISCAL YEAR
WHEREAS, the Cannery Row Business Association Improvement District was established in 2004;
WHEREAS, a report outlining the proposed budget and work plan of the Business Improvement District has been prepared;
WHEREAS, the annual report was presented to the City Council at a public meeting held on May 19, 2026, including a map of the boundaries, and both documents are on file with the City Clerk. There are no proposed changes to the boundaries of the parking and business improvement area; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey Planning Office determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Article 5, Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.

Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, this is not a project because it does not cause a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not subject to CEQA. Subsequent projects resulting from this funding will be reviewed for their CEQA status.

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

1. It is the intent of the City Council to levy and collect assessments for the Cannery Row Business Association Improvement District for fiscal year 2026/27. The District annual report and boundaries are on file in the City Clerk’s office.

2. Improvements and activities approved in the Resolution creating the District are to advocate and construct traffic and parking improvements; establish and meet cleanliness standards (trash pickup, etc.); improve the area’s streetscape; coordinate with existing businesses and the Cannery Row Marketing Council to stimulate business through collaboration; advocate Cannery Row business needs to government agencies for infrastructure and service enhancements; improve public safety; and hire a management staff to represent Cannery Row business interests in compliance with requirements as set forth in Parking and Business Improvement Area law of 1989.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 4, Packet Page 49

3. The program of improvements and activities are carried out by the Cannery Row Business Association. Improvements and activities proposed for 2026/27 are consistent with those approved in the resolution adopting the district, with no substantial changes from the original resolution.

4. The report on the proposed program for fiscal year 2026/27 recommends no change to boundaries or work program, and continuance of the annual assessment of 100% surcharge to the business license fee of each business, up to a maximum assessment of $5,000 per business per fiscal year. For businesses classified as professional services, the assessment shall be 25% surcharge to the business license fee, up to a maximum of $500.

5. The District’s Advisory Board is approved.

6. A public hearing will be held on Tuesday, June 2, 2026, at or after 4:00 p.m. on the levy of the proposed assessment for the 2026/27 fiscal year. At the public hearing, written and oral protests may be made in accord with law.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this 19th day of May, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 5, Packet Page 50 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

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

CONFIRMING THE REPORT OF THE NORTH FREMONT BUSINESS DISTRICT

OF MONTEREY AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING DATE TO ADOPT THE LEVY OF ASSESSMENT FOR THE 2026/2027 FISCAL YEAR
WHEREAS, the North Fremont Business District of Monterey was established in 2003; WHEREAS, a report outlining the proposed budget and workplan of the Business Improvement District has been prepared;
WHEREAS, the annual report was presented to the City Council at a public meeting held on May 19, 2026, including a map of the boundaries, and both documents are on file with the City Clerk; and
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey Planning Office determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Article 5, Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.

Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, this matter is not a project. Because this matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project.

Subsequent projects resulting from this funding will be reviewed for their CEQA status.

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

1. It is the intent of the City Council to levy and collect assessments for the North Fremont Business District of Monterey for fiscal year 2026/2027. The District annual report and boundaries are on file in the City Clerk’s office.

2. Improvements and activities approved in the resolution creating the District are to promote the Business Improvement District, advocate for an increase of public transportation opportunities to North Monterey, improve streetscape appearance, and increase the overall safety of the area as set forth in Parking and Business Improvement Area law of 1989.

3. The program of improvements and activities are carried out by the North Fremont Business District of Monterey. Improvements and activities proposed for 2026/2027 are consistent with those approved in the resolution adopting the district, with no substantial changes from the original resolution.

4. The report on the proposed program for fiscal year 2026/2027 recommends no change to boundaries or work program, and continuance of the annual assessment of 25% of the business license fee for the City, but not to exceed $500.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 6, Packet Page 51

5. The District’s Advisory Board is approved.

6. A public hearing will be held on Tuesday June 2, 2026 at or after 4:00 p.m. on the levy of the proposed assessment for the 2026/27 fiscal year. At the public hearing, written and oral protests may be made in accord with law.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this 19th day of May, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 7, Packet Page 52 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

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

CONFIRMING THE REPORT OF THE NEW MONTEREY BUSINESS ASSOCIATION

AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING DATE TO ADOPT THE LEVY OF ASSESSMENT FOR THE 2026/2027 FISCAL YEAR
WHEREAS, the New Monterey Business Association Improvement District was established in 1995;
WHEREAS, a report outlining the proposed budget and workplan of the Business Improvement District has been prepared;
WHEREAS, the annual report and the District Boundary map were presented to the City Council during a public meeting held on May 19, 2026, and both documents are on file with the City Clerk; and
WHEREAS, the report is on file with the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, the City of Monterey Planning Office determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Article 5, Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.

Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, this matter is not a project. Because this matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project.

Subsequent projects resulting from this funding will be reviewed for their CEQA status.

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

1. It is the intent of the City Council to levy and collect assessments for the New Monterey Business Association Improvement District for fiscal year 2026/2027.

District boundaries are on file in the City Clerk’s office.

2. Improvements and activities approved in the resolution creating the District are to fund various public improvements, administer the business improvement district, and undertake various promotional activities as set forth in Parking and Business Improvement Area law of 1989.

3. The program of improvements and activities are carried out by the New Monterey Business Association. Improvements and activities proposed for 2026/27 are consistent with those approved in the resolution adopting the district, with no substantial changes from the original resolution.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 8, Packet Page 53

4. The report proposing the work program for fiscal year 2026/27 recommends no change to boundaries or work program, and continuance of the annual assessment of 25% of the business license fee for the City, but not to exceed $250.

5. The District’s Advisory Board is approved.

6. A public hearing will be held on Tuesday, June 2, 2026, at or after 4:00 p.m. on the levy of the proposed assessment for the 2026/2027 fiscal year. At the public hearing, written and oral protests may be made in accord with law.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this 19th day of May, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 9, Packet Page 54 ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 10, Packet Page 55 CRBA Budget FY' 2026/27
(3/9/2026)
Estimated Income
- Bid
Total Income
*Prior year carryover estimate
Total Available funds
Estimated Expenses (see Attached for Deta
- Streetscape
Equipment Maintenance: cans, newsrack
- General Maintenance
Power Washing
Porter Service
- Banner Program
- Historical Identity/Walking Map/Whistle
- Administration
- New Projects
Total Expense
Net Income
Emergency Reserve
Operating Funds Less emergency Reserve
Current Bank Balance $171, 797 Mar 10, 2026
Budget Estimate Budget
FY '25/26 FY '25/26 FY '26/27
$155,000 $151,885 $150,000
$155,000 $151,885 $150,000
$140,000 $120,652 $129,000
$295,000 $272,537 $279,000
ails)
$9,100 $6,000 $7,100
$21,000 $20,000 $21,000
$62,100 $62,100 $65,500
$8,500 $8,500 $8,500
$17,400 $14,000 $13,500
$53,850 $55,000 $56,650
$83,000 $0 $65,000
$254,950 $165,600 $237,250
$40,050 $106,937 $41,750
$38,000 $38,000 $40,000
$2,050 $68,937 $1,750
6 ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 11, Packet Page 56

CRBA DRAFT PROJECTED WORKPLAN
2026/2027
Final

SUMMARY:

COMMITTEE BUDGET
STREETSCAPE $ 7,100
GENERAL MAINTENANCE $ 86,500
BANNER PROGRAM $ 8,500
HISTORICAL IDENTITY PLAN $ 13,500
ADMINISTRATION/OVERHEAD $ 56,650
NEW PROJECTS $ 65,000
TOTAL: $237,250
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 12, Packet Page 57

CRBA DRAFT PROJECTED WORKPLAN
2026/2027
Final
STREETSCAPE:

ITEM BUDGET
Equipment Maintenance
- re-powder trash can lids (10)
- re powder coat projects
- power wash all trash cans
- purchase two shark butt cans
- purchase trash liners (10)
- Maintenance fund
$ 1,500
$ 2,000
$ 600
$ 0
$ 1,500
$ 1,500
Total: $ 7,100
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 13, Packet Page 58

CRBA DRAFT PROJECTED WORKPLAN
2026/2027
Final
GENERAL MAINTENANCE:

ITEM BUDGET
Power Wash both sides of street: |
3 rd week of month Tues/Wed
March – October
CR: El Torito to Aquarium
2x per year (May & August)
CR: Charthouse to Mty Bay Inn
2x per year (June & August)
Wave: Reeside-David
Sub Total: $21,000
Porter Service to include:

Peak Season: March 15 – Dec 15
Thurs – Monday (off Tuesday/Wednesday)
Off Peak Season: Dec 15 – March 14
Friday, Saturday, Sunday
Additional Holiday/Special events:

Spring break/Memorial Day/ 4th of July/Labor Day/car week if event on the Row
Special events – 1
st shift 8 – 4:30 / 2nd shift noon – 8:30p:

Sub Total:
$65,500
F/T employee
$5,175 per month
TOTAL: $86,500
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 14, Packet Page 59

CRBA DRAFT PROJECTED WORKPLAN
2026/2027
Final
BANNERS:

ITEM BUDGET
Brackets
Banner Maintenance
$ 500
$ 500
Banner Replacement Installation $ 500
Banner Storage $ 500
Banner Replacement $ 1,500
Patriotic Banner Program *
Emergency Fund
$ 4,000
$ 1,000
TOTAL: $ 8,500
* Memorial Day – July 4th and Veteran’s Day – Pearl Harbor ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 15, Packet Page 60

CRBA DRAFT PROJECTED WORKPLAN
2026/2027
Final
HISTORICAL IDENTITY PLAN:

ITEM BUDGET
Whistle Maintenance
Historical Signage (4)
$ 1,500
$ 1,000
Cannery Tiles (2) $ 200
Map App Maintenance $ 3,000
QR Code stickers $ 800
Convert App to Spanish $ 7,000
TOTAL: $13,500
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 16, Packet Page 61

CRBA DRAFT PROJECTED WORKPLAN
2026/2027
Final
ADMINISTRATION/OVERHEAD:

ITEM BUDGET
Management Fee $ 47,500
Insurance $ 4,900
Supplies $ 50
Postage $ 400
Copies $ 200
Newsletter (1x) $ 800
Website $ 700
Accounting Fees $ 1,100
Tax Return $ 1,000
TOTAL: $ 56,650
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 17, Packet Page 62

CRBA DRAFT PROJECTED WORKPLAN
2026/2027
Final
NEW PROJECTS– PROPOSED IDEAS:

ITEM BUDGET
District Entrance sign
Website
Unforeseen projects
$ 25,000
$ 3,500
$ 36,500
TOTAL: $ 65,000
ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 18, Packet Page 63 ATTACHMENT 4
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 19, Packet Page 64 March 30, 2026
City of Monterey
580 Pacific Street
Monterey, CA 93940
Attn: Cristy Sabdo, Principal Planner
Planning Division
Dear Christy,
I am pleased to provide the City of Monterey with the following information as it relates to the North Fremont Business District of Monterey.

A list of the activities and estimated costs are provided in the attached 2026 Work Plan and Budget.

There have been no changes to the boundaries of the district.

No change to the levy of assessments is proposed. The formula for assessments shall consist of a 25% annual assessment of the business license fee, not to exceed $500.

The amount of any surplus or deficit revenues to be carried over from the previous year is included in the budget. Other income is obtained from our banner program.

The Board is looking forward to construction of The Isabella and ultimately the construction of the 2200 North Fremont project. We hope that funding will be obtained by the City for the GAP Project and Mark Thomas Bike Lane Project to continue the current North Fremont Bike Lane. We are looking forward to working with the City to further PG&E to start the design phase for undergrounding the utilities along NFS since we are in first position to start that process.

In addition, we would like to hold an educational seminar in the Fall of 2026 for Monterey property owners, including those on North Fremont, which focuses on current information for potentially developing their property within the City of Monterey, including highlighting density changes, etc.

Sincerely,
Wendy Brickman
Wendy Brickman, President
North Fremont Business District Board of Directors
ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 20, Packet Page 65 2026 Board of Directors:

Wendy Brickman
President (Owner, Brickman Marketing)
Mary Alice Cerrito Fettis
Vice President (North Fremont Property Owner)
Leslie Svetich
Treasurer (Owner, Monterey Lanes)
Samir Patel
Secretary (Owner, Comfort Inn Monterey Bay)
Mohammad Ali Nourizi
Board Member at Large (Owner, Monterey Cookhouse)
Manuel Aviles
Board Member at Large (Owner, Del Monte Grill & Cafe)
Sabina Gerard
Board Member at Large (Owner, Flower Market)
Note: The Advisory Committee meets in October of each year to review the accomplishments of the previous year and to review the budget and approve the work plan for the upcoming year. The 2026 Advisory Board Committee is in the process of being confirmed and names will be forwarded to the City of Monterey when complete.

Contact Information:
(831) 633-4444 or [email protected]
Wendy Brickman/NFBDM, 395 Del Monte Center, 250, Monterey, CA 93940 Website:
www.NorthFremontMonterey.org
ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 21, Packet Page 66 2026 WORK PLAN & BUDGET
January -- December

MISSION STATEMENT
The North Fremont Business District of Monterey is a volunteer driven organization, with the mission of preserving, revitalizing, and promoting the
North Fremont Business District, through broad based community support and serving the needs of the local neighborhoods.

COMMITTEES
Streetscape
Infrastructure & Advocacy
Banner Program
Marketing
Special Events
Education
Holidays
ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 22, Packet Page 67 NFBDM Work Plan - 2026 2
Achievements
2004 District Formed
2005 Developed Monterey on Ice – at the fairgrounds, the first ice rink for the City of Monterey 2006 Second Annual Monterey on Ice – Largest ice rink for the City of Monterey 2006 Moved NFS undergrounding of utilities to 2nd position - in priority for the City behind Del Monte and in front of Foam Street
2009/2010 Traffic Study – Completed Traffic Study for NFS corridor 2010 NFS Streetscape Plan – Developed a comprehensive streetscape plan. 2013 Back Stage Pass – Online marketing program with 25+ coupons from NFS merchants for residents and visitors.
2014 Incorporation of Streetscape Plan into the City’s Specific Plan - Continued to advocate for the inclusion of the NFS Streetscape Plan without modifications into the City’s Specific Plan.

Advocated for all businesses, property owners, and neighborhoods along NFS to become involved in and informed about the development of the City’s Specific Plan for NFS and the implications and/or changes the Specific Plan will have on zoning of those parcels 2015 Developed the Mixed-Use Design Guidelines for NFS with the City for building design, building setbacks, and landscaping on individual properties along North Fremont Street- currently called the North Fremont Specific Plan.
2016 Inaugural Earth Day Clean-Up on North Fremont Street. Organized over 2 dozen volunteers and cleaned up sidewalks and parking areas along the entire District street frontage.

Inaugural “Festival of Trees” Holiday Event at Monterey Event Center, with over a dozen participating Charities.
2018 North Fremont Bike & Pedestrian Access & Safety Improvements. 6.8 Million Grant for North Fremont Street started construction. Supported and helped advocate for the grant for new ADA crosswalks at intersections and a Class IV median bike path in the median. 2019 North Fremont Bike & Pedestrian Access & Safety Improvements Completed. First Median Class IV bike lane installed on North Fremont Street, ADA crosswalks on 4 intersections, adaptive light signals along NFS installed, and storm drains fixed. 2021 North Fremont Business District of Monterey Banners Installed First NFBDM banners, prominently showing our district is in the City of Monterey and displaying our logo, were installed along North Fremont Street.

ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 23, Packet Page 68 NFBDM Work Plan - 2026 3
STREETSCAPE COMMITTEE BUDGET $5,000.00
Goal: to improve the visual appearance and ambience of the area through the use of streetscape improvements, curb appeal upgrades and other related projects and activities

1. Objective: North Fremont Street Streetscape Plan implementation – to incorporate drainage and undergrounding of utilities at same time. Advocate for the development of the Streetscape Plan by incorporating the undergrounding of utilities, adding street signage, development of sidewalks, providing adequate drainage, etc at the same time of development of that Plan. Development should be made in stages along NFS.

Task Leader: Committee Chair: Leslie Svetich
Due Date: On-going – future – (storm drain repaired 2019) Funds Needed: TBD

2. Objective: North Fremont Street Streetscape Plan implementation – work with City to add landscaping to the median to enhance new bike path and bike racks with logos along NFS.

Task Leader: Committee Chair: Executive Board
Due Date: 2024
Funds Needed: TBD
INFRASTRUCTURE AND ADVOCACY COMMITTEE BUDGET $TBD
Goal: to improve the safety and accessibility of the North Fremont Street business corridor

1. Objective: Investigate speed reduction, and crosswalk improvements Task Leader: Committee Chair: Mary Alice Cerrito Fettis Due Date: On-going
Funds Needed: To be determined

2. Objective: Advocate for a comprehensive underground utilities plan to coincide with CTC award to include widening sidewalks and for City completion of drainage project (see streetscape plan)
Task Leader: Committee Chair: Mike Marotta/Leslie Svetich Due Date: On-going
Funds Needed:

3. Objective: Advocate for the individual property owners along North Fremont Street to fill their vacant properties and keep vacant properties in marketable order.

Task Leader: Committee Chair: Board
Due Date: On-going
Funds Needed: Actual amount to be determined

4. Objective: Advocate for the City to improve the park at the corner of Canyon Del Rey and North Fremont Street as an entrance way into the City of Monterey and Laguna Grande corridor.

ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 24, Packet Page 69 NFBDM Work Plan - 2026 4
Task Leader: Committee Chair: Board with CONA
Due Date: On-going
Funds Needed: Actual amount to be determined

5. Objective: Advocate for the City to improve and define the Specific Plan more thoroughly with clear defined objectives for all new construction on NFS.

Task Leader: Committee Chair: Board
Due Date: Ongoing
Funds Needed: To be determined

6. Objective: Advocate for the City to extend the bike path to Canyon Del Rey, through Seaside on Fremont Blvd, in addition to extending it to FORTAG.

Task Leader: Committee Chair: Board/Leslie Svetich
Due Date: Ongoing
Funds Needed: To be determined
BANNER COMMITTEE BUDGET $2,000.00
Goal: to maintain our street banner program on North Fremont Street

1. Objective: Continued coordination of the established NFBDM banner program Task Leader: Committee Chair: Wendy Brickman
Due Date: On-going calendar schedule
Funds Needed: Actual amount to be determined (Volunteer Board Member)

2. Objective: Banners have been designed and installed along North Fremont Street. Continue coordination of the banner program (event installations), repairs and maintenance, and monitor installation and tear down periods. Plus, continued Coordination of Holiday Banners (under Holiday Committee).

Task Leader: Committee Chair: Wendy Brickman
Due Date: Ongoing
Funds Needed: $2,000.00
MARKETING COMMITTEE BUDGET $20,000.00
Goal: to develop a unified marketing and networking program to establish North Fremont Street as a distinct shopping, dining and lodging area for local residents and visitors

1. Objective: Develop district promotional materials
Task Leader: Committee Chair: Wendy Brickman
Due Date: On-going in foreseeable future
Funds Needed: $ 500.00 + Revenue generating fundraiser

2. Objective: Continue to maintain a working relationship with Neighborhood Improvement Districts Task Leader: Board/Staff
Due Date: On-going
Funds Needed: To be determined
ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 25, Packet Page 70 NFBDM Work Plan - 2026 5

3. Objective: Create and develop a co-op advertising opportunity for NFBDM members and use funds to develop an advertising campaign through co-op advertising, with the use of marketing specialists, to establish NFS business as part of Monterey. Distribute Back Stage Pass through out Monterey.

Task Leader: Committee Chair/Specialist: Mary Alice Cerrito Fettis/Wendy Brickman Due Date: On-going
Funds Needed: $19,000.00

4. Objective: Continue to develop, upgrade and maintain NFBDM website Task Leader: Committee Chair: Wendy Brickman
Due Date: On-going maintenance for current mobile website.

Funds Needed: $ 500.00

5. Objective: Encourage See Monterey to market NFS businesses, hotels/motels and vacant properties.

Task Leader: Committee Chair: Wendy Brickman/Samir Patel Due Date: On-going maintenance for current mobile website.

Funds Needed: To be determined
SPECIAL EVENTS COMMITTEE BUDGET $500.00
Goal: to create opportunities for interaction between district business owners, managers, staff and the residents among the three neighborhood associations

1. Objective: Sponsor a fund-raising event by selling banner space on the Fairgrounds Fenceline Task Leader: Committee Chair: Wendy Brickman
Due Date: Year Round
Funds Needed: $500.00
EDUCATION COMMITTEE BUDGET $500.00
Goal: to develop economic vitality within the North Fremont business community by providing educational opportunities to improve the business climate and practices

1. Objective: Coordinate and create an opportunity (annual) for interaction between district business owners, managers, staff, property owners, and to the residents among the three neighborhood associations
Task Leader: Committee Chair: Wendy Brickman
Due Date: October 2025
Funds Needed: $500.00
HOLIDAY COMMITTEE BUDGET $750.00
Goal: to encourage more business participation in decorating for major holidays to enliven the environment to draw residents and visitors to the area

1. Objective: Board member businesses to set an example for others on the street ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 26, Packet Page 71 NFBDM Work Plan - 2026 6
Task Leader: Individual businesses
Due Date: On appropriate holidays beyond Christmas/New Years such as the 4th of July Funds Needed: To be determined

2. Objective: Continued coordination of the Christmas holiday decorating contest with prizes for area businesses.

Task Leader: Committee Chair: Wendy Brickman/Mary Alice Cerrito Fettis Due Date: December 2025
Funds Needed: $750.00

3. Objective: Holiday Banners - Installation/Removal/Storage costs/Replace Banners Task Leader: Committee Chair: Leslie Svetich/Mary Alice Cerrito Fettis Funds Needed: None needed

4. Objective: Lighted Wreaths along District – Request the City puts the 22 lighted wreaths NFBDM purchased, plus the 16 wreaths they used to put on our poles, up on all 19 poles along North Fremont Street
Task Leader: Committee Chair: Leslie Svetich/ Samir Patel Funds Needed: NFBDM purchased 22 wreaths Oct 2017
ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 27, Packet Page 72 NFBDM Work Plan - 2026 7
2026 NFBDM BUDGET
BALANCE FORWARD 12/08/25 $11,978.63
INCOME
City of Monterey Contribution $0
BID Assessment $20,000.00
Banner Administration Fee $1,000.00
Fund Raiser(s) $2,000.00
TOTAL INCOME $34,978.63

RESERVES
Savings/Reserves Streetscape Plan 9/30/24 $102,276.44
TOTAL AVAILABLE FUNDS $137,255.07

EXPENSES
Category: Appearance, Accessibility & Safety
Streetscape $5,000.00
Infrastructure & Advocacy $0
Category: Promotion
Banner Program $2,000.00
Marketing Committee $20,000.00
Special Events Committee $500.00
Category: Economic Vitality
Education Committee $500.00
Holiday Committee $750.00
Category: General Administration
Administration $1,800.00
Supplies $300.00
Postage $50.00
Copying $50.00
Telephone/mobile $0.00

Licenses/Permits/Dues/Subscriptions $1,600.00
Insurance $1,650.00
Accounting/Professional Fees $590.00
TOTAL EXPENSES $34,790.00
Streetscape Savings/Reserves $101,166.26
Unallocated Reserves $1,298.81
ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 28, Packet Page 73 ATTACHMENT 5
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 29, Packet Page 74 New Monterey Business Association | 98 Del Monte Ave, Suite 201, Monterey, CA 93940 | (831) 655-8070 | [email protected] Kim Cole
Community Development Director
City of Monterey
Monterey, CA 93940
March 12, 2026
The New Monterey Business Association requests that the City Council schedule a public hearing to authorize the continuance of our program for the next fiscal year and collect the business license assessment on our behalf, in accord with the requirements of Senate Bill 1424. Please note:
• The Executive Board made up of Anthony Gonzales, Heather Jorgensen, Steve Kittrell, Jose Miguel, Ryan Oetting, Christina Riddoch, and Kelly Sorenson met and approved the 2026 Work Plan and budget.
• The New Monterey Business Association boundaries remain unchanged. • Improvements and activities for fiscal year 2026-2027 are included in the attached comprehensive Work Plan
• The 2026 budget (attached) outlines revenue and expenses as balanced, utilizing approximately $1,900 from reserve savings and carryover from 2025 budget for the Lighthouse District banners. • The method of assessment remains 25% of the business license fee, with a $250 cap per individual business
• Yearly expenditures and revenue are projected to balance.

As you can see from the attached material, we believe we have a well-balanced work plan that addresses district promotion. Thank you for your continued leadership and support of the merchants and businesses in New Monterey.

Sincerely,
Sabrina Hiltunen, Administrator
ATTACHMENT 6
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 30, Packet Page 75 1 Lighthouse District New Monterey
NMBA Objectives
Priorities for 2026
Mission
The objectives of NMBA shall be to promote and enhance the identity of the New Monterey Business area and the businesses there in a positive manner. The Association is to provide a vehicle for communication between businesses, the community, and City authority.

Priorities:
● Promote Lighthouse District events and our businesses ○ NMBA events and supported events
○ Use website to direct visitors and locals (lighthousedistrict.net) ○ Digital marketing
● District Identity
○ Utilizing and promoting the Lighthouse District through a shared identity between businesses ○ Delta Banners on lampposts
● Foster and maintain contacts and relations among City of Monterey staff and other members of the community
○ Cooperate with all organizations to positively improve local conditions and develop the civic and commercial interests of the downtown business community ○ Participate, collaborate and attend meetings as necessary ● Parking
○ Perception and availability to visitors, locals, and businesses ● Public Art, Street cleanliness and facade improvements ○ Support Public Art throughout the district (Murals, utility boxes, etc.) ○ Encouraging businesses to take ownership in shared streetscape ○ Outdoor dining
● Disasters, Health and Safety Issues - alerting the district ○ City of Monterey - Disaster and Emergency Resources
ATTACHMENT 6
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 31, Packet Page 76 2 ● Maintain relationship with the neighborhood and other local associations/organizations ● Collaborate directly with / or member of:
○ City of Monterey
○ COMBA (Coalition of Monterey Business Associations)
○ Main Street America or California Main Street
○ NMNA (New Monterey Neighborhood Association)
○ MCPOA (Monterey Commercial Property Owners Association) ○ MPCC (Monterey Peninsula Chamber of Commerce)
○ See Monterey
● New Businesses
○ Retain, recruit, and help develop
NMBA Events:
● Meet & Greet Event(s)
● Sidewalk Sales (Throughout the year)
● 4th of July Parade (July)
● Movie in the Park (September)
● Trick-or-Treat on Lighthouse (October)
● Small Business Saturday (November)
● Holidays on Lighthouse (November/December)
NMBA Supported Events:
● February
○ AT&T Pebble Pro-Am
● August
○ Car Week and Car Auctions
● November
○ Monterey Bay Half Marathon
Advertising / Marketing / Promotion:
● Website - LighthouseDistrict.net
● Social Media: Facebook, Instagram
● Monterey County Weekly
● Posters and Banners Updated February 2026
ATTACHMENT 6
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 32, Packet Page 77 INCOME 2026 BUDGET
BID Assessment $ 18,978.99
Associate Membership $ -
City Support $ -
Movie in the Park Sponsors $ 1,000.00
Total Income $ 19,978.99
2026 Carryover Amount from
2025 $ 2,727.00
Total Income w/ Carryover $ 22,705.99
EXPENSES 2026 BUDGET
Administrative Services $ 6,000.00
Banners $ 1,000.00
Insurance $ 500.00
Movie in the Park $ 750.00
Outside Contractor $ 300.00
Postage/Office Expense $ -
Printing $ 150.00
Promotion/Advertising
Committee $ 1,250.00
4th of July $ 250.00
Holiday Decorations Contest $ 300.00
Small Business Saturday $ 200.00
Trick-or-Treat $ 200.00
Website/Maintenance $ 9,000.00
Total Expenses $ 19,900.00 *
*Carryover from the 2025 budget
to cover the full cost of the banner
project (estimated at $2,900).

Funds will be transferred from the
NMBA Reserve Funds.*
$ 1,900.00
2026 NMBA Budget
ATTACHMENT 6
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 33, Packet Page 78 New Monterey Business Association | 98 Del Monte Ave, Suite 201, Monterey, CA 93940 | (831) 655-8070 | [email protected] New Monterey Business Association
2026

WORK PLAN

COMMITTEES
EXECUTIVE Page 2
PROMOTION Page 3
LAND USE, STREETSCAPE Page 5

AND TRANSPORTATION
A community of businesses united to achieve the common goals of economic vitality and to reaffirm the spirit of New Monterey.
― New Monterey Business Association Mission Statement
ATTACHMENT 6
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 34, Packet Page 79 NMBA 2026
Page | 2

ORGANIZATION COMMITTEE
FINANCES ▲ POLICIES ▲ STAFF REVIEWS ▲ NOMINATIONS ▲ BYLAWS Mission: Oversees board and staff operations including bylaws, policies and finances. Ensure Association is running smoothly and represents its members. NMBA’s mission is to serve as a liaison between the district, other business districts and the City and residents.

1. Objective Update Membership Directory to include contact names and email addresses. Include key neighborhood resident contacts.

Task Leader NMBA Staff
Due Date Ongoing

2. Objective Establish Lighthouse District as a business and tourist destination by ensuring open communication between Board, membership, neighborhood and the City
Task Leader NMBA Board
Due Date Ongoing

3. Objective Work with Hyperlinked Web Services to keep LighthouseDistrict.net current with news, upcoming events and business information within the New Monterey Business Association / Lighthouse District; Use website to promote the district to residents, visitors and current and prospective businesses. Use the website to quickly disseminate information in a timely, proactive method.

Task Leader NMBA Board
Due Date Ongoing

4. Objective Continue to encourage use of “Lighthouse District” in all promotional materials regarding the district.

Task Leader NMBA Staff
Due Date Ongoing

5. Objective Continue to develop the New Monterey Business Association Liaison with the New Monterey Neighborhood Association to address common concerns.

Task Leader Association President / NMBA Staff
Due Date Ongoing

6. Objective Evaluate progress of Work Plan – Report to full Board Task Leader Executive Committee / Staff
Due Date October 2026
ATTACHMENT 6
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 35, Packet Page 80 NMBA 2026
Page | 3

7. Objective Continue to contact NMBA members to evaluate how the Association is representing the needs of the members. Use personal visits / the website and the Newsletter to communicate with members.

Task Leader Association President
Due Date Ongoing

8. Objective Offer Associate Membership to businesses located outside of the BID, but within the Associate Membership boundaries as defined in the NMBA Associate Membership Policy eligibility statement.

Task Leader Association President / Staff
Due Date Ongoing

PROMOTION COMMITTEE
MARKETING ▲ EVENTS ▲ TRANSPORTATION
MISSION: To promote the Lighthouse District as a destination for shopping, dining and services to both residents and visitors.

1. Objective Continue and expand efforts to make the Lighthouse District a destination commercial district. Expand efforts to define the district as resident serving, while also encouraging greater visitor patronage throughout the district.

Task Leader Promotion Committee Chair / Staff
Due Date Ongoing

2. Objective Welcome and encourage Defense Language Institute students to think of the Lighthouse District as their “downtown,” through the website and by educating member businesses of the economic impact DLI, NPS, and MIIS students have on the district.

Task Leader Promotion Committee Chair / Staff
Due Date Ongoing

3. Objective Continue to promote the Lighthouse District with co-op newspaper ads, bag stuffers, rack cards and / or other printed materials. Encourage greater “cross-promotion” between businesses within the district.

Task Leader Promotion Committee Chair / Staff
Due Date Ongoing

4. Objective Continue to host fun community events such as District Meet & Greet, Movie in the Park, Trick-or-Treat on Lighthouse, Small Business Saturday and promotionally targeted Lighthouse Avenue Sidewalk Sales.

Task Leader Promotion Committee Chair / Staff
Due Date Summer and Fall
ATTACHMENT 6
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 36, Packet Page 81 NMBA 2026
Page | 4

5. Objective Encourage merchant participation with Movie in the Park in cooperation with the Monterey Fire Department.

Task Leader Promotion Committee / Board / Staff
Due Date Fall

6. Objective Support and participate in City and regional promotions as they happen.

Task Leader Promotion Committee Chair / Staff
Due Date Ongoing

7. Objective Promote the Lighthouse District as a green commercial district. Create a rack card listing businesses that sell previously used goods and / or are green in other ways.

Task Leader Promotion Committee Chair / Staff
Due Date Ongoing

8. Objective Encourage use of the Lighthouse District logo by merchants in their own promotional materials, to highlight the merchant as a member business.

Task Leader Promotion Committee Chair / Staff
Due Date Ongoing

9. Objective Partner with the New Monterey Residents Association to encourage greater support of the business district by directing residents to the Lighthouse web site for promotions and information.

Task Leader Promotion Committee Chair / Staff
Due Date Ongoing

10. Objective Encourage the public to explore Lighthouse through the use of a recreational event or activity - such as scavenger or walk of Lighthouse Avenue.

Task Leader Promotion Committee Chair / Staff
Due Date Ongoing

11. Objective Explore ways to utilize Lighthouse Avenue sidewalks for “Sidewalk Sales” and / or outdoor displays to promote the district for holidays / festivals, etc. using the NMBA Master Encroachment Permit.

Task Leader Promotion Chair / Committee
Due Date May 2026

12. Objective Encourage residents to use the lawns at Scholze Park as a green oasis along the street for daily and recreational use when appropriate.

Task Leader Promotion Committee Chair / Staff
Due Date Ongoing
ATTACHMENT 6
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 37, Packet Page 82 NMBA 2026
Page | 5

13. Objective Incorporate social media strategies into events and promotion.

Task Leader Promotions Committee Chair / NMBA Board
Due Date Ongoing

14. Objective Replace worn street banners with new banners.

Task Leader Promotions Committee Chair / NMBA Board / Staff Due Date Ongoing

15. Objective Participate in the Monterey 4th of July Parade.

Task Leader Promotions Committee Chair / NMBA Board / Staff Due Date April 2026

LST COMMITTEE
LAND USE ▲ STREETSCAPE ▲ TRANSPORTATION
Mission: Plan and oversee implementation of land use plans, development standards, design guidelines and public improvements; Plan and oversee all forms of transportation and parking.

1. Objective Monitor plans for new and remodeled buildings to ensure consistency with the Lighthouse Specific Plan, Design Guidelines, appropriate streetscape improvements and pedestrian orientation to eliminate dead zone areas along Lighthouse Avenue.

Task Leader Promotion Committee Chair / Staff
Due Date Ongoing

2. Objective Work with the City and NIP to support, implement and help complete the remainder of the Scholze Park Improvement Project.

Task Leader NMBA Board / Staff
Due Date Ongoing

3. Objective Continue to implement the Lighthouse Avenue Specific Plan.

Task Leader NMBA Board / Staff
Due Date Ongoing

4. Objective Work with the City to secure water, whenever available, for Lighthouse Avenue development projects that will help create greater economic vitality within the District.

Task Leader NMBA Board / Staff
Due Date Ongoing
ATTACHMENT 6
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 38, Packet Page 83 NMBA 2026
Page | 6

5. Objective Encourage new and existing properties to implement Streetscape/Design components into their facades.

Task Leader NMBA Board / Staff
Due Date Ongoing

6. Objective Work with the City to develop better wayfinding signage to direct pedestrians parking in the Foam/Wave Street Garage and using the Recreation Trail to Lighthouse Avenue.

Task Leader NMBA Board / City Liaison / Staff
Due Date Ongoing

7. Objective Encourage City Council to reestablish City Façade Funding Program, or other Capital Improvement Projects along the Lighthouse Avenue corridor.

Task Leader NMBA Board / City Liaison / Staff
Due Date Ongoing

8. Objective Explore ways to further the identity of Lighthouse Avenue through creative signage and branding.

Task Leader NMBA Board / City Liaison / Staff
Due Date Ongoing

9. Objective Work with City Traffic Engineers and City Planners to elongate the parking spots along Lighthouse Avenue, making it easier to park safely on the street.

Task Leader NMBA Board / City Liaison / Staff
Due Date Ongoing

10. Objective Support public art throughout the Lighthouse District, such as murals and utility box art programs.

Task Leader NMBA Board / City Liaison / Staff
Due Date Ongoing
New Monterey Business Association | 98 Del Monte Ave, Suite 201, Monterey, CA 93940 | (831) 655-8070 | [email protected] ATTACHMENT 6
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 39, Packet Page 84 ATTACHMENT 6
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 40, Packet Page 85 Council
Agenda Report
№12/25
FROM: Andrea Renny, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Marissa Garcia, Engineering Assistant II
SUBJECT: Accept the Traffic Signal Warrant Evaluation and Approve the Removal of the Traffic Signal at Prescott Avenue and Taylor Street ***CIP/NCIP***(Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt the attached resolution
accepting the Traffic Signal Warrant Evaluation of
Prescott Avenue and Taylor Street and approving the
removal of the Traffic Signal at Prescott Avenue and
Taylor Street.

VALUE DRIVERS:

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

This action is consistent with the City Council’s Value Drivers and Strategic Priorities of Quality of Life –
“Recognize that public safety is a priority to ensure that our City is safe and welcoming to all, contributing to our economic vitality as a destination City;” Fiscal
Stewardship – “Prioritize funding models and sources for facility rehabilitation, repair, and replacement” and
“Identify and seek grant funding opportunities for City services and infrastructure, including parks, recreation, library, museums, public safety, fire prevention, and
planning.”
Agenda Report Highlights
• The City Council is considering the
removal of a traffic signal at the
intersection of Prescott Avenue and
Taylor Street because traffic
volumes have dropped significantly
since the U.S. Army closed the
Taylor Gate.
• A traffic warrant evaluation
determined that the signal is no
longer justified and recommended
its replacement with a stop control
system.
• Replacing the signal with an all-way
stop is expected to save the City
approximately $920,000 in
construction costs and reduce longterm maintenance expenses. • Public outreach indicated that a
majority of local residents prefer an
all-way stop to improve pedestrian
access and maintain current driver
behavior.
• City staff recommend the all-way
stop as a safe transition from signal
control that can be completed within
the existing right-of-way while
meeting ADA requirements.

Date: 5/19/2026
Item No.: 9.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 1, Packet Page 86 №12/25
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no fiscal implications associated with accepting the traffic warrant evaluation.

ADA Improvements at the intersection of Prescott Avenue and Taylor Street are part of a citywide ADA improvements project funded by Measure P/S. If the City were to implement the ADA improvements and upgrade the traffic signal to an accessible standard the cost estimate to upgrade the traffic signal is $1,300,000. Approving the removal of the traffic signal will allow for a more cost-effective stop control at this intersection, reducing the overall project cost estimate to $380,000, a net savings of $920,000. Additionally, traffic signals cost on average $4,000 - $6,000 per year in O&M. By comparison, an all-way stop typically requires signs, striping, and occasional sign replacement. There will be long-term savings from both lower operating costs and avoiding future capital replacement.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1 because the project proposes to remove an existing traffic signal and replace it with stop signs due to the traffic warrant evaluation. The project results in a negligible or no expansion of use beyond the existing site conditions. Furthermore, the project does not qualify for any of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions found at CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2.

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

Exception b - Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. The project would not result in a cumulative impact, and the proposed change is negligible/no expansion as demonstrated in the traffic warrant evaluation.

Exception c - Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. The project would not result in a significant impact, and the proposed change is negligible/no expansion as demonstrated in the traffic warrant evaluation.

Exception d - Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The project would not be visible from a scenic highway.

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

Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 2, Packet Page 87 №12/25
Exception f - Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. The project site does not contain historic structures. The existing intersection has a traffic signal and will be replaced with stop signs. The site is a developed intersection and therefore, impacts to historic or archaeological resources would not occur.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

Council could decide not to accept the traffic warrant evaluation and instead maintain traffic signal control; however, this is not recommended. A traffic signal is no longer warranted at this intersection and would require a substantial investment of public funds and right of way acquisition to retrofit for ADA compliance.

Additionally, the signal and curb ramps at the Prescott Avenue and Taylor Street intersection are required to be upgraded to meet current ADA standards. Taking no action is not recommended because this intersection was identified as part of a settlement agreement and the ADA upgrades must be completed no later than April 1, 2029.

DISCUSSION:

Prescott Avenue and Taylor Street Intersection: A Prior Vital Link to Army Access The intersection of Prescott Avenue and Taylor Street has been operating with a traffic signal serving the U.S. Army Garrison Presidio of Monterey’s Taylor Gate for decades. Prior to 2001, the Taylor Gate was open to public travel and provided a convenient connection through the Army base to Franklin Street and Downtown Monterey. The substantial peak hour traffic volumes in both directions warranted traffic signal control at the Prescott Avenue and Taylor Street intersection and the existing signal has performed well over the years.

In 2001, the base then was closed to public travel and served military traffic exclusively. From 2001 to 2025, Army traffic demand and resources to staff the entry gate were reduced to the point where the Taylor Gate was only open on weekdays for military traffic for one hour in the morning and one hour in the evening. As the Army faced further resource reductions in 2025, the Army closed the Taylor Gate entirely, which created a drop in traffic demand at the Prescott Avenue and Taylor Street intersection. This drop in traffic volume caused the traffic signal to fall from meeting traffic signal warrants based on minimum traffic volumes and the traffic signal is recommended to be removed.

Re-Evaluating the Intersection
City staff evaluated the reduced traffic volumes at the Prescott Avenue and Taylor Street intersection and prepared a traffic signal warrant analysis (Attachment 2). The California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA-MUTCD) provides a series of signal warrants, described in Chapter 4C, that define the minimum conditions under which installing traffic control signals might be justified. These warrants are not a mandatory stand but a guideline to help inform the decision, coupled with engineering judgement. The warrant study determined that the existing traffic signal is no longer warranted and that replacing the traffic signal with an all-way or twoway stop control would be appropriate.

If the decision is made to convert the traffic signal to an all-way or two-way stop control design it may present an opportunity to upgrade the intersection geometry to provide enough space to construct all new ADA ramps within the existing city right-of-way without needing to acquire right of way from the adjacent property owners. Modifying the existing traffic signal would require the Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 3, Packet Page 88 №12/25
City to acquire portions of property from adjacent property owners at two corners to fit the new ADA ramps and new signal poles. Additionally, the all-way stop control design allows for the installation of larger bulb-out curb returns with enhanced visibility, which provide positive interactions between pedestrians and drivers.

In order to test the feasibility of an all-way stop and gauge public support for the consideration, Staff placed the existing traffic signal at Prescott Avenue and Taylor Street in flashing red mode for 90 days to simulate an all-way stop condition and evaluated the intersection performance.

The study time was extended due to the government shut down which changed traffic patterns both during the shutdown and post-shutdown.

Public Engagement and Outreach
City Staff hosted a public meeting on March 5, 2026, at Hilltop Park Center a few blocks from the intersection. The outreach meeting was well attended by 20 New Monterey residents and nearby Pacific Grove residents. Staff presented the proposed project and associated traffic study results to remove the traffic signal, construct ADA ramps, and install either Alternative ‘A’ two-way stop control, or Alternative ‘B’ two-way side street stop control on Taylor Street.

Meeting attendees offered many questions followed by constructive discussion. Attendees who supported the all-way stop, alternative ‘A’, felt that it would provide better pedestrian access across Prescott Avenue. Some attendees believed that the all-way stop would provide better speed control, which was not addressed in the traffic study as stop signs are traffic control devices to establish who has the right-of-way at intersections, not intended to be traffic calming measures. Attendees who supported the two-way side street top control, Alternative ‘B’, felt that it was unnecessary to impede traffic flow on Prescott, which would generate more delay and extra fuel emissions. They also felt that a crosswalk warning system, like the one crossing Franklin Street at the Monterey Sport Center, would do a good job serving the relatively low volume of pedestrians crossing Prescott Avenue and facilitate smooth traffic flow. An informal vote of preference was taken at the end of the meeting with 16 attendees preferring all-way stop control and 4 attendees preferring two-way side street stop control.

Conversion to All-Way Stop Recommended
Staff are recommending the intersection be converted into an all-way stop once the traffic signal is removed. Both an all-way stop and a two-way stop control would provide sufficient control and could be designed in conformance with CA-MUTCD guidelines. Although the intersection does not satisfy the minimum traffic volume or collision experience warrants for all-way stop control described in the CA-MUTCD, the manual alone in not a mandatory standard and is not intended to be a substitute for engineering judgment. An all-way stop is recommended based on engineering judgment and site specific factors, most notably the intersection is stepping down from signal control. The signal has been in flashing red operations and drivers are currently accustomed to stopping at this location, and an all-way stop maintains this stopping behavior, whereas a two-way stop might cause confusion. It also potentially serves as an intermediate step, allowing traffic operations to be monitored and the intersection can be revaluated again before potentially moving to a less restrictive, two-way stop control in the future.

AR/mg
Attachments: 1. Resolution

2. Traffic Warrant Evaluation
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 4, Packet Page 89 №12/25
e: New Monterey Neighborhood Association
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 5, Packet Page 90 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

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

ACCEPTING THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT EVALUATION AND APPROVING THE

REMOVAL OF THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT PRESCOTT AVENUE AND TAYLOR STREET ***CIP/NCIP***
WHEREAS, the signal and curb ramps at the Prescott Avenue and Taylor Street intersection are required to be upgraded to meet current ADA standards; WHEREAS, City staff evaluated the traffic volumes at the Prescott Avenue and Taylor Street intersection and prepared a traffic signal warrant analysis; WHEREAS, the traffic signal warrant analysis found that a traffic signal was not warranted and an all-way stop control was a potential alternative; WHEREAS, if the decision is made to convert the traffic signal to an all-way stop the ADA improvements can be implemented within existing City right-of-way; WHEREAS, if the decision is made to convert the traffic signal to an all-way stop there will be long-term savings from both lower operating costs and avoiding future capital replacement; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1 because the project proposes to remove an existing traffic signal and replace it with stop signs due to the traffic warrant evaluation. The project results in a negligible or no expansion of use beyond the existing site conditions. Furthermore, the project does not qualify for any of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions found at CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 6, Packet Page 91 Exception d - Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The project would not be visible from a scenic highway.

Exception f - Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. The project site does not contain historic structures. The existing intersection has a traffic signal and will be replaced with stop signs. The site is a developed intersection and therefore, impacts to historic or archaeological resources would not occur.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby accepts the Traffic Signal Warrant Evaluation of Prescott Avenue and Taylor Street and approves the removal of the Traffic Signal at Prescott Avenue and Taylor Street.

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

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 7, Packet Page 92 314 Colville Dr
San Jose, CA 95123
T 209-829-1553
Taylor-Prescott Traffic Signal Warrant.docx 1
January 29, 2025
Andrew Easterling, PE, TE, PTOE
City Engineer/Deputy Public Works Director
City of Monterey
580 Pacific Street
Monterey, CA 93940
Re: Traffic Signal Warrant Evaluation – Taylor Street / Prescott Avenue, Monterey, CA Dear Mr. Easterling,
TL Engineering (TLE) has prepared a traffic signal warrant analysis for the Taylor Street / Prescott Avenue intersection (Project Intersection) in the City of Monterey, California. All nine (9) traffic signal warrants were evaluated, based upon the requirements in Section 2C.01 of the 2014 California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (2014 CA MUTCD, latest revision). The results and conclusions of this analysis are discussed throughout this report.

Figure 1 depicts the location of the study intersection.

I. Existing Setting
Through the project location, Taylor Street and Prescott Avenue are both two-lane roadways. The project intersection is at a skew angle, where Taylor Street travels from the northwest to southeast direction, and Prescott Avenue travels from the southwest to northeast direction. For ease of reporting the street orientations in this report, Taylor Street will be considered and labeled as a north-south street, and Prescott Avenue will be considered and labeled as an east-west street. According to the City of Monterey General Plan (adopted January 2005 and last updated June 2019), both Taylor Street and Prescott Avenue are designated as a collectors.

The intersection is a standard four-legged intersection. Taylor Street has a roadway width that varies from approximately 26' to 36' (edge of pavement to edge of pavement). Prescott Avenue has a roadway width of approximately 30’ (curb-to-curb), which widens out to about 36' at the intersection to accommodate a dedicated left turn in in the westbound direction and a dedicated right turn in the eastbound direction. Currently, the project intersection is signalized.

Within the project vicinity, Taylor Street primarily provides access to single-family and multi-family residences along both sides of the street. Similarly, Prescott Avenue provides access primarily to single family residences on both sides of the street, plus a local deli (i.e. Compagno's Deli) located on the northwest corner of the project intersection.

The posted speed limit on both directions of Taylor Street is 25 miles per hour (mph). The posted speed limit on both directions of Prescott Avenue is 30 mph.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 8, Packet Page 93 Taylor-Prescott Traffic Signal Warrant.docx 2
Taylor Street includes one through lane in each direction with no designated shoulders and no designated bike lanes. On-street parking is used by local residences at locations where the pavement is wide enough to support it. Prescott Avenue includes one through lane in each direction, with no designated shoulder, no on-street parking allowed (due to the narrow width of the street), and no designated bike lanes. There are curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements present along both sides of Prescott Avenue near the project intersection. However, Taylor Street only has AC dike and AC sidewalk improvements sporadically along the street. Certain segments of the street simply have the roadway pavement ending at the edge of the properties. There are pedestrian curb ramps present on the southwest and southeast corners of the intersection, but there are marked crosswalks on all four legs of the intersection.

Monterey Salinas Transit (MST) does not provide bus access to the project intersection or its immediate vicinity. The nearest bus stop from the project intersection is approximately 1,900 feet away, at the southwest corner of the Prescott Lane/Forest Avenue intersection.

Figure 1 – Intersection Location Map
Basemap Source: Mapquest, 2025
Project Intersection
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 9, Packet Page 94 Taylor-Prescott Traffic Signal Warrant.docx 3
II. Existing Volumes
According to the 2014 CA MUTCD, traffic volumes at the study intersection should be evaluated prior to the installation of a traffic signal. In this case, the City of Monterey wants to evaluate if a traffic signal is warranted under current traffic volume conditions, or if the intersection can be converted into an all-way stop controlled intersection. Both volumes from the major and minor streets should be considered.

A 12-hour traffic count was performed at the project intersection on Tuesday, January 14, 2025. Traffic data was collected for cars, trucks, buses, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Figure 2 depicts the peak 8-hour traffic data for the Project Intersection. Appendix A includes the entire 12-hour traffic count data at the Project Intersection.

III. Warrant 1, 8-Hour Vehicular Volume
For the Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume Warrant to be met, any of the following minimum conditions must be met for any 8 hours of an average day:
a. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 100 percent columns of Condition A in Table 4C-1 exist on the major-street and the higher-volume minor street approaches, respectively, to the intersection; or
b. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 100 percent columns of Condition B in Table 4C-1 exist on the major-street and the higher-volume minor-street approaches, respectively, to the intersection.

Figure 2 – Taylor Street / Prescott Avenue 8-Hour Volume Signal Warrant Major Street1 Minor Street1
Prescott Avenue Taylor Street Higher
Hour Eastbound Westbound Both Northbound Southbound Approach 7 - 8 AM 234 173 407 17 82 82
10 - 11 AM 141 121 262 74 17 74
11 - 12 Noon 187 110 297 80 17 80
12 - 1 PM 205 124 329 50 31 50
2 - 3 PM 166 135 301 10 10 10
3 - 4 PM 199 116 315 29 10 29
4 - 5 PM 243 119 362 242 10 242
5 - 6 PM 253 125 378 91 6 91
Condition A: Minimum Vehicular
Volume
Minimum Condition: (Both Approaches) 500 Minimum Condition:(High Approach) 150
Minimum Condition Met: NO NO
Component Met? NO
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 10, Packet Page 95 Taylor-Prescott Traffic Signal Warrant.docx 4
Condition B1 : Interruption of Continuous
Traffic
Minimum Condition: 750 75
Minimum Condition Met: NO NO
Component Met? NO
Notes:

1. Traffic Volumes shown only include cars, trucks, and buses For the Combination of Conditions A and B, the following two requirements must be met:

A. The vehicles per hour given in both the 80 percent columns of Condition A in Table 4C-1 exist on the major-street and the higher-volume minor-street approaches, respectively, to the intersections; and
B. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 80 percent columns of Condition B in Table 4C-1 exist on the major-street and the higher-volume minor-street approaches, respectively, to the intersection.

For Condition A, the minimum vehicular volume requirement for the major-street (Prescott Avenue) is 500 vehicles, while the minimum hourly vehicular volume requirement for the minor street (Taylor Street) is 150 vehicles. For Condition B, the minimum vehicular volume requirement for the major-street (Prescott Avenue) is 750 vehicles, and the minimum hourly vehicular volume requirement for the minor street (Taylor Street) is 75 vehicles. These volume requirements must be met for all hours of any 8 hours of an average day. As can be seen from Figure 2, both major and minor streets do not meet the criterion for either condition.

WARRANT 1 RESULT: NOT SATISFIED
IV. Warrant 2, 4-Hour Vehicular Volume
CAMUTCD Section 4C.03 states that the need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that, for each of any 4 hours of an average day, the plotted points representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding vehicles per hour on the higher-volume minor-street approach (one direction only) all fall above the applicable curve in Figure 4C-1 (Figure 3) for the existing combination of approach lanes.

Figure 3 depicts the peak 4-hour traffic vehicular volume for the intersection. The 4 points (Points A-D) all fall below the curve for 1 lane on the major-street and 1 lane on the minor-street. Point C is off the graph because the traffic on the major-street is too low. The graph was obtained from the latest revision of the 2014 California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 11, Packet Page 96 Taylor-Prescott Traffic Signal Warrant.docx 5
Figure 3 – Taylor Street / Prescott Avenue 4-Hour Volume Signal Warrant All of the points fall below the curve, therefore the condition for Warrant 2 is not satisfied.

WARRANT 2 RESULT: NOT SATISFIED
0 100
200
300
400
500
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400

MINOR STREET (VPH)

HIGH VOLUME APPROACH

MAJOR STREET (VPH)

TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES
CALTRANS FOUR HOUR VOLUME SIGNAL WARRANT (Urban Areas)
2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 1 LANE (MINOR)
OR 1 LANE (MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR)
2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR)
1 LANE (MAJOR) & 1 LANE (MINOR)
B
C
D A
Major Street Minor Street
East/West North/South
Prescott Ave Taylor St
A. 7:00 - 8:00 407 82
B. 12:00 - 1:00 329 50
C. 4:00 - 5:00 362 242
D. 5:00 - 6:00 378 91
Scenario
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 12, Packet Page 97 Taylor-Prescott Traffic Signal Warrant.docx 6
V. Warrant 3, Peak Hour Vehicular Volume
CAMUTCD Section 4C.04 states that a location must meet the following two categories.

A. All three of the following conditions exist for the same 1 hour (any four consecutive 15-minute periods) of an average day:

1. The total stopped time delay experienced by the traffic on one minor-street approach (onedirection only) controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds: 4 vehicle-hours for a one-lane approach or 5 vehicle-hours for a two-lane approach.

2. The volume on the same minor-street approach (one direction only) equals or exceeds 100 vehicles per hour for one moving lane of traffic or 150 vehicles per hour for two moving lanes.

3. The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 650 vehicles per hour for intersections with three approaches or 800 vehicles per hour for intersections with four or more approaches.

B. The plotted point representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding vehicles per hour on the higher-volume minor-street approach (one direction only) for 1 hour (any four consecutive 15-minute periods) of an average day falls above the applicable curve in Figure 4 for the existing combination of approach lanes.

Category A assessment:

As seen on the Synchro output generated for this analysis (see Appendix B), the total stop delay during the PM peak hour (i.e. highest peak hour) is 11.7 seconds per vehicle for a volume of 242 vehicles on the minor street approach (highest volume approach). This equates to 0.79 vehicle-hours, which is far below the 4 vehicle-hours required by condition 1. The first condition is not met.

The volume on the minor approach during the AM peak hour is 242 vehicles, which is more than the 100 vehicles required under condition 2. The second condition is met.

The total entering volume for all approaches serviced during the peak hour is 614 for the PM peak hour (7:30-8:30am). This is below the 800 minimum requirement for condition 3. The third condition is not met.

Only one of three conditions is met under Category A. Therefore, Category A requirement is not satisfied.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 13, Packet Page 98 Taylor-Prescott Traffic Signal Warrant.docx 7
Category B assessment:

Figure 4 – Taylor Street / Prescott Avenue Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Figure 4 depicts the Peak Hour vehicular volume for the intersection, which is from 4 pm to 5 pm with a volume of 362 vehicles on the major street (both approaches) and 242 vehicles on the minor approach (highest volume approach). The point (Point A) is plotted below the curve for 1 lane on the major-street and 1 lane on the minor-street. The graph was obtained from the latest revision of the 2014 California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.

Therefore, Category B requirement is not met.

WARRANT 3 RESULT: NOT SATISFIED.
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800

MINOR STREET (VPH)

HIGH VOLUME APPROACH

MAJOR STREET (VPH)

TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES
CALTRANS PEAK HOUR VOLUME SIGNAL WARRANT (Urban Areas)
2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 1 LANE (MINOR)
2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR)
1 LANE (MAJOR) & 1 LANE (MINOR)
A [362, 242]
Major Street Minor Street Warrant
East/West North/South Met?
Prescott Ave Taylor St
A. 4 - 5 PM 362 242 No
Scenario
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 14, Packet Page 99 Taylor-Prescott Traffic Signal Warrant.docx 8
VI. Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume
CAMUTCD Section 4C.05 states that Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume signal warrant, is intended for application where the traffic volume on a major street is so heavy that pedestrians experience excessive delay in crossing the major street. This warrant shall not be applied at locations where the distance to the nearest traffic control signal or STOP sign controlling the street that pedestrians desire to cross is less than 300 feet, unless the proposed traffic control signal will not restrict the progressive movement of traffic. Since the study intersection is currently signalized, and if necessary will be changed to an allway stop condition, Warrant 4 is not applicable.

VII. Warrant 5, School Crossing
CAMUTCD Section 4C.06 states that Warrant 5, School Crossing signal warrant, is intended for application where the fact that schoolchildren cross the major street is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal. Similar to Warrant 4, this warrant shall not be applied at locations where the distance to the nearest traffic control signal or STOP signal controlling the street that pedestrians desire to cross is less than 300 feet, unless the proposed traffic control signal will not restrict the progressive movement of traffic. Since the study intersection is currently signalized, and if necessary will be changed to an all-way stop condition, Warrant 5 is not applicable.

VIII. Warrant 6, Coordinated Signal System
CAMUTCD Section 4C.07 states that Warrant 6, Coordinated Signal System signal warrant, specifically applies to providing a coordinated signal system. Since there are no traffic signals near the study intersection, Warrant 6 is not applicable.

IX. Warrant 7, Crash Experience
CAMUTCD Section 4C.08 states that Warrant 7, Crash Experience signal warrant, specifically applies to intersections where the severity and frequency of crashes are principal reasons to consider installing a traffic signal. Accident data from the California Crash Reporting System (CCRS) was obtained for years 2022 through 2024, included as Appendix C. No accidents have been reported at this intersection for the past 3 years. Therefore, Warrant 7 is not satisfied.

WARRANT 7 RESULT: NOT SATISFIED
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 15, Packet Page 100 Taylor-Prescott Traffic Signal Warrant.docx 9
X. Warrant 8, Roadway Network
CAMUTCD Section 4C.09 states that Warrant 8, Roadway Network signal warrant, is to encourage concentration and organization of traffic flow on a roadway network for an intersection where two or more major routes meet.

A “major route” as used in this signal warrant shall have at least one of the following characteristics:

A. It is part of the street or highway system that serves as the principal roadway network for through traffic flow.

B. It includes rural suburban highways outside, entering, or traversing a city.

C. It appears as a major route on an official plan, such as a major street plan in an urban area traffic and transportation study.

Although both of the study streets are classified as collector streets, neither one has strong characteristics of a "major route". There are many other nearby parallel streets to the study streets that can be used as alternate routes. Prescott Avenue at least has some formal pedestrian facilities and has higher traffic volumes, so it does have some low-level characteristics of a major route. In contrast, Taylor Street functions more like a local residential street with low speeds and low traffic volumes, so it definitely does not meet any of the characteristics of a major route. Because the requirement of two or more major routes meeting is not met, Warrant 8 is not applicable.

XI. Warrant 9, Intersection Near a Grade Crossing
CAMUTCD Section 4C.10 states that Warrant 9, Intersection Near a Grade Crossing signal warrant, is intended for use at a location where none of the conditions described in the other eight traffic signal warrants are met, but the proximity to the intersection of a grade crossing on an intersection approach controlled by a STOP or YIELD sign is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal.

There are no active rail lines within the City of Monterey. There used to be one active rail line within the city, which was owned by Union Pacific, but it is now decommissioned and has been converted into a bicycle/pedestrian trail (i.e. Monterey Bay Coastal Trail). Therefore, Warrant 9 is not applicable.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 16, Packet Page 101 Taylor-Prescott Traffic Signal Warrant.docx 10
XII. Signal Warrant Analysis Summary & Conclusion
In summary, a Traffic Signal warrant analysis has been performed for the operations at the Taylor Street/ Prescott Avenue intersection. All nine (9) Warrants within the CA MUTCD were evaluated. None of the warrants were met/satisfied at this intersection, as described in the CA MUTCD traffic signal criteria.

Instead, existing data shows that the traffic volumes and intersection conditions fall far from meeting any of the CA MUTCD traffic signal warrants. Therefore, there is adequate justification for removing the existing traffic signal and converting to an all-way stop controlled intersection, should the city choose to do so.

If you have any questions regarding the contents of this letter or need additional information, please contact me at your convenience. Thank you for the opportunity to assist you with this project.

Respectfully submitted,
Leo Trujillo, PE, TE
Principal
T: (209) 829-1553
E: [email protected]
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 17, Packet Page 102 Council
Agenda Report
№12/25
FROM: Andrea Renny, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Marissa Garcia, Engineering Assistant II
SUBJECT: Authorize Master Programs Funding Agreement with the Transportation Agency for Monterey County to Receive Allocations from Regional Surface Transportation Program, Regional Development Impact Fee, and Transportation Development Act 2% Program and Authorize the Finance Director to Increase FY26 Revenue and Appropriate Regional Surface Transportation Funds in the Amount of $209,442.61 ***CIP*** (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt the attached resolution:

1. Authorizing the City Manager to enter into a
Master Programs Funding Agreement with the
Transportation Agency for Monterey County
(TAMC) to receive allocations from Regional
Surface Transportation Program (“RSTP”),
Regional Development Impact Fee (“RDIF”), and
Transportation Development Act 2% Program; and

2. Authorizing the Finance Director to increase FY26
revenue and appropriate $209,442.61 to the
Capital Projects Fund, Del Monte/Washington
Intersection Bike and Pedestrian Improvement
Project (CIP2320). This appropriation is fully
funded by the Regional Surface Transportation
Program Fair Share reimbursements.

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.

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

This action is consistent with City Council policies to approve agreements with outside agencies and to accept
Agenda Report Highlights
• The City Council is considering a
Master Programs Funding
Agreement with the Transportation
Agency for Monterey County
(TAMC) to receive various regional
and state transportation
allocations.
• Approval of this agreement would
allow the City to access
$209,442.61 in previously
unappropriated Regional Surface
Transportation Program (RSTP)
"fair share" funds.
• Staff recommends using these
funds for the Del
Monte/Washington Intersection
Bike and Pedestrian Improvement
Project to serve as essential
matching funds for future
construction grants.
• The agreement is a mandatory
requirement for the City to continue
receiving reimbursements from
regional development fees and
pedestrian/bicycle programs.

Date: 5/19/2026
Item No.: 10.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 1, Packet Page 103 №12/25
funding for transportation infrastructure projects, which support City Council’s Value Drivers and strategic priorities of fiscal stewardship and active mobility.

This action is also consistent with City Council policy to approve all budget amendments.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

Under the Master Programs Funding Agreement, the City is eligible for funds from the RSTP Fair Share, RSTP Quick Build Pilot Program, RSTP Competitive Program, approved projects on the RDIF, and eligible projects from the Transportation Development Act 2% Program. In addition, TAMC has identified $209,442.61 in previously unappropriated RSTP Fair Share funds that will be allocated to the City. Staff recommends appropriating these funds to the Del Monte/Washington Intersection Bike and Pedestrian Improvement Project (CIP2320).

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The Council could choose not to enter into a master programs funding agreement with TAMC to receive allocations from RSTP, however that is not recommended. This agreement is required in order to receive the allocations from the RSTP, RDIF, and Transportation Development Act 2% Program.

Council could also choose to allocate the unappropriated RSTP Fair Share funds to a different CIP project; however, this is also not recommended. The Del Monte/Washington Intersection Bike and Pedestrian Improvement Project (CIP2320) is eligible for RSTP funding, and funding will be needed to support the design and construction, staff will most likely be submitting grant applications to support the construction phase and matching funds will be essential to make the project competitive. Staff has previously applied for Active Transportation Program (ATP), a state administered grant program which is highly competitive. Staff also previously applied for the 2023 RSTP Competitive Grant Program. Staff is preparing to proceed with design to have a “shovel ready” project which would make the project more competitive.

DISCUSSION:

The purpose of this Master Funding Agreement is to enable the City to receive allocations from the RSTP, RDIF, and Transportation Development Act 2% Program. The Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) is the Regional Transportation Planning Agency for Monterey Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 2, Packet Page 104 №12/25
County, and as such, TAMC is responsible for distributing state and federal funds for local transportation projects.

Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP)
The Regional Surface Transportation Program was established by the State of California to utilize federal Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBGP) funds for a wide variety of transportation projects. The State allows the Transportation Agency to exchange these federal funds for state funds to maximize the ability of local public works departments to use the funds on a wide variety of projects including bicycle and pedestrian projects, local roads, and transit.

The City of Monterey receives a fair share of RSTP funds and is eligible for competitive funds in the Quick-Build Pilot Program and the Competitive Grant Program. The City’s fair share apportionment uses a distribution formula based on 50% population and 50% centerline miles.

This is consistent with past fair share distributions and the distribution of Measure X tax funds.

The City will receive $209,442.61 from the fair share distribution that was previously unappropriated. (Attachment 3). The City will also be applying for the Competitive Grant Program. Grant applications are in progress and the potential additional RSTP funds from successful grant applications is not known at this time. TAMC will announce successful grant awardees in August 2026.

The City has applied for grant funds from the RSTP Competitive Grant Program in the past two (2) Cycles. The City successfully delivered the North Fremont Bicycle and Pedestrian Access Improvement Project and the Citywide Pedestrian and Bike Upgrades Project from the prior RSTP cycle. Other past projects utilizing RSTP funds include the Holman Highway 68 Roundabout Project.

The City will be allocating the fair-share funds to the Del Monte/ Washington Intersection Bike and Pedestrian Improvement Project (CIP2320)..The intersection of Del Monte Avenue and Washington Street is a critically important intersection for all modes of transportation in Monterey, serving as many as 35,000 vehicles per day. The intersection provides connections between Downtown Monterey and New Monterey through the Lighthouse Tunnel which runs underneath Custom House Plaza. Improvements to the intersection were identified when Measure X, the county’s sales tax measure for Transportation Improvements, was put on the ballot.

The City has been programming funding from multiple funding sources Measure X, Measure S, and RSTP to use as matching funds and apply for grant applicants to stretch local dollars further and leave opportunity for other important transportation projects. The project will improve pedestrian and bicycle access and safety at the intersection of Del Monte and Washington; upgrades include, but are not limited to, ADA improvements and safety lighting. Improvements will provide improved signal operations as well as enhanced pedestrian and bike connections between the Recreation Trail, Sports Center, Downtown and the Waterfront. The intersection connects to the Downtown East Parking Garage and by improving bike and pedestrian connections to the Parking Garage it will further the City’s “Park Once” effort for a Car Free Monterey and reducing cars circulating through Downtown and Cannery Row searching for parking spaces. The project is in preliminary design and the current estimate for construction is $3.5 million dollars.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 3, Packet Page 105 №12/25
Regional Development Impact Fee (RDIF)
The Regional Development Impact Fee program, as adopted by the TAMC Board of Directors and each of the jurisdictions, went into effect in August 2008. Prior to the adoption of the regional fee program, development proposals were evaluated on a case-by-case basis for cumulative impacts to the regional transportation network as part of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review. The purpose of establishing a county-wide Regional Fee program was to streamline the environmental review of new development and establish a consistent methodology to assess in-lieu fees as a CEQA mitigation for new trips on the regional transportation system.

The City, who was the lead agency for the Holman Highway 68 Roundabout Project, received $342,496 in funds from the RDIF program in the past. If the City were to be the lead agency of a project eligible for the RDIF program in the next three years, the Master Agreement would allow TAMC to allocate RDIF funds to the City.

Transportation Development Act 2% (TDA 2%) Program
The Transportation Development Act provides for two sources of funding, Local Transportation Funds and State Transit Assistance. The program was established for the purpose of providing funding for public transit in California. These funds are considered local funds and are used for public transit operations and capital upgrades. Transportation Development Act funds are derived from a ¼ cent general sales tax collected by the State and returned to Monterey County.

Local Transportation Funds can be used for planning, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, rail passenger service, public transit, special group transportation service, local streets and roads, and administration purposes. The City has benefited from this funding source in the past.

The Transportation Agency Master Funding Agreement establishes conditions and requirements for local agencies to use state funds passed through by TAMC. Each agency receiving RSTP, RDIF, and TDA 2% funds will be required to enter into a master agreement.

The Master Agreements are in effect for a period of three years and are updated with each new cycle of the RSTP to incorporate any new provisions. The current funding agreement between TAMC and the City will expire August 31, 2026, and a new agreement will need to be executed before reimbursements can be approved.

AR/mg
Attachments: 1. Resolution

2. Exhibit A of the Draft Agreement
e: Janneke Stause, Transportation Agency for Monterey County Mike Zeller, Transportation Agency for Monterey County
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 4, Packet Page 106 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

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

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A MASTER PROGRAMS FUNDING

AGREEMENT WITH THE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY FOR MONTEREY COUNTY TO

RECEIVE ALLOCATIONS FROM THE REGIONAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION

PROGRAM, REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE, AND TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT 2% PROGRAM, AND AUTHORIZING AN INCREASE OF FY26 REVENUE

AND APPROPRIATION OF REGIONAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $209,442.61 ***CIP***
WHEREAS, the Regional Surface Transportation Program was established by the State of California to utilize federal Surface Transportation Program funds for a wide variety of transportation projects;
WHEREAS, the State allows the Transportation Agency to exchange these federal funds for state funds to maximize the ability of local public works departments to use the funds on a wide variety of transportation projects;
WHEREAS, the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (“TAMC”) is authorized by Chapter 2, Title 21, Rule 6640 of the Transportation Development Act and one of the duties of TAMC is to administer the provisions of the Transportation Development Act in apportioning Local Transportation Funds for the Transportation Development Act 2% program for bicycle and pedestrian projects pursuant to Article 3 of that law, and to the Cities, County, and MontereySalinas Transit; WHEREAS, TAMC is authorized by the Joint Powers Agreement for the Monterey County Regional Development Impact Fee Agency and is designated to administer and allocate regional development impact fee revenues (RDIF) to projects identified in the approved Strategic Expenditure Plan;
WHEREAS, funds allocated from the Regional Surface Transportation Program, Transportation Development Act 2% program, and Regional Development Impact Fees would potentially fund infrastructure improvement projects to improve transportation safety, mobility and access in the City of Monterey;
WHEREAS, TAMC is authorized by the Joint Powers Agreement for the Monterey County Regional Development Impact Fee Agency and is designated to administer and allocate regional development impact fee revenues (RDIF) to projects identified in the approved Strategic Expenditure Plan;
WHEREAS, funds allocated from the Regional Surface Transportation Program, Transportation Development Act 2% program, and Regional Development Impact Fees would potentially fund infrastructure improvement projects to improve transportation safety, mobility and access in the City of Monterey;
WHEREAS, the Del Monte/Washington Intersection Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Project proposes to improve safety, mobility and access through intersection improvements;
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 5, Packet Page 107 WHEREAS, these improvements will create more pedestrian and bike friendly intersections as well as ensuring our signal infrastructure remains reliable and dependable; and, WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project.

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

1. Authorizes the City Manager to enter into a Master Programs Funding Agreement with the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) to receive allocations from Regional Surface Transportation Program (“RSTP”), Regional Development Impact Fee (“RDIF”), and Transportation Development Act 2% Program; and

2. Authorizes the Finance Director to increase FY26 revenue and appropriate $209,442.61 to the Capital Projects Fund, Del Monte/Washington Intersection Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Project, This appropriation is fully funded by the Regional Surface Transportation Program Fair Share reimbursements.

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

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 6, Packet Page 108 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 7, Packet Page 109 Council
Agenda Report
№12/25
FROM: Brian Edwards, Library & Museums Director
SUBJECT: Approve Installation of Public Trash Receptacle Art on Fisherman's Wharf (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 installation of
Public Trash Receptacle Art at Fisherman’s Wharf.

VALUE DRIVERS:

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Museums and Cultural Arts Division Collection Policy
(Resolution No. 08-038 C.S.)

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT
(LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

Funding for the creation and installation of the panels will be paid out of Tidelands Funds. The cost for each
unit is $473.15 or $5,677.80 total. For the current
fiscal year, staff intends to only install nine of the 12 proposed panels, for a total of $4,258.35. There are
sufficient funds for this expense in this year's budget.

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 Agenda Report Highlights
• The City Council is being asked to
authorize the installation of public
art on up to twelve City-owned trash
receptacles at Fisherman's Wharf.
• The project involves wrapping
receptacles in rolled aluminum
panels featuring historic sardine can
images from local Monterey
canneries.
• Featured images are sourced from
the Monterey County Historical
Society Pat Hathaway collection and
the Monterey Public Library.
• The Museums and Cultural Arts
Commission approved the project
on May 7, 2026, to beautify the area
and increase access to public art.
• Creation and installation costs for
the panels will be funded by
Tidelands Funds rather than the
General Fund.

Date: 5/19/2026
Item No.: 11.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 11., Item Page 1, Packet Page 110 №12/25
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 approve the recommendation by the Museums & Cultural Arts Commission, however that is not recommended.

DISCUSSION:

The Library & Museums Director recommends that the City Council approve and accept the installation of up to 12 rolled aluminum panels to be wrapped on City-owned trash receptacles along the Fisherman’s Wharf area. These aluminum panels will use images of sardine cans from Monterey area canneries and will be installed to beautify the area and increase access to public art. Library & Museums Director Edwards presented the project to the Museums and Cultural Arts Commission on May 7, 2026, and it was approved by the Commission. The installation of these panels is consistent with the City Art Collection policy to “enhance the area by recognizing and promoting the unique cultures and environment of the Monterey region.”
City Code, Section 2-18 (c) states that the Museums & Cultural Arts Commission will advise and make recommendations “to increase aesthetic appeal of, and to promote cultural arts in public sites and buildings” and (f) will “encourage cultural arts, including historically oriented exhibits . . . projects and programs.” Section 2-18 (d) also states that the Commission will “accept or reject works of art.”
Staff discussed the proposal for the art installation with the Fisherman’s Wharf Association, Wharf business owners, and the graphic designer. Images from the proposed sites are licensed from the Monterey County Historical Society Pat Hathaway collection or owned by the Monterey Public Library, California History Room collection. Staff believe that these fit into the general themes of the area including:
• Artistic excellence, innovation, and originality
• Enhance and enliven the area
• Relate to the location and provided theme
• Showcase the City’s cultural diversity, historic heritage, or a key activity It is recommended that City Council approve installation of these panels in the Fisherman’s Wharf area of the City of Monterey.

BE
Attachments: 1. Current map of trash can receptacles on Fisherman’s Wharf

2. Examples of Sardine Labels

3. Design of Trash Receptacle
e: Wendy Brickman, Fisherman’s Wharf Association
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 11., Item Page 2, Packet Page 111

MONTEREY'S OLD FISHERMAN'S WHARF

TRASH CAN LOCATIONS
California
Dock
Water and
Leaves

WHARF THEATRE
&Gallery
(entrance)
Monterey Bay ------�
Jewelry Co.

Monterey Bay
Silver Co.

Morning Star
Pearls
Abalonetti-----+-+---....

Bar&Grill
Fish & Chips ------ Cafe (at Abalonetti)
Cafe Fina Ristorante ------- 47
Nick's on the Bay-------- 43
Old
Fisherman's --------+-----a Grotto
Old Fisherman's
Grotto Fish Marke:;-t---l---1
Carousel-------+----e
Candies
39 31
Wharf Chocolate
Factory
25 Crabby
Jim's
Ocean Front Gift Shop
Dockside Fish Market
Sea 'n' Tree Gallery
Harbor
House
Gifts
01 View Deck
(Above Big Fish Grill)
Princess
Monterey
Whale Watching
Domenico's
on the
Wharf
so
42 40
30 30
The Wharf's
14 General Store
06 06 Candy World
N
s
Monterey
Bay Sailing
Domenico's
Fish Market & Deli
Chris' Fishing Trips
& Whale Watching
Crab Louie's Bistro
Grotto
Fish Market
Pirate's Cove
Gifts & Things
Paluca
Trattoria
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 11., Item Page 3, Packet Page 112 �
PESO NETO 425 GRAMOS
,�MAHA ,cum FRESH'�?:,,,>
CAL1roRNIA co"'""l oFu.s.A
CA LA MARES,"'"'

EN SU T/NTA
DISTRIBUTORS WESTERN FISH PRODUCTS CO. MONTEREY. CALIFORNIA PACICfD IY

ENTERPRISE

PACKE RS
MONUUY, CALI,.

SALES AGENTS

PARROTT & CO

SAN FRANCISCO
� ..c:::;;:;;;;;;;::= CALlf.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 11., Item Page 4, Packet Page 113 ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 11., Item Page 5, Packet Page 114 Council
Agenda Report
№12/25
FROM: Andrea Renny, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Marissa Garcia, Engineering Assistant II
SUBJECT: Support the Transportation Agency for Monterey County’s Application to the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) for the Safe Streets for All Discretionary Grant Opportunity for Fiscal Year 2026 (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council authorize the Mayor to sign a letter on behalf of the City Council supporting the
Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) to
the United States Department of Transportation
(USDOT) Safe Streets for All Discretionary Grant
Opportunity for Fiscal Year 2026 for the Monterey
County Regional Safe Streets Together Supplemental
Plan.

VALUE DRIVERS:

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The grant application for the Monterey County Vision
Zero Action Plan submitted by the Transportation
Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) would support
regional efforts to improve transportation safety and
access for people of all modes and abilities.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE
ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no fiscal implications with the City Council authorizing the Mayor to sign this Letter of Support. Any grant funding received by TAMC for regional transportation safety and mobility efforts would reduce the need for the City of Monterey to contribute funding towards those efforts.

Agenda Report Highlights
• The City Council is being asked to
authorize the Mayor to sign a letter
supporting a federal grant
application by the Transportation
Agency for Monterey County
(TAMC).
• TAMC is applying for the 2026 Safe
Streets and Roads for All (SS4A)
Discretionary Grant to fund the
Monterey County Regional Safe
Streets Together Supplemental
Plan.
• This supplemental planning grant
would support regional safety
initiatives such as a Speed
Management Plan, a Post-Crash
Treatment Audit, and educational
campaigns.
• Successful grant funding for TAMC
would reduce the City's potential
need to contribute local funding
toward regional transportation safety
and mobility efforts.

Date: 5/19/2026
Item No.: 12.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 1, Packet Page 115 №12/25
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council could choose not to support this letter.

DISCUSSION:

When the US Legislature adopted HR 3684, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 (IIJA), also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), it established the new Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A), a discretionary program with $5 billion in appropriated funds over 5 years. The SS4A program funds local initiatives through grants to prevent roadway deaths and serious injuries. The Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) is applying for the 2026 grant funding cycle for the Supplemental Planning Grant Program. The City of Monterey was awarded a grant from the same program in the first funding cycle.

The SS4A Supplemental Planning Grant will build on the adopted Monterey County Regional Vision Zero Safety Action Plan and deliver several county-wide safety initiatives in Monterey County, including: a Speed Management Plan; a Post-Crash Treatment Audit; Lane Departure Signing and Striping Plans; and Safe Road User educational campaigns for rural communities and schools on the High Injury Network. This project supports the U.S. Department of Transportation's National Roadway Safety Strategy focusing on zero roadway deaths.

The City of Monterey supports TAMC’s application for a Monterey County Regional supplemental planning activities to strategically plan and develop improvements to make safe, accessible, and equitable roadways where all users feel comfortable.

This letter would be signed by the Mayor on behalf of the City Council and addressed to Sean Duffy, United States Secretary of Transportation.

AR/mg
Attachments: 1. Draft Letter of Support
e: Janneke Strause, Transportation Agency for Monterey County Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 2, Packet Page 116 CITY HALL • MONTEREY • CALIFORNIA • 93940 • 831.646.3760 Website • www.monterey.org
May 20, 2026
The Honorable Sean Duffy
Secretary of the United States Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
Subject: Letter of Support for the Monterey County Regional Safe Streets Together Supplemental Plan
Dear Secretary Duffy:

The City of Monterey supports the application of the Transportation Agency for Monterey County to the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) Safe Streets for All Discretionary Grant Opportunity for Fiscal Year 2026 for the Monterey County Regional Safe Streets Together Supplemental Plan.

The Transportation Agency for Monterey County is seeking Safe Streets for All planning funding, which will fund the Monterey County Regional Safe Streets Together Supplemental Plan. The Plan will build on the adopted Monterey County Regional Vision Zero Safety Action Plan and deliver several county-wide safety initiatives in Monterey County, including: a Speed Management Plan; a Post-Crash Treatment Audit; Lane Departure Signing and Striping Plans; and Safe Road User educational campaigns for rural communities and schools on the High Injury Network. The outcome of this Plan is to produce actionable, implementation-ready strategies and project concepts to slow speeds, improve emergency response, prevent lane departures, and educate the community on the shared responsibility of transportation. This project supports the U.S. Department of Transportation's National Roadway Safety Strategy focusing on zero roadway deaths.

The City of Monterey supports TAMC’s application for a Monterey County Regional Safe Streets Together Supplemental Plan because it is committed to safe, accessible, and equitable roadways where all users feel comfortable. We support a coordinated effort because our residents travel across the county for work and recreation and only together can we accomplish safe streets throughout Monterey County.

The City of Monterey would like to thank USDOT for its consideration of this Project.

Sincerely,
Mayor Tyller Williamson
On behalf of the Monterey City Council
cc: Todd Muck, Executive Director, Transportation Agency for Monterey County ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 3, Packet Page 117 Council
Agenda Report
№12/25
FROM: Rafaela T. King, CPA, MBA, Finance Director
Prepared by: Youssef Hanalla, CPA, CIA, Finance Manager SUBJECT: Adopt Citywide Fee Schedule (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council receive the Comprehensive User
Fee Study and approve a resolution to adopt the
Citywide Master Fee Schedule effective July 1, 2026.

VALUE DRIVERS:

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Proposition 26 applies only to fees that are “imposed” by government. Determining whether a charge is “imposed”
turns on the nature of the service and other factors, such as: whether the charge is in connection with a service
that the city is statutorily obligated to provide; whether the charge is in connection with a service for which the city is the exclusive provider within its service territory; whether the charge is in connection with a service,
product, or opportunity the city provides in competition with other, particularly private enterprises: or whether the charge is established by voluntary negotiations. (League of Cal. Cities, Proposition 26 and 218 Implementation
Guide (2021), at p. 58.)
For fees that are subject to Proposition 26, the City bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the
evidence that the fee is not a tax, that the amount is no more than necessary to cover the reasonable cost of the governmental activity, and that the manner in which those costs are allocated to a payor bear a fair or reasonable relationship to the payor’s burdens on, or benefits received from, the governmental activity. (Cal. Const., Art. XIII C §1, subd. (e); League of Cal.

Cities, Proposition 26 and 218 Implementation Guide (2021).) This means that all revenue sources are taxes requiring voting approval unless an exception applies. There are seven enumerated exceptions.

Agenda Report Highlights
• The City Council is recommended to
adopt a new Master Fee Schedule
based on a comprehensive cost
study to ensure fees reflect the true
cost of services.
• Annual internal reviews and a formal
citywide cost study every five years
will keep fees current and legally
defensible.
• Fee adjustments are designed to
achieve cost recovery, maintain
fairness, and support fiscal
transparency for all departments.
• The new schedule simplifies certain
fee structures, such as parking
guest passes, and introduces new
fees where needed to cover actual
costs.
• All fees comply with California legal
requirements and are not set above
the cost of service.

Date: 5/19/2026
Item No.: 13.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 1, Packet Page 118 №12/25
It is good fiscal and budget policy to regularly review the City’s fee schedules to ensure that the fees charged to citizens are in alignment with the cost of services provided to the citizens of Monterey. This action is also consistent with the City policy and practice to recover costs reasonably borne to provide regulations, products, or services as set forth in 19-102. “Cost reasonably borne” include direct and indirect costs, including but not limited to maintenance, contracted services, salaries and supplies. It is also recommended that the City perform this internal review annually with a comprehensive review of services and fees performed every five years, which would include adding, amending, or removing fees for programs/services.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The action will adopt the City’s Master Fee Schedule as seen in Exhibit A and recommended by the Comprehensive User Fee Study (Exhibit B). Implications and considerations for the City Departments are presented per department in the discussion section. In some cases where the recommended user fee was substantial, the recommendation was not accepted and not included in the City’s schedule. In addition, certain fees were not examined as they will be adjusted by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) administratively on July 1, 2026.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

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

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The Council could choose not to approve these fees; however, staff does not recommend this alternative. Allocating direct and indirect costs of providing services incurred by the City is a Government Finance Office Association (GFOA) best practice. Reviewing these costs on an annual basis is a prudent fiscal policy. Additionally, this review provides the opportunity to develop new fees for the city as appropriate due to changes in law or other requirements.

DISCUSSION:

Fees in California are required to conform to the statutory requirements of the California Constitution, Proposition 218, Proposition 26, and the California Code of Regulations. The City Code also requires that the City Council adopt fees by either ordinance or resolution, and that any fees in excess of the estimated total cost of rendering the related services must be approved by a popular vote of two-thirds of those electors voting because the charge would be considered a tax and not a fee. There are no fees suggested to be set above the cost of service and as such a public vote is not required.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 2, Packet Page 119 №12/25
The city internally reviews and makes adjustments to the Master Fee Schedule on an annual basis. Further, City policy requires the engagement of a formal city-wide cost study every five years. The City engaged Willdan Financial Services to determine the full costs incurred by the City to support the various activities for which the City charges user fees. The study covered all City of Monterey departments, except for Harbor, Parking, and Monterey Sports Center. Those departments have either recently updated their rates from a cost study specific to their activities or are in the process of doing so soon. The final report is enclosed and referred to in (Exhibit B).

The primary purpose of this study was to ensure that the City’s user fees are established and updated using a legally defensible methodology and the most current operational data. This includes reviewing current processes, staffing levels, and service delivery requirements to determine the true, fully burdened cost of providing each service.

The study also evaluated the relationship between fees and the actual cost of service to confirm that fees remain reasonable, transparent, and equitable. By analyzing actual staff time and fully burdened labor rates, the study helps validate that the fees appropriately reflect the resources required to deliver each service.

Ultimately, this effort supports the City's goal of achieving the appropriate cost recovery, ensuring that revenues generated by user fees cover the cost of providing those services to the greatest extent legally and practically possible, while maintaining fairness for both service users and the broader community.

The study resulted in a comprehensive set of recommended rate adjustments based on updated cost-of-service findings, operational data, and current staffing and process requirements. These recommendations are detailed in the Cost Study (Exhibit B) attached to this report.

Departmental Details
Administrative Services
The proposed adjustments to fees for printing and mailing agenda materials are reflective of the true costs of providing these services, as determined by the comprehensive cost study. It is important to note that all of these materials are available to all for free online at monterey.gov/agendas and that individuals who do not own a computer or smartphone can access the internet at no cost to them using computers at public libraries. Even at the current fee rate, only one person has paid for these services, and they ended their subscription in 2019.

However, because there is a government code requirement to mail these materials upon request, in order to protect the taxpayers’ dollars, it is important to keep a fee in place that would recover the actual cost of providing the service. The $1 fee increase for certifying a document is modest and the service is still primarily subsidized at the rate required by Monterey City Code. A new fee is proposed to recover costs for the legal noticing that the City must conduct when requested to approve a business improvement district’s annual plan. This will ensure that the business improvement district bears this cost, rather than taxpayers. Lastly, the cost for support staff to assist with Council Chamber rentals is proposed to be increased to account for the fully burdened pay rate borne by the City.

Community Development
Community Development fees are collected to cover the cost to provide the service. To calculate each fee, the hours spent on a typical application is estimated. For development Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 3, Packet Page 120 №12/25
projects, typical tasks include reviewing proposed construction projects, writing reports, and attending public meetings. Some of the more significant planning fee changes involve covenant of easements and certificates of compliance which are legal documents that must be recorded.

These documents require planning, engineering, and legal review. The cost to process appeals has also increased due to the multiple levels of review required for an appeal. In terms of building permit fees, fees have been increased to reflect the work needed to complete the permit review and inspection.

Fire Department
The proposed adjustments to the Fire Department’s fee schedule are primarily based on the comprehensive cost study conducted to determine the true cost of providing fire prevention and other public safety services. The addition of the “Fire Plan review and inspection, Battery Systems” fee is based on new requests received by the department. A “Fire Code Violation” fee was incorporated in accordance with the current Fire Code, which authorizes agencies to charge up to $500 per violation. Additionally, the Fire Protection System Plan Check fees for fire alarm and fire sprinkler systems are not new fees, but rather refinements to the existing fee structure. These adjustments are scaled based on the number of devices or sprinkler heads, allowing for a more accurate reflection of the time and effort required to review and inspect larger and more complex systems.

Library and Museums
The proposed adjustments to the Library and Museums fee schedule reflect the cost of recovering staff time. The addition of “Private Events at Museums” reflects the Museums and Cultural Arts Commission request to increase revenue inside of the spaces. The addition of a $100 fee for “Guided School Tours” for Museum sites reflects the staff cost needed to lead group tours of Colton Hall, Pacific Biological Laboratories, and Presidio of Monterey Museum.

School tours have continued to increase at these sites with the addition of an online booking form on the City website. The increase of cost of Commercial and Private Photography and Filming reflects the direct staff time to monitor the facility. The increase of fees for duplication of California History Room and Museum Archive items reflects the time needed to research, locate, and digitize these items. In addition, the duplication and publication fee is still competitive and accessible for researchers and authors. The proposed adjustments also incorporates the Board of Library Trustees’ recommendation to remove late fines for books and materials in order to provide equitable access.

Parks and Recreation & Cemetery
Parks and Recreation is increasing multiple fees in FY27. Many fees are automatically increased annually with a CPI adjustment in order to achieve cost recovery efficiently and reduce the need to manually adjust fees in future years. All other proposed fee adjustments have been reviewed independently to account for the cost of providing the service, enrollment, and surveys of fees for similar services offered in other communities. Increasing fees in Parks and Recreation helps the City operate safe, clean, and modern facilities for residents, members, program participants, and the public at large.

For most fees, there is a resident rate and a non-resident rate. The non-resident rate takes into account the fact that Monterey residents contribute to the City’s General Fund through a percentage of their property tax contributions (either directly as property owners, or indirectly as renters). It is common for public agencies offering parks and recreation services to charge residents less for program and service fees than non-residents, and that has been the case for Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 4, Packet Page 121 №12/25
the City of Monterey. Also, the City policy, established in Resolution 92-061, has been to subsidize Monterey Sports Center operations by 25% and recover from customers 75%. The fees support the cost recovery goals established for the City policy.

The Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) approved the establishment of a dedicated facility funding source on August 26, 2021. The City Council approved Resolution No. 21-127 on December 7, 2021, committing 5% of revenue towards Parks and Recreation Facility Maintenance and Improvement effective January 1, 2022. At the March 11, 2026, Parks and Recreation Commission meeting, the Commission voted unanimously to recommend City Council approve the proposed fee adjustments and adjust the percent contribution to the Parks and Recreation Department Facility Maintenance and Improvement Fund, to 6% effective July 1, 2026, and annually increase this designation by 1% each fiscal year until it reaches 10% in fiscal year 2031. The proposed increase in the percentage of revenue designated to the Parks & Recreation Facility Maintenance and Improvement Fund would dedicate additional funding in perpetuity for ongoing maintenance and improvement for the aging Parks and Recreation Department facilities.

Police Department
The proposed adjustments to the Police Department master fee schedule reflect a comprehensive review of the true cost of delivering public safety services. Staff carefully evaluated direct and indirect costs associated with each fee category, including staff time, current labor rates, and operational overhead, with the intention of reducing the burden on the general fund while maintaining equitable access to essential services. The revised fee schedule aligns with actual service delivery costs and reflects the department's commitment to transparent, fiscally responsible operations.

Public Works Department
Harbor Division
The proposed adjustments revise fee terminology to more accurately reflect the services provided by the Harbor. This includes clarifying language for City vessel use, water removal services, equipment issuance, and harbor/marina key access to ensure consistency with actual operations and avoid misinterpretation of services. In addition, several fees are proposed for removal as they are no longer applicable. These include fees related to forced mooring inspections and repairs, consistent with recent amendments to City Code Section 17-39, as well as fees associated with City-provided moorings and transient use of the East Mooring Field, as these services are no longer offered.

In addition, staff is requesting Council consideration of a proposed adjustment to the Marina’s merchant service fee of up to 3.2% in connection with the Harbor’s transition to a new Marina management software system. This adjustment is anticipated to be necessary based on vendor requirements associated with the implementation, maintenance, and operation of the selected system. While the final vendor has not yet been formally selected, the proposed adjustment reflects current cost estimates and typical licensing and service structures for comparable systems. The updated platform is expected to enhance billing accuracy, improve customer service, and streamline administrative operations.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 5, Packet Page 122 №12/25
Parking Division
As part of the Residential Parking Permit (RPP) Program implementation, staff identified opportunities to simplify the guest pass fee structure to improve clarity and ease of administration.

Under the framework adopted in November 2025, guest passes were structured using a tiered pricing model in increments of 25 passes: the first 25 passes were provided at no cost, the next 25 passes were $25, the following 25 passes were $50, and the final 25 passes were $75, for a maximum of 100 passes per permit year. While this approach supported cost recovery, it introduced complexity for both residents and program administration. The refined approach maintains the allocation of up to 100 guest passes per residential address per permit year, including the first 25 passes at no charge, and replaces the tiered pricing structure with a flat rate of $25 per additional set of 25 passes.

This adjustment simplifies the fee structure, improves transparency for residents, and maintains alignment with cost recovery objectives
Additional Considerations
The City relies on several essential indicators to adjust its fees in accordance with inflation, with the Consumer Price Index (CPI) being the primary measure. Fees that are influenced by the CPI are indicated with a footnote in Exhibit A – Master Fee Schedule.

Except as noted in the fee schedule, fees shall be administratively adjusted annually on July 1st based on the CPI for San Francisco Area (San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose) April addition and rounded to the nearest fifty cent ($0.50). Per City of Monterey City Council Resolution 23-139, payments made to certain departments in the City of Monterey using a credit/debit card will include a merchant service fee of 2.9%. This includes payments to Building, Cemetery, Finance, Fire, Harbor/Marina*, Monterey Conference Center, Community Development, Planning, and the Police Department. Payments may be made in cash/check in person without a Service Fee.

Service Fees are non-refundable. Fees subject to this Service Fee are marked with a footnote in the Master Fee Schedule. *(As noted above, Harbor/Marina is proposing to increase their merchant service fee to 3.2%).

RTK/yh
Attachments: 1. Resolution

2. Exhibit A – Master Fee Schedule

3. Exhibit B – Cost Study Final Report by Willdan
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 6, Packet Page 123 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№010/24
ADOPTING CITYWIDE FEE SCHEDULE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026-27
WHEREAS, the City Code calls for a full analysis of costs reasonably borne not less than every five years. Staff conduct cost of services studies to review and calculate the City’s expenditures linked to a particular activity in order to determine the fee amount and cost recovery level. Therefore, from time to time, the Master Fee Schedule has been amended to reflect changes or adjustments to fees as necessary to recover costs pursuant to that policy; WHEREAS, the City engaged Willdan Financial Services to perform a comprehensive Cost of Services Study covering all City of Monterey departments, except for Harbor, Parking, and Monterey Sports Center;
WHEREAS, the City provides a variety of services to the public which benefit the entire community, individuals, or businesses. For certain services such as regulatory fees or recreational activities, the City recovers partially or fully the cost of providing these services, which would have been otherwise paid from the General Fund; WHEREAS, where required by law, the amount of the new or increased fees and charges is no more than necessary to cover the reasonable cost of the governmental activity, and the manner in which those costs are allocated to the payer’s burden on, or benefits received from, the governmental activity;
WHEREAS, certain fees in the fee schedule are for government services provided directly to the payor that are not provided to those not charged. Where required by law, the amount of these fees do not exceed the reasonable costs to the City of providing the services.

Consequently, pursuant to California Constitution, Art. XIII C, Section 1(e)(2), such fees are not a tax;
WHEREAS, Propositions 13, 218, and 26 have placed both substantive and procedural limits on cities’ ability to impose fees and charges. Collectively these constitutional amendments provide safeguards against taxes being imposed without a vote of the people; and WHEREAS, Proposition 26 contains a requirement that the local government “bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a levy, charge, or other exaction is not a tax, that the amount is no more than necessary to cover the reasonable costs of the governmental activity, and that the manner in which those costs are allocated to a payor bear a fair or reasonable relationship to the payor’s burdens on, or benefits received from, the governmental activity.” (California Constitution, Article XIII C, Section 1); WHEREAS, the data indicating the amount of the cost, or estimated cost, required to provide the service for which the fee or service charge is levied was made available to the public for inspection upon request at least 10 days before the adoption of this resolution; and WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines”), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 7, Packet Page 124 2 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, along with the agenda report and data (Fee Study), 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 all prior Fee Schedules/Resolutions are hereby repealed except in the event of any challenge to any increased or new fee adopted herein, including any challenge pursuant to Cal. Constitution, Article XIIIC, the formerly adopted fee shall be revived and then be in effect unless and until the challenged fee becomes effective.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that:
1) It hereby adopts the City Master Fee Schedule, attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Exhibit A based on the Willdan Financial Services study attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Exhibit B;
2) The fees shall be effective July 1, 2026, with the exception of Planning Division, Building Division, and any other fees subject to Government Code section 66017, which will become effective July 20, 2026; and
3) The Finance Director is authorized to administratively amend the amount of the fees shown in Exhibit A to increase the amounts by adding CPI increases that take effect on July 1, 2026.

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

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 8, Packet Page 125 Master Fee Schedule*
Fiscal Year 2026/2027
Administrative Services
Bid Protest & Bidder Responsibility Appeals
Community Development - Planning
Community Development - Cannabis
Community Development - Building Permits & Inspections
Library & Museums
Monterey Conference Center
Parking
Parks & Recreation
Parks & Recreation - Cemetery
Public Safety - Fire
Public Safety - Police
Public Works - Engineering
Public Works - Harbor & Marina
Public Works - Sewer
Effective July 1, 2026
*Per City of Monterey City Council Resolution 23-139, payments made to certain City of Monterey departments using a credit/debit card will include a service fee. This includes payments to Building, Cemetery, Finance, Fire, Harbor/Marina, Monterey Conference Center, Community Development, Planning, and the Police Department. Payments may be made by cash/check in person without a Service Fee. Merchant Service Fees are non-refundable. 1 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 9, Packet Page 126 DESCRIPTION FY 2027 FEE
Agenda and Minutes Mailing Service, Per Year1 $223.50
Agenda Packet Subscription Service - Council, Per Year1 $3,087.50
Agenda Packet Subscription Service - Planning Commission, Per Year1 $712.00
Agenda Packet Subscription Service -
All other Boards and Commissions, Per Year1 $512.20
Certification of Documents $2 per document
Notary Service (per signature) IAW GC 8211 - $15.00
CD/DVD/Flash or other drive for providing records Exact cost of disk or device Postage and packaging for shipping records Exact cost
Publication of optional Candidate Statement in the
Voter Guide
100% of the amount determined by the Monterey
County Elections Department, to be paid by an
advance deposit of the estimated total, and to be
trued up following the County’s issuance of the actual
cost following the election.

Deposit for Filing a Notice of Intent to Circulate
Initiative Petition $200.00
Going-out-of-business or Fire Sale Permit -
initial application (up to 30 days) $25.00
Going-out-of-business or Fire Sale Permit -
First Renewal (30 to 60 days) $50.00
Going-out-of-business or Fire Sale Permit -
Second (final) Renewal (60 to 90 days) $10.00 per day
Duplicate Business License Fee $5.00
Business License - Appeal Request Admin Fee $25.00
Returned check Processing $25.00
PW Engineering Maps and Documents $3.00 per square foot Zoning Ordinance, General Plan, EIRs, Budgets $20.00
Photocopying Services - Conference Center $0.25 per page Photocopying Services - Public Works $0.18 per page (11x17) Photocopying or Printing Services -
All others including Public Records $0.10 per page (8.5x11) Ryan Ranch Recreational Vehicle Storage Facility, 20-
foot space, per month.1 $80.00
Ryan Ranch Recreational Vehicle Storage Facility, 25-
foot space, per month.1 $100.00
Ryan Ranch Recreational Vehicle Storage Facility, 30-
foot space, per month.1 $120.00
Appeals Hearing Board - Appeals Fee $881.61
Disabled Access Appeals Board - Appeals Fee $881.61
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES*
General
2 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 10, Packet Page 127 DESCRIPTION FY 2027 FEE
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES*
Building and Housing Appeals Board - Appeals Fee $881.61 Appeal of Marina Decisions to Council equal to fine asessed by Harbormaster Appeal of East Anchorage Decisions to Council equal to fine asessed by Harbormaster Appeal of Yellow Boat Permits to Council equal to fine asessed by Harbormaster Weed Abatement Fee Appeal to be set by resolution
Tobacco Retail License Fee $297.00
Legal noticing for Business Improvement District
Annual Plan1 $442.50
Council Chamber facility (includes use of furniture,
kitchenette (sink, counter, pod-style coffee maker),
bathrooms, microphones, connections for laptop
computers, and operation by City staff of audio-visual
equipment (document camera, projector, and
projection screen)1
$85 per hour (3 hour minimum)
Council Chamber facility - Overtime Rate1
$52.50 per 15 minutes the Chamber is used past
reserved time
Video cameras and equipment (requires Monterey
County Office of Education broadcasting personnel be
separately contracted/retained to operate equip)1
$263 per reservation
City Support Staff1 $177.50 per staff member hour
*Subject to 2.9% merchant service fee if debit/credit card option is used 1 Fees shall be adjusted annually in July based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The CPI increase shall be based on the published CPI for San Francisco Area (San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose) April edition and rounded to the nearest fifty cent (0.50) Monterey City Council Chamber Rental Fees
3 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 11, Packet Page 128 DESCRIPTION FY27 FEE
Purchases of goods, services, public works projects, etc. subject to informal bidding or requests for proposals $100.00
Public Works Projects subject to formal bidding up to $1 million and formal requests for proposals $250.00
Public Works Projects over $1 million and less than $5 million $500.00 Public Works Projects $5 million and over $1,000.00
Purchases of goods, services, public works projects, etc. subject to informal bidding –appeals without a hearing $100.00
Purchases of goods, services, public works projects, etc. subject to informal bidding - appeals with a hearing $500.00
Public Works Projects subject to formal bidding up to $1 million and formal requests for proposals – appeals without a hearing $250.00 Public Works Projects subject to formal bidding up to $1 million and formal requests for proposals – appeals with a hearing $750.00 Public Works Projects over $1 million and less than $5 million – appeals without a hearing $500.00
Public Works Projects over $1 million and less than $5 million – appeals with a hearing $1,000.00
Public Works Projects $5 million and over – appeals without a hearing $1,000.00 Public Works Projects $5 million and over – appeals with a hearing $1,500.00 *Subject to 2.9% merchant service fee if debit/credit card option is used BID PROTEST & BIDDER RESPONSIBILITY APPEALS FEES*
Bid Protest
Bidder Responsibility Appeals
4 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 12, Packet Page 129 DESCRIPTION FY 27 FEE
Architectural Review - ARC Major1 $5,211.00
Architectural Review - ARC Minor1 $2,831.00
Architectural Review - Admin Major1 $1,716.00
Architectural Review - Admin Minor1 $676.00
MF or RHNA - Tier 1 $1,621.00
MF or RHNA - Tier 2 $2,831.00
MF or RHNA - Tier 3 $5,161.00
Architectural Review - Signs ARC/HPC Review, including Historic Permit1 $1,791.00 Architectural Review - Signs Minor1 $911.00
Historical Preservation - Mills Act Request w/rezone1** $5,656.00 Historical Preservation - Mills Act Request w/o rezone1 ** $4,323.00
Historical Preservation - Demolition Review1 $711.00
Historical Preservation - Historical Permit, major1** $3,584.00 Historical Preservation - Historical Permit, admin1 ** $896.00 Historical Preservation - Historic Report, review1
** $2,364.00
Hisotric Preservation - Removal from Historic Survey1** $1,904.00 Historic Preservation - Prepare Historic Intensive Survey $6,000.00 Conditional Use Permits -Planning Commission Major $5,770.00 Conditional Use Permits - Planning Commision Minor1 $3,201.00 Conditional Use Permits - Zoning Administrator1 $2,375.00 Conditional Use Permits - Temporary1 $711.00
Variances/Parking Adjustment - Major Planning Commission1 $3,836.00 Variances/Parking Adjustment - Minor Zoning Administrator1 $2,375.00 Subdivisions - Tentative Subdivision Map (includes preliminary and final) $6,000.00 Subdivisions - Covenant of Easement1 $3,967.00
Subdivisions - Minor Subdivisions1 $8,917.00
Subdivisions - Lot Line Adjustment1 $4,479.00
Subdivisions - Certificate of Compliance1 $3,771.00
Lot Merger 1 $1,842.00
Environmental Review - Environmental Impact Report $100,000.00 Environmental Review - Addendum/Other $25,000.00
Environmental Review - Environmental Initial Study
leading to a Mitigated Negative Declaration or Negative Declaration $20,000.00 Environmental Review - Exemption $233.00
Text or Map Admendments -
General Plan $8,229.00
Text of Map Amendments - Specific Plan/Area Plan or Zoning $7,239.00 Text or Map Admendments - Local Coastal Plan $5,000.00
Annexation $25,000.00

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING FEES*
5 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 13, Packet Page 130 DESCRIPTION FY 27 FEE

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING FEES*
Permits - Sidewalk or Food Vending Permit1 $245.00
Zoning Affidavit1 $1,954.00
Permits - Permit Extension1 $1,420.00
Permits - Permit Amendment 2/3 of current permit fee
Permits - Special Permits (bingo, pet)1 $1,357.00
Permits - Temporary Sign1 $177.00
Permits - Tree Permit Associated with Development (ARC)1 $992.00 Permits - Tree Permit Associated with Development (Administrative)1 $463.00 Zoning Clearance Permit $38.00
Appeals - Of Decisions of Staff, ZA, ARC and
Environmental Determination to the Planning Commission1 $2,511.00 Appeals - Of Decisions of Planning Commission to the City Council1 $4,180.00 SB9 Ministerial Review1 $8,461.00
SB35 Ministerial Review1 $5,297.00
Rental Registry Program - Compliance (per unit)3 $50.00 Street or Right-of-Way Vacation $3,175.00
Planning Commission - Special Permit $1,784.00
1 Per City Code Sec. 19-103, Fee includes CPI adjustments, for applicable fees (SF, April). 2 Fees for Solar Panel Inspection are set by the State of California 3 Rental Registry Compliance Fees are Effective Jan. 4, 2024 *Subject to 2.9% merchant service fee if debit/credit card option used. ** Solar arrays, cisterns, and safe parking are exempt from architectural review, historical preservaƟon, use permit and variance fees. 6 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 14, Packet Page 131 DESCRIPTION FY 27 FEE
Application Review - Phase I (per applicant) $1,510.00
Application Review - Phase II (per applicant) $3,335.00 Application Review - Phase III (per applicant) $1,840.00 Application Review - Phase IV (per applicant) $2,360.00 Background Check (per owner) $300.00
Testing Laboratory Application Review (per applicant) $2,425.00 Temporary Cannabis Event Application Review (per applicant) $1,610.00 Out-of-City Retail/Distribution Application Review (per applicant) $70.00 Annual Cannabis Compliance Fee (per applicant) $2,395.00 Cannabis Audit (per permittee) $6,500.00
Cannabis Business Permit Renewal (per applicant) $780.00 Zone Clearance (per applicant) 200
*Subject to 2.9% merchant service fee if debit/credit card option is used

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Cannabis*
7 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 15, Packet Page 132 DESCRIPTION FY 27 FEE
Street Opening Fee 1 $972.00
Street Opening Fee with Sewer Connection 1 $1,554.00
Temporary Encroachment Fee
(plus $96/hour if review outside PPW is required) 1 $972.00 Permanent Encroachment Fee
(plus $91/hour for inspection)1 $2,273.00
Driveway or Sidewalk Encroachment Fee1 $972.00
Traffic Control Fee1 $389.00
Public Improvement Inspection
3% of common area or dedication
improvements
Investigative Fee for work without permit(s) Cost of permit Missed inspections or work not complete1 $233.00
Sewer Lateral Review Fee1 $232.00
Plumbing Permit - Minor (i.e., water heater, sewer lateral)1 $280.00 Electrical Permit - Minor (i.e., replace a service panel)1 $280.00 Mechanical Permit - (i.e., replace a furnace) Minor1 $280.00 Generator Permit - Electric Only Fee $536.00
Generator Permit - Plumbing Only Fee $536.00
Generator Permit - Electric & Plumbing together (Class B license req'd) $962.00 Residential Solar/PV Installation Permit (under 10kW)2 $450.00 Residential Property Inspections Reports -
Single Family Dwelling1 $441.00
Hourly Inspection1 $178.00
Hourly Plan Check Fee1 $178.00
Hourly Administrative Services Fee1 $110.00
Hourly Building Official Services Fee1 $288.00
Address Change1 $254.00
Duplicate Job Card1 $66.00
Revision (minimum fee - billed at hourly rates)1 $233.00 Residential Swimming Pool Demo/Abandonment Permit $1,130.00 General Plan Fee 15% of building permit fee
*Subject to 2.9% merchant service fee if debit/credit card option is used 1 Fee amount includes CPI adjustments, for applicable fees (SF, April). 2 Residential solar permit fees are set by the State of California for 10kW and under 3 Fees not listed above may be calculated either by using valuation or hourly estimates

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BUILDING PERMITS & INSPECTION FEES*3
Building Permits
Encroachment Permits
8 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 16, Packet Page 133 Low Range High Range Increment
$0.00 $2,000 1000 $112.20 $0.00
$2,000.01 $3,000 1000 $122.75 $0.00
$3,000.01 $25,000 1000 $122.75 $35.46
$25,000.01 $50,000 1000 $884.09 $25.59
$50,000.01 $100,000 1000 $1,508.66 $17.72
$100,000.01 $500,000 1000 $2,373.83 $14.20
$500,000.01 $1,000,000 1000 $7,914.81 $12.03
$1,000,000.01 $99,999,999,999,999 1000 $13,787.89 $7.99 Building Permit Fees - Project Valuation2
Low Range High Range Increment
$0.00 $1,000.00 1000 $112.20 $0.00
$1,000.01 $2,000.00 1000 $157.09 $0.00
$2,000.01 $25,000.00 1000 $157.09 $54.57
$25,000.01 $50,000.00 1000 $1,381.94 $39.36
$50,000.01 $100,000.00 1000 $2,341.76 $27.28
$100,000.01 $500,000.00 1000 $3,673.26 $19.57
$500,000.01 $1,000,000.00 1000 $12,195.32 $18.52
$1,000,000.01 $9,999,999,999.99 1000 $21,235.85 $12.28
1 Fee amounts will include CPI adjustments from April SF CPI. *Subject to 2.9% merchant service fee if debit/credit card option is used

DESCRIPTION
Plan Check - Project Valuation2
FY27 Fee
Fee Amount

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BUILDING PERMITS & INSPECTIONS*
2 Project Valuation may require estimates by a licensed contractor subject to approval by the Building Official (max residential roofing value is $25,000) 9 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 17, Packet Page 134 DESCRIPTION FY 27 FEE
Overdue Fines - Adult Materials
(includes Audio Cassettes, CDs, Books, Magazines,
DVDs, Videos) No Charge
Overdue Fines - Teen Materials
(includes Audio Cassettes, CDs, Books, Magazines,
DVDs, Videos) No Charge
Overdue Fines - Youth Materials
(includes Audio Cassettes, CDs, Books, Magazines,
DVDs, Videos) No Charge
Overdue Fines - Laptop Computers $5 per hour
Overdue Fines - Telescopes $5 per day
Lost/Damaged Materials - Books Cost of item
Lost/Damaged Materials - Magazines Adult $10.00 / Youth & Teen $5.00 Library Cards - California Resident No Charge
Library Cards - Out of State Resident $25.00/month
Duplicate (Replacement) Library Card No Charge
Photocopying Services - Library
$0.25 per single-sided black & white copy,
$0.50 per single-sided color copy
Microfilm copies - Library
$0.25 per single-sided black & white copy,
electronic copy, no charge
Print-outs from Internet Stations
$0.25 per single-sided black & white copy,
$0.50 per single-sided color copy
Pacific Biological Laboraties3 $100 (private group, 1-4 people) Colton Hall Museum3 $100 (private group, 1-4 people)
Presidio of Monterey Museum3 $100 (private group, 1-4 people) Guided School Tours $100
Commercial Filming Permit $100 per hour, minimum of 4 hours Commercial and Private Photography and Filming
inside Historic Buildings4 $100 per hour, minimum of 4 hours Private Event at Museums $250 per hour, minimum of 4 hours LIBRARY & MUSEUMS1,2

LIBRARY

MUSEUMS
10 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 18, Packet Page 135 DESCRIPTION FY 27 FEE
LIBRARY & MUSEUMS1,2
Library - Publication, Distribution, or Commercial use of images.

Existing files. (For profit) $40 each
Library - Publication, Distribution, or Commercial use of images.

New files. (For profit) $50 each
Library - Publication, Distribution, or Commercial use of images.

Existing files. (Non-profit) $35 each
Library - Publication, Distribution, or Commercial use of images.

New files. (Non-profit) $40 each
Museums - Publication, Distribution, or Commercial use of images. Existing files. (For profit) $40 each
Museums -Publication, Distribution, or Commercial use of images.

New files. (For profit) $50 each
Museums - Publication, Distribution, or Commercial use of images. Existing files. (Non-profit) $35 each
Museums - Publication, Distribution, or Commercial use of images. New files. (Non-profit) $40 each
4Commercial filming also requires a film permit through the City of Monterey. Hourly cost for staff monitor of City facilities.

FEES FOR DOCUMENT DELIVERY & DUPLICATION OF CALIFORNIA HISTORY ROOM PHOTOS AND OTHER 1 The Library and Museums Director is authorized to set fees for Museum activities, programs and services, subject to the following standards:

1. Museum programs and services shall benefit both the participant and the community due to their educational and cultural value; 2. Museum and services require facilities, supplies, equipment, and/or considerable staff planning and supervision specific to the program and therefore, it is appropriate to charge a fee for these programs and services. Some examples include, but are not limited to instructional programs, special events, and educational tours; 3. Fees will not exceed the reasonable cost to the City of providing the program, class, or service.; 4. Fees will remain affordable to allow access to community members, especially youth and seniors; and; 5. Contractually taught class fees will be set based on availability of instructor, instructor costs, as these programs follow city purchasing policy. 2 The Library and Museums Director may approve promotional pricing for Museum activities, programs, and services, subject to the following standards: 1. The fee reduction must be intended to promote Museum programs and facilities; 2. The fee reduction shall not reduce fees by more than 25%;; 3. The fee reduction is publicized and open to all; and 4. The fee reduction is limited in duration. 3 Each additional person is $15, for a maximum of 15 people per tour for Pacific Biological Laboratories and Presidio of Monterey Museum, 30 people maximum for the Colton Hall Museum. Monterey residents will receive a 10% discount. 11 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 19, Packet Page 136 DESCRIPTION FY 27 FEE FY 27 NON-PROFIT FEE
Serra I $5,835 $4,670
Serra II $4,815 $3,850
Serra I, II $10,650 $8,520
Serra Lobby $1,440 $1,150
Steinbeck I $1,870 $1,495
Steinbeck II $1,510 $1,210
Steinbeck III $1,780 $1,425
Steinbeck I, II, III $5,250 $4,200
Steinbeck I - A $1,135 $910
Steinbeck I - B $1,135 $910
Steinbeck I - C $1,135 $910
Steinbeck Lobby $1,135 $910
Colton I, II or III $660 $530
Colton I, II & III $1,980 $1,590
Jeffers Plaza $1,895 $1,515
Stevenson I $805 $645
Stevenson II $805 $645
Stevenson Terrace $1,585 $1,270
Delmonte Terrace $1,440 $1,150
*Subject to 2.9% merchant service fee if debit/credit card option is used Room
MONTEREY CONFERENCE CENTER*
Notes regarding MCC fees:

1. Published Rates: from $0.38/sq foot for Ballrooms to $1.09/square foot for Stevenson Rooms.

2. Non-Profit Rates: 20% off published rates for Monterey County 501 (c)(3) Organizations.

3. Future rates beyond FY22 increase between 3-5% annually, not to exceed 5%.

4. Rates are rounded off to the nearest $5.

5. Rates are on a fiscal basis July 1 through June 30.
12 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 20, Packet Page 137 DESCRIPTION FY 27 FEE
5x7 Lined pad w/pen or pencil $26.00/dozen
Table $18.00
Table w/linen only $35.00
Table w/linen & skirt $50.00
Linen - refresh $6.00
Skirt - refresh $38.00 (cost to dry clean)
Podium $30.00
Dance Floor/15x15 or larger $350.00 per event
Dance Floor/15x15 or smaller $150.00 per event
Pipe & Drape (2 bases) $25.00
Stanchion (2 bases) $10.00 per section
Chair, banquet $5.00
Talk show style Table $75.00/day
Talk show style Chair $75.00/day
Barstool $20.00
Coatrack $30.00
Outdoor Heater $75 (includes propane)
Water Dispenser $45.00
5 gal Water refills $25.00
Including but not limited to: removing decorations,
additional room refreshes, airwall open/close, room
turns or damage repairs
$75/hr per person
Pallet Disposal-If Pallets are left and not taken by
vendor $300.00/Pallet
Steinbeck Ia, Ib, Ic $150/section
Steinbeck II, III $300 per section
Colton $150 per section
Serra I $475 minimum
Serra II (Based On Setup Requirements) $400 minimum
Serra Carpet Replacement $150 per 3x3 section + labor
Re-Key Lock + (1) Key $75.00
Additional Keys $25.00 each
Unreturned Keys $25.00 each

MONTEREY CONFERENCE CENTER
Daily Equipment & Service Fees*
Equipment
Services
Labor Fees
Room Turns
13 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 21, Packet Page 138 DESCRIPTION FY 27 FEE

MONTEREY CONFERENCE CENTER
Daily Equipment & Service Fees*
Banner installation $75 each
Shipment per cardboard box
$75.00/day to store
(5 boxes for the RENTER is complimentary with receipt
no earlier than 2 days prior to move in)
Shipment, oversized $75.00/day to store
Heavy Equipment Day = 8 hours
Powered Pallet Jack $30.00/hr or $150.00/day
Non-Powered Pallet Jack $25.00/hr or $125.00/day
Office Services/Supplies $75
25% will be added to all outside services added to MCC
Final bill $75
Customized Display Moniter 25" $30.00
Customized Display Moniter 65" $125.00
Commercial Filming Permit $350 - $1000
*Subject to 2.9% merchant service fee if debit/credit card option is used **25% will be added to all outside services added to MCC Final bill Analog Lines
Office Supplies/Services**
14 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 22, Packet Page 139 DESCRIPTION FY27 Program Fee
FY27 Monterey
Resident Fee2

1. Group Picnic Permit $100.00 $90.00

2. El Estero Park Group Picnic Permit $135.00 $121.50

3. Veteran's Memorial Park Group Area 2 Picnic Permit $135.00 $121.50

4. Group Beach Permit $100.00 $90.00

5. Group Beach Permit/Commercial $250.00 $250.00

6. Beach Wedding Permit $700.00 $700.00

7. Beach/Park Annual Use Permit For Small Group Activities Incl. Picnics/Teambuilding/Instructional Classes/Camps/Fitness Or Athletic Training (groups of 15 or less)- Commercial $950.00 $855.00

8. Beach/Park Annual Use Permit For Small Group Activities Incl. Picnics/Teambuilding/Instructional Classes/Camps/Fitness Or Athletic Training (groups of 15 or less)- Nonprofit
$300.00 $300.00

9. Sport Court Permit
(eg., Volleyball, Basketball, Tennis) - PER DAY $75.00 $67.50

10. Bounce House/Inflatable Permit $55.00 $55.00

11. Wedding Event Permit - Colton Hall Lawn
Or Friendly Plaza - Per Location $250.00 $225.00

12. Event Permit (Per Day) $700.00 $700.00

13. Event/Park Closure Permit (Per Day) $1,500.00 $1,500.00

14. Meeting Room Use - Nonprofit (During Community Center Operating Hours) - Per Hour Fee $30.00 $30.00

15. Meeting Room Use - Nonprofit (During Community Center Non-Operating Hours) - Per Hour Fee w/ 2 Hour Minimum $60.00 $60.00

16. Facility Rental – Community Centers Private Party Use - Per Hour Fee w/ 2 Hour Minimum $160.00 $144.00

17. Waterfront Community Room Rental Permit - Nonprofit - Per Hour Fee $80.00 $80.00

18. Ballpark Event Permit
Day Use $700.00 $700.00
Hourly Use $70.00 $70.00
Lights Use - Per Hour Fee $30.00 $30.00

19. Ballpark Use Fee Practice -
Per Hour Fee w/ 2 Hour Minimum $35.00 $31.50

20. Parks & Recreation Commission
Appeal Process $179.00 $179.00

PARKS & RECREATION
Permits/Facility Rentals
15 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 23, Packet Page 140 DESCRIPTION FY27 Program Fee
FY27 Monterey
Resident Fee2

PARKS & RECREATION
Drop-In Admission:

Youth (3-12 Years) $12.00 $11.00
Teen (13-17 Years) $13.00 $12.00
Adult (18-61 Years) $17.00 $16.00
Senior (62 And Older) $12.00 $11.00
Nonprofit Group Drop-In (per person) $10.00 $10.00
10-Visit Pass:

Youth (3-12 Years) $120.00 $110.00
Teen (13-17 Years) $130.00 $120.00
Adult (18-61 Years) $170.00 $160.00
Senior (62 And Older) $120.00 $110.00
Subscription/Auto Billing (1 Month):

Youth (9-12 Years) $42.00 $37.80
Teen (13-17 Years) $46.00 $41.40
Adult (18-61 Years) $75.00 $67.50
Senior (62 And Older) $55.00 $49.50
Family* $110.00 $99.00
Membership (1 Year):

Youth (9-12 Years) $450.00 $405.00
Teen (13-17 Years) $520.00 $468.00
Adult (18-61 Years) $825.00 $742.50
Senior (62 And Older) $605.00 $544.50
Family* $1,210.00 $1,089.00
* Family Membership Eligibility - 2 adults and their dependent children 20 years of age and younger that live in the same household.

Business/Corporate Fee (minimum 5 employees):

Membership (1 Year) $685.00 $685.00
Membership (Monthly) $57.00 $57.00
Facility Rental (Staff Time Additional)
Folding Chairs (5 chairs) $15.00 $15.00
Table $15.00 $15.00
WIBIT Rental $150.00 $150.00
During Non-Operating Hours:

Pool - First 2 Hours $400.00 $360.00
Additional Hour $175.00 $157.50
Gym - First 2 Hours $400.00 $360.00
Additional Hour $175.00 $157.50
Pool & Gym - First 2 Hours $575.00 $517.50
Additional Hour $275.00 $247.50
During Operating Hours:

Pool Lane Rental - Per Hour Fee $30.00 $27.00
Gymnasium Court Rental - Per Hour Fee $60.00 $54.00
Studio Rental - Per Hour Fee $125.00 $112.50
Conference Room Rental- Per Hour Fee $50.00 $45.00
Party w/ 20 guests (during available operating hours) $250.00 $250.00 Party w/ 30 guests (during available operating hours) $325.00 $325.00 Party w/ 40 guests (during available operating hours) $400.00 $400.00 Monterey Sports Center
16 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 24, Packet Page 141 DESCRIPTION FY27 Program Fee
FY27 Monterey
Resident Fee2

PARKS & RECREATION
Campsite With 1 Vehicle $50.00 $50.00
Additional Vehicle $15.00 $15.00
Each Bicycle - Hiker Campsite $10.00 $10.00
Overnight Youth Group Area - Per Person Fee
Overnight Youth Group Area 3 - Per Person Fee $10.00 $10.00 Overnight Youth Group Area 2 - Per Person Fee $15.00 $15.00 Active Duty & Retired U.S. Military,
Disabled U.S. Veterans & Senior Age 62
And Older - (Vehicle Campsite)3 $5 Discount $5 Discount Active Duty & Retired U.S. Military,
Disabled U.S. Veteran & Senior Age 62
And Older - (Hiker Campsite)3 $2 Discount $2 Discount
Shower Fee For Campers & For Non-Campers (5 minute shower) $4.00 $4.00 Dump Station Fee - Per Use (1 dump station use included per stay.) $15.00 $15.00 Recreational Vehicle Surcharge - Per Night Fee $10.00 $10.00 Veteran's Memorial Park Campground fees are rounded to the nearest whole dollar.

Non-Development Tree Permits:

Tree View Trimming Permit - City or Private Tree1 $276.00 Tree Removal Permit Fee - Dead and Dying1 $0.00
Tree Removal Permit Fee (Non-Development)1 $311.00
Tree Removal Permit Appeal Fee (Non-Development)1 $1,268.00 5 The Parks and Recreation Director is authorized to set fees for Recreation activities, programs and services, subject to the following standards: 1. Recreational programs and services shall benefit both the participant and the community due to their educational, cultural, and physical value. 2. Recreational programs and services require facilities, supplies, equipment, and/or considerable staff planning and supervision specific to the program and therefore, it is appropriate to charge a fee for these programs and services. Some examples include, but are not limited to instructional programs, summer day camp, senior programs, teen programs, special events, and youth/adult athletic programs. 3. Fees will not exceed the reasonable cost to the City of providing the program, class, or service. 4. Fees will remain affordable to allow access to community members, especially youth and seniors; and 5. Contractually taught class fees will be set based on availability of instructor, instructor costs, as these programs follow city purchasing policy. 6 Six percent (6%) of Parks & Recreation (P&R) Fees, which excludes P&R Commission Appeals, Cemetery, RV Storage Lot, and Urban Forestry fees, will be committed to the Facility Maintenance Fund starting 07/01/2026.

Annually Increase the contribution to the Parks and Recreation Department Facility Maintenance Fund by 1% each fiscal Year until it reaches 10% in FY 2031.

Veteran's Memorial Park Campground:
1 Fees will be annually adjusted per CPI (SF, April Edition) rounded to the nearest dollar.

Urban Forestry
2 To be eligible for the resident rate, the purchaser must be a resident of the City of Monterey or United States Active Duty Military as of the date of registration or for eligible employee and dependents who have access to resident rates per Memoranda of Understanding. Proof of residency, such as a driver's license or state-issued identification, utility bill or U. S. Military active duty status such as military ID is required.
3 To be eligible for discounted camping rates at Veteran's Memorial Park, proof of age such as a driver's license or state-issued identification, or proof of United States Military active duty, retired or disabled veteran status is required.

Notes Regarding Parks & Recreation fees:
4 The Parks and Recreation Director may approve promotional pricing for Recreation activities, programs, and services, subject to the following standards: 1. The fee reduction must be intended to promote Recreation programs and facilities; 2. The fee reduction shall not reduce fees by more than 25%; 3. The fee reduction is publicized and open to all; and 4. The fee reduction is limited in duration.
17 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 25, Packet Page 142 DESCRIPTION FY27 FEE
Cannery Row Garage $52.50/mo, $150.00/qtr, $540.00/yr
West Custom House Garage $52.50/mo, $150.00/qtr, $540.00/yr East Custom House Garage $52.50/mo, $150.00/qtr, $540.00/yr Waterfront Lot $52.50/mo, $150.00/qtr, $540.00/yr
Wharf II $52.50/mo, $150.00/qtr, $540.00/yr
Red Wharf Permits - $150.00/qtr
Depot Lot Figueroa / Del Monte $52.50/mo, $150.00/qtr, $540.00/yr Upper 7 $52.50/mo, $150.00/qtr, $540.00/yr
Lot #4 Franklin / Van Buren $52.50/mo, $150.00/qtr, $540.00/yr Lot #6 Wharf $162.50/mo, $480.00/qtr, $1,728.00/yr
Lot #8 Franklin / Pierce $52.50/mo, $150.00/qtr, $540.00/yr Lot #11 Franklin / Pierce $82.50/mo, $240.00/qtr, $864.00/yr Lot #14 Bonifacio / Adams $52.50/mo, $150.00/qtr, $540.00/yr Lot #18 Van Buren / Jefferson $52.50/mo, $150.00/qtr, $540.00/yr Lot #21 Foam / Cannery Row $52.50/mo, $150.00/qtr, $540.00/yr Lot B Calle Principal / Pearl $82.50/mo, $240.00/qtr, $864.00/yr New Monterey Employee Permit Permits - $32.50/mo, $90.00/qtr Oak Grove Employee Permit Permits - $32.50/mo, $90.00/qtr Monterey Resident Discount Decal
$20.00/yr - 2 hours free in Downtown Garages (West and
East), Waterfront Lot and Cannery Row Garage
Employee Voucher Parking Program
Cannery Row & Downtown Garages
20 entries - $50.00
Valid in Downtown Garages (East and West)
and Cannery Row Garage
Construction Daily Permit $15.00 Downtown$25.00 Waterfront / Cannery Row Reserved Parking (Citywide) space per day $25.00/space per day Reserved Parking (Citywide) space for display $55.00/space for display Residential Parking Program* $25.00 per permit
Residential Parking Program - Guest Passes**
First 25 passes: free; each additional set of 25 passes: $25 (maximum 100 passes per year per residential address)

PARKING - PERMITS

1. A refundable $5.00 deposit for the permit entry card and card programming will be required in addition to the permit fee. Please note, if payment is received after the grace period, a reactivation fee of $5.00 per permit will be charged.

2. Wharf II permits shall only be issued to those who have boats at A or H Tier and must be verified with the Harbormaster.

3. Permit fees are non-refundable. If you desire to change your billing option, it will become effective the following quarter. You may not switch billing options during the quarter.

4. A replacement fee of $10 per permit will be charged for lost or stolen paper permits.

10. The City Manager or their designee shall have the authority to set a flat parking rate in any attendant parking facility up to the approved maximum daily rate for said facility.

Notes Regarding Parking Fees:

11. The City Manager or their designee shall have the authority to negotiate and set fees for any City parking facility for special events or functions. *Effective January 1, 2026. Residential Parking Permits are allowed at 1 permit per liscenced driver and a maximum of 4 permits per residential address ** If Ia residential address obtains the maximum of 100 guest passes per year, the total annual cost would be $75.- Contingent Council Approval on 05/19/2026.

5. Grace periods: Monthly Permits - 2 days, Quarterly Permits - 5 days, Annual Permits - 10 days

6. Permit Pro-rate Information: Monthly - on the 15th of each month, Quarterly - on the 1st and 15th of each month, Annual - None.

7. Monterey Residents may purchase a decal for $20/year that will allow them two hour parking in the Downtown Garages, Cannery Row Garage and the Waterfront Lot.

8. Effective 01/01/09, the monthly charge for a net storage in the Depot Lot shall be $50/space.

9. Boot Removal Fee is $75.00.
18 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 26, Packet Page 143 DESCRIPTION FY27 FEE
Lot 7, Calle Principal Garage Lower $1.50/hour, $8.00 all day Lot 7, Calle Principal Garage Upper $1.50/hour, $8.00 all day Downtown West Garage
1st hour free, $1.00/30 min or fraction thereof.
$12.00 daily max
Downtown East Garage
1st hour free, $1.00/30 min or fraction thereof.
$12.00 daily max
Monterey Sports Center Lot3,4 No Fee, 2-hour time limit Lot 4, Franklin & Van Buren $1.50/hour $8.00 all day
Lot 8, Franklin & Pierce $1.50/hour
Lot B, Calle P. & Pearl permit only
Lot 11, Calle P. and Pearl $1.50/hour, $8.00 all day
Lot 14, Bonifacio & Adams $1.50/hour, $8.00 all day
Lot 18, Van Buren & Jefferson permit only
Meters, Cannery Row (Zone 1) $2.00/hour
Meters, Wave (Zone 2) $2.00/hour
Meters, Foam (Zone 3) $1.75/hour
CR1, Foam & Hoffman
Flat rate pricing or hourly rate structure based on demand and season. $5.00 - $22.00 daily max
CR7, Foam & Irving $20/daily max, $5.00 after 5pm
Lot 24, C.R. & Foam - Meters (Zone 3) $1.75/hour
Lot 21, C.R. & Foam2
$2.00/hour, $14.00 daily max
Double space $2.50/hour, $22.00 daily max
San Carlos Beach Lot $2.00/hour, $14.00 daily max
Coast Guard Pier (Breakwater)2
$2.00/hour, $14 daily max
Double space $2.50/hour, $22.00 daily max
Waterfront Lot 1 2,4
$2.00/hour, $14 daily max
Double space $2.50/hour, $22.00 daily max
Depot Lot , Figueroa2
$2.00/hour, $14 daily max
Double space $2.50/hour, $22.00 daily max
Municipal Wharf II $2.00/hour, $14.00 daily max
Lot 6, Waterfront no fee, loading/unloading zone only
East Depot Lot/Gravel side2
$2.00/hour, $14.00 daily max
Double space $2.50/hour, $22 daily max
Monterey Bay Park (MB7)2
$2.00/hour, $14.00 daily max
Double space $2.50/hour, $22.00 daily max
Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging, PER KWH $0.36
Idle Fee After Designated Grace Period, PER MINUTE $0.50 Administrative Fee $15.00
Notes Regarding Parking Rates:

PARKING - RATES1

2. Double Space Rates apply to Oversized Vehicles taking more than a single parking space including Buses, RVs, Trailers and Vehicles longer than 20ft in length.

3. Sport Center Lot Pay Stations removed April 14, 2023. Sports Center Lot converted from paid parking to no fee parking, 2hour time limit.

1. Rates in off-street pay-to-park facilities apply to all patrons who use these facilities, including disabled persons and disabled veterans.

4. Discounted Validations offered to Sports Center Patrons. $1.00 for 3-hours in the Downtown Garages. Validations sold at the Sports Center Front Desk.

Downtown:

5. Phase 2 of the Waterfront Area Improvement Project integrated previoulsy recongized Marina Lot and Southern (SP) Lot into the area now recognized as Waterfront Lot 1 as of February 2023.

Project completed October 2023.

6. As per Reso 24-018, approved in 2024, a phased rate increase for parking lots located in the Coastal Zone will be implemented beginning at the start of each fiscal year with full implementation by FY28
Cannery Row:

Waterfront:

Electric Vehicle Charging Rates:
19 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 27, Packet Page 144 FY27 FEE1
FY27 RESIDENT
FEE**
a. Infant Burial Site $ 2,069.00 $ 1,758.00
b. Adult Burial Site - Single Depth $ 6,518.00 $ 5,541.00 a. Niche- Single Lakeside Columbarium $ 3,558.00 $ 3,048.00 b. Niche - Double Lakeside and Old Columbarium $ 6,750.00 $ 5,738.00 a. Full Burial Site (1-8 urns) $ 6,518.00 $ 5,541.00
b. Half Burial Site (1-4 urns) $ 3,143.00 $ 2,672.00
c. Quarter Burial Site (1-2 urns only) $ 2,069.00 $ 1,758.00 d. Cremains Added Plot (2nd, 3rd right etc. of Inurnment) $ 859.00 a. Remains added to shared burial site- remains not retrievable $ 368.00 $ 313.00 b. Fetal remains $ 61.00 $ 52.00
a. Indenture – Burial Site $ 282.00
b. Indenture - Niche $ 282.00
c. Indenture Transfer fee $ 338.00
d. Deed Replacement $ 105.00
e. Ossuary Administrative Fee $ 36.00
a. Infant Burial Site $ 843.00
b. Half Burial Site $ 1,549.00
c. Quarter Burial Site (1-2 urns only) $ 761.00
d. Burial Site – Single Depth $ 2,391.00
e. Burial Site – Double Depth $ 2,391.00
f. Niche- Single $ 1,125.00
g. Niche- Double $ 1,406.00
h. Ossuary (Scattering Garden) $ 92.00
a. Infant Cremains $ 738.00
b. Adult Cremains $ 859.00
c. Infant Casket Burial $ 982.00
d. Child Casket Burial $ 1,104.00
e. Child Burial (adult sized casket) $ 2,147.00
f. Adult Burial – Single Depth $ 2,147.00
g. Adult Burial – Double Depth $ 2,331.00
h. Niche- Lakeside Columbarium Inurnment $ 675.00
i. Niche- Old Columbarium Inurnment $ 828.00
Endowment Care
Indenture/Administrative Fee
Ossuary- Scattering Garden (shared burial site)
Internment/Inurnment – Labor Charges
Ground Burial for Urns
Niche Inurnment
Ground Burials for Caskets
PARKS & RECREATION - CEMETERY*1,2

DESCRIPTION
20 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 28, Packet Page 145 FY27 FEE1
FY27 RESIDENT
FEE**
PARKS & RECREATION - CEMETERY*1,2

DESCRIPTION
a. Infant Burial $ 859.00
b. Cremation Burial $ 675.00
c. Niche – Columbarium Inurnment $ 675.00
d. Adult Burial – Single Depth $ 1,104.00
a. Infant Cremains $ 613.00
b. Adult Cremains $ 859.00
c. Infant/Child Casket Burial $ 2,699.00
d. Child Casket Burial (adult sized casket) $ 4,294.00
e. Adult Burial – Single Depth $ 4,294.00
f. Adult Burial – Double Depth $ 5,153.00
g. Dis-inurnment Niche - Single/face plate disposal/replace $ 1,043.00 h. Dis-inurnment Niche - Double/ face plate disposal/replace $ 1,289.00 a. 8X16x3 inch $ 223.00
b. 12X24x3 inch $ 529.00
c. 16x28x3 inch $ 659.00
a. 8X16x3 inch $ 176.00
b. 12X24x3 inch $ 323.00
c. 16X28x3 inch $ 412.00
a. Niche Engraving - Single Niche – per character $ 12.00 b. Minimum Niche Engraving Fee (Death Date) $ 198.00
c. Niche Layout - Administrative Fee - Premium $ 94.00
d. Flower Vase Drilling $ 24.00
e. Paint Inscriptions $ 235.00
f. Remove Marker/Dispose $ 304.00
*Subject to 2.9% merchant service fee if debit/credit card option is used **To be eligible for the resident rate, the purchaser or deceased must be a resident of the City of Monterey as of the date of purchase or death or for eligible employees who have access to residents rates per Memorandum of Understanding. Proof of residency, such as a driver’s license or utility bill we be required.

Other Services
Memorial Marker Placement – No Cement Border
Memorial Marker Placement - Cement Border
1 Fees shall be adjusted annually in July based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The CPI increase shall be based on the published CPI for San Francisco Area (San FranciscoOakland-San Jose) April edition and rounded to the nearest fifty cents (0.50). 2 Revised July 2024 to be in alignment with resolutions passed off cycle by Council in August, 2022 Disinterment – Labor Charges
Internment/Inurnment - Weekends/Holidays – Labor Charges – Additional Fee 21 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 29, Packet Page 146 DESCRIPTION FY 27 FEE
Special Events Stand-by (Fire) Fully Burdened Cost
Engine Company Inspections (initial inspection) $0.00
Engine Company Inspections - First re-inspection $0.00
Engine Company Inspections - Subsequent re-inspections $337.00 Fire Prevention Inspections - initial inspection, rough & final $0.00 Fire Prevention Inspections - Subsequent re-inspections & missed inspections $321.00 Life and Safety Inspection - First and Second inspection $0.00 Life and Safety Inspection - Third & each subsequent re-inspection $454.00 State Mandated Community Care Facilities Inspections,
Pre-Inspection Fee ≤25 occupants $321.00
State Mandated Community Care Facilities Inspections,
Pre-Inspection Fee ≥26 occupants $586.00
State Mandated Community Care Facilities Inspections,
Fire Clearance Fee 7 to 50 occupants $321.00
State Mandated Community Care Facilities Inspections,
Fire Clearance Fee >50 occupants $586.00
State Mandated Community Care Facilities Inspections,
Annual Inspection Fee 7 to 50 occupants $321.00
State Mandated Community Care Facilities Inspections,
Annual Inspection Fee >50 occupants $586.00
High Rise Inspection $1,051.00
Annual Day Care Inspections (6 or more children) $121.00 Fire False Alarm Response (for any 12 month period) -
First False Alarm $0.00
Fire False Alarm Response (for any 12 month period) -
Any Additional False Alarms1
Fully Burdened Cost/
Not to exceed $12,000
Hazardous Materials Response Fully Burdened Cost
DUI Incident Reimbursement1 Not to exceed $12,000
CPR Heart Saver Class - cost per student $55.00
CPR Heart Saver Skill Verification $33.00
CPR Healthcare Provider Class (BLS) - cost per student $65.00 CPR Healthcare Provier (BLS) Skill Verification $24.00
CPR First Aid - cost per student $105.00
CPR First Aid Skill Verification $45.00
Fire Plan review and inspections, trade show set-up review $254.00 Fire Plan review and inspections, Liquid Propane Gas, Medical Gas, Carbon Dioxide Gas and other Gas installations $354.00
Fire Plan review and inspections, Field Inspections Fully Burdened Cost Fire Plan Review and Inspections, Battery Systems $354.00 Fire Plan review and inspections, Tent Installation (400 - 1000 sq ft) $254.00 Fire Plan review and inspections, Tent Installation (1000 - 2000 sq ft) $387.00 Fire Plan review and inspections, Tent Installation (>2000 sq ft) $520.00 Unauthorized Work Double Permit Fee
Unauthorized Occupancy $100.00
Fire Code Violations $500.00
Fire Department Review of Building Plans, Residential 10% of Building Plan Check Fee
Fire Department Review of Building Plans, Commercial 20% of Building Plan Check Fee
PUBLIC SAFETY - FIRE*
22 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 30, Packet Page 147 DESCRIPTION FY 27 FEE
PUBLIC SAFETY - FIRE*
Project Consultation Fee Fully Burdened Cost
Expedited Plan Checks Fully Burdened Cost
Fire Protection System Plan Check Fees-Fire Alarm System (1-9 Devices) $254.00 Fire Protection System Plan Check Fees-Fire Alarm System (10-50 Devices) $454.00 Fire Protection System Plan Check Fees-Fire Alarm System (51-100 Devices) $653.00 Fire Protection System Plan Check Fees-Fire Alarm System (100+ Devices) $852.00 Fire Protection System Plan Check Fees-Automatic Fire Sprinkler System 1-180 Heads $454+ contractor cost
Fire Protection System Plan Check Fees-Automatic Fire Sprinkler System 181-360 Heads $708+ contractor cost
Fire Protection System Plan Check Fees-Automatic Fire Sprinkler System 361-540 Heads $908+ contractor cost
Fire Protection System Plan Check Fees-Automatic Fire Sprinkler System 541+ Heads $1107+ contractor cost
Fire Protection System Plan Check Fees - Fixed Fire Protection System, other than Sprinklers (ie., spray booth, clean agent, hood system), new system $653.00 Fire Protection System Plan Check Fees - Fixed Fire Protection System, other than sprinklers (ie., spray booth, cleant agent, hood system) - alteration to existing system
$454.00
Fire Protection System Plan Check Fees - Underground Systems (includes plan review, inspection, permit approval, system test flush) $852.00 Fire Protection System Plan Check Fees - Emergency Responder Communciation Coverage System $719 +contractor cost
Real Estate AB38 Inspections $321.00

1. Including but not limited to personnel, apparatus, vehicles, reports, booking. *Subject to 2.9% merchant service fee if debit/credit card option is used 23 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 31, Packet Page 148 DESCRIPTION FY 27 FEE
Vehicle Equipment Inspection $35.00
Animal Impound Fee - altered animal 1st visit $80.00
Animal Impound Fee - non-altered animal 1st visit $90.00 Animal Impound Fee - altered animal 2nd vist and thereafter $95.00 Animal Impound Fee - non-altered animal 2nd visit and thereafter $105.00 Animal Impound Fee - daily kennel fee $40.00
Fingerprints - inked card $45.00
LiveScan service only $50.00
LiveScan prints - Local (includes DOJ fee)2 $80.00
LiveScan prints - Local/Federal (includes DOJ & FBI fee)2 $97.00 LiveScan prints - Child Care Provision (includes DOJ & CACI fee)2 $95.00 Clearance Letter $35.00
Taxicab Driver Permit $194.00
Taxicab Vehicle Permit $93.00
Taxicab Driver Transfer $93.00
Massage Establishment - CAMTC Certified Owner(s) $300.00 Massage Establishment - Non-CAMTC Certified Owner(s) $400.00 Amended Massage Establishment Permit $30.00
Amended Massage Establishment Permit with Livescan $92.00 Local Background Checks $20.00
Security Alarm Permit $24.00
Police False Alarm Response - First false alarm $0.00
Police False Alarm Response - Second false alarm $30.00 Police False Alarm Response - Third false alarm $50.00
Police False Alarm Response - Fourth false alarm $75.00 Police False Alarm Response - Fifth false alarm $100.00 Police False Alarm Response - Sixth false alarm and thereafter $500.00 Police Party Disturbance Response - First response $0.00 Police Party Disturbance Response - Second response $125.00 Vehicle Release $300.00
Alcoholic Beverages on the Beach Permit (for 10 or fewer people) $20.00 Officer Public Service Rate (hourly)4 Fully burdened
CSO Public Service Rate (hourly)4 Fully burdened
DUI Incident Reimbursement3 Not to exceed $12,000
Subpoenas $150.00
PUBLIC SAFETY - POLICE*
24 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 32, Packet Page 149 DESCRIPTION FY 27 FEE
PUBLIC SAFETY - POLICE*
Dog License - monthly - unaltered dog $150.00
Dog License - monthly - altered dog $15.00
Dog License - 12 months - unaltered dog $54.00
Dog License - 12 months - altered dog $20.00
Dog License - 24 months - unaltered dog $67.00
Dog License - 24 months - altered dog $30.00
Dog License - 36 months - unaltered dog $87.00
Dog License - 36 months - altered dog $40.00
Senior Discount Dog License Fee - unaltered N/A
Senior Discount Dog License Fee - altered $12.00
Dog License - delinquent penalty $30.00
Dog License - replacement tag $5.00

1. Adjusts annually July 1 per CPI SF April edition, rounded to nearest $1.

2. Total fee comprised of service fee set by resolution ($33) and fees set by State DOJ and FBI.

3. Including but not limited to personnel, apparatus, vehicles, reports, booking.

4. Based on FY23 costs.

5. Commercial Filming Fee is for permit only. Additional fees apply for additional services such as road closures, police presence and parking. *Subject to 2.9% merchant service fee if debit/credit card option is used 25 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 33, Packet Page 150 DESCRIPTION FY 27 FEE
Street Opening Fee 1 $972.00
Street Opening Fee with Sewer Connection 1 $1,554.00
Temporary Encroachment Fee
(plus $96/hour if review outside PPW is required) 1 972 (plus $96/hour if review outsie PPW is required) Permanent Encroachment Fee
(plus $91/hour for inspection)1 2273 (plus $194.55/hour for inspection Driveway or Sidewalk Encroachment Fee1 $972.00
Traffic Control Fee1 $389.00
Public Improvement Inspection 3% of common area or dedication improvements Grease Interceptor Waiver Fee
(360 days from City letter) $60.00/month
Final Subdivision Map Check1 $1,311.00
Sewer Connection (Twin Oaks) $775.00
Standard Specification $50.00
Street Patch Charge (asphalt only) $778.00
Other $0.00
Banner 1 $389.00
Storm Water Review and Inspection Fee
(plus $99/hour)1 $386.65
Storm Water - Developer Design Review1 $2,618.17
Storm Water - Developer Design Review (PCRs Tier 3 and 4)1 $15,655.00 Miscellaneous - Public Improvement Design Service
or Plan Check $111.00/hour
Sidewalk Maintenance and Repairs $389.00
Penalties: Public Works penalty for work in public right-of-way or grading without a permit $2,000.00
Penalties: Code violation illegal project, penalty fee may be applied daily $200.00
Encroachment Permit Application – Major Work (road closures, traffic control, more than 500 linear feet of work, etc.) $10,000.00
1 Fee amount includes CPI adjustments, for applicable fees (SF, April). *Subject to 2.9% merchant service fee if debit/credit card option is used PUBLIC WORKS & ENGINEERING*
Encroachment Permits
PW Engineering
26 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 34, Packet Page 151

TIER BERTH SIZE LENGTH
FY27
MONTHLY1
FY27
ANNUAL1

MONTHLY

1.5x1
ANNUAL

1.5X1
Monthly
Transient1
$/ft length
Daily
Transient 1
A 4, 6-8,10,12 50X19.5 50 $619 $6,682 $928 $10,022 $1,277 $45.61 A 9,11 45X19.5 45 $571 $6,166 $857 $9,249 $1,145 $40.89 A 13-18* 45X15.5 45 $541 $5,838 $811 $8,757 $1,145 $40.89 A 19-34 45X14.5 45 $541 $5,838 $811 $8,757 $1,145 $40.89 A 35-58 40X14.5 40 $499 $5,391 $749 $8,086 $1,028 $36.70 A 59-80* 35X13.5 35 $460 $4,966 $690 $7,449 $895 $31.98 A 81-82 35X14.5 35 $460 $4,966 $690 $7,449 $895 $31.98
B 1-36* 30X11.5 30 $395 $4,264 $592 $6,396 $763 $27.26
B 37-57 (odd) 35-12.5 35 $431 $4,655 $646 $6,982 $895 $31.98 B 38-58 (even 30x12.5 30 $410 $4,428 $615 $6,642 $763 $27.26 B 59 35X13 35 $460 $4,966 $690 $7,449 $895 $31.98
B 60 30x13 30 $410 $4,428 $615 $6,642 $763 $27.26
C 1-4 25x11.9 25 $335 $3,618 $503 $5,427 $646 $23.07
C 5-40 25x10 25 $326 $3,522 $489 $5,283 $646 $23.07
D 1-36* 30X11.5 30 $395 $4,264 $592 $6,396 $763 $27.26
D 37-58 30X12.5 30 $410 $4,428 $615 $6,642 $763 $27.26
D 59-60 30X13 30 $410 $4,428 $615 $6,642 $763 $27.26
E 1-36 25x11.9 25 $335 $3,618 $503 $5,427 $646 $23.07
E 37-40 25X10.6 25 $326 $3,522 $489 $5,283 $646 $23.07
F 1-44 20X9.9 20 $218 $2,356 $327 $3,533 $514 $18.35
G 1* 26X11.5 26 $357 $3,856 $536 $5,784 $661 $23.59
G 2-18* 35X12.5 35 $431 $4,655 $646 $6,982 $895 $31.98
G 19-27 35X13 35 $460 $4,966 $690 $7,449 $895 $31.98
G 28 35X14.5 35 $460 $4,966 $690 $7,449 $895 $31.98
G 29 40 40 $499 $5,391 $749 $8,086 $1,028 $36.70
H 1-2 & 5 50X24 50 $667 $7,203 $1,000 $10,804 $1,277 $45.61 H 3-4 50X19.5 50 $619 $6,682 $928 $10,022 $1,277 $45.61 H 6-14* 50X17.5 50 $598 $6,455 $897 $9,683 $1,277 $45.61 H 15-24 50X15.5 50 $571 $6,166 $857 $9,249 $1,277 $45.61 H 25-34 25X10.6 25 $326 $3,522 $489 $5,283 $646 $23.07
I 1-10 20X9.9 20 $218 $2,356 $327 $3,533 $514 $18.35
I 11-14 Side-tie 20 $194 $2,095 $291 $3,143 $514 $18.35 HARBOR AND MARINA*
DESCRIPTION FY27 FEE
27 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 35, Packet Page 152

TIER BERTH SIZE LENGTH
FY27
MONTHLY1
FY27
ANNUAL1

MONTHLY

1.5x1
ANNUAL

1.5X1
Monthly
Transient1
$/ft length
Daily
Transient 1
HARBOR AND MARINA*
DESCRIPTION FY27 FEE
$9
Transformer berths (6 feet shorter and charged at a lesser rate) A 17 39X15.5 39 $469 $5,062 $703 $7,593 $998 $35.65
A 61 28X13 28 $373 $4,032 $560 $6,047 $719 $25.69
B 1 & 31 24X11.5 24 $313 $3,381 $470 $5,071 $617 $22.02 D 1 & 31 24X11.5 24 $313 $3,381 $470 $5,071 $617 $22.02 G 15 28X12.5 28 $344 $3,715 $516 $5,572 $719 $25.69
H 13 44X17.5 44 $536 $5,787 $804 $8,680 $1,130 $40.37
1 Licensee fee amounts include CPI adjustments per year end Feb SF. *Subject to 3.2% merchant service fee if debit/credit card option is used fishing vessel rate $/ft: 1
Non-standard berth -
28 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 36, Packet Page 153 DESCRIPTION FY27 FEE
Monterey Resident Rate1
Quarterly $274.50
Annual (with 10% discount) $987.00
Liveaboard quarterly $99.00
Liveaboard annually (with 10% discount) $355.00
Non-Resident Rate1
Quarterly $346.00
Annual (with 10% discount) $1,246.00
OHM Assignment Fee per Quarter1 $259.50
Other Services1
Qrt Wharf 1 Dinghy fee $93.00
Qrt Marina Dinghy fee $156.00
Qrt Marina Boat Rack (kayaks) $62.50
Qrt Marina Boat Rack (skiff) Dinghy fee $93.00
East Mooring Rates1
Vessel Size
Under 30 ft $148.00
30' to 40' $196.00
East Mooring Rates from Nov through March = 1.5 times regular berth rate Marina Storage Fee 1.5 x Transient berth rate
Use of City Vessel, PER HOUR or portion thereof 1 $237.50 Water Removal Services (Owner Notified When
Practicable), PER HOUR or portion thereof 1 $68.00
Equipment Use – Fee Assessed if Not Returned
Electrical Pigtails
20/30 amp $105.00
50 amp $210.00
Harbor/Marina Keys $21.00
Annual Parking Permit - Marina Berth License Holder,
PER CALENDAR YEAR1 $133.00
Bike Locker Rental, PER MONTH1 $12.00
Mailbox (Liveaboard) - Annual Fee1, 5 $50.00
Public Hoist on Wharf II, PER 15 MINUTES1 $6.00
Yellow Boat Dock, PER MONTH (Dive Boat Loading and
Sailing Charters)1, 4 $166.00
Berth Assignment Rate1 1.5x Regular berth rate
Waiting List - Initial Fee1 $26.50
Waiting List - Annual Fee1 $10.00
K Tier Side-tie Transient (no utilities, rafting required) $0.00 28' & Under, PER DAY1 $13.50
PUBLIC WORKS - HARBOR & MARINA*
OTHER

MONTEREY OUTER HARBOR MOORING RATES
29 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 37, Packet Page 154 DESCRIPTION FY27 FEE
PUBLIC WORKS - HARBOR & MARINA*
29' & Up, PER DAY1 $19.50
PER FOOT PER DAY $0.91
51' - 70', PER DAY $33.50
71' - 90', PER DAY $39.00
91' & over, PER DAY $44.00
High Volume Seafood (Trawl-caught ground fish, squid,
mackerels, sardines) $/TON2 $8.29
High Volume Seafood (Anchovies) $/TON2 $4.16
All Other Seafood/Sea Products Harvested by Pot, Trap,
Hooks, or By Hand (includes crustaceans and
invertebrates) $/POUND3 $0.03
Aguaculture Abalone (Less than 4" in length) $/EACH3 $0.07 Aguaculture Abalone (4" or larger in length) $/EACH3 $0.14 1 Fees include CPI adjustment per year end Feb SF, rounded to the nearest 50 cents. 2 Fees include CPI adjustment per year end Feb SF, no rounding. 3 Fees include CPI adjustment per year end Feb SF, rounded to the nearest thousandth 4 A per-use charge of $41.50 applies for up to four uses, with a maximum monthly charge not to exceed $166. 5 Previously not included in the fee schedule. Recommend raising to market rate in the future. *Subject to 3.2% merchant service fee if debit/credit card option is used Wharfage
Wharf I Transient Vessel1
Wharf II Transient Vessel1 (no utilities)
30 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 38, Packet Page 155 DESCRIPTION UNITS FY27 FEE
Residential Sewer Charge1 $16.93
Multi-Residential/Condo Sewer Charge1 $12.38
Sewer Connection Fee2 Dwelling Unit $3,617.00
Business/Government (1-10 employees) Location/Each Business $13.03 Business/Government (11-20 employees) Location/Each Business $26.08 Business/Government (21-30 employees) Location/Each Business $39.29 Business/Government (31-40 employees) Location/Each Business $52.32 Business/Government (41-50 employees) Location/Each Business $65.35 Business/Government (51-60 employees) Location/Each Business $78.40 Business/Government (61-70 employees) Location/Each Business $91.60 Business/Government (71-80 employees) Location/Each Business $104.63 Business/Government (81-90 employees) Location/Each Business $117.66 Business/Government (91-100 employees) Location/Each Business $130.69 Business/Government (101-110 employees) Location/Each Business $143.92 Business/Government (111-120 employees) Location/Each Business $156.95 Business/Government (141-150 employees) Location/Each Business $196.21 Business/Government (171-180 employees) Location/Each Business $235.33 Business/Government (181-190 employees) Location/Each Business $248.53 Business/Government (210-220 employees) Location/Each Business $287.64 Business/Government (271-280 employees) Location/Each Business $365.52 Business/Government (721-730 employees) Location/Each Business $954.71 Hotel/Motel Each Room $7.28
Supermarket Each Location $71.45
Medical Office Each Licensed Physician $17.44
Dental Office Each Licensed Dentist $24.04
Rest Home/Convalescent Each Bed of Licensed Capacity $4.91 Animal Hospital Location/Each Licensed Business $32.68
Restaurant - 1 Meal/day Each Restaurant Seat $0.67
Restaurant - 2 Meals/day Each Restaurant Seat $1.02
Restaurant - 3 Meals/day Each Restaurant Seat $1.86
Restaurant with Bar Each Restaurant Seat $1.86
Bar Location/Each Business $28.44
Night Club Location/Each Business $85.15
Take-Out Small Location/Each Business $31.66
Take-Out Medium Location/Each Business $78.05
Take-Out Large Location/Each Business $142.22
Bakery Location/Each Business $25.73
Theatre Per screen @ each Location $42.16

PUBLIC WORKS - SEWER
Non-residential Sewer Charges 1 (per one unit of sewer charge) Category
31 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 39, Packet Page 156 DESCRIPTION UNITS FY27 FEE

PUBLIC WORKS - SEWER
Gym - 500 Members Location/Each Business $13.03
Mortuary Location/Each Business $34.70
School - Minimum Location/Each Business $13.03
School - Pre-Grade 6 School Population $0.17
School - Grade 7 - College School Population $0.35
School - Boarding School Population $3.55
Instructional Facility School Population $13.03
Church - 1-100 Members Location/Each Business $13.03
Church - Over 100 Members Location/Each Business $26.08 Photo Developer Location/Each Business $13.03
Laboratory - 10 Employees Location/Each Business $13.03 Laboratory - 20 Employees Location/Each Business $26.08 Printer - 10 Employees Location/Each Business $13.03
Printer - 20 Employees Location/Each Business $26.08
Garage/Repair Location/Each Business $12.53
Paint Shop - 10 Employees Location/Each Business $13.03 Paint Shop - 20 Employees Location/Each Business $26.08 Dry Cleaner Location/Each Business $43.34
Laundromat Each Washing Machine $11.35
1 All sewer charge rates per City Council Resolution No. 24-096. Sewer Connection Fee per City Council Resolution No. 11-113. 2 Annual increases effective July 1 each year, per Construction Cost Index (MRWPCA ordinance for Dec). *Subject to 2.9% merchant service fee if debit/credit card option is used Non-residential Sewer Charges1
(per one unit of sewer charge) cont'd
32 EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 40, Packet Page 157 City of Monterey, CA
Comprehensive User Fee Study
March 31, 2026

EXHIBIT B
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 41, Packet Page 158 i Comprehensive User Fee Study

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................. i Executive Summary .................................................................................................. 1 User Fee Background ............................................................................................... 2 Background .................................................................................................................................................. 2 California User Fee History .......................................................................................................................... 2 Additional Policy Considerations ................................................................................................................. 3 Study Objective ....................................................................................................... 4 Scope of the Study ....................................................................................................................................... 4 Aim of the Report......................................................................................................................................... 5 Project Approach and Methodology ........................................................................... 6 Conceptual Approach................................................................................................................................... 6 Fully Burdened Hourly Rates........................................................................................................................ 6 Summary Steps of the Study ........................................................................................................................ 7 Allowable Costs ............................................................................................................................................ 7 Methodology ................................................................................................................................................ 8 Quality Control/Quality Assurance .............................................................................................................. 8 Reasons for cost increases/decreases over current fees............................................................................. 8 City Staff Contributions ................................................................................................................................ 9 Monterey User Fees ............................................................................................... 10 Cost Recovery............................................................................................................................................. 10 Subsidization .............................................................................................................................................. 10 Impact on Demand (Elasticity) ................................................................................................................... 11 Summary .................................................................................................................................................... 11 Administrative Services .......................................................................................... 12 Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................... 12 Bid Protest & Bidder Responsibility Appeals Fees................................................... 13 Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................... 13 Community Development - Planning ........................................................................ 14 Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................... 14 Parks & Recreation - Cemetery ................................................................................ 15

EXHIBIT B
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 42, Packet Page 159 ii Comprehensive User Fee Study
Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................... 15 Community Development - Cannabis ........................................................................ 16 Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................... 16 Community Development - Building ......................................................................... 17 Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................... 17 Library & Museums ................................................................................................ 18 Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................... 18 Monterey Conference Center .................................................................................. 19 Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................... 19 Parking ................................................................................................................ 20 Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................... 20 Parks & Recreation ................................................................................................ 21 Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................... 21 Fire ...................................................................................................................... 22 Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................... 22 Police ................................................................................................................... 23 Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................... 23 Public Works & Engineering ................................................................................... 24 Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................... 24 Appendix A – Total Allowable Cost to be Recovered .................................................. 25 Appendix B –Fully Burdened Hourly Rates ................................................................ 26 Appendix C – Cost Recovery Analysis ....................................................................... 32

EXHIBIT B
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 43, Packet Page 160 1 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Executive Summary
The City of Monterey engaged Willdan Financial Services (Willdan) to determine the full costs incurred by the City to support the various activities for which the City charges user fees. Due to the complexity and the breadth of performing a comprehensive review of fees, Willdan employed a variety of fee methodologies to identify the full costs of individual fee and program activities. This report and the appendices herein identify 100% full cost recovery for City services. Appendix C details the full cost and suggested fees as determined through discussion with departmental staff. The recommended fees identified herein are either at or less than full cost recovery.

EXHIBIT B
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 44, Packet Page 161 2 Comprehensive User Fee Study
User Fee Background
Background
As part of a general cost recovery strategy, local governments adopt user fees to fund programs and services that provide limited or no direct benefit to the community as a whole (“User Fees”). As cities struggle to maintain levels of service and variability of demand, they have become increasingly aware of subsidies provided by the General Fund and have implemented cost-recovery targets. To the extent that governments use general tax monies to provide individuals with private benefit services and not require them to pay the full cost of the service (and, therefore, receive a subsidy), the government is limiting funds that may be available to provide other community-wide benefits. In effect, the government is using community funds to pay for private benefits. Unlike most revenue sources, cities have more control over the level of user fees they charge to recover costs, or the subsidies they can institute.

Fees in California are required to conform to the statutory requirements of the California Constitution, Proposition 218, Proposition 26, and the California Code of Regulations. The Code also requires that the City Council adopt fees by either ordinance or resolution, and that any fees in excess of the estimated total cost of rendering the related services must be approved by a popular vote of two-thirds of those electors voting because the charge would be considered a tax and not a fee. There are no fees suggested to be set above the cost of service and as such a public vote is not required.

California User Fee History
Before Proposition 13, in times of fiscal shortages, California cities were able to raise property taxes, which funded everything from police and recreation to development-related services. However, this situation changed with the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978.

Proposition 13 established the era of revenue limitation in California local government. In subsequent years, the state saw a series of additional limitations to local government revenues. Proposition 4 (1979) defined the difference between a tax and a fee: a fee can be no greater than the cost of providing the service; and Proposition 218 (1996) further limited the imposition of taxes for certain classes of fees. As a result, cities were required to secure a supermajority vote in order to enact or increase taxes. Due to the thresholds needed to increase local taxes, cities have less control and very few successful options for new revenues.

The State of California took a series of actions in the 1990’s and 2000’s to improve the State’s fiscal situation, at the expense of local governments. In 2004-05, the Educational Revenue Augmentation Funds (“ERAF”) take-away of property taxes and the reduction of Vehicle License Fees further reduced local tax revenues.

In addition, on November 2, 2010, California voters approved Proposition 26, the “Stop Hidden Taxes Initiative”, which is aimed at defining “regulatory fees” as a special tax rather than a fee, thus requiring approval by two-thirds vote of local voters. These regulatory fees are typically intended to mitigate the societal and environmental impacts of a business or person’s activities. Proposition 26 contains seven categories of exceptions. The fees analyzed as part of a user fee study typically fall under categories one through five consisting of charges for specific benefits, government service, regulatory need, for use of government property, or a fine/penalty.

EXHIBIT B
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 45, Packet Page 162 3 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Additional Policy Considerations
State regulations require that municipalities update their fee schedules to reflect the actual costs of certain public services primarily benefiting users. User fees recover costs associated with the provision of specific services benefiting the user, thereby typically reducing the use of General Fund monies for such purposes.

In addition to collecting the direct cost of labor and materials associated with processing and administering user services, it is common for local governments to recover reasonable support costs. Support costs are those costs relating to a local government’s central service departments that are allocable to the local government’s operating departments. Central services support cost allocations were incorporated using the resulting indirect overhead percentages determined through the City’s cost allocation plan. A cost allocation plan identifies the central service functions of the City such as Finance, City Manager, and Human Resources and allocates their cost to the departments and funds of the City that they support. This plan was used in the user fee study to account for the burden placed upon central services by the operating departments in order to allocate a proportionate share of central service cost through the study.

As labor effort and costs associated with the provision of services fluctuate over time, a significant element in the development of any fee schedule is that it has the flexibility to remain current. Therefore, it is recommended that the City include an inflationary factor in the resolution adopting the fee schedule to allow the City to annually increase or decrease the fees by changes in a pre-approved inflationary index, as described below. However, such inflationary increases shall not exceed the reasonable estimated cost of providing the services each year.

The City may employ many different inflationary factors. The most commonly used inflator is some form of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) as it is widely well known and accepted. A similar inflator is the implicit price deflator for GDP, which is much like the CPI except that while the CPI is based on the same “basket” of goods and services every year, the price deflators’ “basket” can change year to year. Since the primary factor for the cost of a City’s services is usually the costs of the personnel involved, tying an inflationary factor that connects more directly to the personnel costs can also be suitable if there is a clear method, or current practice of obtaining said factor.

Each City should use an inflator that they believe works the best for their specific situation and needs but cannot rely solely on the CPI increase as it is incumbent upon each agency to ensure the amount of the fees charged does not exceed the reasonable estimated costs of providing the services. It is also recommended that the City perform this internal review annually with a comprehensive review of services and fees performed every five years, which would include adding, amending, or removing fees for programs/services.

EXHIBIT B
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 46, Packet Page 163 4 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Study Objective
As the City of Monterey seeks to efficiently manage limited resources and adequately respond to increased service demands, it needs a variety of tools. A user fee study provides assurance that the City has the best information and the best resources available to make sound decisions, fairly and legitimately set fees, maintain compliance with state law and local policies, and meet the needs of the City administration and its constituency. Given the limitations on raising revenue in local government, the City recognizes that a user fee Study is a very cost-effective way to understand the total cost of services and identify potential fee deficiencies. Essentially, a user fee is a payment for a requested service provided by a local government that primarily benefits an individual or group.

The total cost of each service included in this analysis is based on the full cost of providing City services, including direct salaries and benefits of City staff, direct departmental costs, and indirect costs from central service support. This study determines the full cost recovery fee for the City to provide each service; however, each fee is set at the City’s discretion, up to 100% of the total cost, as specified in this report.

The principal goal of the study was to help the City determine the full cost of the services that the City provides. In addition, Willdan established a series of additional objectives including:
 Developing a rational basis for setting fees
 Identifying subsidy amount, if applicable, of each fee in the model  Ensuring compliance with State law
 Developing an updatable and comprehensive list of fees  Maintaining accordance with City policies and goals
The study results will help the City better understand its true costs of providing services and may serve as a basis for making informed policy decisions regarding the most appropriate fees, if any, to collect from individuals and organizations that require individualized services from the City.

Scope of the Study
The scope of this study encompasses a review and calculation of the user fees charged by the following Monterey departments and fee groups:
 Administrative Services
 Bid Protest & Bidder Responsibility
Appeals Fees
 Community Development - Planning
 Parks & Recreation - Cemetery
 Community Development - Cannabis
 Community Development - Building
 Library & Museums
 Monterey Conference Center
 Parking
 Parks & Recreation
 Fire
 Police
 Public Works & Engineering

EXHIBIT B
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 47, Packet Page 164 5 Comprehensive User Fee Study
The study involved the identification of existing and potential new fees, fee schedule restructuring, data collection and analysis, orientation and consultation, quality control, communication and presentations, and calculation of individual service costs (fees) or program cost recovery levels.

Aim of the Report
The user fee study focused on the cost of City services, as City staff currently provide them at existing, known, or reasonably anticipated service and staff level needs. This report provides a summary of the study results, and a general description of the approach and methods Willdan and City staff used to determine the recommended fee schedule. The report is not intended to document all of the numerous discussions throughout the process, nor is it intended to provide an influential dissertation on the qualities of the utilized tools, techniques, or alternative approaches.

EXHIBIT B
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 48, Packet Page 165 6 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Project Approach and Methodology
Conceptual Approach
The basic concept of a user fee study is to determine the “reasonable cost” of each service provided by the City for which it charges a user fee. The full cost of providing a service may not necessarily become the City’s fee, but it serves as the objective basis as to the maximum amount that may be collected.

The standard fee limitation established in California law for such fees is the “estimated, reasonable cost” principle. In order to maintain compliance with the letter and spirit of this standard, every component of the fee study process included a related review. The use of budget figures, time estimates, and improvement valuation clearly indicates reliance upon estimates for some data.

Fully Burdened Hourly Rates
The total cost of each service included in this analysis is primarily based on the Fully Burdened Hourly Rates (FBHRs) that were determined for City personnel directly involved in providing services. The FBHRs include not only personnel salary and benefits (see Appendix B), but also any costs that are reasonably ascribable to personnel. The cost elements that are included in the calculation of fully burdened rates are:
 Salaries & benefits of personnel involved
 Operating costs applicable to fee operations
 Departmental support, supervision, and administration overhead  Internal Service Costs charged to each department
 Indirect City-wide overhead costs calculated through the Cost Allocation Plan An important factor in determining the fully burdened rate is in the calculation of productive hours for personnel. This calculation takes the available workable hours in a year of 2,080 and adjusts this figure to 1,772 productive or billable hours to account for calculated or anticipated hours’ employees are involved in non-billable activities such as paid vacation, sick leave, holidays, and other considerations as necessary.

Dividing the full cost, including overhead, of a position by the number of productive hours provides the FBHR.

The FBHRs are then used in conjunction with time estimates, when appropriate for how a service is provided, to calculate a fee’s cost based on the personnel and the amount of their time that is involved in providing each service.

EXHIBIT B
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 49, Packet Page 166 7 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Summary Steps of the Study
The process of the study is straightforward and simple in concept. The following list provides a summary of the study process steps:

Allowable Costs
This report identifies three types of costs that, when combined, constitute the fully burdened cost of a service (Appendix A). Costs are defined as
direct labor, including salary and benefits,
departmental overhead costs, and the City’s
central services overhead, where
departmental and central service overhead
costs constitute support costs. These cost
types are defined as follows:
 Direct Labor (Personnel Costs): The
costs related to staff salaries for
time spent directly on fee-related
services.
 Departmental Overhead: A
proportional allocation of
departmental overhead costs,
including operation costs such as
supplies and materials that are necessary for the department to function.  Central Services Overhead: These costs, as provided via the City’s cost allocation plan, represent services provided by those central services departments whose primary function is to support other City departments.

Data Analysis
Department Interviews
Time Estimates
Labor Costs
Cost Allocation Plan
Building Cost Layers
Direct Services
Indirect Services
Department Overhead
City-Wide Overhead
Set Fees
Define the Full Cost of
Services
Set Cost Recovery Policy

EXHIBIT B
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 50, Packet Page 167 8 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Methodology
The three methods of analysis for calculating fees used in this report are the:

Case Study Method (Standard Unit Cost Build-Up Approach): This approach estimates the actual labor and material costs associated with providing a unit of service to a single user. This analysis is suitable when City staff time requirements do not vary dramatically for a service, or for special projects where the time and cost requirements are easy to identify at the project’s outset. Further, the method is effective in instances when a staff member from one department assists on an application, service or permit for another department on an as-needed basis. Costs are estimated based upon interviews with City staff regarding the time typically spent on tasks, a review of available records, and a time and materials analysis.

Program Cost Approach: In some instances, the underlying data is not available or varies widely, leaving a standard unit cost build-up approach impractical. In addition, market factors and policy concerns (as opposed to actual costs) tend to influence rental based fee levels more than other types of services. Willdan employed a different methodology where appropriate to fit a program’s needs and goals. Typical programmatic approach cases are facility use fees, penalties, and instances where a program cost is divided over the user base to obtain a per applicant cost for shared cost services.

Valuation Based Fees: This method of collection is used when the valuation of the improvement can be used as a proxy for the amount of effort it would take for City staff to complete the service provided. More specifically, this approach is commonly used for certain User Fees in the Building Division. It is generally accepted that as a project’s size scales up, the cost of the project increases, and the amount of effort needed to review and inspect also increases. Using valuation-based fees provide for a system that can adjust as project sizes scale. Land is not included in the valuation.

Quality Control/Quality Assurance
All study components are interrelated, thus flawed data at any step in the process will cause the ultimate results to be inconsistent and unsound. The elements of our Quality Control process for user fee calculations include:
 Involvement of knowledgeable City staff
 Clear instructions and guidance to City staff
 Reasonableness tests and validation
 Internal and external reviews
 Cross-checking
Reasons for cost increases/decreases over current fees
Within the fee tables in Appendix C, the differences are identified between the full costs calculated through the study and the fee levels currently in effect. The reasons for differences between the two can arise from a number of possible factors including:

EXHIBIT B
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 51, Packet Page 168 9 Comprehensive User Fee Study
 Previous fee levels may have been set at levels less than full cost intentionally, based on policy decisions
 Staffing levels and the positions that complete fee and service activity may vary from when the previous costs were calculated
 Personnel and materials costs could have increased at levels that differed from any inflationary factors used to increase fees since the last study
 Changes in processes and procedures within a department, or the City as a whole  Changes in the demand for services in a City may have also changed the staffing or cost structure of departments over time
City Staff Contributions
As part of the study process, Willdan received tremendous support and cooperation from City staff, who contributed and reviewed a variety of components to the study, including:
 Budget and other cost data
 Staffing structures
 Fee and service structures, organization, and descriptions  Direct and indirect work hours (billable/non-billable)  Time estimates to complete work tasks
 Review of draft results and other documentation
A user fee study requires significant involvement of the managers and line staff from the departments on top of their existing workloads and competing priorities. The contributions from City staff were critical to this study. We would like to express our appreciation to the City and its staff for their assistance, professionalism, positive attitudes, helpful suggestions, responsiveness, and overall cooperation.

EXHIBIT B
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 52, Packet Page 169 10 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Monterey User Fees
Cost Recovery
The cost recovery models, by department/division fee type, are presented in detail in Appendix C. Full cost recovery is determined by summing the estimated amount of time each position (in increments of minutes or hours) spends to render a service. Time estimates for each service rendered were obtained through interviews conducted with City staff for each department/division fee included in the study. The resulting cost recovery amount represents the total cost of providing each service. The City’s current fee being charged for each service, if applicable, is provided in this section, as well, for reference.

It is important to note that the time data used to determine the amount of time each employee spends assisting in the provision of the services listed on the fee schedule is essential in identifying the total cost of providing each service and will differ from City to City depending on staffing, positions involved, experience of staff, the use of consultants, and the policies and procedures in place for each City.

Specifically, in providing services, a number of employees are often involved in various aspects of the process, spending anywhere from a few minutes to several hours on the service.

The primary goal of this study was to identify the cost of City services, to provide information to help the City make informed decisions regarding the actual fee levels and charges. The responsibility of determining the final fee levels is a complicated task. City staff must consider many issues in formulating recommendations, and the City Council must consider those same issues and more in making the final decisions.

City staff assumes the responsibility to develop specific fee level recommendations to present to the City Council. Unfortunately, there are no hard and fast rules to guide the City, since many of the considerations are based on the unique characteristics of the City of Monterey, and administrative and political discretion.

However, in setting the level of full cost recovery for each fee, one should consider whether the service solely benefits one end user or the general community.

Subsidization
Recalling the definition of a user fee helps guide decisions regarding subsidization. The general standard is that individuals (or groups) who receive a wholly private benefit should pay 100% of the full cost of the services. In contrast, services that are simply public benefit should be funded entirely by the general fund’s tax dollars. Unfortunately, for the decision makers, some services fall into the range between these two extremes.

Further complicating the decision, opponents of fees often assert that the activities subject to the fees provide economic, cultural, “quality of life,” or other community benefits that exceed the costs to the City, but it is important to distinguish the difference between any purported possible benefits that may be conveyed through the result of activities of the service receiver and the direct benefit being conveyed through the City providing the service to the requestor.

It is recommended the City consider such factors during its deliberations regarding appropriate fee levels.

EXHIBIT B
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 53, Packet Page 170 11 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Of course, subsidization can be an effective public policy tool since it can be used to reduce fees to encourage certain activities (such as to ensure public safety) or allow some people to be able to afford to receive services they otherwise could not at the full cost. In addition, subsidies can be an appropriate and justifiable action, such as to allow citizens to rightfully access services, without overburdensome costs.

Despite the intent, it is important for the City and public to understand that subsidies must be covered by another revenue source, typically the General Fund’s other unrestricted funds.

Impact on Demand (Elasticity)
Economic principles of elasticity suggest that increased costs for services (higher fees) will eventually curtail the demand for the services; whereas lower fees may spark an incentive to utilize the services and encourage certain actions. Either of these conditions may be a desirable effect to the City. However, the level of the fees that would cause demand changes is largely unknown. The cost of service study did not attempt to evaluate the economic or behavioral impacts of higher or lower fees; nevertheless, the City should consider the potential impacts of these issues when deciding on fee levels.

Summary
City staff is recommending setting user fees at suggested fee amounts as detailed in Appendix C. City and departmental goals, City Council priorities, policy initiatives, past performance, implementation issues, and other internal and external factors should influence staff recommendations and City Council decisions. In this case, the proper identification of additional services (new or existing services) and the update to a consistent and comprehensive fee schedule were the primary objectives of this study. City staff has reviewed the full costs and identified the recommended fee levels for consideration by City Council.

The following sections provide background for each department, division, and fee group and the results of this study’s analysis of their fees. For the full list of each fee’s analysis, refer to Appendix C of this report.

EXHIBIT B
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 54, Packet Page 171 12 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Administrative Services
The City Clerk and Administrative Assistant work hard to administer public processes with a focus on transparency, ethics, and compliance with laws and policies. Official duties include: administering City Council meetings and legislation (minutes, resolutions, ordinances, and policies); conducting recruitments and appointments, and managing compliance and onboarding/offboarding processes, for the City's boards, committees, and commissions; and officiating the City's elections and managing committees' compliance with campaign reporting requirements.

Analysis
Willdan individually reviewed the services associated with Administrative Services. The review also consisted of an evaluation of existing services in an effort to update the fee schedule.

The services listed under Administrative services consist of general administrative fees. The analysis of the cost-based services relied upon a standard unit cost build-up approach, whereby we determined the reasonable cost of each fee occurrence using staff time to recover the direct cost of staff and the pro-rata share of departmental costs, including indirect costs for City central services. Willdan then compared the calculated full cost against the current fee amount to determine, if charged, whether the current fee is recovering the costs associated with the requested service. The analysis found that some Administrative Services fees are currently below the full cost of providing the service and staff have suggested reasonable fee adjustments as detailed in Appendix C based on the City’s Municipal Code guidelines for cost recovery.

As a result, there would be:
 8 fees would increase;
 2 new fees would be added;
 26 fees would remain as currently set, and;
 the average fee change would be an increase of 98% for current fees.

EXHIBIT B
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 55, Packet Page 172 13 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Bid Protest & Bidder Responsibility Appeals Fees
Fees include bid protest and bidder reasonability appeals fees.

Analysis
No analysis was done for the Bid Protest & Bidder Responsibility Appeals Fees and fee levels remain unchanged as detailed in Appendix C.

EXHIBIT B
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 56, Packet Page 173 14 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Community Development - Planning
The Planning division processes development applications and is constantly developing and sharpening a variety of planning tools to help clarify land use regulations, stimulate housing and economic development and preserve the City’s character and historic resources.

Analysis
Willdan individually reviewed the services associated with the Planning division. The review also consisted of an evaluation of existing services in an effort to update the fee schedule.

The analysis of Planning services relied primarily upon a standard unit cost build-up approach, whereby the reasonable cost of each fee occurrence was determined using staff time involved with providing the service to recover the direct cost of staff and the pro-rata share of departmental costs, including indirect costs for City central services. Willdan then compared the calculated full cost against the current fee amount to determine, if charged, whether the current fee is recovering the costs associated with the requested service. The analysis found that most Planning fees are currently set below the full cost of providing the service. It is recommended that the City adjust fees at or near full cost recovery as detailed in Appendix C based on the City’s Municipal Code guidelines for cost recovery. As a result, there would be:
 An increase for 38 fees;
 6 fees would decrease;
 9 fees would remain as currently set, and;
 the average fee change would be an increase of 3.2%.

EXHIBIT B
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 57, Packet Page 174 15 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Parks & Recreation - Cemetery
The Parks and Recreation Department enhances the quality of life for all by providing safe, well-maintained, and inclusive public spaces including parks, beaches, forests, open spaces, and recreational facilities. The Parks and Recreation Department operates multiple community centers, sports courts fields, the Monterey Sports Center, Recreation Trail, Veteran’s Memorial Park Campground, and Cementerio El Encinal.

Cementerio El Encinal located at 798 Fremont Street in the heart of downtown Monterey, is situated in a beautiful park-like setting that overlooks El Estero Lake. The silence and serenity of the cemetery's gently sweeping lawns and historic monuments can be deceiving. Generations of Monterey families and many of those colorful characters who defined our beautiful city by the bay now rest amid its sentinel oaks.

Analysis
Willdan individually reviewed the services associated with Parks and Recreation Department - Cemetery.

The review also consisted of an evaluation of existing services in an effort to update the fee schedule.

The analysis of most Parks & Recreation - Cemetery services encompassed burial fees and other cemetery services. The fee for use of government owned facilities and property can be set discretionally by the City per Proposition 26 to reduce the cost to the public for related facilities costs, and because there is market availability for facility use elsewhere. The cost of acquisition, maintenance, repair, and upgrade to the City and subsequently the community is partially offset by fee revenue. As such these fees should be set using the knowledge of activity use for the facilities, policy desires of the City, ensuring desired cost recovery for activities, and market factors when desirable. In addition, cities generally want to ensure that their services remain affordable to the community at large, and that the programs remain competitive with surrounding jurisdictions and private businesses. Therefore, full cost recovery is typically not the primary goal of fee setting. An overall program cost analysis for Parks and Recreation - Cemetery was performed and determined that the program is currently operating at around 49% cost recovery including indirect support from central services of the City. Staff has recommended an increase to the 65 fees by 12% as detailed in Appendix C.

EXHIBIT B
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 58, Packet Page 175 16 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Community Development - Cannabis
Cannabis fees include application reviews, background checks, annual cannabis compliance fee, cannabis audit, business permit renewal and zone clearance.

Analysis
Willdan individually reviewed the services associated with Cannabis. The review also consisted of an evaluation of existing services in an effort to update the fee schedule.

The analysis of Cannabis services relied primarily upon a standard unit cost build-up approach, whereby the reasonable cost of each fee occurrence was determined using staff time involved with providing the service to recover the direct cost of staff and the pro-rata share of departmental costs, including indirect costs for City central services. Willdan then compared the calculated full cost against the current fee amount to determine, if charged, whether the current fee is recovering the costs associated with the requested service. The analysis found that the Zone Clearance fee is not in line with the cost of providing services.

Staff has suggested reasonable fee adjustments to the fee schedule as detailed in Appendix C based on the City’s Municipal Code guidelines for cost recovery. As a result, there would be:
 1 fee for Zone Clearance would decrease;
 11 fees would remain as currently set, and;
 The average fee change would be a decrease of -0.2% for current fees.

EXHIBIT B
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 59, Packet Page 176 17 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Community Development - Building
The Building and Safety Division reviews plans, issues permits and inspects all phases of construction to ensure compliance with applicable local and State codes.

Analysis
Willdan individually reviewed the services and programs associated with the Building and Safety Division.

The review also consisted of an evaluation of existing services in an effort to update the fee schedule.

The analysis of Building services relied primarily upon a standard unit cost build-up approach, whereby the reasonable cost of each fee occurrence was determined using staff time involved with providing the service to recover the direct cost of staff and the pro-rata share of departmental costs, including indirect costs for City central services. Willdan then compared the calculated full cost against the current fee amount to determine, if charged, whether the current fee is recovering the costs associated with the requested service. The analysis found that most flat rate fees are currently set below the full cost of providing the service. It is recommended that the City adjust fees at or near full cost recovery as detailed in Appendix C based on the City’s Municipal Code guidelines for cost recovery. As a result, there would be:
 An increase for 23 fees;
 1 fee would decrease;
 3 fees would remain as currently set, and;
 The average fee change would be an increase of 139%.

In addition to the above referenced fees listed under Building, the Building Permit fees are also provided by this division. For the Building Permit fees, valuation is used as a proxy for measuring the amount of effort needed to provide services on a case-by-case basis. This method is an industry standard widely used by other jurisdictions to evaluate the cost of providing service. It is generally understood that the larger and more complex a project is, the more time and effort that is required to provide code compliance services.

Project valuation also follows that trend, and so by using a combination of either project valuation or historical revenue figures along with a multiplier or cost recovery analysis for historical and anticipated future trends, current cost recovery along with variability in charges due to project type and scale is determined. The result of the cost analysis completed for the Building Permit program found that the program is currently operating at 95% cost recovery based on average annual activity levels from fiscal year 2014 to 2024. Staff is recommending that the fees be increased to 100% cost recovery.

EXHIBIT B
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 60, Packet Page 177 18 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Library & Museums
The Monterey Public Library & Museums enrich our community through opportunities to discover our past, connect in the present, and build our future. The Library & Museums cultivate learning, engagement, and meaningful connections with one another and essential resources.

Analysis
Willdan individually reviewed the services associated with the Library & Museums Department. The review also consisted of an evaluation of existing services in an effort to update the fee schedule.

The analysis of most Library and Museum programs encompassed facility rentals and other library and museum services. The fee for use of government owned facilities and property can be set discretionally by the City per Proposition 26 to reduce the cost to the public for related facilities costs, and because there is market availability for facility use elsewhere. The cost of acquisition, maintenance, repair, and upgrade to the City and subsequently the community is partially offset by rental or use fee revenue. As such these fees should be set using the knowledge of activity use for the facilities, policy desires of the City, and market factors when desirable. It is generally accepted that many Recreation programs provide a measure of public benefit to the residents and City as a whole. In addition, cities generally want to ensure that their programs and services remain affordable to the community at large, and that the programs remain competitive with surrounding jurisdictions and private businesses. Therefore, full cost recovery is typically not the primary goal of fee setting. An overall program cost analysis for the Library & Museums Department was also performed and determined that the department is currently operating at around 6% cost recovery including indirect support from central services of the City. A time and cost analysis was performed for the fees in the schedule that could have direct staff involvement identified to determine the direct cost for each. Staff have suggested reasonable fee adjustments to the fee schedule, and they are detailed in Appendix C. As a result, there would be:
 An increase for 13 fees;
 1 new fee for Private Event at Museums would be added;  14 fees would remain as currently set, and;
 The average fee change would be an increase of 88% for current fees.

EXHIBIT B
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 61, Packet Page 178 19 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Monterey Conference Center
The Monterey Conference Center (MCC) is the cornerstone of hospitality for the City of Monterey, serving as an economic driver for the region and a landmark in the heart of downtown. The Monterey Conference Center welcomes thousands of conference attendees each year, who, on average, spend more time in the City of Monterey and spend and spend 158% more at local businesses than the average leisure traveler.

Analysis
Willdan individually reviewed the services associated with the Monterey Conference Center. The review also consisted of an evaluation of existing services in an effort to update the fee schedule.

The analysis of most Monterey Conference Center services encompassed facility rentals, equipment rentals and other services. The fee for use of government owned facilities and property can be set discretionally by the City per Proposition 26 to reduce the cost to the public for related facilities costs, and because there is market availability for facility use elsewhere. The cost of acquisition, maintenance, repair, and upgrade to the City and subsequently the community is partially offset by rental or use fee revenue. As such these fees should be set using the knowledge of activity use for the facilities, policy desires of the City, and market factors when desirable. It is generally accepted that many Recreation programs provide a measure of public benefit to the residents and City as a whole. In addition, cities generally want to ensure that their programs and services remain affordable to the community at large, and that the programs remain competitive with surrounding jurisdictions and private businesses. Therefore, full cost recovery is typically not the primary goal of fee setting. An overall program cost analysis for the Monterey Conference Center was also performed and determined that the department is currently operating at around 62% cost recovery including indirect support from central services of the City. A time and cost analysis was performed for the fees in the schedule that could have direct staff involvement identified to determine the direct cost for each. Staff have suggested reasonable fee adjustments to the fee schedule, and they are detailed in Appendix C. As a result, there would be:
 An increase for 17 fees;
 1 fee would decrease;
 1 fee for Office Services/Supplies would change to a flat fee;  57 fees would remain as currently set, and;
 The average fee change would be an increase of 0.7% for current fees.

EXHIBIT B
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 62, Packet Page 179 20 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Parking
The City of Monterey's Parking Division manages parking to ensure reasonable access and turnover for residents and visitors. Parking enforcement plays a vital role to ensure that the street is used in the best interests of the community. A well-designed enforcement effort enables the City to maximize its use of the existing parking supply.

Analysis
No analysis was done for the Parking Division and fee levels remain unchanged as detailed in Appendix C.

EXHIBIT B
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 63, Packet Page 180 21 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Parks & Recreation
The Parks and Recreation Department enhances the quality of life for all by providing safe, well-maintained, and inclusive public spaces including parks, beaches, forests, open spaces, and recreational facilities. The Parks and Recreation Department operates multiple community centers, sports courts fields, the Monterey Sports Center, Recreation Trail, Veteran’s Memorial Park Campground, and Cementerio El Encinal.

The Department promotes physical, emotional, and mental health and wellness through organized and selfdirected fitness, play, and activity. The Department also creates memorable experiences through safe, engaging programs, and new learning opportunities designed to keep families active and fosters social cohesiveness in communities by celebrating diversity, providing spaces for people to come together peacefully, modeling compassion, promoting social equity, connecting social networks, and ensuring all people have access to its benefits.

Analysis
Willdan individually reviewed the services associated with the Parks & Recreation Department. The review also consisted of an evaluation of existing services in an effort to update the fee schedule.

The analysis of most Parks & Recreation programs encompassed facility rentals and other recreation services. The fee for use of government owned facilities and property can be set discretionally by the City per Proposition 26 to reduce the cost to the public for related facilities costs, and because there is market availability for facility use elsewhere. The cost of acquisition, maintenance, repair, and upgrade to the City and subsequently the community is partially offset by rental or use fee revenue. As such these fees should be set using the knowledge of activity use for the facilities, policy desires of the City, and market factors when desirable. It is generally accepted that many Recreation programs provide a measure of public benefit to the residents and City as a whole. In addition, cities generally want to ensure that their programs and services remain affordable to the community at large, and that the programs remain competitive with surrounding jurisdictions and private businesses. Therefore, full cost recovery is typically not the primary goal of fee setting. An overall program cost analysis for Parks & Recreation was also performed and determined that the department is currently operating at around 35% cost recovery including indirect support from central services of the City. A time and cost analysis was performed for the Urban Forestry fees in the schedule that have direct staff involvement identified to determine the direct cost for each. Staff have suggested reasonable fee adjustments to the fee schedule, and they are detailed in Appendix C. As a result, there would be:
 An increase for 52 fees;
 7 new fees would be added;
 14 fees would remain as currently set, and;
 The average fee change would be an increase of 19% for current fees.

EXHIBIT B
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 64, Packet Page 181 22 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Fire
The Monterey Fire Department (MFD) serves to protect life, property, and the environment throughout the Monterey Peninsula. Serving the community since 1882, MFD operates six fire stations on the Monterey Peninsula, including three in Monterey. In addition to serving the City of Monterey, MFD provides fire protection services under contract for the cities of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Pacific Grove, and Sand City, as well as the Monterey Peninsula Airport District, and La Mesa Village.

The Fire Prevention Division minimizes fire risk by conducting construction and fire systems plan reviews, fire prevention inspections, public education, and wildfire safety inspections. The MFD also provides operational oversight and management of the Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) program.

Analysis
Willdan individually reviewed the services associated with the Fire Department. The review also consisted of an evaluation of existing services in an effort to update the fee schedule.

The analysis of Fire services relied primarily upon a standard unit cost build-up approach, whereby the reasonable cost of each fee occurrence was determined using staff time involved with providing the service to recover the direct cost of staff and the pro-rata share of departmental costs, including indirect costs for City central services. Willdan then compared the calculated full cost against the current fee amount to determine, if charged, whether the current fee is recovering the costs associated with the requested service. The analysis found that most fire fees are currently set below the full cost of providing the service and staff have suggested reasonable fee adjustments as detailed in Appendix C based on the City’s Municipal Code guidelines for cost recovery. As a result, there would be:
 An increase for 26 fees;
 1 fee would decrease;
 5 new fees would be added;
 22 fees would remain as currently set, and;
 The average fee change would be an increase of 32% for current fees.

EXHIBIT B
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 65, Packet Page 182 23 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Police
The Monterey Police Department (MPD) is a professional, dynamic, and innovative organization dedicated to upholding the highest ethical standards. We are committed to serving every member of our community with honor, dignity, fairness, and respect.

The MPD provides comprehensive, round-the-clock public safety services, serving both the 29,116 residents of Monterey and the more than 4 million annual visitors to the city. As a critical public safety resource, the MPD handles one of the highest call volumes of any law enforcement agency on the Monterey Peninsula, ensuring constant vigilance and responsive emergency services.

Analysis
Willdan individually reviewed the services associated with the Police Department. The review also consisted of an evaluation of existing services in an effort to update the fee schedule.

The analysis of Police services relied primarily upon a standard unit cost build-up approach, whereby the reasonable cost of each fee occurrence was determined using staff time involved with providing the service to recover the direct cost of staff and the pro-rata share of departmental costs, including indirect costs for City central services. Willdan then compared the calculated full cost against the current fee amount to determine, if charged, whether the current fee is recovering the costs associated with the requested service. The analysis found that current fees are not in line with the cost of providing service. Staff has suggested reasonable fee adjustments to the fee schedule as detailed in Appendix C based on the City’s Municipal Code guidelines for cost recovery. As a result, there would be:
 An increase for 16 fees;
 1 fee would decrease;
 18 fees would remain as currently set, and;
 The average fee change would be an increase of 11% for current fees.

EXHIBIT B
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 66, Packet Page 183 24 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Public Works & Engineering
The mission of the Public Works Department is to enhance the quality of life of the citizens of Monterey and visitors through well-planned, environmentally sensitive and cost-effective sustainable infrastructure investment; and by providing high quality service delivery to facilitate public health, safety, environmental stewardship and economic growth.

The Engineering Division of the Public Works Department provides engineering management of the public right-of-way, transportation engineering, civil engineering, administration of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program (NCIP) and projects assigned by the U.S. Army to the Intergovernmental Services Agreement-Army (IGSA). The Division works with other agencies, utility providers, residents, project stakeholders, private development as well as other City departments and regional partners, to ensure that work product progresses effectively.

Analysis
Willdan individually reviewed the services associated with Public Works & Engineering. The review also consisted of an evaluation of existing services in an effort to update the fee schedule.

The analysis of Public Works & Engineering services relied primarily upon a standard unit cost build-up approach, whereby the reasonable cost of each fee occurrence was determined using staff time involved with providing the service to recover the direct cost of staff and the pro-rata share of departmental costs, including indirect costs for City central services. Willdan then compared the calculated full cost against the current fee amount to determine, if charged, whether the current fee is recovering the costs associated with the requested service. The analysis found that most flat rate fees are currently set below the full cost of providing the service. Staff have suggested increasing cost recovery of fees as detailed in Appendix C based on the City’s Municipal Code guidelines for cost recovery. As a result, there would be:
 An increase for 12 fees;
 4 new fees would be added;
 5 fees would remain as currently set, and;
 The average fee change would be an increase of 540% for current fees.

EXHIBIT B
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 67, Packet Page 184 25 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Appendix A – Total Allowable Cost to be Recovered
Below are the total allowable costs that may be recovered through user fees; however, only a portion of the total allowable cost is recovered as staff not only works on services related to user fees, but also works on an array of other City functions during the operational hours of the City. The direct overhead percentages below are derived by dividing other operational costs by salaries and benefits. The indirect allocation percentages are provided through the cost allocation plan. The amounts listed below will not reconcile to City budgets as costs that should not be included in overhead for personnel in the application of determining fully burdened hourly rates were excluded. Examples of these costs are capital, debt, monetary transfers, contract costs, and other costs that are charged directly to the service requestor.

City of Monterey - User Fee
Overhead Rate Calculations
Department
Total Salaries
& Benefits
Department
Operations & Internal
Service Charges
Direct
Overhead %
Indirect
Allocation
%
101: ACCOUNTING DIVISION 1,959,336 60,409 3% 0%
101: BUILDING MAINTENANCE 1,186,283 739,974 62% 0%
101: BUILDING SAFETY AND INSPECTION 1,536,979 549,015 36% 8% 101: CITY ATTORNEY 1,301,173 232,493 18% 0%
101: CITY CLERK 421,300 222,405 53% 0%
101: CITY MANAGER 1,232,214 129,062 10% 0%
101: COMMUNICATIONS & OUTREACH 225,966 42,981 19% 0%
101: RECREATION 2,951,787 1,006,291 34% 14%
101: SPORTS CENTER 4,476,894 1,889,502 42% 14%
101: CONFERENCE CTR 2,683,671 1,184,298 44% 4%
101: CUSTODIAL SERVICES 1,236,033 264,358 21% 0%
101: ENGINEERING 1,626,745 802,540 49% 12%
101: FINANCE ADMINISTRATION 466,379 444,988 95% 0%
101: FIRE 28,331,345 5,007,354 18% 6%
101: HOUSING ADMINISTRATION 793,527 549,168 69% 8%
101: HUMAN RESOURCES 1,305,949 203,135 16% 0%
101: LIBRARY 2,754,958 736,307 27% 18%
101: MUSEUM 250,311 107,755 43% 35%
101: PARKS 3,042,928 1,735,427 57% 13%
101: PLANNING 3,052,715 345,041 11% 7%
101: POLICE 22,045,737 5,252,723 24% 5%
101: PROPERTY MGMT 264,309 131,863 50% 74%
101: PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION 1,075,234 136,994 13% 0% 101: REVENUE DIVISION 1,081,952 124,423 11% 0%
101: STREET MAINTENANCE 1,072,288 659,053 61% 9%
101: URBAN FORESTRY 596,181 169,232 28% 4%
216: NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT FUND 270,235 101,896 38% 6% 268: LOW & MODERATE INCOME ASSET FUND 4,535 335 7% 16%
279: SEWER LINE MAINTENANCE FUND 1,449,295 711,307 49% 9% 280: STORM WATER UTILITY FUND 560,612 417,077 74% 7%
600: MARINA FUND 1,310,253 867,021 66% 6%
610: CEMETERY FUND 469,283 182,127 39% 6%
625: PARKING FUND 5,048,117 2,400,671 48% 8%
710: INFORMATION SERVICES FUND 2,848,767 1,873,277 66% 6% 807: TIDELANDS TRUST FUND - HARBOR 923,109 251,764 27% 12% 807: TIDELANDS TRUST FUND - PROPERTY MGMT 514,788 112,773 22% 24%

EXHIBIT B
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 68, Packet Page 185 26 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Appendix B –Fully Burdened Hourly Rates
Below are fully burdened hourly rates (FBHR) of staff positions that provide for the services detailed in Appendix C. The FBHRs were used to determine the full cost of each service. They include the salary and benefit costs for each position as well as all applicable overhead amounts for each position. For any user fee service request that is outside the scope of the fees detailed in Appendix C, or for services for which there is no fee currently set, the City can charge up to the full cost of the FBHR for personnel involved.

City of Monterey - User Fee
Fully Burdened Hourly Rate Calculation
Department Position
Fully Burdened
Hourly Rate
101: ACCOUNTING DIVISION Acct - Accountant/Auditor 120.30 101: ACCOUNTING DIVISION Acct - Accounting Assistant 78.16 101: ACCOUNTING DIVISION Acct - Accounting Specialist 93.36 101: ACCOUNTING DIVISION Acct - Assistant Finance Director 203.99 101: ACCOUNTING DIVISION Acct - Finance Analyst 121.72
101: ACCOUNTING DIVISION Acct - Finance Manager 173.36
101: BUILDING SAFETY AND INSPECTION Bldg - Administrative Assistant 110.63 101: BUILDING SAFETY AND INSPECTION Bldg - Building Technician 154.65 101: BUILDING SAFETY AND INSPECTION Bldg - Chief Of Inspct Srvc/Bldg Off. 288.23 101: BUILDING SAFETY AND INSPECTION Bldg - Inspector 170.01 101: BUILDING SAFETY AND INSPECTION Bldg - Plans Examiner 178.36 101: BUILDING SAFETY AND INSPECTION Bldg - Senior Building Inspector 178.36 101: BUILDING MAINTENANCE Bldg Maint - Administrative Services Tech 146.76 101: BUILDING MAINTENANCE Bldg Maint - Building Maint. Craftsworker 141.94 101: BUILDING MAINTENANCE Bldg Maint - Building Maint. Supervisor 180.82 101: BUILDING MAINTENANCE Bldg Maint - Building Maintenance Worker 119.76 101: BUILDING MAINTENANCE Bldg Maint - Electrician 171.14 101: BUILDING MAINTENANCE Bldg Maint - Gen Serv Field Operation Mgr 258.42 101: BUILDING MAINTENANCE Bldg Maint - General Srvc Superintendent 291.55 101: BUILDING MAINTENANCE Bldg Maint - Senior Craftsworker 160.26 101: CITY ATTORNEY CA - Assistant City Attorney 276.90
101: CITY ATTORNEY CA - City Attorney 328.67
101: CITY ATTORNEY CA - Deputy City Attorney I 181.40
101: CITY ATTORNEY CA - Legal Secretary 98.44
101: CITY CLERK Clerk - Administrative Assistant 115.85 101: CITY CLERK Clerk - City Clerk 239.97
101: CITY MANAGER CM - Administrative Assistant 83.76
101: CITY MANAGER CM - Assistant City Manager 283.96
101: CITY MANAGER CM - City Manager 332.87
101: CITY MANAGER CM - Management Analyst I 130.45
101: COMMUNICATIONS & OUTREACH Comm - Communications Manager 160.16 101: CONFERENCE CTR Conf Ctr - Administrative Assistant 113.20 101: CONFERENCE CTR Conf Ctr - Conference Center General Mgr 261.14 101: CONFERENCE CTR Conf Ctr - Custodian 88.76
101: CONFERENCE CTR Conf Ctr - Event Coordinator 150.11 101: CONFERENCE CTR Conf Ctr - Facility Attendant 113.73

EXHIBIT B
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 69, Packet Page 186 27 Comprehensive User Fee Study
City of Monterey - User Fee
Fully Burdened Hourly Rate Calculation
Department Position
Fully Burdened
Hourly Rate
101: CONFERENCE CTR Conf Ctr - Hvac Senior Technician 151.81 101: CONFERENCE CTR Conf Ctr - Operations Coordinator 150.11 101: CONFERENCE CTR Conf Ctr - Operations Supervisor 165.25 101: CONFERENCE CTR Conf Ctr - Sales Coordinator 150.11 101: CONFERENCE CTR Conf Ctr - Senior Craftsworker 147.35 101: CONFERENCE CTR Conf Ctr - Senior Facility Attendant 140.18 101: CUSTODIAL SERVICES Custodial - Custodian 72.17
101: CUSTODIAL SERVICES Custodial - Lead Custodian 89.01 101: CUSTODIAL SERVICES Custodial - Senior Custodian 79.38 101: ENGINEERING Eng - Administrative Assistant 126.61
101: ENGINEERING Eng - Associate Civil Engineer 257.22
101: ENGINEERING Eng - City Traffic Engineer 309.34
101: ENGINEERING Eng - Deputy Pw Director/City Engnr 327.98 101: ENGINEERING Eng - Engineering Assistant Ii 194.55
101: ENGINEERING Eng - Engineering Programs Analyst 199.35 101: ENGINEERING Eng - Engineering Projects Manager 239.25 101: ENGINEERING Eng - Engineering Technician 156.31
101: ENGINEERING Eng - Environmental Reg Analyst 199.35 101: ENGINEERING Eng - Public Works Inspector 177.26
101: ENGINEERING Eng - Senior Engineer 302.87
101: ENGINEERING Eng - Senior Project Manager 265.75
101: ENGINEERING Eng - Senior Public Works Inspector 194.55 101: FINANCE ADMINISTRATION Finance - Administrative Assistant 148.16 101: FINANCE ADMINISTRATION Finance - Finance Director 451.97 101: FIRE Fire - Administrative Assistant 94.41
101: FIRE Fire - Assistant Fire Chief 308.70
101: FIRE Fire - Deputy Fire Marshal 199.29
101: FIRE Fire - Division Chief 263.42
101: FIRE Fire - Fire Captain 189.74
101: FIRE Fire - Fire Chief 324.23
101: FIRE Fire - Fire Engineer 163.98
101: FIRE Fire - Fire Inspector II 132.86
101: FIRE Fire - Fire Prevention Technician 110.94
101: FIRE Fire - Firefighter 148.71
101: FIRE Fire - Senior Administrative Analyst 167.82
101: HOUSING ADMINISTRATION Housing - Administrative Assistant 138.45 101: HOUSING ADMINISTRATION Housing - Hcd Coordinator-Proj &Programs 193.79 101: HOUSING ADMINISTRATION Housing - Housing Manager 265.70 101: HUMAN RESOURCES HR - Assistant Hr Director 225.62
101: HUMAN RESOURCES HR - Human Resources Analyst 136.45 101: HUMAN RESOURCES HR - Human Resources Assistant 87.61 101: HUMAN RESOURCES HR - Human Resources Director 263.64 101: HUMAN RESOURCES HR - Human Resources Specialist 104.66 101: HUMAN RESOURCES HR - Senior Human Resources Analyst 155.74 101: LIBRARY Library - Administrative Assistant 113.56

EXHIBIT B
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 70, Packet Page 187 28 Comprehensive User Fee Study
City of Monterey - User Fee
Fully Burdened Hourly Rate Calculation
Department Position
Fully Burdened
Hourly Rate
101: LIBRARY Library - Assistant Library Director 244.90 101: LIBRARY Library - Librarian 143.97
101: LIBRARY Library - Library Assistant I 105.27
101: LIBRARY Library - Library Assistant II 110.57
101: LIBRARY Library - Library Director 327.26
101: LIBRARY Library - Library Manager 212.95
101: LIBRARY Library - Technology Svcs. Specialist 135.65 101: MUSEUM Museum - Administrative Assistant 146.80
101: MUSEUM Museum - Artifact Specialist 142.93
101: PARKS Parks - Administrative Services Tech 159.71
101: PARKS Parks - Management Analyst I 208.65
101: PARKS Parks - Park Maintenance Craftsworker 143.93 101: PARKS Parks - Park Maintenance Leadworker 158.66
101: PARKS Parks - Park Maintenance Supervisor 183.59
101: PARKS Parks - Park Maintenance Worker 130.66
101: PARKS Parks - Park Operations Manager 236.98
101: PARKS Parks - Parks And Recreation Director 396.52 101: PARKS Parks - Senior Park Maintenance Worker 143.93 101: PLANNING Plng - Accountant/Auditor 138.75
101: PLANNING Plng - Administrative Assistant 90.14
101: PLANNING Plng - Assistant Planner 110.99
101: PLANNING Plng - Code Compliance Coordinator 138.52 101: PLANNING Plng - Community Development Director 266.79 101: PLANNING Plng - Economic Development Manager 202.51 101: PLANNING Plng - Planning Manager 228.30
101: PLANNING Plng - Principal Planner 185.29
101: PLANNING Plng - Senior Associate Planner 155.35
101: PLANNING Plng - Sustainability Assistant 122.51
101: PLANNING Plng - Sustainability Manager 175.18
101: POLICE Police - Assistant Police Chief 320.73
101: POLICE Police - Community Service Officer 107.51
101: POLICE Police - Homeless Navigator 134.09
101: POLICE Police - Police Chief 365.83
101: POLICE Police - Police Lieutenant 278.38
101: POLICE Police - Police Officer 177.52
101: POLICE Police - Police Records/Detention Sup. 162.44 101: POLICE Police - Police Sergeant 216.99
101: POLICE Police - Police Services Assistant 98.67
101: POLICE Police - Police Services Technician 121.26
101: POLICE Police - Senior Administrative Analyst 175.39 101: POLICE Police - Senior Police Services Tech. 127.38 101: PROPERTY MGMT Prop Mgmt - Administrative Assistant 197.42 101: PROPERTY MGMT Prop Mgmt - Community Development Director 584.29 101: PROPERTY MGMT Prop Mgmt - Property Manager 408.95
101: PROPERTY MGMT Prop Mgmt - Property Technician 232.00

EXHIBIT B
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 71, Packet Page 188 29 Comprehensive User Fee Study
City of Monterey - User Fee
Fully Burdened Hourly Rate Calculation
Department Position
Fully Burdened
Hourly Rate
101: PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION PW - Accounting Specialist 102.11 101: PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION PW - Administrative Analyst 133.12 101: PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION PW - Deputy Pw Director/Admin 208.86 101: PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION PW - Executive Assistant I 94.16 101: PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION PW - Public Works Director 276.53 101: RECREATION Rec - Administrative Assistant 115.65
101: RECREATION Rec - Management Analyst I 180.11
101: RECREATION Rec - Parks And Recreation Director 342.28 101: RECREATION Rec - Recreation Coordinator 153.37
101: RECREATION Rec - Recreation Manager 256.52
101: RECREATION Rec - Recreation Specialist 104.38
101: RECREATION Rec - Recreation Supervisor 179.20
101: RECREATION Rec - Sports Coordinator 153.37
101: REVENUE DIVISION Revenue - Accountant/Auditor 130.12 101: REVENUE DIVISION Revenue - Accounting Specialist 100.99 101: REVENUE DIVISION Revenue - Business License Inspector 109.49 101: REVENUE DIVISION Revenue - Finance Manager 187.51
101: SPORTS CENTER Sports - Administrative Assistant 122.65 101: SPORTS CENTER Sports - Aquatics Coordinator 162.65 101: SPORTS CENTER Sports - Building Maint. Craftsworker 141.40 101: SPORTS CENTER Sports - Facility Coordinator 162.65 101: SPORTS CENTER Sports - Fitness Supervisor 190.05
101: SPORTS CENTER Sports - Guest Service Specialist 110.70 101: SPORTS CENTER Sports - Management Analyst I 191.01 101: SPORTS CENTER Sports - Parks And Recreation Director 362.99 101: SPORTS CENTER Sports - Senior Craftsworker 159.65
101: SPORTS CENTER Sports - Sports Center Manager 272.04 101: SPORTS CENTER Sports - Sports Coordinator 162.65
101: STREET MAINTENANCE Street Maint - Administrative Assistant 133.81 101: STREET MAINTENANCE Street Maint - Senior Street Maint. Worker 144.79 101: STREET MAINTENANCE Street Maint - Sign Craftsworker 154.26 101: STREET MAINTENANCE Street Maint - Street & Utilities Supervisor 191.91 101: STREET MAINTENANCE Street Maint - Street Maintenance Leadworker 159.59 101: STREET MAINTENANCE Street Maint - Street Maintenance Worker 131.46 101: STREET MAINTENANCE Street Maint - Streets & Utilities Operat Mgr 236.68 101: URBAN FORESTRY Urban - Administrative Services Tech 120.25 101: URBAN FORESTRY Urban - Assistant Urban Forester 140.67 101: URBAN FORESTRY Urban - Greenbelt Coordinator 116.18 101: URBAN FORESTRY Urban - Park Attendant 105.97
101: URBAN FORESTRY Urban - Park Operations Manager 178.44 216: NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT FUND Fund 216 - Senior Engineer 265.91 268: LOW & MODERATE INCOME ASSET FUND Fund 268 - Hcd Coordinator-Proj &Programs 131.67 279: SEWER LINE MAINTENANCE FUND Fund 279 - Administrative Assistant 122.83 279: SEWER LINE MAINTENANCE FUND Fund 279 - Associate Civil Engineer 249.56 279: SEWER LINE MAINTENANCE FUND Fund 279 - Deputy Pw Director/City Engnr 318.21

EXHIBIT B
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 72, Packet Page 189 30 Comprehensive User Fee Study
City of Monterey - User Fee
Fully Burdened Hourly Rate Calculation
Department Position
Fully Burdened
Hourly Rate
279: SEWER LINE MAINTENANCE FUND Fund 279 - Environmental Reg Analyst 193.41 279: SEWER LINE MAINTENANCE FUND Fund 279 - Environmental Regulations Mgr. 226.54 279: SEWER LINE MAINTENANCE FUND Fund 279 - Senior Engineer 293.85 279: SEWER LINE MAINTENANCE FUND Fund 279 - Senior Street Maint. Worker 132.92 279: SEWER LINE MAINTENANCE FUND Fund 279 - Street & Utilities Supervisor 176.17 279: SEWER LINE MAINTENANCE FUND Fund 279 - Street Maintenance Leadworker 146.50 279: SEWER LINE MAINTENANCE FUND Fund 279 - Street Maintenance Worker 120.68 279: SEWER LINE MAINTENANCE FUND Fund 279 - Streets & Utilities Operat Mgr 217.27 280: STORM WATER UTILITY FUND Fund 280 - Administrative Assistant 141.11 280: STORM WATER UTILITY FUND Fund 280 - Deputy Pw Director/City Engnr 365.54 280: STORM WATER UTILITY FUND Fund 280 - Environmental Reg Analyst 222.18 280: STORM WATER UTILITY FUND Fund 280 - Environmental Regulations Mgr. 260.24 280: STORM WATER UTILITY FUND Fund 280 - Senior Engineer 337.56 280: STORM WATER UTILITY FUND Fund 280 - Senior Street Maint. Worker 152.69 280: STORM WATER UTILITY FUND Fund 280 - Street Maintenance Worker 138.63 280: STORM WATER UTILITY FUND Fund 280 - Streets & Utilities Operat Mgr 249.59 600: MARINA FUND Fund 600 - Deputy Pw Director/Admin 325.67 600: MARINA FUND Fund 600 - Harbor Coordinator 176.76
600: MARINA FUND Fund 600 - Harbor Maint. Craftsworker 153.67 600: MARINA FUND Fund 600 - Harbor Security Worker 138.84 600: MARINA FUND Fund 600 - Harbormaster 295.65
600: MARINA FUND Fund 600 - Marina Harbor Assistant 164.40 610: CEMETERY FUND Fund 610 - Administrative Services Tech 133.42 610: CEMETERY FUND Fund 610 - Cemetery Coordinator 148.43 610: CEMETERY FUND Fund 610 - Cemetery Maintenance Worker 114.59 610: CEMETERY FUND Fund 610 - Park Maintenance Worker 109.15 610: CEMETERY FUND Fund 610 - Park Operations Manager 197.97 625: PARKING FUND Fund 625 - Accounting Assistant 120.27 625: PARKING FUND Fund 625 - Accounting Specialist 143.67 625: PARKING FUND Fund 625 - Administrative Assistant 120.27 625: PARKING FUND Fund 625 - Asst Parking Superintendent 212.73 625: PARKING FUND Fund 625 - Deputy Pw Director/Admin 293.86 625: PARKING FUND Fund 625 - Park Maintenance Worker 117.29 625: PARKING FUND Fund 625 - Parking Controls Technician 145.55 625: PARKING FUND Fund 625 - Parking Enforcement Officer 125.28 625: PARKING FUND Fund 625 - Parking Enforcement Supervisor 175.58 625: PARKING FUND Fund 625 - Parking Maintenance Leadworker 149.40 625: PARKING FUND Fund 625 - Parking Maintenance Supervisor 176.64 625: PARKING FUND Fund 625 - Parking Maintenance Worker 116.99 625: PARKING FUND Fund 625 - Parking Services Coordinator 190.54 625: PARKING FUND Fund 625 - Parking Services Representativ 116.99 625: PARKING FUND Fund 625 - Parking Services Specialist 144.54 625: PARKING FUND Fund 625 - Parking Superintendent 266.77 625: PARKING FUND Fund 625 - Senior Parking Controls Tech. 159.49 625: PARKING FUND Fund 625 - Senior Parking Enfor. Officer 143.37

EXHIBIT B
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 73, Packet Page 190 31 Comprehensive User Fee Study
City of Monterey - User Fee
Fully Burdened Hourly Rate Calculation
Department Position
Fully Burdened
Hourly Rate
710: INFORMATION SERVICES FUND Fund 710 - Administrative Assistant 133.55 710: INFORMATION SERVICES FUND Fund 710 - Assistant City Manager 452.73 710: INFORMATION SERVICES FUND Fund 710 - Chief Information Officer 372.20 710: INFORMATION SERVICES FUND Fund 710 - Geo Info Sys (GIS) Coordinator 227.77 710: INFORMATION SERVICES FUND Fund 710 - Information Tech Specialist 177.23 710: INFORMATION SERVICES FUND Fund 710 - It Application Engineer Ii 242.66 710: INFORMATION SERVICES FUND Fund 710 - Network Engineer Ii 252.37 710: INFORMATION SERVICES FUND Fund 710 - Senior Information Tech Specia 197.31 710: INFORMATION SERVICES FUND Fund 710 - Systems And Network Admin 284.84 807: TIDELANDS TRUST FUND - HARBOR Fund 807 - Harbor - Deputy Pw Director/Admin 263.77 807: TIDELANDS TRUST FUND - HARBOR Fund 807 - Harbor - Harbor Coordinator 143.16 807: TIDELANDS TRUST FUND - HARBOR Fund 807 - Harbor - Harbor Maint. Craftsworker 124.46 807: TIDELANDS TRUST FUND - HARBOR Fund 807 - Harbor - Harbor Security Worker 112.45 807: TIDELANDS TRUST FUND - HARBOR Fund 807 - Harbor - Harbormaster 239.45

EXHIBIT B
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 74, Packet Page 191 32 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Appendix C – Cost Recovery Analysis
The following tables provide the results of the analysis, resulting full cost recovery amount, and recommended fees. For fees, services, and penalties in which the full cost, existing fee, and suggested fee is listed as “NA”, the amount or percentage was not calculable. This is most common when either the current or the suggested fee includes a variable component that is not comparable on a one-to-one basis, a full cost was not calculated (for penalties, fines, market-based fees, or items not included in the study), or when there is not a current fee amount to compare against.

EXHIBIT B
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 75, Packet Page 192 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES*
# Description Current Fee/Charge Unit Full Cost
Current Subsidy Suggested Fee
Suggested Cost Recovery Fee Δ
1 General2 Agenda Mailing Service, Per Year1 $44.50 $223.59 80% $223.50 100% $179 3 Agenda Packet Subscription Service - Council, Per Year1 $238.00 $3,087.95 92% $3,087.50 100% $2,850 4 Agenda Packet Subscription Service - Planning Commission, Per Year1 New $712.03 NA $712.00 NA
5 Agenda Packet Subscription Service - All other Boards and Commissions, Per Year1 $63.50 $513.20 88% $513.20 100% $450 6 Certification of Documents $1.00 per document $20.00 95% $2.00 10% $17 Notary Service (per signature) $15.00 IAW GC 8211 NA NA $15.00 fees set by resolution $0 8 CD/DVD/Flash or other drive for providing records Exact cost of disk or device NA NA Exact cost of disk or device 25% $0 9 Postage and packaging for shipping records Exact cost NA NA Exact cost 100% $010 Publication of optional Candidate Statement in the Voter Guide 100% of the amount determined by the Monterey County Elections Department, to be paid by an advance deposit of the estimated total, and to be trued up following the County’s issuance of the actual cost following the election.

NA NA
100% of the amount determined by the Monterey County
Elections Department,
to be paid by an advance deposit of the estimated total, and to be trued up following the County’s
issuance of the actual cost following the election.
100% $0
11 Deposit for Filing a Notice of Intent to Circulate Initiative Petition $200.00 NA NA $200.00 $0
12 Going-out-of-business or Fire Sale Permit - initial application (up to 30 days) $25.00 NA NA $25.00 $0 13 Going-out-of-business or Fire Sale Permit - First Renewal (30 to 60 days) $50.00 NA NA $50.00 $0 33 EXHIBIT B
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 76, Packet Page 193 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES*
# Description Current Fee/Charge Unit Full Cost
Current Subsidy Suggested Fee
Suggested Cost Recovery Fee Δ
14 Going-out-of-business or Fire Sale Permit - Second (final) Renewal (60 to 90 days) $10.00 per day NA NA $10.00 $015 Duplicate Business License Fee $5.00 NA NA $5.00 $0 16 Returned check Processing $25.00 NA NA $25.00 $017 PW Engineering Maps and Documents $3.00 per square foot NA NA $3.00 $0 18 Zoning Ordinance, General Plan, EIRs, Budgets $20.00 NA NA $20.00 $019 Photocopying Services - Conference Center $0.25 per page NA NA $0.25 100% $020 Photocopying Services - Public Works $0.18 per page (11x17) NA NA $0.18 100% $0 21 Photocopying or Printing Services - All others including Public Records $0.10 per page (8.5x11) NA NA $0.10 100% $022 Ryan Ranch Recreational Vehicle Storage Facility, 20-foot space, per month.1 $72.50 NA NA $80.00 $8
23 Ryan Ranch Recreational Vehicle Storage Facility, 25-foot space, per month.1 $91.00 NA NA $100.00 $9
24 Ryan Ranch Recreational Vehicle Storage Facility, 30-foot space, per month.1 $108.50 NA NA $120.00 $12
25 Appeals Hearing Board - Appeals Fee $881.61 NA NA $881.61 100% $0 26 Disabled Access Appeals Board - Appeals Fee $881.61 NA NA $881.61 100% $0 27 Building and Housing Appeals Board - Appeals Fee $881.61 NA NA $881.61 100% $0 28 Appeal of Marina Decisions to Council
equal to fine assessed by Harbormaster
NA NA equal to fine assessed by Harbormaster 100% $0
29 Appeal of East Anchorage Decisions to Council
equal to fine assessed by Harbormaster
NA NA equal to fine assessed by Harbormaster 100% $0
30 Appeal of Yellow Boat Permits to Council
equal to fine assessed by Harbormaster
NA NA equal to fine assessed by Harbormaster 100% $0
31 Weed Abatement Fee Appeal to be set by resolution NA NA to be set by resolution $032 Tobacco Retail License Fee $297.00 NA NA $297.00 $033 Legal noticing for Business Improvement District Annual Plan1 New $442.68 NA $442.50 NA
34 Monterey City Council Chamber Rental Fees
34 EXHIBIT B
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 77, Packet Page 194 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES*
# Description Current Fee/Charge Unit Full Cost
Current Subsidy Suggested Fee
Suggested Cost Recovery Fee Δ
35 Council Chamber facility (includes use of furniture, kitchenette (sink, counter, pod-style coffee maker), bathrooms, microphones, connections for laptop computers, and operation by City staff of audio-visual equipment (document camera, projector, and projection screen)1
$85.00 per hour (3 hour minimum) NA NA $85.00 fees set by resolution $0 36 Council Chamber facility - Overtime Rate1 $52.50
per 15 minutes the Chamber is used past reserved time
NA NA $52.50 fees set by resolution $0
37 Television Broadcast cameras and equipment (requires that City's broadcast contractor be separately contracted/retained to operate equip)1 $263.00 per reservation NA NA $263.00 fees set by resolution $0 38 City Support Staff1 $74.50 per staff member hour $177.91 58% $177.50 $103 *Subject to 2.9% service fee.
1 Fees shall be adjusted annually in July based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The CPI increase shall be based on the published CPI for San Francisco Area (San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose) April edition and rounded to the nearest fifty cent (0.50)
35 EXHIBIT B
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 78, Packet Page 195 BID PROTEST & BIDDER RESPONSIBILITY APPEALS FEES*
# Description
Current
Fee/Charge Full Cost
Current
Subsidy Suggested Fee
Suggested Cost
Recovery
1 Bid Protest2 Purchases of goods, services, public works projects, etc. subject to informal bidding or requests for proposals $100.00 NA NA $100.00 100% 3 Public Works Projects subject to formal bidding up to $1 million and formal requests for proposals $250.00 NA NA $250.00 100%4 Public Works Projects over $1 million and less than $5 million $500.00 NA NA $500.00 100%5 Public Works Projects $5 million and over $1,000.00 NA NA $1,000.00 100%6 Bidder Responsibility Appeals7 Purchases of goods, services, public works projects, etc. subject to informal bidding –appeals without a hearing $100.00 NA NA $100.00 100%8 Purchases of goods, services, public works projects, etc. subject to informal bidding - appeals with a hearing $500.00 NA NA $500.00 100%9 Public Works Projects subject to formal bidding up to $1 million and formal requests for proposals – appeals without a hearing $250.00 NA NA $250.00 100%10 Public Works Projects subject to formal bidding up to $1 million and formal requests for proposals – appeals with a hearing $750.00 NA NA $750.00 100%11 Public Works Projects over $1 million and less than $5 million – appeals without a hearing $500.00 NA NA $500.00 100%12 Public Works Projects over $1 million and less than $5 million – appeals with a hearing $1,000.00 NA NA $1,000.00 100%13 Public Works Projects $5 million and over – appeals without a hearing $1,000.00 NA NA $1,000.00 100%14 Public Works Projects $5 million and over – appeals with a hearing $1,500.00 NA NA $1,500.00 100% *Subject to 2.9% service fee.
36 EXHIBIT B
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 79, Packet Page 196 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING FEES*
# Description
Current Fee/Charge Unit Full Cost
Current Subsidy Suggested Fee
Suggested Cost Recovery Fee Δ
1 Architectural Review - ARC Major1 $5,116.00 $5,211.23 2% $5,211.00 100% $95 2 Architectural Review - ARC Minor1 $2,767.00 $2,831.41 2% $2,831.00 100% $643 Architectural Review - Admin Major1 $1,692.00 $1,716.00 1% $1,716.00 100% $244 Architectural Review - Admin Minor1 $671.00 $676.28 1% $676.00 100% $55 MF or RHNA - Tier 1 $1,595.00 $1,621.13 2% $1,621.00 100% $26 6 MF or RHNA - Tier 2 $2,767.00 $2,831.41 2% $2,831.00 100% $647 MF or RHNA - Tier 3 $5,116.00 $5,161.59 1% $5,161.00 100% $458 Architectural Review - Signs ARC/HPC Review, including Historic Permit1 $1,803.00 $1,791.18 -1% $1,791.00 100% -$12 9 Architectural Review - Signs Minor1 $839.00 $911.98 8% $911.00 100% $7210 Historical Preservation - Mills Act Request w/rezone1** $5,534.00 $5,656.22 2% $5,656.00 100% $122
11 Historical Preservation - Mills Act Request w/o
rezone
1** $3,899.00 $4,323.59 10% $4,323.00 100% $424
12 Historical Preservation - Demolition Review1 $657.00 $711.55 8% $711.00 100% $5413 Historical Preservation - Historical Permit, major1** $3,592.00 $3,584.17 0% $3,584.00 100% -$814 Historical Preservation - Historical Permit, admin1 ** $853.00 $896.84 5% $896.00 100% $4315 Historical Preservation - Historic Report, review1** $2,360.00 $2,364.75 0% $2,364.00 100% $416 Historic Preservation - Removal from Historic Survey1** $1,857.00 $1,904.03 2% $1,904.00 100% $47 17 Historic Preservation - Prepare Historic Intensive
Survey $6,000.00 Deposit NA NA $6,000.00 100% $0
18 Conditional Use Permits -Planning Commission
Major $5,763.00 $5,770.03 0% $5,770.00 100% $7
37 EXHIBIT B
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 80, Packet Page 197 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING FEES*
# Description
Current Fee/Charge Unit Full Cost
Current Subsidy Suggested Fee
Suggested Cost Recovery Fee Δ
19 Conditional Use Permits - Planning Commission
Minor1 $3,159.00 $3,201.99 1% $3,201.00 100% $42
20 Conditional Use Permits - Zoning Administrator1 $2,238.00 $2,375.69 6% $2,375.00 100% $13721 Conditional Use Permits - Temporary1 $475.00 $711.55 33% $711.00 100% $23622 Variances/Parking Adjustment - Major Planning Commission1 $3,788.00 $3,836.03 1% $3,836.00 100% $48
23 Variances/Parking Adjustment - Minor Zoning
Administrator1 $2,238.00 $2,375.69 6% $2,375.00 100% $137 24 Subdivisions - Tentative Subdivision Map (includes preliminary and final) $6,000.00 Deposit NA NA $6,000.00 100% $025 Subdivisions - Covenant of Easement1 $2,910.00 $3,967.21 27% $3,967.00 100% $1,05726 Subdivisions - Minor Subdivisions1 $8,026.00 $8,917.72 10% $8,917.00 100% $89127 Subdivisions - Lot Line Adjustment1 $4,266.00 $4,479.14 5% $4,479.00 100% $21328 Subdivisions - Certificate of Compliance1 $2,122.00 $3,771.58 44% $3,771.00 100% $1,64929 Lot Merger 1 $1,607.00 $1,842.29 13% $1,842.00 100% $23530 Environmental Review - Environmental Impact Report $100,000.00 Deposit NA NA $100,000.00 100% $0
31 Environmental Review - Addendum/Other $25,000.00 Deposit NA NA $25,000.00 100% $032 Environmental Review - Environmental Initial Study leading to a Mitigated Negative Declaration or Negative Declaration $20,000.00 Deposit NA NA $20,000.00 100% $0
33 Environmental Review - Exemption $273.00 $233.03 -17% $233.00 100% -$4034 Text or Map Amendments - General Plan $8,062.00 $8,229.99 2% $8,229.00 100% $16735 Text of Map Amendments - Specific Plan/Area Plan or Zoning $6,252.00 $7,239.81 14% $7,239.00 100% $987
36 Text or Map Admendments - Local Coastal Plan $5,000.00 Deposit NA NA $5,000.00 100% $037 Annexation $25,000.00 Deposit NA NA $25,000.00 100% $0 38 EXHIBIT B
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 81, Packet Page 198 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING FEES*
# Description
Current Fee/Charge Unit Full Cost
Current Subsidy Suggested Fee
Suggested Cost Recovery Fee Δ
38 Permits - Sidewalk or Food Vending Permit1 $293.00 $245.50 -19% $245.00 100% -$48 39 Zoning Affidavit1 $1,931.00 $1,954.37 1% $1,954.00 100% $2340 Permits - Permit Extension1 $1,342.00 $1,420.27 6% $1,420.00 100% $7841 Permits - Permit Amendment 2/3 of current permit fee NA NA 2/3 of current permit fee 100% $0 42 Permits - Special Permits (bingo, pet)1 $1,342.00 $1,357.90 1% $1,357.00 100% $15 43 Permits - Temporary Sign1 $28.00 $177.89 84% $177.00 100% $14944 Permits - Tree Permit Associated with Development (ARC)1 $953.00 $992.90 4% $992.00 100% $39
45 Permits - Tree Permit Associated with Development
(Administrative)1 $407.00 $463.84 12% $463.00 100% $56
46 Zoning Clearance Permit $42.00 $38.84 -8% $38.00 100% -$4 47 Appeals - Of Decisions of Staff, ZA, ARC and Environmental Determination to the Planning Commission1 $2,099.00 $2,511.25 16% $2,511.00 100% $412
48 Appeals - Of Decisions of Planning Commission to
the City Council1 $2,977.00 $4,180.02 29% $4,180.00 100% $1,203 49 SB9 Ministerial Review1 $8,026.00 $8,461.13 5% $8,461.00 100% $43550 SB35 Ministerial Review1 $5,116.00 $5,297.25 3% $5,297.00 100% $18151 Rental Registry Program - Compliance (per unit)3 $50.00 NA NA $50.00 100% $052 Street or Right-of-Way Vacation $2,577.02 $3,175.90 19% $3,175.00 100% $59853 Planning Commission - Special Permit $1,784.22 $1,784.22 0% $1,784.00 100% $0 1 Per City Code Sec. 19-103, Fee includes CPI adjustments, for applicable fees (SF, April).2Fees for Solar Panel Inspection are set by the State of California3Rental Registry Compliance Fees are Effective Jan. 4, 2024*Subject to 2.9% service fee.** Solar arrays, cisterns, and safe parking are exempt from architectural review, historical preservaIon, use permit and variance fees. 39 EXHIBIT B
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 82, Packet Page 199 PARKS & RECREATION - CEMETERY*1,2
# Description
Current Fee/Charge Suggested Fee
Suggested Cost Recovery Fee Δ
Ground Burials for Caskets
a. Infant Burial Site $1,847.50 $2,069.00 100% $222b. Adult Burial Site - Single Depth $5,820.00 $6,518.00 100% $698 Ground Burials for Caskets RESIDENT FEES**
a. Infant Burial Site $1,570.50 $1,758.00 100% $188b. Adult Burial Site - Single Depth $4,947.50 $5,541.00 100% $594 Niche Inurnment
a. Niche- Single Lakeside Columbarium $3,177.00 $3,558.00 100% $381b. Niche - Double Lakeside and Old Columbarium $6,027.50 $6,750.00 100% $723 Niche Inurnment RESIDENT FEES**
a. Niche- Single Lakeside Columbarium $2,721.50 $3,048.00 100% $327b. Niche - Double Lakeside and Old Columbarium $5,124.00 $5,738.00 100% $614 Ground Burial for Urns
a. Full Burial Site (1-8 urns) $5,820.00 $6,518.00 100% $698b. Half Burial Site (1-4 urns) $2,807.00 $3,143.00 100% $336c. Quarter Burial Site (1-2 urns only) $1,847.50 $2,069.00 100% $222d. Cremains Added Plot (2nd, 3rd right etc. of Inurnment) $767.00 $859.00 100% $92 40 EXHIBIT B
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 83, Packet Page 200 PARKS & RECREATION - CEMETERY*1,2
# Description
Current Fee/Charge Suggested Fee
Suggested Cost Recovery Fee Δ
Ground Burial for Urns RESIDENT FEES**
a. Full Burial Site (1-8 urns) $4,947.50 $5,541.00 100% $594b. Half Burial Site (1-4 urns) $2,386.00 $2,672.00 100% $286c. Quarter Burial Site (1-2 urns only) $1,570.50 $1,758.00 100% $188 Ossuary- Scattering Garden (shared burial site)
a. Remains added to shared burial site- remains not retrievable $329.00 $368.00 100% $39b. Fetal remains $55.00 $61.00 100% $6 Ossuary- Scattering Garden (shared burial site) RESIDENT FEES** a. Remains added to shared burial site- remains not retrievable $280.00 $313.00 100% $33b. Fetal remains $47.00 $52.00 100% $5 Indenture/Administrative Fee
a. Indenture – Burial Site $252.00 $282.00 100% $30b. Indenture - Niche $252.00 $282.00 100% $30c. Indenture Transfer fee $302.00 $338.00 100% $36d. Deed Replacement $94.50 $105.00 100% $11 e. Ossuary Administrative Fee $33.00 $36.00 100% $3
Endowment Care
41 EXHIBIT B
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 84, Packet Page 201 PARKS & RECREATION - CEMETERY*1,2
# Description
Current Fee/Charge Suggested Fee
Suggested Cost Recovery Fee Δ
a. Infant Burial Site $753.50 $843.00 100% $90b. Half Burial Site $1,383.50 $1,549.00 100% $166c. Quarter Burial Site (1-2 urns only) $679.50 $761.00 100% $82d. Burial Site – Single Depth $2,135.00 $2,391.00 100% $256e. Burial Site – Double Depth $2,135.00 $2,391.00 100% $256f. Niche- Single $1,004.50 $1,125.00 100% $121g. Niche- Double $1,256.00 $1,406.00 100% $150h. Ossuary (Scattering Garden) $82.50 $92.00 100% $10 Internment/Inurnment – Labor Charges
a. Infant Cremains $659.50 $738.00 100% $79b. Adult Cremains $767.00 $859.00 100% $92 c. Infant Casket Burial $877.00 $982.00 100% $105d. Child Casket Burial $986.00 $1,104.00 100% $118e. Child Burial (adult sized casket) $1,917.50 $2,147.00 100% $230f. Adult Burial – Single Depth $1,917.50 $2,147.00 100% $230 42 EXHIBIT B
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 85, Packet Page 202 PARKS & RECREATION - CEMETERY*1,2
# Description
Current Fee/Charge Suggested Fee
Suggested Cost Recovery Fee Δ
g. Adult Burial – Double Depth $2,081.50 $2,331.00 100% $250h. Niche- Lakeside Columbarium Inurnment $603.00 $675.00 100% $72i. Niche- Old Columbarium Inurnment $739.50 $828.00 100% $89a. Infant Burial $767.00 $859.00 100% $92b. Cremation Burial $603.00 $675.00 100% $72c. Niche – Columbarium Inurnment $603.00 $675.00 100% $72d. Adult Burial – Single Depth $986.00 $1,104.00 100% $118 Disinterment – Labor Charges
a. Infant Cremains $548.00 $613.00 100% $65b. Adult Cremains $767.00 $859.00 100% $92c. Infant/Child Casket Burial $2,410.50 $2,699.00 100% $289d. Child Casket Burial (adult sized casket) $3,834.50 $4,294.00 100% $460e. Adult Burial – Single Depth $3,834.50 $4,294.00 100% $460f. Adult Burial – Double Depth $4,601.50 $5,153.00 100% $552 Internment/Inurnment - Weekends/Holidays – Labor Charges – Additional Fee 43 EXHIBIT B
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 86, Packet Page 203 PARKS & RECREATION - CEMETERY*1,2
# Description
Current Fee/Charge Suggested Fee
Suggested Cost Recovery Fee Δ
g. Dis-inurnment Niche - Single/face plate disposal/replace $931.50 $1,043.00 100% $112h. Dis-inurnment Niche - Double/ face plate disposal/replace $1,151.00 $1,289.00 100% $138 Memorial Marker Placement - Cement Border
a. 8X16x3 inch $199.50 $223.00 100% $24b. 12X24x3 inch $473.00 $529.00 100% $56c. 16x28x3 inch $589.00 $659.00 100% $70 Memorial Marker Placement – No Cement Border
a. 8X16x3 inch $157.50 $176.00 100% $19b. 12X24x3 inch $289.00 $323.00 100% $34c. 16X28x3 inch $368.00 $412.00 100% $44 Other Services
a. Niche Engraving - Single Niche – per character $11.00 $12.00 100% $1 b. Minimum Niche Engraving Fee (Death Date) $177.00 $198.00 100% $21 c. Niche Layout - Administrative Fee - Premium $84.00 $94.00 100% $10 d. Flower Vase Drilling $21.50 $24.00 100% $3
e. Paint Inscriptions $210.50 $235.00 100% $25
44 EXHIBIT B
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 87, Packet Page 204 PARKS & RECREATION - CEMETERY*1,2
# Description
Current Fee/Charge Suggested Fee
Suggested Cost Recovery Fee Δ
f. Remove Marker/Dispose $271.50 $304.00 100% $33
2Revised July 2024 to be in alignment with resolutions passed off cycle by Council in August, 2022*Effective Jan. 1, 2024 all credit card transactions will be subject to a 2.9% surcharge paid directly to the bank **To be eligible for the resident rate, the purchaser or deceased must be a resident of the City of Monterey as of the date of purchase or death or for eligible employees who have access to residents rates per Memorandum of Understanding. Proof of residency, such as a driver’s license or utility bill we be required.1Fees shall be adjusted annually in July based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The CPI increase shall be based on the published CPI for San Francisco Area (San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose) April edition and rounded to the nearest fifty cents (0.50). 45 EXHIBIT B
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 88, Packet Page 205 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CANNABIS*
# Description
Current Fee/Charge Unit Full Cost
Current Subsidy Suggested Fee
Suggested Cost Recovery Fee Δ
1 Application Review - Phase I (per applicant) $1,510.00 NA NA $1,510.00 100% $02 Application Review - Phase II (per applicant) $3,335.00 NA NA $3,335.00 100% $0 3 Application Review - Phase III (per applicant) $1,840.00 NA NA $1,840.00 100% $04 Application Review - Phase IV (per applicant) $2,360.00 NA NA $2,360.00 100% $05 Background Check (per owner) $300.00 NA NA $300.00 100% $06 Testing Laboratory Application Review (per applicant) $2,425.00 NA NA $2,425.00 100% $07 Temporary Cannabis Event Application Review (per applicant) $1,610.00 NA NA $1,610.00 100% $0
8 Out-of-City Retail/Distribution Application Review (per applicant) $70.00 NA NA $70.00 100% $0
9 Annual Cannabis Compliance Fee (per applicant) $2,395.00 NA NA $2,395.00 100% $010 Cannabis Audit (per permittee) $6,500.00 NA NA $6,500.00 100% $011 Cannabis Business Permit Renewal (per applicant) $780.00 NA NA $780.00 100% $0 12 Zone Clearance (per applicant) $238.00 $200.42 -19% $200.00 100% -$38 *Subject to 2.9% service fee.
46 EXHIBIT B
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 89, Packet Page 206 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BUILDING PERMITS & INSPECTION FEES*3 # Description
Current Fee/Charge Unit Full Cost
Current Subsidy Suggested Fee
Suggested Cost Recovery Fee Δ
1 Encroachment Permits2 Street Opening Fee 1 $291.26 $972.75 70% $972.00 100% $681 3 Street Opening Fee with Sewer Connection 1 $588.84 $1,554.12 62% $1,554.00 100% $9654 Temporary Encroachment Fee 1 $222.92 (plus $96/hour if review outside PPW is required) $972.75 77% $972.00 100% $7495 Permanent Encroachment Fee 1 $291.26 (plus $91/hour for inspection) $2,273.47 87% $2,273.00 100% $1,9826 Driveway or Sidewalk Encroachment Fee1 $291.26 $972.75 70% $972.00 100% $6817 Traffic Control Fee1 $147.21 $389.10 62% $389.00 100% $2428 Public Improvement Inspection 3% of common area or dedication improvements
NA NA
3% of common area or dedication improvements
100% $0
9 Building Permits10 Investigative Fee for work without permit(s) Cost of permit NA NA Cost of permit 100% $011 Missed inspections or work not complete1 $170.60 $233.68 27% $233.00 100% $6212 Sewer Lateral Review Fee1 $133.60 $232.32 42% $232.00 100% $9813 Plumbing Permit - Minor (i.e., water heater, sewer lateral)1 $156.23 $280.64 44% $280.00 100% $124
14 Electrical Permit - Minor (i.e., replace a service
panel)1 $156.23 $280.64 44% $280.00 100% $124
15 Mechanical Permit - (i.e., replace a furnace) Minor1 $156.23 $280.64 44% $280.00 100% $12416 Generator Permit - Electric Only Fee $275.00 $536.33 49% $536.00 100% $261 17 Generator Permit - Plumbing Only Fee $275.00 $536.33 49% $536.00 100% $261 18 Generator Permit - Electric & Plumbing together (Class B license req'd) $550.00 $962.02 43% $962.00 100% $412 19 Residential Solar/PV Installation Permit (under 10kW)2 $450.00 $799.69 44% $799.00 100% $34920 Residential Property Inspections Reports - Single Family Dwelling1 $174.55 $441.95 61% $441.00 100% $266
47 EXHIBIT B
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 90, Packet Page 207 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BUILDING PERMITS & INSPECTION FEES*3 # Description
Current Fee/Charge Unit Full Cost
Current Subsidy Suggested Fee
Suggested Cost Recovery Fee Δ
21 Hourly Inspection1 $170.60 $178.36 4% $178.00 100% $7 22 Hourly Plan Check Fee1 $170.60 $178.36 4% $178.00 100% $723 Hourly Administrative Services Fee1 $111.00 $110.63 0% $110.00 100% -$124 Hourly Building Official Services Fee1 $250.00 $288.23 13% $288.00 100% $38 25 Address Change1 $88.35 $254.75 65% $254.00 100% $16626 Duplicate Job Card1 $61.41 $66.32 7% $66.00 100% $527 Revision (minimum fee - billed at hourly rates)1 $61.41 $233.68 74% $233.00 100% $17228 Residential Swimming Pool Demo/Abandonment Permit $675.00 $1,130.16 40% $1,130.00 100% $455
29 General Plan Fee 15% of building permit fee 15% NA 15% 100% $0 *Subject to 2.9% service fee. 1 Fee amount includes CPI adjustments, for applicable fees (SF, April).2 Residential solar permit fees are set by the State of California for 10kW and under3 Fees not listed above may be calculated either by using valuation or hourly estimates 48 EXHIBIT B
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 91, Packet Page 208 Low Range High Range
Current Base
Rate
Suggested Base
Rate
Current
Plus $$
Suggested
Plus $$ For every
0 2,000 106.09 112.20 0.00 0.00 1,000.00
2,000 3,000 116.06 122.75 0.00 0.00 1,000.00
3,000 25,000 116.06 122.75 33.53 35.46 1,000.00
25,000 50,000 835.93 884.09 24.20 25.59 1,000.00
50,000 100,000 1,426.48 1,508.66 16.75 17.72 1,000.00
100,000 500,000 2,244.52 2,373.83 13.42 14.20 1,000.00
500,000 1,000,000 7,483.67 7,914.81 11.38 12.03 1,000.00 1,000,000 99,999,999,999,999 13,036.83 13,787.89 7.55 7.99 1,000.00 Percent Change = 5.8%
Cost Recovery Level = 100%
Low Range High Range
Current Base
Rate
Suggested Base
Rate
Current
Plus $$
Suggested
Plus $$ For every
0 1,000 106.09 112.20 0.00 0.00 1,000.00
1,000 2,000 148.53 157.09 0.00 0.00 1,000.00
2,000 25,000 148.53 157.09 51.60 54.57 1,000.00
25,000 50,000 1,306.66 1,381.94 37.21 39.36 1,000.00
50,000 100,000 2,214.19 2,341.76 25.79 27.28 1,000.00
100,000 500,000 3,473.17 3,673.26 18.50 19.57 1,000.00
500,000 1,000,000 11,531.01 12,195.32 17.51 18.52 1,000.00 1,000,000 10,000,000,000 20,079.08 21,235.85 11.61 12.28 1,000.00 Percent Change = 5.8%
Cost Recovery Level = 100%
1 Fee amounts will include CPI adjustments from April 2024 SF CPI. *Subject to 2.9% service fee

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT - BUILDING PERMITS &
INSPECTIONS*
Plan Check - Project Valuation2
Current (All New Construction)
2 Project Valuation may require estimates by a licensed contractor subject to approval by the Building Official (max residential roofing value is $25,000)
Building Permit Fees - Project Valuation2
Current (All New Construction)
49 EXHIBIT B
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 92, Packet Page 209 LIBRARY & MUSEUMS1,2
# Description
Current Fee/Charge Unit Notes Full Cost
Current Subsidy Suggested Fee Unit Fee Δ
1 LIBRARY2 Overdue Fines - Laptop Computers No Charge NA NA No Charge $03 Overdue Fines - Telescopes No Charge NA NA No Charge $04 Lost/Damaged Materials - Books Cost of item NA NA Cost of item $0 5 Lost/Damaged Materials - Magazines $10.00 Adult NA NA $10.00 Adult $0 6 Lost/Damaged Materials - Magazines $5.00 Youth & Teen NA NA $5.00 Youth & Teen $07 Library Cards - California Resident No Charge NA NA No Charge $08 Library Cards - Out of State Resident $10.00 month $27.64 64% $25.00 $15 9 Duplicate (Replacement) Library Card No Charge NA NA No Charge $010 Photocopying Services - Library $0.25 per single-sided black & white copy NA NA $0.25 per single-sided black & white copy $0 11 Photocopying Services - Library $0.50 per single-sided color copy NA NA $0.50 per single-sided color copy $012 Microfilm copies - Library $0.25 per single-sided black & white copy electronic copy, no charge NA NA $0.25 per single-sided black & white copy $013 Print-outs from Internet Stations $0.25 per single-sided black & white copy NA NA $0.25 per single-sided black & white copy $014 Print-outs from Internet Stations $0.50 per single-sided color copy NA NA $0.50 per single-sided color copy $0 15 MUSEUMS16 Pacific Biological Laboraties3 $60.00 (private group, 1-4 people)

15.00 per additional person
$142.93 58% $100.00 (private group, 1-4 people) $40
17 Colton Hall Museum3 $60.00 (private group, 1-4 people)

15.00 per additional person
$142.93 58% $100.00 (private group, 1-4 people) $40
18 Private Event at Museums New per hour, minimum of 4 hours NA NA $250.00 per hour, minimum of 4 hours NA 19 Presidio of Monterey Museum3 $60.00 (private group, 1-4 people)

15.00 per additional person
$142.93 NA $100.00 (private group, 1-4 people) $40
20 Commercial and Private Photography and
Filming inside Historic Buildings4 $50.00 per hour, minimum of 4 hours $142.93 65% $100.00 per hour, minimum of 4 hours $50 21 Fees for document delivery, color internet prints, & duplication of California History Room photos and other archival materials. 22 Library - Publication, Distribution, or Commercial use of images. Existing files. (For profit) $15.00 each $71.47 44% $40.00 each $25 23 Library - Publication, Distribution, or Commercial use of images. New files. (For profit) $30.00 each $71.47 30% $50.00 each $20 50 EXHIBIT B
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 93, Packet Page 210 LIBRARY & MUSEUMS1,2
# Description
Current Fee/Charge Unit Notes Full Cost
Current Subsidy Suggested Fee Unit Fee Δ
24 Library - Publication, Distribution, or Commercial use of images. Existing files. (Non-profit) $10.00 each $42.88 18% $35.00 each $25 25 Library - Publication, Distribution, or Commercial use of images. New files. (Non-profit) $20.00 each $71.47 44% $40.00 each $20 28 Museums - Publication, Distribution, or Commercial use of images. Existing files. (For profit) $15.00 each $44.23 10% $40.00 each $25 29 Museums -Publication, Distribution, or Commercial use of images. New files. (For profit) $30.00 each $55.28 10% $50.00 each $20 30 Museums - Publication, Distribution, or Commercial use of images. Existing files. (Non-profit) $10.00 each $44.23 21% $35.00 each $25 31 Museums - Publication, Distribution, or Commercial use of images. New files. (Non-profit) $20.00 each $55.28 28% $40.00 each $20 4Commercial filming also requires a film permit through the City of Monterey. Hourly cost for staff monitor of City facilities. 1The Library and Museums Director is authorized to set fees for Museum activities, programs and services, subject to the following standards:

EXHIBIT B
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 94, Packet Page 211 MONTEREY CONFERENCE CENTER*
# Description Current Fee/Charge Unit Notes Full Cost
Current
Subsidy Suggested Fee Suggested Cost Recovery Fee Δ
1 Room2 Serra I $5,555.00 NA NA $5,555.00 fees set by resolution $0 3 Serra II $4,585.00 NA NA $4,585.00 fees set by resolution $0 4 Serra I, II $10,140.00 NA NA $10,140.00 fees set by resolution $0 5 Serra Lobby $1,370.00 NA NA $1,370.00 fees set by resolution $0 6 Steinbeck I $1,780.00 NA NA $1,780.00 fees set by resolution $07 Steinbeck II $1,440.00 NA NA $1,440.00 fees set by resolution $08 Steinbeck III $1,695.00 NA NA $1,695.00 fees set by resolution $09 Steinbeck I, II, III $5,000.00 NA NA $5,000.00 fees set by resolution $010 Steinbeck I - A $1,080.00 NA NA $1,080.00 fees set by resolution $0 11 Steinbeck I - B $1,080.00 NA NA $1,080.00 fees set by resolution $012 Steinbeck I - C $1,080.00 NA NA $1,080.00 fees set by resolution $013 Steinbeck Lobby $1,080.00 NA NA $1,080.00 fees set by resolution $014 Colton I, II or III $630.00 NA NA $630.00 fees set by resolution $0 15 Colton I, II & III $1,890.00 NA NA $1,890.00 fees set by resolution $0 16 Jeffers Plaza $1,805.00 NA NA $1,805.00 fees set by resolution $0 17 Stevenson I $765.00 NA NA $765.00 fees set by resolution $0 18 Stevenson II $765.00 NA NA $765.00 fees set by resolution $019 Stevenson Terrace $1,510.00 NA NA $1,510.00 fees set by resolution $0 20 Delmonte Terrace $1,370.00 NA NA $1,370.00 fees set by resolution $021 Room - NON-PROFIT FEE22 Serra I $4,445.00 NA NA $4,445.00 fees set by resolution $023 Serra II $3,670.00 NA NA $3,670.00 fees set by resolution $024 Serra I, II $8,115.00 NA NA $8,115.00 fees set by resolution $025 Serra Lobby $1,095.00 NA NA $1,095.00 fees set by resolution $026 Steinbeck I $1,425.00 NA NA $1,425.00 fees set by resolution $027 Steinbeck II $1,150.00 NA NA $1,150.00 fees set by resolution $028 Steinbeck III $1,355.00 NA NA $1,355.00 fees set by resolution $0 29 Steinbeck I, II, III $4,000.00 NA NA $4,000.00 fees set by resolution $030 Steinbeck I - A $865.00 NA NA $865.00 fees set by resolution $031 Steinbeck I - B $865.00 NA NA $865.00 fees set by resolution $032 Steinbeck I - C $865.00 NA NA $865.00 fees set by resolution $033 Steinbeck Lobby $865.00 NA NA $865.00 fees set by resolution $0 34 Colton I, II or III $505.00 NA NA $505.00 fees set by resolution $0 35 Colton I, II & III $1,515.00 NA NA $1,515.00 fees set by resolution $036 Jeffers Plaza $1,445.00 NA NA $1,445.00 fees set by resolution $0 37 Stevenson I $610.00 NA NA $610.00 fees set by resolution $0 38 Stevenson II $610.00 NA NA $610.00 fees set by resolution $039 Stevenson Terrace $1,210.00 NA NA $1,210.00 fees set by resolution $0 40 Delmonte Terrace $1,095.00 NA NA $1,095.00 fees set by resolution $041 Daily Equipment & Service Fees* 52 EXHIBIT B
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 95, Packet Page 212 MONTEREY CONFERENCE CENTER*
# Description Current Fee/Charge Unit Notes Full Cost
Current
Subsidy Suggested Fee Suggested Cost Recovery Fee Δ
42 Equipment43 5x7 pad w/pen or pencil $26.00 /dozen NA NA $26.00 fees set by resolution $044 6' or 8' Table (Availability based on inventory) $18.00 NA NA $18.00 fees set by resolution $045 Table w/linen only $23.00 NA NA $35.00 fees set by resolution $1246 Table w/linen & skirt $30.00 NA NA $50.00 fees set by resolution $2047 Linen - refresh $6.00 NA NA $6.00 fees set by resolution $0 48 Table Skirt - refresh $38.00 (cost to dry clean) NA NA $38.00 fees set by resolution $049 Podium $30.00 /day NA NA $30.00 fees set by resolution $050 Dance Floor/15x15 or larger $350.00 per event NA NA $350.00 fees set by resolution $0 51 Dance Floor/15x15 or smaller $150.00 per event NA NA $150.00 fees set by resolution $0 52 Pipe & Drape (2 bases) $20.00 NA NA $25.00 fees set by resolution $5 53 Stanchion (2 bases) $10.00 per section NA NA $10.00 fees set by resolution $054 Chair, banquet $5.00 NA NA $5.00 fees set by resolution $055 Talk show style Table $75.00 /day NA NA $75.00 fees set by resolution $056 Talk show style Chair $75.00 /day NA NA $75.00 fees set by resolution $057 Barstool $15.00 NA NA $20.00 fees set by resolution $558 Coatrack $30.00 NA NA $30.00 fees set by resolution $059 Outdoor Heater $45.00 includes propane NA NA $75.00 fees set by resolution $30 60 Water Dispenser $45.00 NA NA $45.00 fees set by resolution $0 61 5 gal Water refills $25.00 NA NA $25.00 fees set by resolution $062 Services63 Labor Fees64 Including but not limited to: removing decorations, additional room refreshes, airwall open/close, room turns or damage repairs $50.00 /hr per person $113.73 56% $75.00 fees set by resolution $25 65 Pallet Disposal-If Pallets are left and not taken by vendor $300.00 /Pallet NA NA $300.00 fees set by resolution $0 66 Room Turns67 Steinbeck Ia, Ib, Ic $50.00 /section NA NA $150.00 fees set by resolution $10068 Steinbeck II, III $150.00 per section $300.00 50% $300.00 fees set by resolution $15069 Colton $50.00 per section $150.00 67% $150.00 fees set by resolution $10070 Serra I $450.00 minimum NA NA $475.00 fees set by resolution $25 71 Serra II (Based On Setup Requirements) $400.00 minimum NA NA $400.00 fees set by resolution $0 72 Serra Carpet Replacement $125.00 per 3x3 section + labor $150.00 17% $150.00 fees set by resolution $2573 Re-Key Lock + (1) Key $75.00 NA NA $75.00 fees set by resolution $074 Additional Keys $25.00 each NA NA $25.00 fees set by resolution $075 Unreturned Keys $25.00 each NA NA $75.00 fees set by resolution $50 53 EXHIBIT B
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 96, Packet Page 213 MONTEREY CONFERENCE CENTER*
# Description Current Fee/Charge Unit Notes Full Cost
Current
Subsidy Suggested Fee Suggested Cost Recovery Fee Δ
76 Banner installation $50.00 each
Oversized banners may not be accommodated
$85.30 41% $75.00 fees set by resolution $25
77 Shipment per cardboard box $25.00 day to store
(5 boxes for the RENTER is complimentary with receipt no earlier than 2 days prior to move in) NA NA $75.00 fees set by resolution $50
78 Shipment, oversized $110.00 /day to store NA NA $75.00 fees set by resolution -$3583 Office Supplies/Services**84 Office Services/Supplies Cost + 25% ($5.00 minimum) NA NA $75.00 fees set by resolution NA85 25% will be added to all outside services added to MCC Final bill NA NA $75.00 fees set by resolution $7586 Customized Display Moniter 25" $25.00 $30.00 17% $30.00 fees set by resolution $587 Customized Display Moniter 65" $100.00 $125.00 20% $125.00 fees set by resolution $2588 Commercial Filming Permit $350 - $1000 per day NA NA $350 - $1000 $0 Notes regarding MCC fees:

1. Published Rates: from $0.38/sq foot for Ballrooms to $1.09/square foot for Stevenson Rooms.2. Non-Profit Rates: 20% off published rates for Monterey County 501 (c)(3) Organizations.3. Future rates beyond FY22 increase between 3-5% annually, not to exceed 5%.4. Rates are rounded off to the nearest $5.5. Rates are on a fiscal basis July 1 through June 30.*Subject to 2.9% Service Fee.**25% will be added to all outside services added to MCC Final bill 54 EXHIBIT B
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 97, Packet Page 214

PARKING
# Description FY25/26 Current Fee/Charge Unit Full Cost Current
Subsidy FY26/27 Suggested Fee
Suggested Cost
Recovery
1 PARKING - PERMITS2 Cannery Row Garage $52.50/mo, $150.00/qtr, $540.00/yr NA NA $52.50/mo, $150.00/qtr, $540.00/yr fees set by resolution3 West Custom House Garage $52.50/mo, $150.00/qtr, $540.00/yr NA NA $52.50/mo, $150.00/qtr, $540.00/yr fees set by resolution4 East Custom House Garage $52.50/mo, $150.00/qtr, $540.00/yr NA NA $52.50/mo, $150.00/qtr, $540.00/yr fees set by resolution5 Waterfront Lot $52.50/mo, $150.00/qtr, $540.00/yr NA NA $52.50/mo, $150.00/qtr, $540.00/yr fees set by resolution6 Wharf II $52.50/mo, $150.00/qtr, $540.00/yr NA NA $52.50/mo, $150.00/qtr, $540.00/yr fees set by resolution 7 Red Wharf Permits - $150.00/qtr NA NA Permits - $150.00/qtr fees set by resolution8 Depot Lot Figueroa / Del Monte $52.50/mo, $150.00/qtr, $540.00/yr NA NA $52.50/mo, $150.00/qtr, $540.00/yr fees set by resolution9 Upper 7 $52.50/mo, $150.00/qtr, $540.00/yr NA NA $52.50/mo, $150.00/qtr, $540.00/yr fees set by resolution10 Lot #4 Franklin / Van Buren $52.50/mo, $150.00/qtr, $540.00/yr NA NA $52.50/mo, $150.00/qtr, $540.00/yr fees set by resolution11 Lot #6 Wharf $162.50/mo, $480.00/qtr, $1,728.00/yr NA NA $162.50/mo, $480.00/qtr, $1,728.00/yr fees set by resolution12 Lot #8 Franklin / Pierce $52.50/mo, $150.00/qtr, $540.00/yr NA NA $52.50/mo, $150.00/qtr, $540.00/yr fees set by resolution13 Lot #11 Franklin / Pierce $82.50/mo, $240.00/qtr, $864.00/yr NA NA $82.50/mo, $240.00/qtr, $864.00/yr fees set by resolution14 Lot #14 Bonifacio / Adams $52.50/mo, $150.00/qtr, $540.00/yr NA NA $52.50/mo, $150.00/qtr, $540.00/yr fees set by resolution15 Lot #18 Van Buren / Jefferson $52.50/mo, $150.00/qtr, $540.00/yr NA NA $52.50/mo, $150.00/qtr, $540.00/yr fees set by resolution16 Lot #21 Foam / Cannery Row $52.50/mo, $150.00/qtr, $540.00/yr NA NA $52.50/mo, $150.00/qtr, $540.00/yr fees set by resolution17 Lot B Calle Principal / Pearl $82.50/mo, $240.00/qtr, $864.00/yr NA NA $82.50/mo, $240.00/qtr, $864.00/yr fees set by resolution 18 New Monterey Employee Permit Permits - $32.50/mo, $90.00/qtr NA NA Permits - $32.50/mo, $90.00/qtr fees set by resolution19 Monterey Resident Discount Decal $20.00/yr 2 hours free in Downtown Garages (West and East), Waterfront Lot and Cannery Row Garage NA NA
$20.00/yr 2 hours free in Downtown Garages (West and East), Waterfront Lot and Cannery Row Garage fees set by resolution
55 EXHIBIT B
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 98, Packet Page 215

PARKING
# Description FY25/26 Current Fee/Charge Unit Full Cost Current
Subsidy FY26/27 Suggested Fee
Suggested Cost
Recovery
20 Employee Voucher Parking Program Cannery Row & Downtown Garages 20 entries - $50.00 Valid in Downtown Garages (East and West) and Cannery Row Garage NA NA 20 entries - $50.00 Valid in Downtown Garages (East and West) and Cannery Row Garage fees set by resolution21 Construction Daily Permit $15.00 Downtown $25.00 Waterfront / Cannery Row NA NA $15.00 Downtown $25.00 Waterfront / Cannery Row fees set by resolution22 Reserved Parking (Citywide) space per day $25.00 /space per day NA NA $25.00 fees set by resolution 23 Reserved Parking (Citywide) space for display $55.00 /space for display NA NA $55.00 fees set by resolution24 PARKING - RATES1 25 Downtown:26 Lot 7, Calle Principal Garage Lower $1.50/hour, $8.00 all day NA NA $1.50/hour, $8.00 all day fees set by resolution27 Lot 7, Calle Principal Garage Upper $1.50/hour, $8.00 all day NA NA $1.50/hour, $8.00 all day fees set by resolution28 Downtown West Garage 1st hour free, $1.00/30 min or fraction thereof. $12.00 daily max NA NA 1st hour free, $1.00/30 min or fraction thereof. $12.00 daily max fees set by resolution29 Downtown East Garage 1st hour free, $1.00/30 min or fraction thereof. $12.00 daily max NA NA 1st hour free, $1.00/30 min or fraction thereof. $12.00 daily max fees set by resolution30 Monterey Sports Center Lot3,4 No Fee, 2-hour time limit NA NA No Fee, 2-hour time limit fees set by resolution 31 Lot 4, Franklin & Van Buren $1.50/hour $8.00 all day NA NA $1.50/hour $8.00 all day fees set by resolution 32 Lot 8, Franklin & Pierce $1.50/hour NA NA $1.50/hour fees set by resolution33 Lot B, Calle P. & Pearl permit only NA NA permit only fees set by resolution34 Lot 11, Calle P. and Pearl $1.50/hour, $8.00 all day NA NA $1.50/hour, $8.00 all day fees set by resolution35 Lot 14, Bonifacio & Adams $1.50/hour, $8.00 all day NA NA $1.50/hour, $8.00 all day fees set by resolution36 Lot 18, Van Buren & Jefferson permit only NA NA permit only fees set by resolution 37 Cannery Row:38 Meters, Cannery Row (Zone 1) $2.00/hour NA NA $2.25/hour fees set by resolution39 Meters, Wave (Zone 2) $2.00/hour NA NA $2.00/hour fees set by resolution40 Meters, Foam (Zone 3) $1.75/hour NA NA $1.75/hour fees set by resolution 56 EXHIBIT B
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 99, Packet Page 216

PARKING
# Description FY25/26 Current Fee/Charge Unit Full Cost Current
Subsidy FY26/27 Suggested Fee
Suggested Cost
Recovery
41 CR1, Foam & Hoffman Flat rate pricing or hourly rate structure based on demand and season. $5.00 - $22.00 daily max NA NA Flat rate pricing or hourly rate structure based on demand and season. $5.00 - $22.00 daily max fees set by resolution42 CR7, Foam & Irving $20/daily max, $5.00 after 5pm NA NA $20/daily max, $5.00 after 5pm fees set by resolution43 Lot 24, C.R. & Foam - Meters (Zone 3) $1.75/hour NA NA $1.75/hour fees set by resolution44 Lot 21, C.R. & Foam2 $2.00/hour, $14.00 daily max Double space $2.50/hour, $22.00 daily max NA NA $2.00/hour, $14.50 daily max Double space $3.00/hour, $23.00 daily max
fees set by resolution
45 San Carlos Beach Lot $2.00/hour, $14.00 daily max NA NA $2.00/hour, $14.50 daily max fees set by resolution46 Coast Guard Pier (Breakwater)2 $2.00/hour, $14 daily max Double space $2.50/hour, $22.00 daily max NA NA $2.00/hour, $14.50 daily max Double space $3.00/hour, $23.00 daily max
fees set by resolution
47 Waterfront:48 Waterfront Lot 1 2,4 $2.00/hour, $14 daily max Double space $2.50/hour, $22.00 daily max NA NA $2.00/hour, $14.50 daily max Double space $3.00/hour, $23.00 daily max
fees set by resolution
49 Marina Lot Combined into Waterfront Lot 1 with completion of Phase2 of Waterfront Area Improvement Project NA NA Combined into Waterfront Lot 1 with completion of Phase2 of Waterfront Area Improvement Project fees set by resolution 50 Depot Lot , Figueroa2 $2.00/hour, $14 daily max Double space $2.50/hour, $22.00 daily max NA NA $2.00/hour, $14.50 daily max Double space $3.00/hour, $23.00 daily max
fees set by resolution
51 Municipal Wharf II $2.00/hour, $14.00 daily max NA NA $2.00/hour, $14.50 daily max fees set by resolution52 Lot 6, Waterfront no fee, loading/unloading zone only NA NA no fee, loading/unloading zone only fees set by resolution53 Southern Pacific (SP) Lot Combined into Waterfront Lot 1 with completion of Phase2 of Waterfront Area Improvement Project NA NA Combined into Waterfront Lot 1 with completion of Phase2 of Waterfront Area Improvement Project fees set by resolution 54 East Depot Lot/Gravel side2 $2.00/hour, $14.00 daily max Double space $2.50/hour, $22 daily max NA NA $2.00/hour, $14.50 daily max Double space $3.00/hour, $23 daily max fees set by resolution 55 Monterey Bay Park (MB7)2 $2.00/hour, $14.00 daily max Double space $2.50/hour, $22.00 daily max NA NA $2.00/hour, $14.50 daily max Double space $3.00/hour, $23 daily max fees set by resolution56 Electric Vehicle Charging Rates:57 Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging, PER KWH $0.36 NA NA $0.36 fees set by resolution58 Idle Fee After Designated Grace Period, PER MINUTE $0.50 NA NA $0.50 fees set by resolution
57 EXHIBIT B
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 100, Packet Page 217

PARKING
# Description FY25/26 Current Fee/Charge Unit Full Cost Current
Subsidy FY26/27 Suggested Fee
Suggested Cost
Recovery
59 Administrative Fee $15.00 NA NA $15.00 fees set by resolution Notes Regarding Parking Fees:2. Wharf II permits shall only be issued to those who have boats at A or H Tier and must be verified with the Harbormaster.3. Permit fees are non-refundable. If you desire to change your billing option, it will become effective the following quarter. You may not switch billing options during the quarter.4. A replacement fee of $10 per permit will be charged for lost or stolen paper permits.5. Grace periods: Monthly Permits - 2 days, Quarterly Permits - 5 days, Annual Permits - 10 days6. Permit Pro-rate Information: Monthly - on the 15th of each month, Quarterly - on the 1st and 15th of each month, Annual - None.7. Monterey Residents may purchase a decal for $20/year that will allow them two hour parking in the Downtown Garages, Cannery Row Garage and the Waterfront Lot.8. Effective 01/01/09, the monthly charge for a net storage in the Depot Lot shall be $50/space. 9. Boot Removal Fee is $75.00.10. The City Manager or their designee shall have the authority to set a flat parking rate in any attendant parking facility up to the approved maximum daily rate for said facility.11. The City Manager or their designee shall have the authority to negotiate and set fees for any City parking facility for special events or functions.1. A refundable $5.00 deposit for the permit entry card and card programming will be required in addition to the permit fee. Please note, if payment is received after the grace period, a reactivation fee of $5.00 per permit will be charged.
58 EXHIBIT B
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 101, Packet Page 218

PARKS & RECREATION
# Description
Current
Fee/Charge
Current Monterey
Resident Fee Unit Notes Full Cost
Current Subsidy Suggested Fee
Suggested
Monterey Resident Fee Fee Δ
1 Permits/Facility Rentals2 1. Group Picnic Permit $90.00 81.00 NA NA $100.00 $90.00 $103 2. El Estero Park Group Picnic Permit $120.00 108.00 NA NA $135.00 $121.50 $15 4 3. Veteran's Memorial Park Group Area 2 Picnic Permit $120.00 108.00 NA NA $135.00 $121.50 $155 4. Group Beach Permit $90.00 81.00 NA NA $100.00 $90.00 $106 5. Group Beach Permit/Commercial $230.00 230.00 NA NA $250.00 $250.00 $207 6. Beach Wedding Permit $650.00 650.00 NA NA $700.00 $700.00 $508

7. Beach/Park Annual Use Permit For Small Group Activities Incl. Picnics/Teambuilding/Instructional Classes/Camps/Fitness Or Athletic Training (groups of 15 or less)- Commercial $850.00 765.00 NA NA $950.00 $855.00 $100
9 8. Beach/Park Annual Use Permit For Small Group Activities Incl. Picnics/Teambuilding/Instructional Classes/Camps/Fitness Or Athletic Training (groups of 15 or less)- Nonprofit $270.00 270.00 NA NA $300.00 $300.00 $30
10 9. Sport Court Permit (eg., Volleyball, Basketball, Tennis) - PER DAY $70.00 63.00 NA NA $75.00 $67.50 $511 10. Bounce House/Inflatable Permit $55.00 55.00 NA NA $55.00 $55.00 $012 11. Wedding Event Permit - Colton Hall Lawn Or Friendly Plaza - Per Location $230.00 207.00 NA NA $250.00 $225.00 $2013 12. Event Permit (Per Day) $650.00 650.00 NA NA $700.00 $700.00 $5014 13. Event/Park Closure Permit (Per Day) $1,500.00 1,500.00 NA NA $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $015 14. Meeting Room Use - Nonprofit (During Community Center Operating Hours) - Per Hour Fee $30.00 30.00 NA NA $30.00 $30.00 $0
16 15. Meeting Room Use - Nonprofit (During Community Center Non-Operating Hours) - Per Hour Fee w/ 2 Hour Minimum $60.00 60.00 NA NA $60.00 $60.00 $017 16. Facility Rental – Community Centers Private Party Use -Per Hour Fee w/ 2 Hour Minimum $160.00 144.00 NA NA $160.00 $144.00 $0
18 17. Waterfront Community Room Rental Permit - Nonprofit - Per Hour Fee $80.00 80.00 NA NA $80.00 $80.00 $019 18. Ballpark Event Permit20 Day Use $650.00 650.00 NA NA $700.00 $700.00 $50 21 Hourly Use $65.00 65.00 NA NA $70.00 $70.00 $522 Lights Use - Per Hour Fee $30.00 30.00 NA NA $30.00 $30.00 $023 19. Ballpark Use Fee Practice - Per Hour Fee w/ 2 Hour Minimum $30.00 27.00 NA NA $35.00 $31.50 $524 20. Parks & Recreation Commission Appeal Process $179.00 179.00 NA NA $179.00 $179.00 $025 Monterey Sports Center26 Drop-In Admission:27 Youth (3-12 Years) $11.00 10.00 NA NA $12.00 $11.00 $128 Teen (13-17 Years) $12.00 11.00 NA NA $13.00 $12.00 $129 Adult (18-61 Years) $16.00 15.00 NA NA $17.00 $16.00 $130 Senior (62 And Older) $11.00 10.00 NA NA $12.00 $11.00 $131 Nonprofit Group Drop-in (per person) New New NA NA $10.00 $10.00 NA 32 10-Visit Pass:33 Youth (3-12 Years) $110.00 100.00 NA NA $120.00 $110.00 $10 34 Teen (13-17 Years) $120.00 110.00 NA NA $130.00 $120.00 $1035 Adult (18-61 Years) $160.00 150.00 NA NA $170.00 $160.00 $10 59 EXHIBIT B
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 102, Packet Page 219

PARKS & RECREATION
# Description
Current
Fee/Charge
Current Monterey
Resident Fee Unit Notes Full Cost
Current Subsidy Suggested Fee
Suggested
Monterey Resident Fee Fee Δ
36 Senior (62 And Older) $110.00 100.00 NA NA $120.00 $110.00 $10 37 Subscription/Auto Billing (1 Month):38 Youth (9-12 Years) $38.00 34.20 NA NA $42.00 $37.80 $439 Teen (13-17 Years) $42.00 37.80 NA NA $46.00 $41.40 $440 Adult (18-61 Years) $68.00 61.20 NA NA $75.00 $67.50 $741 Senior (62 And Older) $50.00 45.00 NA NA $55.00 $49.50 $542 Family* $100.00 90.00 NA NA $110.00 $99.00 $1043 Membership (1 Year):44 Youth (9-12 Years) $410.00 369.00 NA NA $450.00 $405.00 $40 45 Teen (13-17 Years) $470.00 423.00 NA NA $520.00 $468.00 $50 46 Adult (18-61 Years) $750.00 675.00 NA NA $825.00 $742.50 $7547 Senior (62 And Older) $550.00 495.00 NA NA $605.00 $544.50 $5548 Family* $1,100.00 990.00 NA NA $1,210.00 $1,089.00 $110 49 Business/Corporate Fee (minimum 5 employees):50 Membership (1 Year) $624.00 624.00 NA NA $685.00 $685.00 $6151 Membership (Monthly) $52.00 52.00 NA NA $57.00 $57.00 $552 Facility Rental (Staff Time Additional)53 Folding Chairs (5 chairs) New New NA NA $15.00 $15.00 NA 54 Table New New NA NA $15.00 $15.00 NA
55 WIBIT Rental New New NA NA $150.00 $150.00 NA56 During Non-Operating Hours:57 Pool - First 2 Hours $340.00 306.00 NA NA $400.00 $360.00 $60 58 Additional Hour $150.00 135.00 NA NA $175.00 $157.50 $2559 Gym - First 2 Hours $340.00 306.00 NA NA $400.00 $360.00 $6060 Additional Hour $150.00 135.00 NA NA $175.00 $157.50 $2561 Pool & Gym - First 2 Hours $520.00 468.00 NA NA $575.00 $517.50 $5562 Additional Hour $250.00 225.00 NA NA $275.00 $247.50 $2563 During Operating Hours:64 Pool Lane Rental - Per Hour Fee $25.00 22.50 NA NA $30.00 $27.00 $565 Gymnasium Court Rental- Per Hour Fee $50.00 45.00 NA NA $60.00 $54.00 $10 66 Studio Rental- Per Hour Fee $100.00 90.00 NA NA $125.00 $112.50 $2567 Conference Room Rental- Per Hour Fee $30.00 27.00 NA NA $50.00 $45.00 $2068 Party w/ 20 guests (during available operating hours) New New NA NA $250.00 $250.00 NA 69 Party w/ 30 guests (during available operating hours) New New NA NA $325.00 $325.00 NA 70 Party w/ 40 guests (during available operating hours) New New NA NA $400.00 $400.00 NA 71 Veteran's Memorial Park Campground: Veteran's Memorial Park Campground fees are rounded to the nearest whole dollar. 72 Campsite With 1 Vehicle $47.00 47.00 NA NA $50.00 $50.00 $373 Additional Vehicle $13.00 13.00 NA NA $15.00 $15.00 $274 Each Bicycle - Hiker Campsite $10.00 10.00 NA NA $10.00 $10.00 $075 Overnight Youth Group Area - Per Person Fee 76 Overnight Youth Group Area 3 - Per Person Fee $10.00 10.00 NA NA $10.00 $10.00 $0 77 Overnight Youth Group Area 2 - Per Person Fee $12.00 12.00 NA NA $15.00 $15.00 $3 60 EXHIBIT B
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 103, Packet Page 220

PARKS & RECREATION
# Description
Current
Fee/Charge
Current Monterey
Resident Fee Unit Notes Full Cost
Current Subsidy Suggested Fee
Suggested
Monterey Resident Fee Fee Δ
78 Active Duty & Retired U.S. Military, Disabled U.S. Veterans & Senior Age 62 And Older - (Vehicle Campsite)3 $5.00 Discount $5.00 Discount NA NA $5.00 Discount $5.00 Discount $0 79 Active Duty & Retired U.S. Military, Disabled U.S. Veteran & Senior Age 62 And Older - (Hiker Campsite)3 $2.00 Discount $2.00 Discount NA NA $2.00 Discount $2.00 Discount $0 80 Shower Fee For Campers & Non-Campers (5 minute shower) $4.00 4.00 NA NA $4.00 $4.00 $0 81 Dump Station Fee - Per Use (1 dump station use included per stay.) $13.00 13.00 NA NA $15.00 $15.00 $2 82 Recreational Vehicle Surcharge - Per Night Fee $6.00 6.00 NA NA $10.00 $10.00 $483 Urban Forestry84 Non-Development Tree Permits:85 Tree View Trimming Permit - City or Private Tree1 $128.50 $276.24 53% $276.00 $148 86 Tree Removal Permit Fee - Dead and Dying1 $0.00 NA NA $0.00 $0 87 Tree Removal Permit Fee (Non-Development)1 $160.50 $311.41 48% $311.00 $151 88 Tree Removal Permit Appeal Fee (Non-Development)1 $229.00 $1,268.12 82% $1,268.00 $1,039 * Family Membership Eligibility - 2 adults and their dependent children 20 years of age and younger that live in the same household.1 Fees will be annually adjusted per CPI (SF, April Edition) rounded to the nearest fifty cents.Notes Regarding Parks & Recreation fees:

Annually increase contribution to the Parks and Recreation Department Facility Maintenance and Improvement Fund by 1% each fiscal year until it reaches 10% in FY2031 - need to be approved by PRC and City Council. 2 To be eligible for the resident rate, the purchaser must be a resident of the City of Monterey or United States Active Duty Military as of the date of registration or for eligible employee and dependents who have access to resident rates per Memoranda of Understanding. Proof of residency, such as a driver's license or state-issued identification, utility bill or U. S. Military active duty status such as military ID is required.3 To be eligible for discounted camping rates at Veteran's Memorial Park, proof of age such as a driver's license or state-issued identification, or proof of United States Military active duty, retired or disabled veteran status is required.4 The Parks and Recreation Director may approve promotional pricing for Recreation activities, programs, and services, subject to the following standards: 1. The fee reduction must be intended to promote Recreation programs and facilities; 2. The fee reduction shall not reduce fees by more than 25%; 3. The fee reduction is publicized and open to all; and 4. The fee reduction is limited in duration. 5 The Parks and Recreation Director is authorized to set fees for Recreation activities, programs and services, subject to the following standards: 1. Recreational programs and services shall benefit both the participant and the community due to their educational, cultural, and physical value. 2. Recreational programs and services require facilities, supplies, equipment, and/or considerable staff planning and supervision specific to the program and therefore, it is appropriate to charge a fee for these programs and services. Some examples include, but are not limited to instructional programs, summer day camp, senior programs, teen programs, special events, and youth/adult athletic programs. 3. Fees will not exceed the reasonable cost to the City of providing the program, class, or service. 4. Fees will remain affordable to allow access to community members, especially youth and seniors; and 5. Contractually taught class fees will be set based on availability of instructor, instructor costs, as these programs follow city purchasing policy.6 Five percent (5%) of Parks & Recreation (P&R) Fees, which excludes P&R Commission Appeals, Cemetery, RV Storage Lot, and Urban Forestry fees, will be committed to the Facility Maintenance and Improvement Fund. 61 EXHIBIT B
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 104, Packet Page 221 PUBLIC SAFETY - FIRE*
# Description Current Fee/Charge Unit Full Cost
Current
Subsidy Suggested Fee
Suggested Cost
Recovery Fee Δ
1 Special Events Stand-by (Fire) Fully Burdened Cost NA NA Fully Burdened Cost 100% $02 First Responder Fee New NA NA $327.00 Set by Council NA 3 Engine Company Inspections (initial inspection) $0.00 NA NA $0.00 100% $0 4 Engine Company Inspections - First re-inspection $0.00 NA NA $0.00 100% $0 5 Engine Company Inspections - Subsequent re-inspections $90.00 $337.95 73% $337.00 100% $247 6 Fire Prevention Inspections - initial inspection, rough & final $0.00 NA NA $0.00 100% $0 7 Fire Prevention Inspections - Subsequent re-inspections & missed inspections $174.00 $321.20 46% $321.00 100% $147
8 Life and Safety Inspection - First and Second inspection $0.00 NA NA $0.00 100% $09 Life and Safety Inspection - Third & each subsequent re-inspection $524.00 $454.06 -15% $454.00 100% -$7010 State Mandated Community Care Facilities Inspections, Pre-Inspection Fee ≤25 occupants $174.00 $321.20 46% $321.00 100% $147 11 State Mandated Community Care Facilities Inspections, Pre-Inspection Fee ≥26 occupants $304.00 $586.92 48% $586.00 100% $282 12 State Mandated Community Care Facilities Inspections, Fire Clearance Fee 7 to 50 occupants $174.00 $321.20 46% $321.00 100% $147 13 State Mandated Community Care Facilities Inspections, Fire Clearance Fee >50 occupants $304.00 $586.92 48% $586.00 100% $282 14 State Mandated Community Care Facilities Inspections, Annual Inspection Fee 7 to 50 occupants $174.00 $321.20 46% $321.00 100% $147 15 State Mandated Community Care Facilities Inspections, Annual Inspection Fee >50 occupants $304.00 $586.92 48% $586.00 100% $282 16 High Rise Inspection $1,010.00 $1,051.93 4% $1,051.00 100% $41 17 Annual Day Care Inspections (6 or more children) $76.00 $121.90 38% $121.00 100% $4518 Fire False Alarm Response (for any 12 month period) - First False Alarm $0.00 NA NA $0.00 20% $0 19 Fire False Alarm Response (for any 12 month period) - Any Additional False Alarms1
Fully Burdened Cost/Not to exceed $12,000
NA NA
Fully Burdened Cost/Not to exceed $12,000
20% $0
20 Hazardous Materials Response Fully Burdened Cost NA NA Fully Burdened Cost 100% $0 21 DUI Incident Reimbursement1 Not to exceed $12,000 NA NA Not to exceed $12,000 65% $022 CPR Heart Saver Class - cost per student $55.00 NA NA 55.00 $023 CPR Heart Saver Skill Verification $33.00 NA NA 33.00 $024 CPR Healthcare Provider Class (BLS) - cost per student $65.00 NA NA 65.00 $025 CPR Healthcare Provider (BLS) Skill Verification $24.00 NA NA 24.00 $0 62 EXHIBIT B
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 105, Packet Page 222 PUBLIC SAFETY - FIRE*
# Description Current Fee/Charge Unit Full Cost
Current
Subsidy Suggested Fee
Suggested Cost
Recovery Fee Δ
26 CPR First Aid - cost per student $105.00 NA NA 105.00 $027 CPR First Aid Skill Verification $45.00 NA NA 45.00 $0 28 Fire Plan review and inspections, trade show set-up review $76.00 $254.76 70% $254.00 100% $178 29 Fire Plan review and inspections, Liquid Propane Gas, Medical Gas, Carbon Dioxide Gas and other Gas installations $235.00 $354.41 34% $354.00 100% $119 30 Fire Plan review and inspections, Field Inspections Fully Burdened Cost NA NA Fully Burdened Cost 100% $031 Fire Plan review and inspections, Battery Systems New $354.41 NA $354.00 100% na 32 Fire Plan review and inspections, Tent Installation (400 - 1000 sq ft) $141.00 $254.76 45% $254.00 100% $11333 Fire Plan review and inspections, Tent Installation (1000 - 2000 sq ft) $206.00 $387.63 47% $387.00 100% $181 34 Fire Plan review and inspections, Tent Installation (>2000 sq ft) $271.00 $520.49 48% $520.00 100% $249 35 Unauthorized Work Double Permit Fee NA NA Double Permit Fee 200% $0 36 Unauthorized Occupancy $100.00 NA NA $100.00 100% $0 37 Fire Code Violations New NA NA $500.00 NA
38 Fire Department Review of Building Plans, Residential 10% of Building Plan Check Fee NA NA 10% of Building Plan Check Fee 100% $0 39 Fire Department Review of Building Plans, Commercial 20% of Building Plan Check Fee NA NA 20% of Building Plan Check Fee 100% $0 40 Project Consultation Fee Fully Burdened Cost NA NA Fully Burdened Cost 100% $0 41 Expedited Plan Checks Fully Burdened Cost NA NA Fully Burdened Cost 100% $042 Fire Protection System Plan Check Fees-Fire Alarm System (1-9 Devices) $235.00 $254.76 8% $254.00 100% $19 43 Fire Protection System Plan Check Fees-Fire Alarm System (10-50 Devices) $428.00 $454.06 6% $454.00 100% $26 44 Fire Protection System Plan Check Fees-Fire Alarm System (51-100 Devices) $623.00 $653.35 5% $653.00 100% $30 45 Fire Protection System Plan Check Fees-Fire Alarm System (100+ Devices) New $852.64 NA $852.00 100% NA46 Fire Protection System Plan Check Fees-Automatic Fire Sprinkler System 1-180 Heads $428.00 + contractor cost $454.06 6% $454.00 100% $2647 Fire Protection System Plan Check Fees-Automatic Fire Sprinkler System 181-360 Heads $622.00 + contractor cost $708.82 12% $708.00 100% $8648 Fire Protection System Plan Check Fees-Automatic Fire Sprinkler System 361-540 Heads $816.00 + contractor cost $908.11 10% $908.00 100% $9249 Fire Protection System Plan Check Fees-Automatic Fire Sprinkler System 541+ Heads New $1,107.41 NA $1,107.00 100% NA 63 EXHIBIT B
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 106, Packet Page 223 PUBLIC SAFETY - FIRE*
# Description Current Fee/Charge Unit Full Cost
Current
Subsidy Suggested Fee
Suggested Cost
Recovery Fee Δ
50 Fire Protection System Plan Check Fees - Fixed Fire Protection System, other than Sprinklers (ie., spray booth, clean agent, hood system), new system $623.00 $653.35 5% $653.00 100% $30
51 Fire Protection System Plan Check Fees - Fixed Fire Protection System, other than sprinklers (ie., spray booth, cleant agent, hood system) - alteration to existing system $428.00 $454.06 6% $454.00 100% $26
52 Fire Protection System Plan Check Fees - Underground Systems (includes plan review, inspection, permit approval, system test flush) $816.00 $852.64 4% $852.00 100% $36 53 Fire Protection System Plan Check Fees - Emergency Responder Communication Coverage System $428.00 + contractor cost $719.78 41% $719.00 100% $29154 Real Estate AB38 Inspections $174.00 $321.20 46% $321.00 100% $147

1. Including but not limited to personnel, apparatus, vehicles, reports, booking.*Subject to 2.9% Service Fee 64 EXHIBIT B
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 107, Packet Page 224 PUBLIC SAFETY - POLICE*
# Description
Current
Fee/Charge Unit Notes Full Cost
Current
Subsidy Suggested Fee
Suggested Cost
Recovery Fee Δ
1 Vehicle Equipment Inspection $34.00 $205.54 83% $35.00 100% $1 2 Animal Impound Fee - altered animal 1st visit $77.00 $348.05 78% $80.00 50% $3 3 Animal Impound Fee - non-altered animal 1st visit $87.00 $348.05 75% $90.00 50% $3 4 Animal Impound Fee - altered animal 2nd visit and thereafter $92.00 $348.05 74% $95.00 50% $35 Animal Impound Fee - non-altered animal 2nd visit and thereafter $102.00 $348.05 71% $105.00 50% $36 Animal Impound Fee - daily kennel fee $35.00 $142.51 75% $40.00 50% $5 7 Fingerprints - inked card $45.00 $208.54 78% $45.00 100% $08 LiveScan service only $48.00 $254.87 81% $50.00 100% $2 9 LiveScan prints - Local (includes DOJ fee)2 $80.00 NA NA $80.00 100% $0 10 LiveScan prints - Local/Federal (includes DOJ & FBI fee)2 $97.00 NA NA $97.00 100% $011 LiveScan prints - Child Care Provision (includes DOJ & CACI fee)2 $95.00 NA NA $95.00 100% $0
12 Clearance Letter $35.00 $298.72 88% $35.00 100% $0
13 Taxicab Driver Permit $194.00 NA NA $194.00 100% $0
14 Taxicab Vehicle Permit $56.00 $93.18 40% $93.00 100% $37 15 Taxicab Driver Transfer $58.00 $93.18 38% $93.00 100% $35 16 Massage Establishment - CAMTC Certified Owner(s) $259.00 $573.82 55% $300.00 100% $4117 Massage Establishment - Non-CAMTC Certified Owner(s) $351.00 $610.82 43% $400.00 100% $49 18 Amended Massage Establishment Permit $27.00 $98.67 73% $30.00 100% $3 19 Amended Massage Establishment Permit with Livescan $92.00 NA NA $92.00 100% $020 Local Background Checks $17.00 $127.44 87% $20.00 100% $321 Security Alarm Permit $29.00 NA NA $24.00 100% -$522 Police False Alarm Response - First false alarm $0.00 $24.67 100% $0.00 20% $023 Police False Alarm Response - Second false alarm $30.00 NA NA $30.00 20% $0 24 Police False Alarm Response - Third false alarm $50.00 NA NA $50.00 20% $025 Police False Alarm Response - Fourth false alarm $75.00 NA NA $75.00 20% $0 26 Police False Alarm Response - Fifth false alarm $100.00 NA NA $100.00 20% $027 Police False Alarm Response - Sixth false alarm and thereafter $500.00 NA NA $500.00 20% $0 65 EXHIBIT B
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 108, Packet Page 225 PUBLIC SAFETY - POLICE*
# Description
Current
Fee/Charge Unit Notes Full Cost
Current
Subsidy Suggested Fee
Suggested Cost
Recovery Fee Δ
28 Police Party Disturbance Response - First response $0.00 $0.00 NA $0.00 100% $029 Police Party Disturbance Response - Second response $103.00 $197.26 48% $125.00 100% $2230 Vehicle Release $300.00 $416.81 28% $300.00 $031 Alcoholic Beverages on the Beach Permit (for 10 or fewer people) $10.00 $102.77 90% $20.00 $1032 Officer Public Service Rate (hourly)4 Fully burdened NA NA Fully burdened $0 33 CSO Public Service Rate (hourly)4 Fully burdened NA NA Fully burdened $034 DUI Incident Reimbursement3 Not to exceed $12,000 NA NA Not to exceed $12,000 $0 35 Subpoenas $24.00 $1,013.47 98% $150.00 $126

1. Adjusts annually July 1 per CPI SF April edition, rounded to nearest $1.2. Total fee comprised of service fee set by resolution ($33) and fees set by State DOJ and FBI. 3. Including but not limited to personnel, apparatus, vehicles, reports, booking.4. Based on FY23 costs.5. Commercial Filming Fee is for permit only. Additional fees apply for additional services such as road closures, police presence and parking. *Subject to 2.9% Service Fee 66 EXHIBIT B
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 109, Packet Page 226 PUBLIC WORKS & ENGINEERING*
# Description Current Fee/Charge Unit Full Cost
Current
Subsidy Suggested Fee Unit
Suggested Cost
Recovery Fee Δ
1 Encroachment Permits2 Street Opening Fee 1 $291.26 $972.75 70% $972.00 100% $681 3 Street Opening Fee with Sewer Connection 1 $588.84 $1,554.12 62% $1,554.00 100% $965 4 Temporary Encroachment Fee 1 $222.92 (plus $96/hour if review outside PPW is required) $972.75 77% $972.00 (plus $96/hour if review outside PPW is required) 100% $749 5 Permanent Encroachment Fee 1 $291.26 (plus $91/hour for inspection) $2,273.47 87% $2,273.00 (plus $194.55/hour for inspection) 100% $1,9826 Driveway or Sidewalk Encroachment Fee1 $291.26 $972.75 70% $972.00 100% $681 7 Traffic Control Fee1 $147.21 $389.10 62% $389.00 100% $2428 Public Improvement Inspection 3% of common area or dedication improvements
NA NA
3% of common area or dedication improvements
100% $0
9 PW Engineering10 Grease Interceptor Waiver Fee (360 days from City letter) $60.00 /month NA NA $60.00 /month 100% $0 11 Final Subdivision Map Check1 $872.74 $1,311.91 33% $1,311.00 100% $438 12 Sewer Connection (Twin Oaks) $420.00 /developable parcel $775.92 46% $775.00 /developable parcel 100% $35513 Standard Specification $50.00 /set NA NA $50.00 /set 100% $0 14 Street Patch Charge (asphalt only) $16.50 /square foot $778.20 98% $778.00 /square foot 100% $762 15 Other $0.00 NA NA $0.00 100% $0
16 Banner 1 $218.71 $389.10 44% $389.00 100% $170
17 Storm Water Review and Inspection Fee (plus
$99/hour)1 $381.69 $15,652.17 98% $15,652.00 100% $15,270 18 Storm Water - Developer Design Review1 $2,584.57 $15,655.58 83% $15,655.00 100% $13,070 67 EXHIBIT B
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 110, Packet Page 227 PUBLIC WORKS & ENGINEERING*
# Description Current Fee/Charge Unit Full Cost
Current
Subsidy Suggested Fee Unit
Suggested Cost
Recovery Fee Δ
19 Miscellaneous - Public Improvement Design Service or Plan Check $111.00 /hour NA NA $111.00 /hour 100% $020 Sidewalk Maintenance and Repairs New $389.10 NA $389.00 100% NA 21 Penalties: Public Works penalty for work in public right-of-way or grading without a permit New $0.00 NA $2,000.00 100% NA 22 Penalties: Code violation illegal project, penalty fee may be applieddaily New / day $0.00 NA $200.00 / day 100% NA
23 Encroachment Permit Application – Major Work (road closures, traffic control, more than 500 linear feet of work, etc.) New Deposit T&M NA NA $10,000.00 Deposit T&M 100% NA
1Fee amount includes CPI adjustments, for applicable fees (SF, April).*Subject to 2.9% service fee. 68 EXHIBIT B
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 111, Packet Page 228

PUBLIC WORKS - SEWER
# Description
Current
Fee/Charge Unit
1 Category2 Residential Sewer Charge1 $16.93
3 Multi-Residential/Condo Sewer
Charge1 $12.38
4 Sewer Connection Fee2 $3,617.00 Dwelling Unit5 Non-residential Sewer Charges 1(per one unit of sewer charge) 6 Business/Government (1-10 employees) $13.03 Location/Each Business 7 Business/Government (11-20 employees) $26.08 Location/Each Business8 Business/Government (21-30 employees) $39.29 Location/Each Business9 Business/Government (31-40 employees) $52.32 Location/Each Business10 Business/Government (41-50 employees) $65.35 Location/Each Business11 Business/Government (51-60 employees) $78.40 Location/Each Business12 Business/Government (61-70 employees) $91.60 Location/Each Business13 Business/Government (71-80 employees) $104.63 Location/Each Business14 Business/Government (81-90 employees) $117.66 Location/Each Business15 Business/Government (91-100 employees) $130.69 Location/Each Business16 Business/Government (101-110 employees) $143.92 Location/Each Business 69 EXHIBIT B
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 112, Packet Page 229

PUBLIC WORKS - SEWER
# Description
Current
Fee/Charge Unit
17 Business/Government (111-120 employees) $156.95 Location/Each Business18 Business/Government (141-150 employees) $196.21 Location/Each Business19 Business/Government (171-180 employees) $235.33 Location/Each Business20 Business/Government (181-190 employees) $248.53 Location/Each Business21 Business/Government (210-220 employees) $287.64 Location/Each Business22 Business/Government (271-280 employees) $365.52 Location/Each Business23 Business/Government (721-730 employees) $954.71 Location/Each Business24 Hotel/Motel $7.28 Each Room25 Supermarket $71.45 Each Location 26 Medical Office $17.44 Each Licensed Physician27 Dental Office $24.04 Each Licensed Dentist28 Rest Home/Convalescent $4.91 Each Bed of Licensed Capacity29 Animal Hospital $32.68 Location/Each Licensed Business 30 Restaurant - 1 Meal/day $0.67 Each Restaurant Seat31 Restaurant - 2 Meals/day $1.02 Each Restaurant Seat32 Restaurant - 3 Meals/day $1.86 Each Restaurant Seat33 Restaurant with Bar $1.86 Each Restaurant Seat34 Bar $28.44 Location/Each Business35 Night Club $85.15 Location/Each Business36 Take-Out Small $31.66 Location/Each Business37 Take-Out Medium $78.05 Location/Each Business 70 EXHIBIT B
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 113, Packet Page 230

PUBLIC WORKS - SEWER
# Description
Current
Fee/Charge Unit
38 Take-Out Large $142.22 Location/Each Business39 Bakery $25.73 Location/Each Business40 Theatre $42.16 Per screen @ each Location41 Gym - 500 Members $13.03 Location/Each Business42 Mortuary $34.70 Location/Each Business43 School - Minimum $13.03 Location/Each Business44 School - Pre-Grade 6 $0.17 School Population45 School - Grade 7 - College $0.35 School Population46 School - Boarding $3.55 School Population47 Instructional Facility $13.03 School Population48 Church - 1-100 Members $13.03 Location/Each Business49 Church - Over 100 Members $26.08 Location/Each Business50 Photo Developer $13.03 Location/Each Business51 Laboratory - 10 Employees $13.03 Location/Each Business52 Laboratory - 20 Employees $26.08 Location/Each Business53 Printer - 10 Employees $13.03 Location/Each Business54 Printer - 20 Employees $26.08 Location/Each Business55 Garage/Repair $12.53 Location/Each Business56 Paint Shop - 10 Employees $13.03 Location/Each Business57 Paint Shop - 20 Employees $26.08 Location/Each Business58 Dry Cleaner $43.34 Location/Each Business59 Laundromat $11.35 Each Washing Machine *Subject to 2.9% Service Fee1 All sewer charge rates per City Council Resolution No. 24-096. Sewer Connection Fee per City Council Resolution No. 11-113.2 Annual increases effective July 1 each year, per Construction Cost Index (MRWPCA ordinance for Dec). 71 EXHIBIT B
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 114, Packet Page 231 27368 Via Industria, Suite 200
Temecula, California 92590-4856
800.755.6864 | Fax: 888.326.6864
951.587.3500 | Fax: 951.587.3510
www.willdan.com

EXHIBIT B
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 115, Packet Page 232 Council
Agenda Report
№12/25
FROM: Brette Neal, Human Resources Director
SUBJECT: Receive a Report on Compliance with Assembly Bill 2561/Government Code Section 3502.3 regarding Vacancies, Recruitment and Retention Efforts (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20 Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5 Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council receive a report on the City of
Monterey’s vacancies, and recruitment and retention
efforts
VALUE DRIVERS:

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

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

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE
ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

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

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

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

Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to Agenda Report Highlights
• The City of Monterey provided this
report to comply with Assembly Bill
2561 regarding the status of job
vacancies and recruitment efforts.
• As of May 1, 2026, the City has 69.5
vacant full-time equivalent positions
across seven labor groups.
• The Management Employees'
Association is the only group
exceeding a 20% average vacancy
rate, triggering additional reporting
requirements.
• Recruitment challenges include
lengthy multi-step processes and
limited candidate availability for
specialized or senior-level roles.
• Staff are implementing strategies
like streamlined examinations and
expanded advertising to improve
hiring timelines and expand
applicant pools.

Date: 5/19/2026
Item No.: 14.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 1, Packet Page 233 №12/25
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:

No other alternatives were considered.

DISCUSSION:

1. Background
Assembly Bill (“AB”) 2561, effective January 1, 2025, requires public agencies to hold a public hearing regarding the status of job vacancies prior to adoption of the final budget. If the vacancy rate within a bargaining unit is below 20%, the agency must present information regarding:
• The status of vacancies at the City of Monterey;
• Recruitment and retention efforts; and
• Obstacles in policies, procedures, and recruitment activities that may impact hiring.

If the vacancy rate within a bargaining unit equals or exceeds 20% of authorized full-time positions, additional information must be presented upon request of the recognized employee organization:
• The total number of vacant positions within the unit; • The total number of applicants for vacant positions within the bargaining unit; • The average number of days to complete the hiring process from when a position is posted; and
• Opportunities to improve compensation and other working conditions.

2. Vacancy Overview
The table below identifies the number of budgeted Full-time Equivalencies (“FTEs”) and vacancies for each labor group as of May 1, 2026.

City of Monterey Labor Groups Budgeted FTE* Vacant FTE
General Employees of Monterey (GEM) 269 37.5
Management Employees' Association (MEA) 58 10
Monterey Executive Management Employees'
Association (MEMEA) 6 0
Monterey Fire Chief Officers' Association (MFCOA) 6 1
Monterey Fire Fighters' Association (MFFA) 85 9
Monterey Police Association (MPA) 48 8
Police Lieutenants' Management Association (PLMA) 4 0
Total 476 69.5
*Does not include contracted or unrepresented employees Current Status of Vacancies:
• Twenty-seven (27) positions are currently in various phases of the recruitment process; • Thirteen (13) positions are vacant without a request to recruit; and Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 2, Packet Page 234 №12/25
• Twenty-nine and one-half (29.5) FTE positions are currently frozen or proposed to be frozen.

The table below identifies the average vacancy rate for each labor group from May 1, 2025, through May 1, 2026.

City of Monterey Labor Groups Average Vacancy Rate
General Employees of Monterey (GEM) 13.50%
Management Employees' Association (MEA) 20.58%
Monterey Executive Management Employees' Association (MEMEA) 8.33% Monterey Fire Chief Officers' Association (MFCOA) 8.33% Monterey Fire Fighters' Association (MFFA) 9.9%
Monterey Police Association (MPA) 17.71%
Police Lieutenants' Management Association (PLMA) 0%

3. Recruitment and Retention

3.1 Recruitment
The City continues to implement recruitment strategies designed to expand applicant pools and improve hiring outcomes, including:
• Expanded advertising through government recruitment websites, professional associations, LinkedIn, and industry publications.
• Conducted targeted outreach to universities, professional organizations, and regional networks.
• Utilized continuous recruitment processes and streamlined examinations for hard-to-fill positions.
• Of the 67 recruitments conducted during the reporting period, 17.9% were promotionalonly recruitments (12 promotional recruitments and 55 open/competitive recruitments). • 19 of the 67 recruitments (28%) were filled through internal promotions.

3.2 Retention
The City continues to support employee retention through compensation, professional development, and wellness initiatives, including:
• Maintained competitive compensation and benefits through labor negotiations and market analyses.
• Supported employee development through training, certification reimbursement, and promotional opportunities.
• Promoted employee wellness and work-life balance through leave programs, flexible scheduling where operationally feasible, and wellness resources.

4. Obstacles and Challenges

4.1 Recruitment Process
The City continues to experience challenges associated with lengthy, multi-step recruitment processes, which can extend hiring timelines and impact competitiveness in attracting qualified Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 3, Packet Page 235 №12/25
candidates. To improve efficiency and reduce delays, staff have implemented or are pursuing the following strategies:
• Partnering with departments to streamline recruitment and hiring processes; • Modifying examination processes for recruitments with limited applicant pools; and • Adapting interview formats to better accommodate out-of-area candidate.

4.2 Pre-Employment Process
The pre-employment process may also contribute to extended hiring timelines due to scheduling and coordination requirements associated with background checks, medical examinations, and departmental review processes. To address these challenges, staff have implemented or are pursuing the following strategies:
• Contracting with additional medical providers to improve scheduling availability for preemployment physical examinations; • Allowing candidates to complete Live Scan requirements at approved locations closer to their residence;
• Providing additional Human Resources support to hiring managers by assisting with reference checks; and
• Working with departments to reduce delays associated with internal review and interview scheduling processes.

5. Additional Reporting Requirements for MEA
Because the average vacancy rate for the Management Employees’ Association (“MEA”) exceeded 20% during the reporting period, additional reporting information is provided below pursuant to AB 2561.

5.1 MEA Vacancies
Effective May 1, 2026, the MEA bargaining unit has ten (10) vacant positions.

Position Recruitment Status Total Number of
Applicants
Associate Civil Engineer Proposed to be Frozen N/A
Chief of Inspections Svc./ Building Official Employment Offer Accepted 11 City Traffic Engineer Frozen N/A
Economic Development Manager Frozen N/A
Engineering Projects Manager Proposed to be Frozen N/A
Environmental Regulations Manager Frozen N/A
Management Analyst I Frozen N/A
Senior Engineer (2 positions) Open /Continuous Recruitment 20 Senior Project Manager Proposed to be Frozen N/A
Additional MEA recruitment information includes:
• Average number of days to complete the hiring process from posting to hire: 117 days; • Total applications received for active recruitments: 31; • Two (2) active recruitments are currently underway for three (3) positions; and • The remaining seven (7) vacant positions are currently frozen or proposed to be frozen.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 4, Packet Page 236 №12/25

5.2 MEA Recruitment Efforts
To support recruitment for MEA positions, the City has implemented the following efforts:
• Implemented hiring incentives for hard-to-fill engineering positions; • Expanded recruitment outreach through advertising, direct mail, and digital campaigns (email and social media);
• Streamlined hiring by eliminating the exam step and interviewing all qualified candidates; and
• Adapted interview formats to better accommodate out-of-area candidates.

5.3 MEA Recruitment Obstacles
The City continues to experience challenges recruiting for specialized and senior-level MEA positions, including:
• Limited availability of qualified candidates for specialized and senior-level classifications; and
• Increased competition from public and private sector employers statewide.

5.4 Opportunities to Improve Recruitment and Retention
The City continues to evaluate opportunities to improve recruitment and retention efforts for specialized and hard-to-fill positions, including:
• Evaluating compensation competitiveness for specialized classifications; • Develop hiring pipelines through partnerships with universities and professional organizations;
• Expand statewide recruitment outreach efforts;
• Implement direct-sourcing recruitment tools to identify qualified candidates; and • Enhance employee training and career development opportunities.

6. Conclusion
The City continues to experience recruitment challenges in specialized and management classifications, consistent with statewide labor market trends affecting public agencies. Staff will continue implementing recruitment and retention strategies to improve hiring timelines, expand candidate pools, and maintain competitive employment practices. This report satisfies the public hearing requirements of AB 2561 prior to adoption of the City’s final budget. e: Christine Davi, City Attorney
Rafaela King, Finance Director
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 5, Packet Page 237 Council
Agenda Report
№12/25
FROM: Andrea Renny, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Cristie Steffy, Parking Superintendent
SUBJECT: Amend and Restate Resolution 25-112 to Adopt a Refined Residential Parking Permit (RPP) Program Framework (Exempt from CEQA, Article 19, Section 15306, Class 6)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt the attached resolution
adopting the Residential Parking Permit (RPP) Program
Framework, attached as Exhibit A, incorporating
refinements to the framework previously adopted by
Resolution No. 25-112 and affirm that all other elements of the Residential Parking Permit (RPP) Program,
including previously approved special permit areas and
associated fee structures, remain in full force and effect.

VALUE DRIVERS:

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

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

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The Residential Parking Permit (RPP) Program was
established to manage residential parking impacts and
improve access to on-street parking in neighborhoods
affected by external parking demand. The City Council, under its authority to regulate parking and traffic on public streets as provided in the Monterey City Code and the California Vehicle Code, may adopt and modify residential parking permit programs.

Agenda Report Highlights
• City staff recommend refining the
Residential Parking Permit (RPP)
Program to improve clarity and
usability based on initial
implementation findings.
• The requalification process for
existing permit areas is being
removed to maintain established
parking management in
neighborhoods with demonstrated
demand.
• The guest pass fee structure will be
simplified to a flat rate of $25 per
additional set of 25 passes after the
first 25 free passes.
• The resident-initiated opt-out
threshold is being reduced from
80% to 70% to align with the
threshold required to establish a
new permit zone.
• Property owner and landlord permits
will now be categorized separately
and will no longer count toward the
maximum permit limit for a
residential address.

Date: 5/19/2026
Item No.: 15.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 15., Item Page 1, Packet Page 238 №12/25
This refined approach is consistent with the framework adopted by City Council in November 2025 and does not alter the underlying policy direction or intent of the program.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The Residential Parking Permit (RPP) Program fee structure is intended to recover the ongoing costs of administering, enforcing, and maintaining the program. Based on approximately 1,535 participating addresses, with an average of 1.5 permits per address, annual revenue is estimated at approximately $70,000, depending on participation levels and guest pass usage.

The program is supported by the Parking Fund, an enterprise fund that operates independently of the General Fund and relies on parking-related revenues to support its operations, facilities, and services. As an enterprise fund, the Parking program must generate sufficient revenue to cover operating costs, debt service, interdepartmental and overhead charges, and ongoing maintenance and capital needs across the City’s parking system, including 31 parking facilities, approximately 3,500 off-street spaces, and over 3,000 on-street spaces. The RPP Program is intended to be self-supporting and is not designed to generate net revenue beyond the cost of administration, enforcement, signage, and system management.

The proposed refinements do not introduce new program costs and are not expected to materially affect overall program revenues or expenditures. Adjustments to the guest pass fee structure provide a simplified and more predictable option for residents while maintaining the program’s financial assumptions.

Overall, the program structure supports cost recovery, operational efficiency, and long-term financial sustainability.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

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

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

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

Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 15., Item Page 2, Packet Page 239 №12/25
Exception c - Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. The preparation of a proposed action plan would involve basic information collection and research that will not result in any disturbance to environmental resources. No unusual circumstances would result from the preparation of this action plan.

Exception d - Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR). There would be no impacts to scenic highways because the proposed action plan involves information collection, research, and recommendations for the City’s Residential Parking Permit Program.

Exception e - Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. No impact to sites included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government code would occur.

Exception f - Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. The preparation of this study would involve information collection and research; therefore, there would be no impacts to historic or archeological resources.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

Council could choose not to approve the proposed refinements and instead continue implementation of the framework previously adopted by Resolution No. 25-112. Under this approach, existing RPP areas would be subject to the requalification process, including participation and permit purchase thresholds required to remain in the program.

This alternative is not recommended, as it would introduce administrative complexity and may result in the removal of effective parking management measures based on participation levels that do not fully reflect underlying parking demand, creating the potential for recurring cycles of program removal and reimplementation.

DISCUSSION:

Background
The Residential Parking Permit (RPP) Program is a City-administered parking management service designed to address external parking impacts in residential neighborhoods and improve parking availability in areas experiencing high demand. The program is developed and implemented by the City using established parking management practices, with residents initiating participation through a petition process.

In November 2025, the City Council adopted a Modernized Residential Parking Permit (RPP) Program framework and associated fee structure to improve operational efficiency and support long-term financial sustainability. The adopted framework was based on recommendations outlined in the Residential Parking Action Plan prepared by Dixon Resources Unlimited.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 15., Item Page 3, Packet Page 240 №12/25
Following adoption, staff initiated implementation of the RPP Program, including transition to a virtual permit system and program administration in existing permit areas.

Outreach and Community Engagement
Following adoption of the Residential Parking Permit (RPP) Program framework by City Council in November 2025, the City conducted a comprehensive outreach and implementation effort to support residents and facilitate transition to the program.

Program rollout was implemented in phases:
• Phase 1, beginning in January 2026, included the New Monterey neighborhood, including Cannery Row residents
• Phase 2, beginning in February 2026, included Old Town, Downtown, Melway Circle, and Palo Verde neighborhoods
Outreach efforts have included a combination of direct communication, in-person engagement, and ongoing support, including:
• Multiple mailed notices to all eligible residential addresses as part of a phased outreach approach (four notices to date)
• Distribution of flyers and community meeting notifications • Neighborhood meetings and a Council Member–hosted community meeting focused on the program
• A dedicated project webpage on Have Your Say Monterey with ongoing updates and program information
• Articles and announcements through City communication channels, including City Focus and email notifications
• A dedicated project email and ongoing support through the Parking Division, including in-person assistance, phone support, and email response In addition, staff conducted a resident support session to assist with account setup and participation in the virtual permit system.

Implementation Findings and Proposed Refinements
As part of implementation, residents were initially asked to complete online registration as part of the requalification process to demonstrate participation and support for continuation of the program. Existing permits were extended through April 30, 2026 to allow time for outreach and program rollout. This deadline has been further extended pending City Council consideration of the proposed refinements to the requalification requirement.

Through implementation of the adopted RPP Program framework and ongoing engagement with residents, staff identified opportunities to refine elements of the program to improve clarity, usability, and consistency in program administration.

The proposed refinements build upon and maintain the Residential Parking Permit (RPP) Program framework adopted by City Council. All existing program elements, including special Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 15., Item Page 4, Packet Page 241 №12/25
permit areas and associated fee structures, remain in effect, except as specifically refined below.

Program Element Adopted Framework Refined Framework
Existing RPP Areas Required to requalify with 51%
participation required
Requalification removed;
existing areas continue in
program
Permit Purchase Threshold
(Existing RPP Areas)
50% resident participation
required to maintain program
Removed for existing RPP
areas
Minimum Block Requirement
(Existing RPP Areas)
Minimum of 4 contiguous
blocks required
Removed for existing RPP
areas
Opt-Out Process 80% participation required Reduced to 70% to align with Council-directed threshold for
new zone establishment;
includes 3-year reapplication
restriction
Guest Passes First 25 free; additional passes
in sets of 25 with tiered fees
($25, $50, $75), up to 100
passes annually
First 25 free; additional passes
in sets of 25 at $25 per set, up
to 100 passes annually
Owner/Landlord Permit Counted toward 4-permit
maximum
Separate permit, not counted
toward 4-permit maximum
Cannery Row Requirement Off-street parking counted
toward permit eligibility
Requirement removed
Requalification Process Refinement
During implementation of the adopted framework and ongoing engagement with residents, staff identified challenges with applying the requalification process to existing RPP areas.

Participation levels may not fully reflect ongoing parking demand or the continued need for the program, and requalification introduces the potential for removing established parking management in areas where demand continues to exist.

Existing RPP areas were originally established through a resident-initiated petition process, met occupancy thresholds demonstrating parking demand, and were approved by City Council. As a result, these areas reflect demonstrated need and prior resident support for parking management.

Community feedback reflected a range of perspectives, including strong support for maintaining the program without requalification, as well as interest from some residents in discontinuing it.

To address both perspectives, the refined approach removes the requalification requirement for existing RPP areas and instead relies on the resident-initiated opt-out process previously approved by City Council.

This approach maintains established parking management in areas where the program has already been approved and implemented, while providing a clear and consistent mechanism for residents to discontinue the program if it is no longer desired through the opt-out process. This Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 15., Item Page 5, Packet Page 242 №12/25
avoids the need to remove and potentially reestablish the program in areas where demand continues to exist.

The RPP Program is a parking management service that residents may choose to participate in based on neighborhood needs. This refinement supports continued program operation where demand exists while providing flexibility for residents to determine whether parking management is appropriate for their area.

Opt-Out Process Refinement
The framework adopted by City Council established an opt-out process allowing residents to petition for removal of an RPP area with a minimum of 80% support.

In November 2025, City Council directed that the participation threshold for establishing new RPP areas be reduced from 80% to 70%. To maintain consistency within the program, staff is recommending that the opt-out threshold also be adjusted to 70%.

This adjustment aligns participation requirements for both establishing and removing RPP areas while maintaining a high level of resident support for program changes.

Guest Pass Fee Structure
As part of implementation, staff identified opportunities to simplify the guest pass fee structure to improve clarity and ease of administration.

Under the framework adopted in November 2025, guest passes were structured using a tiered pricing model, with increasing costs for each set of 25 passes after the initial allocation. While this approach supported cost recovery, it introduced complexity for both residents and program administration.

The refined approach maintains the allocation of up to 100 guest passes per residential address per permit year, including the first 25 passes at no charge, and replaces the tiered pricing structure with a flat rate of $25 per additional set of 25 passes.

The corresponding fee adjustment is included in the proposed amendment to the Master Fee Schedule, which is presented as a separate item for City Council consideration.

This adjustment simplifies the fee structure, improves transparency for residents, and maintains alignment with cost recovery objectives.

Owner/Landlord Permit Refinement
As part of implementation, staff identified the need to clarify the role of the owner/landlord permit within the overall permit structure.

Under the framework adopted in November 2025, the owner/landlord permit was included within the maximum permit limit per residential address. The refined approach establishes the owner/landlord permit as a separate permit category that does not count toward the residential permit limit.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 15., Item Page 6, Packet Page 243 №12/25
This permit is intended to support property management needs and does not change the maximum number of residential permits allowed per address This adjustment improves clarity in program administration.

Cannery Row Permit Eligibility Refinement
As part of implementation, staff identified the need to clarify eligibility requirements within the Cannery Row permit area.

Under the framework adopted by City Council, off-street parking availability was considered in determining permit eligibility. The refined approach removes this requirement to simplify program administration and ensure consistent application of eligibility criteria.

Eligibility within the Cannery Row permit area remains limited to previously participating addresses, and no expansion of eligibility is proposed.

Conclusion
The Residential Parking Permit (RPP) Program Framework provides a clear and implementable policy framework that reflects current program operations and incorporates refinements based on program implementation and administrative evaluation.

The RPP Program is a service designed to support residents by managing limited curb space, improving parking availability in impacted neighborhoods, and providing a structured and consistent approach to on-street parking management.

This action refines the framework adopted by Resolution No. 25-112 and establishes a clear, City-authored policy to guide ongoing administration of the RPP Program.

AR/cs
Attachments: 1. Resolution

2. Exhibit A: Residential Parking Permit (RPP) Program Framework Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 15., Item Page 7, Packet Page 244 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№011/24
AMENDING AND RESTATING RESOLUTION 25-112 TO ADOPT A REFINED RESIDENTIAL

PARKING PERMIT (RPP) PROGRAM FRAMEWORK
WHEREAS, the Residential Parking Permit (RPP) Program was established to manage residential parking impacts and improve access to on-street parking in neighborhoods affected by external parking demand;
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a Modernized Residential Parking Permit (RPP) Program framework and associated fee structure in November 2025 through Resolution No. 25- 112;
WHEREAS, following adoption, the City initiated implementation of the RPP Program, including outreach and engagement with residents in existing permit areas; WHEREAS, through implementation of the adopted framework and ongoing engagement with residents, staff identified opportunities to refine how the program is applied in existing RPP areas to improve clarity, usability, and consistency in program administration; WHEREAS, the proposed updates maintain the core framework adopted by City Council and incorporate targeted refinements based on program implementation and administrative evaluation;
WHEREAS, the Residential Parking Permit (RPP) Program Framework is intended to serve as the governing policy document for ongoing administration of the program; and, WHEREAS, the City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15306, Class 6) because the proposed action plan would involve information collection and research for a City Residential Parking Permit Program, specifically public outreach, onsite assessment to evaluate existing parking conditions, and development of recommendations to improve the residential parking experience. Furthermore, the project does not qualify for any of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions found at CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2.

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

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

Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 15., Item Page 8, Packet Page 245 Exception c - Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. The preparation of a proposed action plan would involve basic information collection and research that will not result in any disturbance to environmental resources. No unusual circumstances would result from the preparation of this action plan.

Exception d - Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR). There would be no impacts to scenic highways because the proposed action plan involves information collection, research, and recommendations for the City’s Residential Parking Permit Program.

Exception e - Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. No impact to sites included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government code would occur.

Exception f - Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. The preparation of this study would involve information collection and research; therefore, there would be no impacts to historic or archeological resources.

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

1. Amends and restates Resolution 25-112 to Adopt the Residential Parking Permit (RPP) Program Framework, attached hereto as Exhibit A, which incorporates refinements to the framework previously adopted by Resolution No. 25-112. Exhibit A to this resolution shall serve as the governing policy document for the RPP Program; and

2. Affirms that, except as modified herein, all prior actions of the City Council related to the Residential Parking Permit (RPP) Program, including previously approved special permit areas and associated fee structures, shall remain in full force and effect.

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:

Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 15., Item Page 9, Packet Page 246 APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 15., Item Page 10, Packet Page 247

EXHIBIT A
City of Monterey Parking Division
Residential Parking Permit (RPP) Program Framework
(Draft)

1. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
The City of Monterey Residential Parking Permit (RPP) Program manages on-street parking in residential neighborhoods where parking demand affects residents’ ability to reasonably access parking near their homes. The program supports neighborhood livability by prioritizing parking for residents while balancing the needs of visitors, service providers, and the broader community.

Public streets are a shared resource. The RPP Program is a parking management tool applied in residential areas where parking demand is influenced by external factors, such as nearby commercial activity, visitor destinations, schools, or other non-residential uses. The program is not intended to create exclusive or guaranteed parking, but to manage limited on-street space in a way that improves access, turnover, and overall curb space efficiency.

The RPP Program is implemented in response to demonstrated external parking impacts and established through a resident-initiated petition process demonstrating support from residents within the affected area, as defined in this framework.

The program is designed to support efficient, consistent, and financially sustainable administration and to align with established best practices in residential parking management.

1.1 Purpose
The RPP Program is intended to:
• Protect residential neighborhoods from external parking impacts • Provide a parking management tool in areas where demand exceeds available onstreet supply • Support the equitable and efficient use of public curb space • Establish a consistent framework for the designation and administration of permit areas

1.2 Program Eligibility
The RPP Program shall be implemented only in areas experiencing external parking impacts and shall not be used to address parking demand generated solely by residents.

External parking impacts do not include parking demand generated solely by residents of nearby residential developments.

Vehicles authorized under the program are exempt from posted time limits specific to permit areas but remain subject to all other applicable parking regulations, including those established by the Monterey City Code and California Vehicle Code.

1.3 Intended Benefits
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 15., Item Page 11, Packet Page 248

EXHIBIT A
The program supports:
• Improved availability of on-street parking for residents and their guests • Reduction of long-term parking by non-residents
• Increased parking turnover within permit areas
• Improved neighborhood quality of life, including reduced congestion and circulation impacts

1.4 Program Considerations
• Parking remains available on a first-come, first-served basis and is not guaranteed • Public streets remain accessible to all users, subject to posted regulations • Residents and visitors must comply with permit limits and program requirements • The program manages parking demand but does not increase the overall supply of parking

2. APPLICABILITY
The RPP Program shall be implemented only in residential areas where on-street parking demand is demonstrably impacted by nearby non-residential uses, including but not limited to:
• Commercial districts
• Visitor and tourist destinations
• Schools and institutions
• Event venues
• Other non-residential parking generators
External parking impacts must be attributable to non-residential activity and shall not include parking demand generated solely by residents.

The City shall determine the presence and extent of parking impacts through field observation or other data collection methods.

3. PERMIT SYSTEM

3.1 Permit Type
Permits are virtual and license plate-based. The license plate serves as the permit.

3.2 Permit Term
Permits are valid for one year from the date of issuance and must be renewed annually.

4. ELIGIBILITY AND PERMIT LIMITS

4.1 Eligibility Requirements
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 15., Item Page 12, Packet Page 249

EXHIBIT A
Applicants must provide:
• Proof of residency acceptable to the City
• Valid government-issued identification
• Vehicle registration

4.2 Permit Limits
• One permit per licensed driver
• Maximum of four (4) permits per residential address

4.3 Ineligible Vehicles
• Oversized vehicles, as defined by the Monterey City Code • Recreational vehicles, trailers, or similar equipment

4.4 Permit Misuse and Revocation
Permits are issued based on eligibility requirements and are subject to revocation if used in violation of program rules.

The City may suspend or revoke a permit for reasons including, but not limited to:
• Providing false or misleading information
• Use of a permit on a vehicle not associated with the permitted address • Misuse of guest permits or other program elements
• Repeated violations of posted parking regulations within a permit area Revocation or suspension of permits shall be determined by the City and may include temporary or permanent removal of permit privileges.

5. AUXILIARY PERMITS
• May be issued for residents requiring in-home care or services, subject to documentation and approval
• Count toward the maximum permit limit per residential address • May be assigned to multiple vehicles; however, only one vehicle may be active at a time

6. OWNER/LANDLORD PERMITS
• May be issued to non-resident property owners with appropriate documentation • Are separate from residential permits
• Do not count toward the maximum permit limit per residential address • Limited to one per residential address unless otherwise approved by the City • Owner/Landlord permits are intended to support property management needs and do not convey residential parking privileges.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 15., Item Page 13, Packet Page 250

EXHIBIT A

7. GUEST PASSES

7.1 General
Guest passes are virtual, license plate-based, and valid for one calendar day per use, expiring at 11:59 p.m. on the date of use. Guest passes are only required during posted enforcement hours.

7.2 Annual Allocation
Each residential address may obtain up to 100 guest passes per permit year, aligned with the annual permit term:
• First 25 passes: No charge
• Additional guest passes may be purchased in increments as established in the City’s Master Fee Schedule

8. FEES

8.1 General
Fees for residential permits, guest passes, and other program elements shall be established by resolution of the City Council and included in the City’s Master Fee Schedule.

8.2 Low-Income Consideration
A reduced fee or waiver for qualifying low-income residents may be provided as approved by City Council.

8.3 Fee Review
Fees may be periodically reviewed and adjusted to support cost recovery for administration, enforcement, and program operations and are not intended to generate net revenue.

9. EXISTING RPP AREAS

9.1 Continuation
Existing RPP areas shall continue without requalification and transition to the updated program structure.

Existing RPP areas are presumed to meet program eligibility based on prior establishment and demonstrated parking impacts.

9.2 Participation
Participation in the permit program is optional; however, a valid permit is required to park beyond posted time restrictions within a designated permit area.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 15., Item Page 14, Packet Page 251

EXHIBIT A

10. ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW RPP AREAS

10.1 Eligibility Criteria
New RPP areas must:
• Be located in residential zones
• Demonstrate external parking impacts consistent with Section 2 • Meet a minimum parking occupancy threshold of 70%, as determined by the City • Be supported by a resident-initiated petition in accordance with Section 10.4

10.2 Minimum Area Size
Minimum of four (4) contiguous blocks. Any exception to the minimum area size requirement shall require City Council approval.

10.3 Expansion of Existing RPP Areas
A residential block that is directly adjacent to an existing RPP area may be added to the program without meeting the minimum contiguous block requirement, provided that:
• The block is contiguous to an established RPP area
• The area meets a minimum of 70% of eligible residential addresses support inclusion through a petition process
• The area meets a minimum parking occupancy threshold of 70%, as determined by the City
The City may evaluate expansion requests to ensure consistency with program objectives and to avoid fragmentation or unintended impacts to surrounding areas.

10.4 Petition Requirement
Establishment of a new RPP area requires support from at least 70% of eligible residential addresses within the proposed area, demonstrated through a resident-initiated petition process.

Newly established RPP areas shall remain in the program for a minimum of one (1) year prior to eligibility for removal.

10.5 Permit Participation Requirement
At least 50% of eligible residential addresses within the proposed area must obtain a permit within a timeframe established by the City prior to program implementation. Failure to meet this requirement may result in the area not being activated.

11. REMOVAL OF RPP AREAS
An RPP area may be considered for removal through a resident-initiated petition process with a minimum of 70% support from eligible residential addresses.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 15., Item Page 15, Packet Page 252

EXHIBIT A
Removal of an RPP area is subject to City review and approval. In evaluating a removal request, the City may consider:
• Potential impacts to surrounding permit areas
• The likelihood of parking spillover into adjacent neighborhoods • Overall program effectiveness
If an RPP area is removed, the area shall not be eligible to reapply for a minimum period of three (3) years, unless otherwise authorized by the City.

12. ZONE STRUCTURE
For administrative and operational purposes, the City may organize one or more RPP areas into zones. The City may:
• Consolidate existing RPP areas
• Modify zone boundaries
• Adjust program areas to improve effectiveness and administration

13. SPECIAL PERMIT AREAS
Certain existing permit areas in mixed-use or commercial settings may continue under modified program rules due to established conditions. These areas are recognized as unique conditions and do not establish a precedent for expansion of the RPP Program into similar areas.

The City may apply tailored policies in these areas, including:
• Adjusted eligibility criteria
• Modified permit limits
• Restrictions on guest permits
• Other operational adjustments
Employee permit parking programs may be implemented on streets adjacent to residential permit areas to manage commuter parking demand and reduce impacts on nearby neighborhoods.

13.1 Cannery Row Area
Eligibility is limited to residential addresses previously participating in the Cannery Row Residential Parking Permit program (“Previously Participating Addresses”). No additional addresses shall be eligible. Previously Participating Addresses shall remain eligible to participate in the program and shall be evaluated as part of ongoing program monitoring and review.
• New residential developments are not eligible
• Guest permits are not permitted
The RPP Program shall not be expanded into new mixed-use or commercial areas.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 15., Item Page 16, Packet Page 253

EXHIBIT A

14. ADMINISTRATION
The Parking Division is responsible for:
• Program administration
• Permit issuance and renewal
• Eligibility verification
• Program monitoring and adjustments

15. ENFORCEMENT
Parking regulations are established by City Council and implemented through regulatory signage identifying applicable restrictions and permit requirements.

Parking restrictions are communicated through posted signage, and compliance is required for all vehicles parked within designated permit areas. Permits allow parking beyond posted time limits specific to permit areas but do not authorize parking in violation of other applicable restrictions established by City ordinance or state law.

Enforcement of RPP Program regulations shall be conducted using available enforcement technologies and standard parking enforcement practices, including license plate recognition and other tools that support efficient and consistent compliance.

Consistent and equitable enforcement is essential to ensure program effectiveness, promote compliance, and maintain availability of parking for residents.

Specific time restrictions, days of operation, and permit requirements shall be established by City Council and implemented through regulatory signage.

16. PROGRAM UPDATES
The City Manager or designee is authorized to make administrative adjustments to implement and administer this framework, provided such adjustments are consistent with the intent of this policy and do not constitute substantive policy changes. Substantive policy changes require City Council approval.

The City may periodically review RPP areas to evaluate program performance, participation levels, and administrative effectiveness. Findings from these reviews may inform future program adjustments or policy updates subject to City Council approval.

17. AUTHORITY
This framework supersedes prior Residential Parking Permit Program policy documents and serves as the governing policy for the City of Monterey RPP Program, except where otherwise established by City Council resolution.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 15., Item Page 17, Packet Page 254 Council
Agenda Report
№11/25
FROM: Dante Hall, City Manager
Prepared By: Hayley Goodwein, Administrative Assistant
SUBJECT: Recognize May 2026 as Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council recognize May 2026 as Asian
American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month.

VALUE DRIVERS:

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The City of Monterey recognizes and celebrates Asian
American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month in honor
of the culture, accomplishments, and contributions of the Asian American and Pacific Islander communities in
Monterey and across the United States. The City
proudly supports the continued advancement of quality
for Asian Americans and Pacific Islander individuals and their families.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE
ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

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

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

Date: 5/19/2026
Item No.: 18.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 18., Item Page 1, Packet Page 255 №10/24
includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

City Council could choose not to recognize May 2026 as Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month; however, that is not recommended.

DISCUSSION:

Spearheaded by New York Representative Frank Horton and Hawaii Senator Daniel Inouye in 1978, the House and Senate passed a joint resolution proclaiming the first ten days of May as Asian/Pacific American Heritage Week. The ten days were to be a chance to celebrate Asian and Pacific Islander citizens and culture, and honor those who have heritage from the Asian continent and the Pacific Islands of Melansia, Miconesia, and Polynesia. The celebration was extended to the entire month of May in 1992 and in 2009, renamed to Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month.

Those with Asian and Pacific Islander heritage have been living on the Monterey Peninsula since the early 1800s. Chinese immigrants arrived in the 1850s and established a fishing village at Point Alones, where the Hopkins Marine Station and the end of Cannery Row now stand.

In 1869, the first Japanese settlement was established and the first cannery, Pacific Mutual Fish Company, was owned and operated by Otosaburo Noda, a Japanese businessman. In August of 1909, the end of salmon season, the Monterey Daily Cypress reported that there were 185 salmon boats fishing the bay; 145 of these boats were Japanese-owned. Monterey had its nihonmachi (日本町) , or Japan Town, bounded by Alvarado, Adams, and Pearl Streets. In addition, several Chinese businesses operated on Washington Street and Franklin Street. Japanese- and Chinese-owned businesses included homes, saloons, billiard parlors, hotels, restaurants, and stores. Together, the Pearl District became an immigrant community within Monterey.

On May 2, 2026, the community celebrated 100 years of culture and history of the Monterey Peninsula Japanese American Citizens League Hall. Located on Adams Street in Monterey’s historic Japan Town, the building was the heart of the pre-WWII Japanese community on the Monterey Peninsula.

Monterey maintains strong Sister City relationships with communities in Asia, including Nanao, Japan and Tainan City, Taiwan. Nanao, Japan, has been a sister city to Monterey, California, since 1995, fostering a deep cultural and economic relationship based on shared coastal characteristics and tourism. Located in Ishikawa Prefecture, Nanao has engaged in longstanding student exchange programs and joint jazz initiatives with Monterey. Montereyans supported Nanao following the devastating Noto Peninsula Earthquake in January 2024.

Tainan City, Taiwan, has been a sister city to Monterey, California, since 1965. This longCouncil Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 18., Item Page 2, Packet Page 256 №10/24
standing relationship focuses on cultural exchange, mutual understanding, and friendship between the two coastal cities. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the City of Monterey received shipments of personal protective equipment from the mayor of Tainan City.

The theme of 2026 Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month is ‘Power in Unity:

Strengthening Communities Together’ as designated by the Federal Asian Pacific American Council (FAPAC). The City of Monterey is proud to recognize and celebrate Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month. The AAPI community in Monterey has been and continues to be part of the community’s history and future.

DH/hg
Attachments: 1. Proclamation
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 18., Item Page 3, Packet Page 257 ATTACHMENT 1
Proclamation declaring
May 2026
Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month
WHEREAS, Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) Heritage Month is a celebration of Asian and Pacific Islander citizens and those of AAPI descent. This month honors those who have heritage from all of the Asian continent and the Pacific Islands of Melanesia, Micronesia, and Polynesia; and, WHEREAS, in 1978, spearheaded by New York Representative Frank Horton and Hawaii Senator Daniel Inouye, the House and Senate passed a joint resolution proclaiming the first ten days of May as Asian/Pacific American Heritage Week. In 1992, the observance was officially extended from a week to the entire month of May, being renamed in 2009 to Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month; and,
WHEREAS, the fishing industry of Monterey Bay was in part started and sustained by the Asian and Pacific Islander immigrants to the Monterey area; and,
WHEREAS, Chinese immigrants to the Monterey Bay arrived in the early 1850s and settled in the area that would later become Cannery Row. They used their extensive fishing knowledge to launch a commercial fishing industry, sending fish, squid, abalone and more to San Francisco and as far away as Canton, China; and,
WHEREAS, the first Japanese settlement was established in Monterey in 1896. The first cannery on the Row, Pacific Mutual Fish Company, was owned and operated by a Japanese businessman named Otosaburo Noda. In 1932, the Monterey Peninsula Chapter of the Japanese American Citizens League was founded and still continues to a cultural center in Monterey; and, WHEREAS, groups such as the Monterey Bay Chinese Association, the Japanese American Citizen League of Monterey Peninsula, the Filipino Community Organization of Monterey Peninsula, the Monterey Bay Lion Dance Team, Hi’ilani ‘O Ke Kai Outrigger and Cultural Center, and Nā Haumāna Studio continue the legacy of the AAPI community in the Monterey Peninsula area; and, WHEREAS, the theme of 2026 Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month is ‘Power in Unity:

Strengthening Communities Together’, as designated by the Federal Asian Pacific American Council.

This year’s theme honors the hard work of AAPI leaders who established a foundation for future generations to thrive and adapt; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED THAT I, Tyller Williamson Mayor of the City of Monterey, on behalf of the City Council and citizens, hereby proclaim the month of May 2026 as Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month.

Dated: May 2026 _______________________
Tyller Williamson, Mayor
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 18., Item Page 4, Packet Page 258 Council
Agenda Report
№11/25
FROM: Kimberly Cole, AICP, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Adopt the Planning Commission Recommendation to Adopt a 1st Reading of Ordinance to Prohibit Roosters (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt 1st reading of an ordinance amending the Monterey City Code to prohibit roosters.

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.

The proposed ordinance prohibits roosters to retain the quality of life.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The proposed City Code changes will prohibit roosters in the City of Monterey.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE
ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no fiscal implications.

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 Agenda Report Highlights
• City staff propose an ordinance
to explicitly prohibit roosters
within city limits starting August
1, 2026, to protect residents'
quiet enjoyment of their
property.
• The proposed changes replace
the general term "chicken" with
"hen" in the City Code to ensure
backyard poultry is limited to
egg-producing birds.
• This recommendation follows
formal complaints regarding
rooster noise and sleep
disruption since 2020.
• An exception to the prohibition is
provided for the 7th District
Agricultural Association
(Monterey County Fairgrounds)
for educational or exhibition
purposes.
• Residents may keep up to four
hens as an accessory use, while
a Use Permit is required to keep
five to ten small animals or fowl.

Date: 5/19/2026
Item No.: 19.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 19., Item Page 1, Packet Page 259 №10/24
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:

That the City Council propose alternatives to the draft ordinance.

DISCUSSION:

The City has received ten complaints about roosters from 2020 to 2026. Staff proposes amendments that modernize these regulations by explicitly prohibiting roosters in the City. This change is driven by the need to balance the interests of urban agriculture with the right of residents to the quiet enjoyment of their property. Unlike hens, which are relatively quiet, roosters possess a natural instinct to crow at various times throughout the day and night. This noise is the subject of formal neighbor complaints, as it can disrupt sleep cycles.

Two sections of the City’s Municipal Code – Chapter 6 (Animals and Fowl) and Chapter 38 regulate chickens. The current code regulates chickens but does not differentiate between roosters (male chickens) and hens (female chickens). The proposal is to prohibit roosters in the City and replace the word “chicken” with “hen” to address noise complaints and issues.

This change to the ordinance ensures that the allowance for backyard poultry is limited to eggproducing birds (hens).

Specific amendments are highlighted with underline and cross out text and include:

Sec. 6-6. Restrictions on keeping of domestic fowl.
(a) On and after August 1, 2026, roosters are prohibited in the city. This section shall not prohibit the 7th District Agricultural Association from having or maintaining roosters for educational or exhibition purposes.
(b) Any person keeping or maintaining any hen chicken or other domestic fowl within the City shall provide an enclosure of metal chicken wire, or other suitable material, of sufficient height and so constructed as to prevent the escape therefrom of any such fowl and shall preserve such enclosure in good repair.
(c) All hens chickens and other domestic fowl shall be kept and maintained securely in an enclosure as provided for in this Section.

Chapter 38, Section 38-26.K.2

2. Raising four or less hens chickens, rabbits, or other similar fowl or small animals is permitted as an accessory use. A Use Permit shall be required for raising five not to exceed a total of ten small animals, and such fowl or animals shall be kept at least 40 feet from a dwelling on the property, 100 feet from other places used for human habitation, public parks or schools, and 100 feet from the property line.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 19., Item Page 2, Packet Page 260 №10/24
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendment on April 28th and unanimously recommended approval to the City Council.

The proposed amendment would clarify the City’s intent to prohibit rooster’s to respond to noise complaints. Staff recommends the City Council amend the Zoning Code to prohibit roosters in the City and replace the word chicken with hen.

KC
Attachments: 1. Ordinance
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 19., Item Page 3, Packet Page 261 ORDINANCE NO. ____ C.S.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№09/24

AMENDING THE CITY CODE TO PROHIBIT ROOSTERS
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY DOES ORDAIN, as follows:

SECTION 1:

WHEREAS, the purpose of City’s Zoning Code (Section 38-3) is to create a precise guide for the physical development of the city that preserves the character and quality of residential neighborhoods and fosters convenient, harmonious, and workable relationships among land uses;
WHEREAS, the City has received ten complaints about roosters between 2020 and 2026. The noise caused by the keeping of a rooster creates a public nuisance by disturbing neighbors’ rights to the peaceful enjoyment of their property and adversely impacts quality of life;
WHEREAS, two sections of the City’s Municipal Code – Chapter 6 (Animals and Fowl) and Chapter 38 regulate chickens. The current code utilizes the general term chickens but does not differentiate between roosters and hens. The proposal is to prohibit roosters in the City and replace the word “chicken” with “hen” to address noise complaints and issues.

WHEREAS, the City Council finds prohibiting roosters will address noise issues and preserve the city’s character and create harmonious relationships; 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.

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

SECTION 3: Monterey City Code, Chapter 6, Article 1, Section 6-6 is amended to read as follows:

Sec. 6-6. Restrictions on keeping of domestic fowl.
(a) On and after August 1, 2026, roosters are prohibited in the City. This section shall not prohibit the 7th District Agricultural Association from having or maintaining roosters for educational or exhibition purposes.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 19., Item Page 4, Packet Page 262 (b) Any person keeping or maintaining any hen or other domestic fowl within the City shall provide an enclosure of metal chicken wire, or other suitable material, of sufficient height and so constructed as to prevent the escape therefrom of any such fowl and shall preserve such enclosure in good repair.
(c) All hens and other domestic fowl shall be kept and maintained securely in an enclosure as provided for in this Section.

SECTION 4: Monterey City Code, Chapter 38, Part II, Article 5, Section 38-26(K)(2) Supplemental Regulations Applicable in the R Districts, is amended to read as follows:

2. Raising four or less hens, rabbits, or other similar fowl or small animals is permitted as an accessory use. A Use Permit shall be required for raising five not to exceed a total of ten small animals, and such fowl or animals shall be kept at least 40 feet from a dwelling on the property, 100 feet from other places used for human habitation, public parks or schools, and 100 feet from the property line.

SECTION 5: If any section, sub-section, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted the Ordinance and each section, sub-section, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, sub-sections, sentences, clauses, phrases or portions to be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 6: All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

SECTION 7: This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days from and after its final passage and adoption.

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

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 19., Item Page 5, Packet Page 263 Council
Agenda Report
№11/25
FROM: Kimberly Cole, AICP, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Adopt the Planning Commission Recommendation to Adopt a 1st Reading of Ordinance to Clarify the City’s Reasonable Accommodation Regulations (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt 1st reading of an ordinance amending the Monterey City Code to clarify the City’s
reasonable accommodation regulations.

VALUE DRIVERS:

The proposed ordinance implements the City’s Housing
Element and helps the City provide equitable access to
affordable housing.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The proposed ordinance implements the General Plan
Housing Element Program 4-1 (See Discussion Section
Below).

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE
ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no fiscal implications.

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
Agenda Report Highlights
• The City Council is considering an
ordinance to clarify and update the
process for handling reasonable
accommodation requests for
persons with disabilities.
• The proposed changes implement
Housing Element Program 4-1 by
establishing a formal appeal
process through the Disabled
Access Appeals Board.
• To streamline approvals, the City
Manager or a designated staff
member will become the sole
reviewer for all requests, even
when other land use permits are
being reviewed.
• Most current requests involve
minor zoning issues, such as
setbacks for wheelchair lifts or
ramps.
• The Planning Commission has
unanimously recommended that
the City Council approve these
administrative refinements to
ensure compliance with state and
federal fair housing laws.

Date: 5/19/2026
Item No.: 20.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 20., Item Page 1, Packet Page 264 №10/24
includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

That the City Council propose alternatives to the draft ordinance or amend the City’s Housing Element.

DISCUSSION:

State law requires cities to adopt a procedure allowing applicants to request reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities seeking equal access to housing under the Federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (the Acts) in the application of zoning laws and other land use regulations, policies and procedures. The City’s existing Municipal Code contains a procedure satisfying this requirement (Monterey City Code Chapter 38, Article 30). The City receives one to two reasonable accommodation requests annually. Typically, there is an issue with setbacks in relationship to wheelchair lifts or ramp structures.

The City’s 2024 Housing Element update identified opportunities to improve the City Code.

Housing Element Program 4-I Reasonable Accommodation states:

The Monterey City Code (Article 30) establishes a clear process for processing requests for exceptions from the City’s land use regulations that meets the requirements of federal and State law and is similar to the model ordinance developed by Mental Health Advocacy Services available on the HCD website; however, the City’s regulations do not describe any procedures for appealing decisions. Therefore, the City will amend Article 30 to add appeal provisions consistent with the Mental Health Advocacy Services model ordinance.

Additionally, through this program the City will remove the review authority from discretionary bodies when a reasonable accommodation request is reviewed concurrently with another land use permit and maintain the City Manager or a designated staff member as the sole reviewer for all reasonable accommodation request.

To comply with Housing Element Program 4-I, the City proposes to delete Sections 38-226.B and 38-227.B that require more than a staff level review of reasonable accommodation requests. Additionally, an appeal process is proposed that designates the Disabled Access Appeals Board to hear appeals of staff decisions.

The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendment on April 28, 2026 and unanimously recommended approval to the City Council.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 20., Item Page 2, Packet Page 265 №10/24
In summary, the proposed amendment clarifies the city’s review process for reasonable accommodation requests. Staff recommends that the City Council adopt 1st reading of an ordinance to amend the Zoning Code to clarify its regulations for Reasonable Accommodations.

KC
Attachments: 1. Ordinance

2. Existing Code
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 20., Item Page 3, Packet Page 266 8 ORDINANCE NO. C.S.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY

AMENDING THE CITY CODE TO CLARIFY

REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION REGULATIONS
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY DOES ORDAIN, as follows:

SECTION 1:

WHEREAS, state law requires cities to adopt a procedure allowing applicants to request reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities seeking equal access to housing under the Federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (the Acts) in the application of zoning laws and other land use regulations, policies and procedures. The City’s existing Municipal Code contains a procedure satisfying this requirement (Monterey City Code Chapter 38, Article 30);
WHEREAS, the City’s adopted Housing Element contains programs that require amendments to the City’s Zoning regulations;
WHEREAS, Housing Element Program 4-I Reasonable Accommodation states, “The Monterey City Code (Article 30) establishes a clear process for processing requests for exceptions from the City’s land use regulations that meets the requirements of federal and State law and is similar to the model ordinance developed by Mental Health Advocacy Services available on the HCD website; however, the City’s regulations do not describe any procedures for appealing decisions. Therefore, the City will amend Article 30 to add appeal provisions consistent with the Mental Health Advocacy Services model ordinance. Additionally, through this program the City will remove the review authority from discretionary bodies when a reasonable accommodation request is reviewed concurrently with another land use permit and maintain the City Manager or a designated staff member as the sole reviewer for all reasonable accommodation request.” WHEREAS, to comply with Housing Element Program 4-I, the city proposes to delete Sections 38-226.B and 38-227.B that require more than a staff level review of reasonable accommodation requests;
WHEREAS, an appeal section is proposed to ensure that there is a review process to consider adverse administrative decisions on reasonable accommodation requests; and WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 20., Item Page 4, Packet Page 267 is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

NOW THEREFORE, the Monterey City Council declares as follows:

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

SECTION 3: Delete Chapter 38, Article 30, Sections 38-226.B and 38-227.B.

SECTION 4: Add Chapter 38, Article 30 Section 38-230. Appeal.

A. Within thirty (10) days of the date of reviewing authority’s written decision, an applicant may appeal an adverse decision to the Disabled Access Appeals Board pursuant to City Code section 2-11.00 et seq. Appeals from the adverse decision shall be made in writing.

B. If an individual needs assistance in filing an appeal on an adverse decision, the jurisdiction will provide assistance to ensure that the appeals process is accessible.

C. All appeals shall contain a statement of the grounds for the appeal. Any information identified by an applicant as confidential shall be retained in a manner so as to respect the privacy rights of the applicant and shall not be made available for public inspection.

D. Nothing in this procedure shall preclude an aggrieved individual from seeking any other state or federal remedy available.

SECTION 5: Severability. If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the Ordinance, including the application of such part or provision to other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are severable.

SECTION 6: All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

SECTION 7: This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days from and after its final passage and adoption.

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

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 20., Item Page 5, Packet Page 268 Monterey City Code Chapter 38, Article 30, Reasonable Accommodation Page 1 of 4 The Monterey City Code is current through Ordinance 3716, passed February 3, 2026.

ARTICLE 30.

REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION
Sections:
§ 38-224. Purpose.
§ 38-225. Applicability.
§ 38-226. Application Procedure.
§ 38-227. Review Authority.
§ 38-228. Findings for Decision.
§ 38-229. Conditions of Approval.
(Ord. 3554, 11/16)
Sec. 38-224. Purpose.

This article provides a procedure to request reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities seeking equal access to housing under the Federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (the Acts) in the application of zoning laws and other land use regulations, policies and procedures. (Ord. 3554 § 14, 2016) Sec. 38-225. Applicability.

A. A request for reasonable accommodation may be made by any person with a disability, their representative or any entity, when the application of a requirement of this Zoning Ordinance or other City requirement, policy or practice acts as a barrier to fair housing opportunities. A person with a disability is a person who has a physical or developmental impairment that limits or substantially limits one or more major life activities, anyone who is regarded as having such impairment or anyone who has a record of such impairment. This article is intended to apply to those persons who are defined as disabled under the Acts.

B. A request for reasonable accommodation may include a modification or exception to the rules, standards and practices for the siting, development and use of housing or housingATTACHMENT 2 Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 20., Item Page 6, Packet Page 269 Monterey City Code Chapter 38, Article 30, Reasonable Accommodation Page 2 of 4 The Monterey City Code is current through Ordinance 3716, passed February 3, 2026. related facilities that would eliminate regulatory barriers and provide a person with a disability equal opportunity to housing of their choice.

C. A reasonable accommodation is granted to the household that needs the accommodation and does not apply to successors in interest to the property unless specifically granted in the conditions associated with approval of a reasonable accommodation (see Section 38-229).

D. A reasonable accommodation may be granted in compliance with this article without the need for the approval of a variance.

E. Requests for reasonable accommodation shall be as described in the following section. (Ord. 3554 § 14, 2016)
Sec. 38-226. Application Procedure.

A. Application.Requests for reasonable accommodation shall be submitted in the form of a letter to the City Manager or designee and shall contain the following information:

1. The applicant’s name, address and telephone number;

2. Address of the property for which the request is being made;

3. The current actual use of the property;

4. The basis for the claim that the individual is considered disabled under the Acts;

5. The Zoning Ordinance provision, regulation or policy from which reasonable accommodation is being requested; and

6. Why the reasonable accommodation is necessary to make the specific property accessible to the individual.

B. Review with Other Land Use Applications.If the project for which the request for reasonable accommodation is being made also requires some other discretionary approval (e.g., use permit, coastal development permit, etc.), then the applicant shall file the application for discretionary approval together with the information required by subsection (A) of this section for concurrent review. (Ord. 3554 § 14, 2016)
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 20., Item Page 7, Packet Page 270 Monterey City Code Chapter 38, Article 30, Reasonable Accommodation Page 3 of 4 The Monterey City Code is current through Ordinance 3716, passed February 3, 2026.

Sec. 38-227. Review Authority.

A. City Manager or Designee.Requests for reasonable accommodation shall be reviewed by the City Manager or designee, or his/her designee if no approval is sought other than the request for reasonable accommodation. The written determination to grant, grant with modifications, or deny the request for reasonable accommodation shall be made in accordance with the findings and decision as established below.

B. Other Review Authority.Requests for reasonable accommodation submitted for concurrent review with another land use application that is discretionary shall be reviewed by the authority responsible for reviewing the discretionary land use application. The written determination to grant, grant with modifications, or deny the request for reasonable accommodation shall be made in accordance with the findings and decision as established below. (Ord. 3554 § 14, 2016) Sec. 38-228. Findings for Decision.

A. The written decision to a request for reasonable accommodation will be consistent with the Acts and shall be subject to the following findings for decision:

1. That the housing, which is the subject of the request, will be used by an individual disabled under the Acts;

2. That the request for reasonable accommodation is necessary to make specific housing available to an individual with a disability under the Acts;

3. That the requested reasonable accommodation would not impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the City;

4. That the requested reasonable accommodation would not require a fundamental alteration in the nature of a City program or law, including but not limited to land use, zoning, or the Local Coastal Program; and

5. That any alternative reasonable accommodations to the original request would make the housing available to the individual with a disability under the Acts. (Ord. 3554 § 14, 2016) ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 20., Item Page 8, Packet Page 271 Monterey City Code Chapter 38, Article 30, Reasonable Accommodation Page 4 of 4 The Monterey City Code is current through Ordinance 3716, passed February 3, 2026.

Sec. 38-229. Conditions of Approval.

In granting a request for reasonable accommodation, the reviewing authority may impose any conditions of approval deemed reasonable and necessary to ensure that the reasonable accommodation would comply with the findings required herein. The conditions shall also state whether the accommodation granted shall be rescinded in the event that the person for whom the accommodation was requested no longer resides on the property. (Ord. 3554 § 14, 2016) The Monterey City Code is current through Ordinance 3716, passed February 3, 2026.

Disclaimer: The City Clerk’s office has the official version of the Monterey City Code. Users should contact the City Clerk’s office for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited above.

City Website: monterey.gov
Hosted by General Code.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 20., Item Page 9, Packet Page 272 Council
Agenda Report
№11/25
FROM: Kimberly Cole, AICP, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Adopt the Planning Commission Recommendation to Adopt a 1st Reading of Ordinance Amending the Monterey City Code to Prohibit Vehicle Storage on Properties with Both Industrial, Administration, Research (I-R) and Multi Residential Family (MF) Zoning (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt 1st reading of an
ordinance amending the Monterey City Code to
prohibit vehicle storage on properties with both
Industrial, Administration, Research (I-R) and Multi
Residential Family (MF) Zoning.

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.

The proposed ordinance implements the City’s
Housing Element and helps the City provide
equitable access to affordable housing.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The proposed ordinance implements the General
Plan Housing Element Program 2-L (See Discussion
Section Below).

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT
(LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no fiscal implications.

Agenda Report Highlights
• The City Council is considering an
ordinance to prohibit vehicle storage on
properties along Garden Road that
have both industrial (I-R) and multifamily residential (MF) zoning. • This action aims to implement the City's
Housing Element by protecting highpriority infill sites from being used for purposes other than high-density
housing.
• Water constraints currently limit new
housing construction, creating a risk
that developers might use these sites
for revenue-generating vehicle storage
that doesn't require water connections.
• By eliminating vehicle storage as a
permitted use, the City intends to
reserve these specific locations for
future residential development once
new water sources become available.
• The proposed prohibition specifically
targets the area adjacent to Highway
68, which is the only location in the City
carrying both of these specific zoning
designations.

Date: 5/19/2026
Item No.: 21.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 21., Item Page 1, Packet Page 273 №10/24
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

That the City Council propose alternatives to the draft ordinance or amend the City’s Housing Element.

DISCUSSION:

The City’s 2024 Housing Element update identified opportunities to improve the city code.

Housing Element Program 2-L Moratorium on Vehicle Storage states:

Program 2-L Moratorium on Vehicle Storage states, “The Multifamily Residential Overlay applies to properties in the Industrial, Administration, and Research District (I-R District) along Garden Road. These sites represent important opportunities for high density infill housing in Monterey and have attracted interest from residential developers in recent years; however, water constraints limit the potential for housing in the short-term while the cease-and-desist order remains in place. Until new sources of water supply come online, there is a risk that these sites may develop with uses such as vehicle storage that generate revenue but do not require new water connections. Therefore, to protect these sites for high density housing to meet community need, the City will adopt an urgency ordinance prohibiting vehicle storage uses in the I-R district for a period of three years.

To implement Housing Element Program 2-L, the city proposes to eliminate the “vehicle storage use” if properties are zoned both Industrial, Administration, Research (I-R) and Multi Residential Family (MF) to reserve sites for housing people. The zoning map only zones the area along Garden Road adjacent to Highway 68 with both zoning designations.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 21., Item Page 2, Packet Page 274 №10/24
Map 1. Properties Zoned Both Industrial, Administration, Research (I-R) and Multi Residential Family (MF)
In summary, the proposed amendment eliminates vehicle storage uses in a specific high priority area for infill housing. Staff recommends that the City Council adopt 1st reading of an ordinance amending the Monterey City Code to prohibit vehicle storage on properties with both Industrial, Administration, Research (I-R) and Multi Residential Family (MF) Zoning.

KC
Attachments: 1. Ordinance
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 21., Item Page 3, Packet Page 275 8 ORDINANCE NO. C.S.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY

AMENDING MONTEREY CITY CODE TO PROHIBIT VEHICLE STORAGE

ON PROPERTIES WITH BOTH INDUSTRIAL, ADMINISTRATION,

RESEARCH (I-R) AND MULTI RESIDENTIAL FAMILY (MF) ZONING THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY DOES ORDAIN, as follows:

SECTION 1:

WHEREAS, the City’s adopted Housing Element contains programs that require amendments to the City’s Zoning regulations;
WHEREAS, Program 2-L Moratorium on Vehicle Storage states, “The Multifamily Residential Overlay applies to properties in the Industrial, Administration, and Research District (I-R District) along Garden Road. These sites represent important opportunities for high density infill housing in Monterey and have attracted interest from residential developers in recent years; however, water constraints limit the potential for housing in the short-term while the cease-anddesist order remains in place. Until new sources of water supply come online, there is a risk that these sites may develop with uses such as vehicle storage that generate revenue but do not require new water connections. Therefore, to protect these sites for high density housing to meet community need, the City will adopt an urgency ordinance prohibiting vehicle storage uses in the I-R district for a period of three years.”
WHEREAS, the City proposes to eliminate vehicle storage use if properties are zoned both Industrial, Administration, Research (I-R) and Multi Residential Family (MF) to reserve sites for housing people;
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, the Monterey City Council declares as follows:

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

Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 21., Item Page 4, Packet Page 276 SECTION 3: Amend Chapter 38, Article 8, Section 38-40. B to prohibit Vehicle Storage if the property has both an I-R and MF zoning as follows:

Vehicle Storage U Prohibited on Properties with Multifamily Residential Overlay District Zoning
SECTION 4: Severability. If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the Ordinance, including the application of such part or provision to other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are severable.

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

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

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

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 21., Item Page 5, Packet Page 277 Council
Agenda Report
№11/25
FROM: Gino Garcia, Councilmember, District 4
SUBJECT: Councilmember Garcia’s Request to Agendize a Discussion Regarding Options to Support Casanova Oak Knoll Neighborhood’s Request for an Air Quality Study (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:

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 Date: 5/19/2026
Item No.: 22.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 22., Item Page 1, Packet Page 278 №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 May 11, 2026, Councilmember Garcia provided a written request to agendize, which is attached as Attachment 1.

At its meeting on May 19, 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.

GG/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, 5/19/2026, Item No. 22., Item Page 2, Packet Page 279 Gino Garcia, Councilmember District 4
5/11/26
Discuss options to support Casanova Oak Knoll neighborhood’s request for an air quality study
This is a request for Council to discuss how the City can support the Casanova Oak Knoll neighborhood’s request for an air quality study to be conducted by the appropriate local agency due to the community’s proximity to the Monterey Regional Airport. Residents have expressed concerns regarding potential impacts from aircraft activity, including emissions, particulate matter, and overall air quality conditions that may aƯect public health and quality of life. A formal discussion by the Council would provide an opportunity to consider the community’s concerns, evaluate available resources and partnerships, and determine what role the City can play in advocating for or facilitating an independent and comprehensive air quality assessment for the neighborhood.

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/19/2026, Item No. 22., Item Page 3, Packet Page 280

Monterey City CouncilMay 19, 2026

Monterey City Council
May 19, 2026