Agenda packet — Monterey City Council, July 21, 2026 (part 1 of 2)

Council Chamber
580 Pacific St.

Monterey, California

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Council Regular Meeting
and Closed Session
Tuesday, July 21, 2026
4:00 PM
Mayor
Tyller Williamson
Councilmembers
Kim Barber, District 1
Ed Smith, District 2
Jean Rasch, District 3
Gino Garcia, District 4
City Manager
Dante G. Hall
City Attorney
M. Christine Davi
HOW TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING:
• In-Person: At the meeting location listed above.
• Remotely via ZoomGov webinar:
o On a computer or smartphone: https://monterey-org.zoomgov.com/j/1607729333 Zoom software must be up-to-date. For help, please use our Zoom Meeting Instructions. o By telephone dial 833-568-8864 (Toll Free), 669-254-5252 (CA) or 646-828-7666 (NY). If one number doesn’t work, please try another. Enter Webinar ID: 160 772 9333 # If asked for participant ID, press #. To raise your hand (or lower it), dial *9. Once called upon, dial *6 to unmute.
• This meeting will also stream live for viewing only on youtube.com/cityofmonterey (~10 second delay) and on Comcast Channel 25 (up to 90 second delay). • Written comment: Emailed comments to [email protected] sent no later than ½ hour before the start of the meeting (sooner preferred) are not read aloud but are made available to the Council and public at monterey.gov/submitted-comments.

PUBLIC COMMENT PROCEDURES AND TIME LIMITS:

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

1. Up to three minutes per speaker.

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

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

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

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

Presentations (Afternoon)

1. Presentation on the Housing Resource Center of Monterey County (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

2. June 24, 2026 Special Meeting (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

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

4. Authorize an Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with ZFA Structural Engineers for the Fire Station 12 Renovation Geotechnical and Structural Analysis to Increase the Not-to-Exceed Amount from $122,145 to $168,945 ***NCIP*** (Exempt from CEQA, Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1, Existing Facilities)

5. Authorize an Easement Agreement with the Monterey Peninsula Airport District and Accept a Public Road Easement at Olmsted Road and Garden Road (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

6. Approve a Fiscal Year 2026-2027 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Between the Monterey Regional Waste Management District (ReGen Monterey) and Member Agencies for $63,001 for Compliance with Organic Waste Recycling and Food Recovery Laws (SB 1383) and Authorize Subsequent Annual MOUs through FY 2031- 2032 for These Services in an Amount Not to Exceed $100,000 per Fiscal Year (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

7. Award a Job Order Contract for General Municipal Improvements 2026-2027 for Intergovernmental Service Agreement (IGSA) Projects in the Amount of $1,000,000 to The Don Chapin Co., Inc. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080, subd. (b)(1).); Categorical Excluded (CX) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations 32 CFR 651, Appendix B, CX(e)(1))

8. Certifying Compliance with State Law with Respect to Levying Assessments and Special Taxes; and Approve the Agreement with the County of Monterey (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
July 21, 2026 4:00 PM
3 9. Authorize Grant Application to the Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation for the Installation Readiness Program and, if Awarded, Appropriate Funds and Authorize Grant Agreement (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Consent: Other

10. Appoint Agency Negotiators for Conference with Real Property Negotiators Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8; Property: 47 Fisherman's Wharf (Cafe Fina); Agency Negotiators: Kimberly Cole and Janna Aldrete; Negotiating Parties: Mr.

Dominic Mercurio; Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment for Lease Amendment (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

11. Appoint Agency Negotiators for Conference with Real Property Negotiators Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8; Property: 50 Fisherman's Wharf (Domenico's Restaurant); Agency Negotiators: Kimberly Cole and Janna Aldrete; Negotiating Parties: Mr. Dominic Mercurio (Mercurio Brothers, Inc.); Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment for Lease Amendment (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) End of Consent Agenda
Afternoon Session Items
Public Appearance (Afternoon)
Public Appearance items are on non-routine issues that might stimulate public interest and comments.

12. Resilient Coast Monterey: Receive a Presentation and Provide Comment on the 2025 Sea Level Rise Assessment Background Report and 2026 Sea Level Rise and Vulnerability Assessment Update (Exempt from CEQA Article 19, Section 15306, Class 6)

13. Receive Subcommittee Recommendations; Appoint Applicant to Position on Parks and Recreation Commission – Continued from July 7, 2026 (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Adjourn to Closed Session
The City Council will take public comments on closed session items before convening to closed session.

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

14. Closed Session Conference with Real Property Negotiators Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8;
Property: 47 Fisherman's Wharf (Cafe Fina)
Agency Negotiators: Kimberly Cole and Janna Aldrete
Negotiating Parties: Mr. Dominic Mercurio
Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment for Lease Amendment (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
July 21, 2026 4:00 PM
4 15. Closed Session Conference with Real Property Negotiators Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8
Property: 50 Fisherman's Wharf (Domenico's Restaurant)
Agency Negotiators: Kimberly Cole and Janna Aldrete
Negotiating Parties: Mr. Dominic Mercurio (Mercurio Brothers, Inc.) Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment for Lease Amendment (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

16. Conference with Legal Counsel: Anticipated Litigation, Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(2), (e)(3): Café Fina and Domenico’s Re: Trash Porter Services (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):

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

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

3. City of Monterey v. Edward Ciliberti (Monterey County Superior Court Case No. 26CV002092)

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

5. Dawn Scott Mitchell v. City of Monterey (Civil Rights Department Case No. 202506- 29776710)

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

7. Stronghold Engineering, Inc. v City of Monterey (Sixth District Court of Appeals Case No. H054446)

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

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

10. Richard and Mildred Zilinskas v. City of Monterey (United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 5:25-CV-07506) (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Recess
Reconvene
EVENING SESSION AGENDA: Approximately 7:00 p.m.

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

Pledge of Allegiance
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.

July 21, 2026 4:00 PM
5 Announcements from Closed Session
Evening Session Items
Public Appearance (Evening)
Public Appearance items are on non-routine issues that might stimulate public interest and comments.

18. Call an Election to Ask the Voters of the City of Monterey to Approve the Continuation of the Existing Special Transaction and Use Tax of One Cent per Dollar for Eight More Years, with the Use of the Tax Revenue to be Used Exclusively for Street Infrastructure Rehabilitation, and Requesting that the County of Monterey Board of Supervisors Consolidate the Election with the Established Election to be held on November 3, 2026 and Conduct the Election on the City’s Behalf ( 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
№08/22
FROM: Nat Rojanasathira, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Presentation on the Housing Resource Center of 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 receive a presentation on the
Housing Resource Center of Monterey County’s efforts.

VALUE DRIVERS:

Support efforts and policies that provide equitable access to affordable housing in Monterey and the region. 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 receive
presentations from community partners whose efforts
benefit the health, safety, and quality of life of all who live, work, and visit in the City of Monterey.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE
ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

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

Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical Agenda Report Highlights
• The Housing Resource Center of
Monterey County is a non-profit
organization dedicated to preventing
homelessness and providing
affordable housing opportunities.
• In 2025, the organization directly
impacted 1,041 individuals and
spent nearly two million dollars on
financial services like rental
assistance and hotel stays.
• The organization connects clients to
five specialized programs that assist
homeless families, formerly
incarcerated individuals, and people
requiring mental health services.
• To expand equitable housing
opportunities, the City of Monterey
partners with the organization to
incentivize local landlords to accept
housing vouchers.
• Representatives will deliver an
informational presentation to the
Monterey City Council.

Date: 7/21/2026
Item No.: 1.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 1., Item Page 1, Packet Page 6 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 Monterey City Council could choose not to receive the presentation; however, that is not recommended.

DISCUSSION:

The Housing Resource Center of Monterey County, a 501(c)(3) Non-Profit Organization The Housing Resource Center (HRC) has a history of helping families in Monterey County who find themselves in situations where they are homeless in need of rental housing, at risk of becoming homeless, or considering buying their first home. The organization was granted tax exempt 501(c)(3) status in 2004, originally operating under the Monterey County Housing Alliance name. The HRC mission is to provide a continuum of housing resources for homeless prevention and affordable housing opportunities. HRC fosters community stability, stronger communities, and personal economic empowerment through education, advocacy, counseling, and services. These efforts are rooted in their core values of open and honest communication, integrity, commitment, collaboration, respect, care and compassion, and accountability.

From 2009-2012, HRC was the grantee or lead agency for the Salinas and Monterey County Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing (HPRP) grants of approximately two million dollars. Administering a network of local partner agencies, the HRC HPRP programs assisted over 4,000 individuals, including more than 80 Veteran households, attain or maintain permanent affordable housing. In 2025, 1041 individuals were impacted by HRC’s services with 406 individuals obtaining housing stability. A total of $1,964,123.57 was spent in direct financial services for our clients, including rental assistance, household goods, hotel stays, legal fees, landlord incentives and utility fees to name a few services provided.

HRC works to connect clients to one of four available programs:

1. The Housing Support Program (HSP) — assists homeless families on Calworks (a public assistance program that provides financial assistance and services to eligible families that have a child(ren) in the home) and CalFresh (a public assistance program for people with low-income who meet federal income eligibility rules and want to add to their budget to put healthy and nutritious food on the table) obtain and maintain permanent housing.

2. The Family Stabilization Program (FSP) — assists homeless families on CalWorks (a public assistance program that provides financial assistance and services to eligible families that have a child(ren) in the home and CalFresh (a public assistance program for people with low-income who meet federal income eligibility rules and want to add to their budget to put healthy and nutritious food on the table) obtain and maintain permanent housing.

3. Bringing Families Home (BFH) — offers financial assistance and housing-related wraparound supportive services, including but not limited to: rental assistance, housing navigation, case management, security deposits, utility payments, moving costs, interim shelter assistance, legal services, and credit repair.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 1., Item Page 2, Packet Page 7

4. The Prop 47 Behavioral Health Program (ending June 30, 2026) — assists formerly incarcerated individuals on a substance treatment plan to located and maintain permanent housing.

5. Hope Housing-Hope Housing is a service-enriched Bridge Housing program that provides individualized, trauma-informed housing support and care coordination for individuals and families receiving Substance Use Disorder (SUD) and/or Specialty Mental Health Services (SMHS). HRC provides coaching and housing workshops to help participants secure permanent housing within 18 months while building the skills and support networks needed for long-term success.

HRC also offers direct support to landlords who agree to work with them in these programs.

Incentives include $1,000 for working with HRC for the first time, up to $2,000 for minor unit repairs, up to $2,000 for rental arrear payments from past HRC clients, $50 for each successful landlord referral, and landlord-tenant support seven days a week.

The HRC came about in 2009 when the Housing Advocacy Council and the Monterey County Housing Alliance agreed to merge to create a stronger, unified, HUD-approved organization to provide the entire continuum of housing resources and financial literacy education to all families in need in Monterey County. HRC’s work can be traced back to 1984, when the Housing Advocacy Council was founded.

HRC’s three-year goals include achieving financial strength and stability, increasing temporary and permanent housing, attracting, developing, and retaining quality staff, and strengthening Board development and diversity.

City of Monterey’s Partnership with HRC
HRC actively supports clients in securing housing by helping them develop comprehensive rental plans and understand their monthly tenant responsibilities. While navigating the housing market with a Housing Voucher can be time-consuming and challenging for landlords, HRC’s Gold Standard program bridges the gap. By partnering with landlords who understand the voucher process, this initiative ensures low-income tenants have equitable opportunities to secure housing and thrive in the City of Monterey.

The City partners with HRC annually to promote to landlords to accept clients who hold Housing Vouchers. HRC’s “Landlord Gold Standard” program provides incentives in working with HRC, including financial incentives and landlord-tenant support.

The City of Monterey hosted a “Landlord Workshop” in August 2025 which included HRC.

Other agencies that attended the workshop included Community Human Services, Gathering for Women, and ECHO Housing. William Sterling (Sterling Properties), Cheryl Savage (HRC Landlord), and Mike Retting (HRC Landlord) were panelists.

HRC will provide a brief presentation to the Monterey City Council at its July 21, 2026 meeting.

Attachment: 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.org/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 1., Item Page 3, Packet Page 8 Monterey City Council

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 1., Item Page 4, Packet Page 9 HRC’s Mission….
“to provide a continuum of
housing resources for
homeless prevention and
affordable housing
opportunities. ”

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 1., Item Page 5, Packet Page 10 •Payment of Eviction(s) and outstanding utility debt(s) (collections) •Application fees, pro-rated rent, first month’s rent, security deposit •CARS Assessments
•Referrals to services provided by other organizations
•HSVP Voucher Applications
– Disabled clients who cannot work, single parents
with 3+ children, and seniors
Summary of Services

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 1., Item Page 6, Packet Page 11 What is CARS?
• HUD mandates that homeless services be organized through a Coordinated Entry system. For Monterey and San Benito, our Coordinated Entry System is called Coordinated Assessment and Referral System or CARS.
• CARS replaces the first-come-first-serve method to waitlists/resources. – It is a consistent, County wide process to match the homelessness community to resources that are the best fit for their situation. This benefits our community because individuals are paired with services or placed on waitlists based on their needs, ensuring those with the highest needs are served first. The Coalition of Homeless Service Providers runs this referral system.

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 1., Item Page 7, Packet Page 12 Case Manager Roles Housing Specialist Roles
Initial Intake: household size, when they were
last on a lease, how they became homeless
Initial Intake: previous rentals, what’s
affordable for rent, where to house search
Monthly budgets and housing goals How to apply for a unit and how to speak to landlords
Identify and help eliminate housing barriers:
evictions, pets, outstanding utility payments
Unit inspections and rent negotiations with
landlords
Connecting client to community resources Ensuring client understands what is on their lease and how to make a repair order

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 1., Item Page 8, Packet Page 13 Once Housed…
• The Housing Specialist closes
themselves from the case
•The Case Manager changes focus with
the client from “housing search” to
“maintaining housing”.
•If non-subsidized, HRC places client on
a rental plan and the client learns their
rental responsibilities for each month.
•After client pays their full rental on
their own and exhibits no foreseeable
hardship, HRC successfully closes the
client.

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 1., Item Page 9, Packet Page 14 Program Title Basic Criteria Referral Process
Housing Support Program
(HSP)
CalWORKs Family
Homeless (or at risk of)
Referred by their CalWORKs worker to the
Department of Social Services (DSS), placed on
waitlist through CARS
Family Stabilization Program
(FSP)
CalWORKs Family
Homeless (or at risk of)
Needs of additional resources
Referred by their CalWORKs worker to the
Department of Social Services (DSS), FS worker
makes a referral to HRC
Prop 47 Housing Program
Ending June 30, 2026
Formerly Incarcerated
Homeless (or housing causes risks to
sobriety)
Sun Street Centers Services
South County Resident
Referrals sent through Sun Street Centers
Bringing Families Home
(BFH)
Families with children in the welfare
system
Working with a CPS Social Worker
Monterey County resident
Referrals sent to Family and Children Services
from clients’ CPS Social Worker

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 1., Item Page 10, Packet Page 15 Landlord Outreach
Coordinator
David Fowler (Dave)
[email protected]
(831) 455-6322

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 1., Item Page 11, Packet Page 16 For More Information
General Assistance
Juanita Ruvalcaba
Program Operations Assistant
[email protected]
Office: (831) 424-9186 X 110
Cell: (831) 596-6130
All other Inquiries
Cynthia Flores
Program Manager
[email protected]
Office: (831) 424-9186 X 250
For Landlords and County
Employees
Alexa Johnson
Executive Director
[email protected]
Office: (831) 424-9186 X 170

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 1., Item Page 12, Packet Page 17

MINUTES

CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING

CITY OF MONTEREY
Wednesday, June 24, 2026
4:00 PM
COUNCIL CHAMBER, 580 PACIFIC ST., MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
AND TELECONFERENCE LOCATION: HILTON GARDEN INN, ROOM 106, 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, Assistant City Attorney, Assistant City Manager, Community Development Director, Finance Director, Deputy Public Works Director/City Engineer, Administrative Assistant/Recording Secretary, Management Analyst (Parks and Recreation)
Call to Order
Mayor Williamson called the meeting to order at 4:03 p.m.. Administrative Assistant Tulett called the roll with the Council present as indicated above.

Special Meeting

1. Receive Presentation on Phase 2 Poll of Likely Voters and Direct Staff to Proceed with the Renewal of Measure S Only for the November 2026 Election Ballot (Not a Project Under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Accept staff recommendation to place a ballot measure on the November 2026 general election to renew Measure S, the 1% sales, with an 8-year sunset Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira and Lucia Del Puppo of FM3 together gave the presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions with input from Deputy Public Works Director/City Engineer Easterling and Assistant City Attorney Krattli.

Public comment was received from: Patrick Aldinger, who supported the staff recommendation to place a measure on the November election; Tom Rowley and Lori Mazzuca, who both referred to anti-tax sentiment and concerns about sidewalk repairs being the responsibility of home owners; Esther Malkin, who suggested postponing an extension of Measure S and instead placing both a parking tax and sales tax on the November 3, 2026 ballot; Tom Reeves, who echoed comments about the sidewalk policy and parking and sales taxes, and said that any extension of Measure S renewal should have a sunset date.

On question from the Council, Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira described the City’s low property tax revenue, the number of non-profits and military bases located in the City who do not pay property taxes and in some cases sales tax, and the inability to recover funds for safety services provided to the Presidio of Monterey. He also responded to Council inquiry on the estimated percentage of sales tax paid by tourists and visitors from outside of the City, as well as clarified revenue estimates from a potential parking tax. Deputy Public Works Director/City Engineer Easterling indicated that priorities may not change much but highlighted some infrastructure priorities the funds from the proposed ballot measure would support, such as the Pavement Management Program, Stormwater and Drainage (Pump Station 11 is at end of life), Date: 7/21/2026
Item No.: 2.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 2., Item Page 1, Packet Page 18 City Council Minutes June 24, 2026
2 the ADA Transition Plan, and being strategic about roadway maintenance to reduce fund impact.

On question from Council, FM3 representative Lucia Del Puppo explained the survey response rate and voter targeting categories for Phase 2 as compared to Phase 1. Assistant City Attorney Krattli confirmed the vote requirement for the potential special tax would require a 2/3 (66.67%) voter approval threshold.

The Council discussed the matter. Regarding neighborhood sidewalk repairs, support was expressed for the City addressing resident concerns and preference was expressed that the City assist or cover costs for homeowners as a “good faith” effort, and it was stated that this could help assure voters to vote in favor of the Measure S renewal. The desire was expressed to revisit, and ease, the City’s permit fees for residents who do need to repair their sidewalks.

On question from the Council, City Manager Hall clarified that the permit fee necessary for sidewalk repair was approximately $389 rather than the rumored $1,400. Deputy Public Works Director/City Engineer Easterling clarified that the City’s sidewalk repair policy follows State law (Streets and Highways Code) in placing the responsibility on the property owner. He confirmed that the City has not substantially changed the program, except for extending the timeline to commence repairs from 14 days to 90 days to give property owners more time. Assistant City Attorney clarified that City funds can be used to repair City-installed sidewalks that may be near residential property, but that, since at least 2009, the City Code was very clear that maintenance of sidewalks was the responsibility of the property owner. Staff agreed to look into the formation of a City fund to assist qualifying property owners with making necessary repairs.

Regarding placing a Measure S renewal measure on the November ballot, the Council expressed support, and it was stressed that Councilmembers must be able to educate district voters on the importance of the renewal. It was urged that the City consider looking at its streets that are paved with concrete and consider the quality and lifespan of concrete products. It was suggested to discuss a longer sunset than 8 years for the measure renewal. The Council congratulated staff on achieving such high Pavement Condition Index (PCI) scores for the City’s roadways.

It was also proposed by the Council that City staff explore the idea of a vacancy tax, and it was noted that this type of tax polled well with the residents who responded to the survey. City Manager Hall agreed to explore the idea of a vacancy tax with staff, and Assistant City Manager explained that ballot language for such a tax had not yet been explored and noted challenges that would be associated with the deadline for placing a vacancy tax on the November ballot.

On a motion by Councilmember Smith, seconded by Councilmember Rasch, and carried by the following roll-call vote, the City Council approved the staff recommendation to place a measure on the November 2026 election to renew Measure S (1% sales tax) with an 8-year sunset.

AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
Adjournment
The Council adjourned at 5:30 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted, Approved,
Linda Tulett Tyller Williamson
Administrative Assistant Mayor
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 2., Item Page 2, Packet Page 19

MINUTES

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING

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

MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
Councilmembers

Present: Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson

Absent: Barber
City Staff

Present:

City Manager, City Attorney, Assistant City Manager, Finance Director, Fire Chief, Library & Museums Director, Parks and Recreation Director, Police Chief, Public Works Director, City Clerk, Property Manager, Recreation Manager, Deputy Public Works Director/City Engineer, Sports Center Manager, Associate Planner, Senior Engineer, Engineering Projects Manager, Engineering Assistant, Recreation Coordinators (x3) Recreation Specialist, Assistant Urban Forester, Administrative Assistant (Recreation), Administrative Services Technician (Parks), Sports Center Senior Facility Specialist, Field Sports Coordinator, Senior Park Maintenance Worker, Park Operations Supervisor, Fitness Supervisor, Specialty Class Instructors (x2), Administrative Assistant (MSC), Facility Worker (MSC), Senior Facility Specialist (MSC), Guest Service Specialist (MSC), Facility Coordinator (MSC), Marketing Specialist (MSC), Desk Attendants (MSC) (x2) Call to Order
Mayor Williamson called the meeting to order at 4:02 p.m. City Clerk Klein called the roll with the Council present as indicated above.

AFTERNOON SESSION
Presentations (Afternoon)

1. Recognize July 2026 as Parks and Recreation Month (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Recognized Parks and Recreation Month
Parks and Recreation Director Banks gave the staff presentation. Councilmembers praised and thanked Parks and Recreation staff for their work supporting the community. Public comment was received from: Kathie Buaya of the Parks and Recreation Commission, and Esther Malkin, who both echoed appreciation for Parks and Recreation staff members.

General Public Comments
Based on the number of people interested in speaking, Mayor Williamson limited the time for public comment to two minutes per person. Public comment on non-agendized matters was received from Sabrina Lee McPherson, Demetrius Kastros, Tom Barrera, Tom Reeves, Kathie Buaya, Nelson Vega, and an unidentified man.

Date: 7/21/2026
Item No.: 3.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 1, Packet Page 20 City Council Minutes July 7, 2026
2 Consent Agenda
On a motion by Councilmember Smith, seconded by Councilmember Garcia, and carried by the following vote, the City Council approved the Consent Agenda except Items 6 and 7:

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

2. June 16, 2026 Regular Meeting (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Approved (4-0-1, Councilmember Barber absent)
Consent: Ordinances

3. 2nd Reading of an Ordinance to Amend Monterey City Code Section 19-103, the Schedule of Fees and Services Charges, to Reduce the Amount of the City’s Cost Recovery for Administering Appeals of Planning Commission Decisions to the City Council from 100% to 83.73% (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Adopted Ordinance No. 3721 C.S. (4-0-1, Councilmember Barber absent)

4. 3rd Reading of an Ordinance to Amend Monterey City Code Chapter 31.5, Storm Water Management Utility, Fees; Collection, to Authorize Collection of Stormwater Utility Fees on the County of Monterey Tax Roll and Authorize a Fee Collection and Indemnification Agreement with the County of Monterey for this Purpose (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Adopted Ordinance No. 3720 C.S. (4-0-1, Councilmember Barber absent) Consent: Resolutions

5. Adopt a Resolution Reciting the Results of the June 2, 2026 Consolidated Special Municipal Election (Measure D) (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 26-093 C.S. (4-0-1, Councilmember Barber absent)

6. Amend Resolution 26-092 to Include the Citywide Curb Ramp Improvement Project 2026 in the Capital Improvement Program, Appropriate Funds, and Award a Construction Contract in the Amount of $1,048,262.00 to Villalobos & Associates for the Citywide Curb Ramp Improvement Project (Exempt from CEQA Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1) Action: Pulled from Consent; Adopted Resolution No. 26-094 C.S. (4-0-1, Councilmember Barber absent)
City Engineer/Deputy Public Works Director Easterling, Associate Civil Engineer Wright, and Public Works Director Renny answered Councilmembers' questions. Public comment was solicited but not received.

On a motion by Councilmember Smith, seconded by Councilmember Rasch, and carried by the following vote, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 26-094 C.S.:

AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 2, Packet Page 21 City Council Minutes July 7, 2026
3 7. Adopt a Resolution Accepting the Tabulation Results for the City's Flood Protection and Clean Stormwater Fee and if Approved, Adopt a Resolution Setting the Rates Beginning in Fiscal Year 2026-2027 (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Pulled from Consent; Adopted Resolution No. 26-095 C.S. (4-0-1, Councilmember Barber absent)
Environmental Regulations Analyst Baggott gave a verbal staff presentation. During the presentation, Mayor Williamson left the Chamber from 4:54 p.m. to 4:56 p.m. Public comment was received from: Rick Heuer, who said the Council should stop trying to pass expenses on to the public; and Esther Malkin, who urged Monterey residents to consider the consequences of not approving this fee.

On question from the Council, City Manager Hall,Public Works Director Renny and City Engineer/Deputy Public Works Director Easterling provided context on the City's next steps in providing flood protection, and discussed with the Council the impacts of reduced operations and maintenance, in light of the failure of the ballot proceeding.

On a motion by Councilmember Smith, seconded by Councilmember Rasch, and carried by the following vote, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 26-095 C.S.:

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

8. Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Purchase Agreement with Charles Murray, an individual dba JAECO Fire & Safety, for 20 Sets of Firefighter Turnouts at a Cost Not to Exceed $100,866.30 (Not a Project Under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 26-096 C.S. (4-0-1, Councilmember Barber absent) Consent: Other

9. Appoint Agency Negotiators for Conference with Real Property Negotiators Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8; Property: 6 Fisherman's Wharf, Suite C (Paluca Trattoria); Agency Negotiators: Kimberly Cole and Janna Aldrete; Negotiating Parties:

Salvatore Tedesco (Salvatore Tedesco, Inc.); Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment for Assignment of Lease and Lease Extension (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Appointed negotiators Cole and Aldrete (4-0-1, Councilmember Barber absent)
End of Consent Agenda
Afternoon Session Items
Public Appearance (Afternoon)

10. Receive Subcommittee Recommendations; Appoint Applicants to Positions on Board of Library Trustees, Building and Housing Appeals Board, Disabled Access Appeals Board, Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program (NCIP) Committee, and Parks and Recreation Commission (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 3, Packet Page 22 City Council Minutes July 7, 2026
4 Action: Appointed Nelson Graff and Marsha Moroh to the Board of Library Trustees; Jennifer Davidson to the NCIP Committee as an alternate representing the Oak Grove neighborhood; Joe Livernois to the NCIP Committee as an alternate representing the Old Town neighborhood; all for terms to end June 30, 2030; And continued consideration of the Parks and Recreation Commission appointment to the July 21, 2026 meeting.

City Clerk Klein gave a verbal staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions. Public comment was received from Esther Malkin, who spoke in favor of appointing Emily Adler to the Parks and Recreation Commission.

On a motion by Mayor Williamson, seconded by Councilmember Rasch, and carried by the following vote, the City Council appointed Nelson Graff and Marsha Moroh to the Board of Library Trustees; Jennifer Davidson to the NCIP Committee as an alternate representing the Oak Grove neighborhood; Joe Livernois to the NCIP Committee as an alternate representing the Old Town neighborhood; all for terms to end June 30, 2030:

AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber
The Mayor and Vice Mayor, as the members of the Subcommittee who had therefore conducted the interviews, provided their reasoning for their recommendations for the appointment to the Parks and Recreation Commission.

A motion was introduced by Councilmember Smith, and seconded by Councilmember Rasch, to appoint Andrea Kingman to the Parks and Recreation Commission for a term to end June 30, 2030.

The Council discussed the motion and the merits of the applicants.

The motion failed by the following vote:

AYES: 2 COUNCILMEMBERS: Rasch, Smith
NOES: 2 COUNCILMEMBERS: Garcia, Williamson
ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber
On consensus, the Council continued the Parks and Recreation Commission appointment to the July 21, 2026 Council regular meeting.

11. Authorize the City's Participation in the State Water Resources Control Board Hearing in Support of Monterey Peninsula Water Management District's Request to Modify the California American Water Company Cease and Desist Order (State Water Board Orders WR 2016-0016 and WR 2009-0060) (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Authorized the City's participation in the SWRCB hearing (4-0-1, Councilmember Barber absent)
City Attorney Davi gave a verbal staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions.

Public comment was received from Gary Cursio of the Coalition of Peninsula Businesses and Monterey County Hospitality Association, and Esther Malkin, who both spoke in support of the letter.

The Council said it was important to advocate for mitigation. It was stressed that the focus needed to be on supporting the Housing Element and having the Cease and Desist Order (CDO) modified in order to allow for housing and economic development.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 4, Packet Page 23 City Council Minutes July 7, 2026
5 On a motion by Mayor Williamson, seconded by Councilmember Rasch, and carried by the following vote, the City Council authorized the City's participation in the SWRCB hearing:

AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber
Adjourn to Closed Session
Public comment on the closed session was received from Quincy and Mike Yaley, who both spoke in favor of assigning the lease proposed in Item cs12. The Council adjourned to closed session at 5:56 p.m.

Closed Session (Afternoon)

12. Closed Session Conference with Real Property Negotiators Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8
Property: 6 Fisherman's Wharf, Suite C (Paluca Trattoria) Agency Negotiators: Kimberly Cole and Janna Aldrete
Negotiating Parties: Salvatore Tedesco (Salvatore Tedesco, Inc.) Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment for Assignment of Lease and Lease Extension
(Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: On a unanimous roll-call vote, with Councilmember Barber absent, the Council gave confidential direction to its property negotiators

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

1. R. Moore v. City of Monterey (Workers' Compensation Appeals Hearing Board Case No. ADJ20807959)
(Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: On a unanimous roll-call vote, with Councilmember Barber absent, the Council gave confidential direction to its legal counsel

14. Conference with Legal Counsel, Deciding Whether to Initiate Litigation Pursuant to Government Code §54956.9(d)(4) (One Case) (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: On a unanimous roll-call vote, with Councilmember Barber absent, the Council directed legal counsel to sign onto an amicus brief prepared by other Bay Area and Central Coast local governments in support of plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction in the case titled County of Santa Clara and State of California v. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al., Northern District of California Case No. 5:26-cv-05604, pertaining to the construction of an ICE detention facility in Santa Clara County
The Council recessed at 6:40 p.m. and reconvened at 7:00 p.m.

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

Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 5, Packet Page 24 City Council Minutes July 7, 2026
6 General Public Comments, Continued
Continued public comment on non-agendized matters was received from Nina Beety and Daniel Armandariz.

Announcements from Closed Session
City Attorney Davi reported out from the closed session as indicated in the actions recorded for closed session items 12, 13, and 14, above.

Evening Session Items
Public Appearance (Evening)

15. Provide Guidance Concerning 2026/27 Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program (NCIP) Objectives and Priorities ***NCIP*** (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Provided guidance
Senior Engineer Paulding gave the staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions with additional input from Public Works Director Renny.

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: Curt Tipton of the NCIP Committee, who urged the Council to prioritize replacing the San Nicola boat at the entrance to the Wharf parking lot; Dennis Duke of the NCIP Committee, who asked the Council to provide general guidance instead of specific project guidance; Cora Panturad, who urged prioritizing improvements in quality of life and investment in third spaces; Kris Richardson of Monterey Police Association, who urged prioritizing improvements to the Monterey Police Department facility;Tom Reeves, who echoed the request for general guidance and said that future maintenance costs should also be considered; Nina Beety, who alleged that the City's forest and vegetation management was harming the environment and increasing fire risk; Phil Bezouska of Monterey Fire Fighters Association, who urged support for additional funding for improvements to Fire Station 12 in New Monterey; and Esther Malkin, who echoed the request for improvements to the Police Department and suggested that community members work to help find additional funding for nice-to-have community improvement projects.

The Council discussed the matter. Priorities expressed for projects in the upcoming NCIP year were: health and safety projects, resident-serving projects such as recreational facilities and parks; preventative projects that would save the City money in the long run; projects that would help the City achieve greater compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); and capital improvement projects that could be funded over multiple years of the program to address important infrastructure needs, such as wharf improvements. Noting that the NCIP had been very helpful with assisting the City to address the budget shortfall with $3.5M but that the budget deficit continued to be serious, it was asked that the Council consider pausing the NCIP.

Mayor Williamson reopened public comment and limited speaking time to one minute per person.

Additional comment was received from: Dennis Duke of the NCIP Committee, who provided examples of multiple year projects; Tom Reeves, who proposed that multi-year projects be approved with dedicated dollars for multiple years at a time; Esther Malkin, who said that residentserving projects were an appropriate focus and asked for approval of funding to improve Laguna Grande Park; and Phil Bezouska of the Monterey Fire Fighters Association, who thanked the Council and NCIP Committee for helping to prioritize the fire station.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 6, Packet Page 25 City Council Minutes July 7, 2026
7 The Council continued its discussion. It was stated that the existing structural deficits had been compounded by recent election results and were the responsibility of the Council alone. It was stressed that the NCIP had always found a way to benefit the City, that there was a lot of appreciation for NCIP Committee, and that the Council looked forward to the upcoming Council/NCIP Committee joint meeting.

It was further expressed that Council would prioritize larger infrastructure projects impacting residents throughout the greater community, and continued fuel reduction.

It was stated that there would not be support for the concept of pausing the NCIP, stating that the NCIP would always be there to assist with City needs and that the NCIP Committee would make the best decisions as a community with available resources.

It was stated that staff had limited bandwidth and it was suggested that the Council look at ways to scale back the program in the short term, noting that the staff’s limited time and capacity could be spent toward addressing some of the infrastructure needs that were already identified. It was noted that NCIP funds were City money and NCIP projects were City business, and it was stressed that the elephant in the room was addressing the budget deficit.

16. Motion for Reconsideration of Resolution No. 26-083 C.S., which Awarded a Construction Contract to The Don Chapin Company, Inc. for the Madison/Herrmann/Larkin Intersection Safety Improvement Project and Directed Staff to Conduct Outreach, Be Open to Project Modifications, Request an Extension of Grant Funding, and Return to the Council for Final Project Approval; and, If Reconsideration Motion is Granted, Decide Whether to Approve the Madison/Herrmann/Larkin Intersection Safety Improvement Project, Accept Related Grant Funding, and Award a Contract to The Don Chapin Company, Inc. in the Amount of $140,306.50 ***CIP*** (Exempt from CEQA Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1)
Action: Discussed
Councilmember Rasch gave a verbal presentation explaining her request for reconsideration.

City Engineer/Deputy Public Works Director Easterling gave a verbal presentation explaining the history of the project, and answered Councilmembers' questions.

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: Cora Panturad and Betsy Wilson, who both spoke in favor of the project and of keeping Resolution No. 26-083 in place; Jeff Galfin, who spoke about the need for increased access to school buses; Marta Kraftzeck, an unidentified man, Tim Eckert, Nancy Soule, Bruce Zanetta of the Monterey Vista Neighborhood Association, Pat Venza, Kim Appleberry, Cathy Giammanco, Shirmaine Jones, and Nina Beety, who all spoke in opposition to the project and in support of reconsidering the resolution; an unidentified woman who said there should be dialogue with the high school to resolve traffic flow; and Lori Mazzuca, and Tom Reeves, who both said that communication with residents had not been sufficient.

On question from the Council, City Engineer/Deputy Public Works Director Easterling confirmed that the center of the project would be mountable to ensure that large trucks and emergency vehicles could make it through the intersection.

In favor of reconsidering the resolution, and in opposition to the project, the Council said that there was a lack of community support for the project, questioned the value of the project for the funds that would be spent, said that there was a lack of evidence of safety issues, expressed concern that there could be a negative impact on traffic, highlighted aesthetic concerns and maintenance Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 7, Packet Page 26 City Council Minutes July 7, 2026
8 questions, and expressed an interest in working together with the school district in finding solutions.

In opposition to reconsidering the resolution, and in support of the project, the Council said close calls had been witnessed and stressed that safety for those using the intersection was the highest priority, noted that the funding came from grants as the result of proactive work by City staff, advocated for creativity and trying new solutions, and stressed the temporary nature of the project due to the quick build design which it was noted would allow for gathering informed feedback from residents and users of the intersection.

An initial motion was introduced by Councilmember Smith, and seconded by Councilmember Rasch, to direct staff to cancel the bid. City Attorney Davi advised that the first motion be the reconsideration motion requested by Councilmember Rasch. The mover rescinded the motion.

A motion was introduced by Councilmember Rasch, and seconded by Councilmember Smith, to reconsider awarding the contract. The motion failed by the following vote:

AYES: 2 COUNCILMEMBERS: Rasch, Smith
NOES: 2 COUNCILMEMBERS: Garcia, Williamson
ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber
On question from the Council, City Attorney Davi confirmed that in the absence of a successful reconsideration motion, the project would proceed as previously approved. City Manager Hall invited the public to attend the community meeting on July 9 at 6 p.m. and noted that based on the prior Council guidance, the project would return to the Council before any construction began. The Council asked the public to consider what alternatives could be done with the grant funding.

Council Comments
Councilmember Rasch said that she has heard from residents regarding concerns about heavy atmospheric rains in the upcoming winter, and she stressed the need to prepare.

Councilmember Smith suggested that the Council agendize an item for community education to help residents get ready for storm season and increase resiliency. He spoke about enjoying the recent July 4th celebration and said that it was a success, and thanked City staff for their work putting on the celebration and for installing the patriotic crosswalk.

City Manager Reports
City Manager Hall announced that there would be staff training and an internal table-top exercise in October to prepare for the winter storm season. He thanked City staff members for their work to make the July 4th celebration a success.

Adjournment
The Council adjourned at 9:47 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted, Approved,
Clementine Bonner Klein Tyller Williamson
City Clerk Mayor
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 8, Packet Page 27 Council
Agenda Report
№11/25
FROM: Andrea Renny, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Megan Beckman, Administrative Analyst
SUBJECT: Authorize an Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with ZFA Structural Engineers for the Fire Station 12 Renovation Geotechnical and Structural Analysis to Increase the Not-to-Exceed Amount from $122,145 to $168,945 ***NCIP*** (Exempt from CEQA, Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1, Existing Facilities)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt the attached resolution
authorizing the City Manager, or their designee, to
execute an amendment to the Professional
Services agreement with ZFA Structural Engineers
for Fire Station 12 Renovation Geotechnical and
Structural Analysis to increase the not-to-exceed
amount from $122,145 to $168,945, an increase to
the contract of $46,800.

VALUE DRIVERS:

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

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

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

This action is consistent with Chapter 28-Purchasing of the City Code, which requires amendments to Professional Services contracts exceeding $74,999 to be approved by City Council.

Agenda Report Highlights
• The City Council is recommended
to authorize a contract
amendment with ZFA Structural
Engineers for the Fire Station 12
Renovation.
• This proposed amendment
increases the total agreement
amount by $46,800 to reach a
new maximum of $168,945.
• Extra structural engineering
services are required because
subsequent architectural plan
check comments identified
additional necessary work.
• Sufficient funding is currently
available for this cost within the
Fire Stations 12 and 13
Rehabilitation project account.

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

Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 4., Item Page 1, Packet Page 28 №11/25
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The amendment increases the total not-to-exceed contract amount by $46,800, from $122,145 to $168,945. Sufficient funding is available in the Fire Stations 12 & 13 Rehabilitation project account (NCP2506). As of June 17, 2026, the account balance is $2,950,774.79 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey Planning Office determined that the following action is exempt from CEQA Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1, Existing Facilities) because the proposed action involves basic data collection, research, experimental management, and resource evaluation activities for the Storm Drain Master Plan and Rate Study, which do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource (these may be strictly for information gathering purposes, or as part of a study leading to an action which a public agency has not yet approved, adopted, or funded).

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

Exception a - Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located -a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply in all instances, except where the project may have impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies. The proposed action involves basic data collection; therefore, would not have any impacts on the environment.

Exception b - Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. The proposed action is basic data collection; therefore, no cumulative impacts are anticipated.

Exception c - Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. No unusual circumstances are anticipated to be found at the project sites. The proposed action would not have a significant effect due to their limited scope and distinct locations.

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

Exception e - Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. None of these projects would be located on hazardous waste sites listed pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.

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 Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 4., Item Page 2, Packet Page 29 №11/25
proposed action would involve basic data collection, which would not result in an impact to historic or cultural resources.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council could choose not to approve this amendment, however that is not recommended. The work is necessary to complete the Fire Station 12 Renovation project. If an amendment is not approved, the project will be delayed and staff will need to readvertise the additional scope.

DISCUSSION:

On December 3, 2024, the City Council awarded a Professional Services agreement to Ausonio, Incorporated (“Ausonio”) for On-Call Project Management/Construction Management (Building Facilities). Ausonio serves as the City’s construction management consultant for both the Fire Station 12 Renovation and the Hilltop Park Center Renovation projects. On June 10, 2025, Ausonio solicited an informal request for proposals (“RFP”) on behalf of the City for structural engineering services for the Fire Station 12 Renovation project (“Project”). ZFA Structural Engineers (“ZFA”) was the only qualified firm to submit a proposal in response to the RFP, and on September 23, 2025, the City entered into a professional services agreement with ZFA in an amount not to exceed $74,950. On February 17, 2026, Council authorized an amendment to increase the contract to $122,145 and include a Tier II Seismic Evaluation in the Fire Station 12 Rehabilitation Project scope.

As work progressed, subsequent architectural plan check comments identified additional structural engineering work that was not included in ZFA's original scope of services. The additional work includes revisions to structural plans, redesign of shear wall elements to accommodate architectural changes, potential minor structural modifications to support project budget adjustments, and additional construction support services. The proposed amendment will increase the contract amount by $46,800 to complete these additional services and support project delivery.

AR/mb
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, 7/21/2026, Item No. 4., Item Page 3, Packet Page 30 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

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

AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH ZFA STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS FOR THE FIRE STATION 12 RENOVATION GEOTECHNICAL AND STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS TO INCREASE THE NOT-TOEXCEED AMOUNT FROM $122,145 TO $168,945 ***NCIP*** WHEREAS, on December 3, 2024, the City Council awarded a Professional Services agreement to Ausonio, Incorporated (“Ausonio”) for On-Call Project Management/Construction Management (Building Facilities). Ausonio serves as the City’s construction management consultant for both the Fire Station 12 Renovation and the Hilltop Center Renovation projects; WHEREAS, on June 10, 2025, Ausonio solicited an informal request for proposals (“RFP”) on behalf of the City for structural engineering services for the Fire Station 12 Renovation project (“Project”);
WHEREAS, ZFA Structural Engineers (“ZFA”) was the only qualified firm to submit a proposal in response to the RFP, and on September 23, 2025, the City entered into a professional services agreement with ZFA in an amount not to exceed $74,950; WHEREAS, on February 17, 2026, Council authorized an amendment to increase the contract to $122,145 and include a Tier II Seismic Evaluation in the Fire Station 12 Rehabilitation Project scope;
WHEREAS, subsequent architectural plan check comments identified additional structural engineering work that was not included in ZFA's original scope of services. The additional work includes revisions to structural plans, redesign of shear wall elements to accommodate architectural changes, potential minor structural modifications to support project budget adjustments, and additional construction support services; WHEREAS, the proposed amendment will increase the contract amount by $46,800 to complete these additional services and support project delivery; WHEREAS, sufficient funding is available in the Fire Stations 12 & 13 Rehabilitation project account (NCP2506); and,
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey Planning Office determined that the following action is exempt from CEQA Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1, Existing Facilities) because the proposed action involves basic data collection, research, experimental management, and resource evaluation activities for the Storm Drain Master Plan and Rate Study, which do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource (these may be strictly for information gathering purposes, or as part of a study leading to an action which a public agency has not yet approved, adopted, or funded).

Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 4., Item Page 4, Packet Page 31 Furthermore, the exempt projects do not qualify for any of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions found at CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2.

Exception f - Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. The proposed action would involve basic data collection, which would not result in an impact to historic or cultural resources.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT 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 their designee, to execute an amendment to the Professional Services agreement with ZFA Structural Engineers for Fire Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 4., Item Page 5, Packet Page 32 Station 12 Renovation Geotechnical and Structural Analysis (NCP2506) to increase the not-toexceed amount from $122,145 to $168,945, an increase to the contract of $46,800.

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, 7/21/2026, Item No. 4., Item Page 6, Packet Page 33 Council
Agenda Report
№12/25
FROM: Andrea Renny, PE, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Andrew Easterling, PE, Deputy Public Works Director/City Engineer
SUBJECT: Authorize an Easement Agreement with the Monterey Peninsula Airport District and Accept a Public Road Easement at Olmsted Road and Garden Road (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council approve a resolution to authorize the Mayor to execute an Easement Agreement and
accept a public road easement from the Monterey
Peninsula Airport District at Olmsted Road and Garden
Road. The easement area is shown on Exhibit A to the
resolution.

VALUE DRIVERS:

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

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

A public road easement is required to ensure the public has right of way at the intersection of Olmsted Road and Garden Road. The Monterey Regional Airport is
constructing a new roundabout at this intersection and
additional right of way is required to circle the new
roundabout.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

Agenda Report Highlights
• The City Council is asked to
approve an easement agreement
and accept a public road easement
from the Monterey Peninsula Airport
District at Olmsted and Garden
Roads.
• This easement is required to provide
the public with the right of way
needed to navigate a new
roundabout being constructed by
the airport.
• The airport would grant this
easement as a condition of project
approval at no cost to the City.
• The City would maintain the new
roadway pavement while the airport
would maintain the surrounding
sidewalks, landscaping, and
signage.

Date: 7/21/2026
Item No.: 5.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 5., Item Page 1, Packet Page 34 №12/25
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The Airport is granting this easement as a condition of approval of the roundabout project at Olmsted and Garden Roads, at no cost to the City. The City shall pay any and all costs associated with the recordation of the Easement Deed and Agreement. No costs are anticipated since recording fees are typically waived for local agencies pursuant to State law. However, if fees are not waived the County charges $2.00 per page for recorded documents and there is sufficient budget available in the Engineering operating budget.

The City will be responsible for the ongoing maintenance of the roadway within this easement.

The approximate area of the new pavement around the roundabout and within this easement is 4,000 square feet. The City currently maintains 108 centerline miles of roads within the City and this nominal amount of additional pavement will not significantly change the City’s pavement maintenance needs. A traffic signal could have been selected for the intersection control, instead of a roundabout and a traffic signal would have required additional operational and maintenance costs compared to the roundabout. The Airport will be responsible for maintaining the sidewalks, landscaping and airport signage.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

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

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council could choose not to approve the resolution. This is not recommended as it would prevent the public from having public right of way around the new roundabout at Olmsted Road and Garden Road.

DISCUSSION:

The City of Monterey owns the public right of way within the City. Right of way is a network of land used for the purpose of transportation. Right of way often includes the roadway, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, utilities and traffic control devices. When a property develops or redevelops occasionally right of way must be dedicated to the City to accommodate additional area for added travel lanes, widened sidewalks, or larger intersections.

The Monterey Peninsula Airport District adopted its Final Airport Master Plan Environmental Impact Report in November 2018, which proposed a roundabout at Olmsted Road and Garden Road. The Airport is now in the process of constructing a new terminal building and other offsite improvements including the new roundabout. The footprint of the new roundabout requires additional right of way at the intersection so that the public does not have to cross through Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 5., Item Page 2, Packet Page 35 №12/25
private property in order to circle the roundabout. As a condition of approval of the offsite improvements, staff required a roadway easement be dedicated for the additional intersection area prior to the final acceptance of the offsite improvements for the project. The applicant has provided a legal description of the roadway easement which was reviewed and approved by staff.

The City would maintain the roadway at the intersection. Since this roundabout is a primary feature of the Monterey Regional Airport’s primary entry and exit point, the Airport District would maintain landscaping and irrigation systems within the roundabout, including splitter islands and park strips, maintaining airport signage, weed abatement, and litter control.

Conveying an interest in real property, such as an easement, cannot be recorded without a certificate of acceptance authorized by the City Council (Government Code §27281). Accepting the walkway easement will not place any additional burden on the City. The easement will run with the land, meaning that the public will be allowed to access the sidewalk regardless of who owns the underlying fee title to the land.

AR/ae
Attachments: 1. Resolution

2. Resolution Exhibit A

3. Easement Agreement
e: Brian Roth, Monterey Regional Airport
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 5., Item Page 3, Packet Page 36 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

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

AUTHORIZING AN EASEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE MONTEREY PENINSULA

AIRPORT DISTRICT AND ACCEPTING A PUBLIC ROAD EASEMENT

AT OLMSTED ROAD AND GARDEN ROAD
WHEREAS, Government Code section 27281 requires that deeds conveying an interest in real property to a governmental agency for public purposes may be accepted for recordation only with the consent of the agency evidenced by a resolution; WHEREAS, in order to accept the real property easement interest, the City of Monterey must authorize acceptance and recordation of title with the County Recorder; WHEREAS, the City of Monterey owns the public right of way within the City which includes the roadway, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, utilities and traffic control devices; WHEREAS, the Monterey Peninsula Airport District is constructing a new roundabout at Olmsted Road and Garden Road and additional right of way is required to accommodate the larger intersection;
WHEREAS, as a condition of approval, staff required a roadway easement be dedicated for the additional intersection area prior to the final acceptance of the improvements; 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 FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby:

1. Accepts and assumes all right, title and interest to the roadway easement located at the intersection of Olmsted Road and Garden Road, as shown on Exhibit A; and Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 5., Item Page 4, Packet Page 37

2. Authorizes the Mayor to execute, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney, all documents necessary to effectuate such easement transfer and acceptance including but not limited to an Easement Agreement.

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, 7/21/2026, Item No. 5., Item Page 5, Packet Page 38

Page 1 of 2 ends

Legal Description
of a Public Road Easement
Olmsted Road at Garden Road
Certain real property situate in the County of Monterey, State of California, being a portion of that certain 10.0 acre parcel of land described in the grant deed from Joseph Kirkwood Jr. to the Monterey Peninsula Airport District, recorded February 28, 1957 in Book 1773, Page 595, Official Records of Monterey County, described as follows:

Beginning at a point on the easterly sideline of Olmsted Road (a city road, 80.00 feet wide) as shown on the map filed for record in Volume 11 of Parcel Maps at Page 89 in the office of the County Recorder of said County, said easterly sideline being also the westerly boundary of said land described in said deed, said point of beginning being at the intersection of said easterly sideline with the easterly prolongation of the centerline of Garden Road as shown on said map (said point of beginning bears South 58°42' East,

80.00 feet along said centerline of Garden Road from a street monument marking the intersection of said centerline with the westerly sideline of Olmsted road as shown on said map); thence along said easterly sideline
1) North 31°18'00" East, 91.26 feet; thence departing said easterly sideline of Olmsted road
2) South 73°47'20" East, 14.39 feet; thence
3) Southerly 42.20 feet along the arc of a non-tangent curve to the left having a radius of 158.00 feet (a radial bearing to the center point of said curve bears South 73°00'51" East), through a central angle of 15°18'13"; thence 4) Southeasterly 35.50 feet along the arc of a compound curve to the left having a radius of 28.00 feet, through a central angle of 72°38'56"; thence non-tangentially 5) South 22°38'58" West, 88.87 feet; thence
6) Westerly 22.78 feet along the arc of a non-tangent curve to the left having a radius of 77.00 feet (a radial bearing to the center point of said curve bears South 28°48'20" West), through a central angle of 16°57'03"; thence 7) Westerly 34.39 feet along the arc of a compound curve to the left having a radius of 133.00 feet, through a central angle of 14°48'47"; thence 8) Westerly 32.33 feet along the arc of a compound curve to the left having a radius of 58.00 feet, through a central angle of 31°56'07" to a point along said easterly sideline of Olmsted Road; thence along said easterly sideline 9) North 31°18'00" East, 89.73 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 5., Item Page 6, Packet Page 39

Page 2 of 2 ends

T:\Monterey Projects\4620 - MRY Airport\SURVEY\LEGAL DESC\4620 Legal - Road Easement.docx Containing 0.186 acres (8,105 square feet), more or less.

As shown on the plat attached hereto and made a part hereof.

END OF DESCRIPTION
PREPARED BY:

WHITSON ENGINEERS
______________________________________9/23/2025___
RICHARD P. WEBER P.L.S. DATE
L.S. No. 8002
Job No.: 4620.00

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 5., Item Page 7, Packet Page 40 ∆
Δ=
Δ= O L M S T E D R O A D
( A
8 0 - F O O T
W
I
D
E
P
U
B
L
I
C
S T
R
E
E T )

G A R D E N

R O A D
(A 80-FOOT WIDE PUBLIC STREET)

DESCRIBED
AREA:

MONTEREY PENINSULA AIRPORT DISTRICT BK. 1773 O.R. PG. 595 PROJECT No.: T:\Monterey Projects\4620 - MRY Airport\SURVEY\LEGAL DESC\4620 Legal Plat - ROW.dwg Civil Engineering +
Land Surveying
6 Harris Court
Monterey, CA 93940
831.649.5225
whitsonengineers.com
4620.00

PLAT TO ACCOMPANY DESCRIPTION

MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA

TO THE CITY OF MONTEREY
9/23/25

OF RIGHT-OF-WAY TO BE DEDICATED

I N E E

S O N W E N
I T H
S G
R

EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 5., Item Page 8, Packet Page 41 ATTACHMENT 3
4928-2605-4260.1
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:

City Clerk
City Of Monterey
580 Pacific Street
Monterey, CA 93940
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:

City of Monterey
580 Pacific Street
Monterey, CA 93940
A.P.N. 032-082-013 SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE RESERVED FOR RECORDER’S USE

EASEMENT AGREEMENT
THIS EASEMENT AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made and entered into this day of July, 2026, by and between Monterey Peninsula Airport District, herein called "Owner" and the CITY OF MONTEREY, herein called "City," collectively referred to as the “Parties.” WITNESSETH:

WHEREAS, Owner is the fee owner of a portion of a parcel of land as more particularly described and depicted in Exhibit A (“Subject Property”) attached hereto and which is incorporated by reference herein.

WHEREAS, the Airport proposes improvements to the intersection of Olmsted Road and Garden Road (“Intersection”) to better accommodate roadway traffic at the Monterey Regional Airport (“Airport”).

WHEREAS, the improvements shall include construction of a new roundabout at the Intersection. This intersection change is a required environmental mitigation measure related to Owner’s construction of the new Airport terminal.

WHEREAS, the roundabout at the Intersection will optimize traffic flow in and out of the Airport and Garden Road, reduce speeds of vehicles, and result in fewer vehicle collisions. Other improvements will include landscaping and improved roadway aesthetics.

WHEREAS, the Parties desire by this Agreement to provide for the grant of a permanent easement as described in Exhibit A.

AGREEMENT

PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT
CODE §§6103 and 27383 NO FEE

IS REQUIRED FOR THE

RECORDATION OF THIS

DOCUMENT
DRAFT
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 5., Item Page 9, Packet Page 42 ATTACHMENT 3
4928-2605-4260.1
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual terms, covenants, and conditions contained in this Agreement and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Owner and City agree as follows:

1. Grant of Permanent Easement and Ongoing Obligations of City. Owner grants and conveys to the City a permanent easement upon, under, over, and across the surface of the Subject Property for the purposes of providing a public right-of-way for pedestrian and vehicular traffic, providing roadway maintenance following installation by the Owner, including but not limited to maintenance of the roundabout and its infrastructure, street maintenance, and striping for vehicular traffic. Following installation by the Owner, the roadway maintenance outlined in this paragraph shall be performed at the sole cost and expense of the City. The easement shall be held open in accordance with applicable municipal standards, and the City shall have the right to regulate and control access to the easement in compliance with public safety and traffic laws.

2. Construction of Improvements at Intersection. At Owner’s sole cost and expense, Owner shall construct and install the improvements at the Intersection, including but not limited to the roundabout, landscaping, and any infrastructure required for the installation of the improvements.

3. Ongoing Obligations of Owner. Owner shall install and maintain the intersection landscaping and irrigation systems, including within the center of roundabout, splitter islands, and park strips. Maintenance includes ongoing plant replacement, pruning, mowing, weed abatement, irrigation repairs, and litter removal. Owner shall install and maintain the airport signage and lighting of the sign, electrical service, bulb replacement, fixture maintenance, and controller maintenance.

Owner shall maintain sidewalks consistent with Monterey City Code section 32-23 et seq. The landscape, sidewalk, and sign maintenance outlined in this paragraph shall be performed at the sole cost and expense of Owner.

4. Covenants Run with Land. The word "Owner" as used herein, whenever the context requires or permits, shall include the heirs, personal representatives, beneficiaries, successors, grantees and assigns of the owners of the land through which the easement runs, or the respective owners from time to time of portions thereof. The burdens and benefits of this Easement Agreement shall be deemed covenants running with the easements and land, pursuant to any and all applicable laws, including, but not limited to California Civil Code section 1468. Notwithstanding any contrary provision in this Easement Agreement, however, any obligation under this Easement Agreement which is to be performed by the owner of any land which is burdened by this Easement Agreement shall be enforceable only against the then owner of such land, and not against any such owner's predecessors in interest.

5. Duration of Easement. City shall have perpetual access to the Property for purposes of ongoing use and maintenance of the Intersection roundabout, so long as the City complies with the terms and conditions of this Easement Agreement.

6. Further Assurances. Owner and City agree to perform any further acts and to execute any documents that may be reasonably necessary to carry out the purposes and provisions of this Agreement.

7. Entire Agreement, Modification. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between Owner and the City concerning the subject matter hereof. This agreement may not be Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 5., Item Page 10, Packet Page 43 ATTACHMENT 3
4928-2605-4260.1
amended or rescinded, in whole or in part, except by written and recorded instrument executed by all of the then owners of record.

8. Severability. The invalidation of any of the provisions contained in this Agreement, or the application thereof to any person by judgment or court order, shall in no way affect any of the other provisions hereof, or the application thereof to any other person, and the same remain in full force and effect to the maximum extent possible.

9. Miscellaneous.
(a) Owner shall have all rights to the Property not granted by this Easement. (b) Governing Law. This Easement Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. (c) Authority. Each party hereto and the persons signing below on such party’s behalf is authorized to do so and to bind such party to the terms of this Agreement. (d) It is understood and agreed that by the Parties that this Agreement has been arrived at through the negotiation and deliberation by the Parties, with each party having had the opportunity to review and revise this Agreement and to discuss the terms and effect this Agreement with counsel of its choice.
(e) The Easement described above shall be of no force and effect until this Easement Agreement is duly and validly executed by Owner and the City.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed the Easement Agreement as of the date first written above.

Monterey Peninsula Airport District
By: Christine Morello
City of Monterey
By: Tyller Williamson, Mayor
(see attached notary)
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 5., Item Page 11, Packet Page 44 ATTACHMENT 3
4928-2605-4260.1

EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND MAP OF DESCRIBED AREA
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 5., Item Page 12, Packet Page 45 Council
Agenda Report
№12/25
FROM: Kimberly Cole, AICP, Community Development Director Prepared By: Ted Terrasas, REHS, Sustainability Manager SUBJECT: Approve a Fiscal Year 2026-2027 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Between the Monterey Regional Waste Management District (ReGen Monterey) and Member Agencies for $63,001 for Compliance with Organic Waste Recycling and Food Recovery Laws (SB 1383) and Authorize Subsequent Annual MOUs through FY 2031-2032 for These Services in an Amount Not to Exceed $100,000 per Fiscal Year (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt a resolution approving the
FY 2026-2027 MOU with ReGen Monterey (ReGen) for
costs of $63,001 and authorize subsequent annual
MOUs through FY 2031-2032 for these services in an
amount not to exceed $100,000 per Fiscal Year.

VALUE DRIVERS:

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

California’s Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction law (SB 1383) requires the City to comply with waste
diversion goals. As a result, the program
implementation, monitoring, tracking, public outreach,
and reporting to the State are responsibilities assigned to the City. While the City could work to address these responsibilities on its own, collaborating with the other jurisdictions in the region facing the same regulatory
requirements offers a potentially more efficient and costeffective response.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE
ACT) APPLIES: No.

Agenda Report Highlights
• The City Council is recommended to
adopt a resolution approving the
Fiscal Year 2026-2027
Memorandum of Understanding with
ReGen Monterey.
• This agreement would allocate
$63,001 to support regional
compliance with state organic waste
recycling and food recovery laws.
• Collaborating with other regional
jurisdictions rather than acting
independently would provide a more
efficient and cost-effective approach
to meeting these mandatory
regulations.
• The proposed action would also
authorize subsequent annual
agreements through Fiscal Year
2031-2032 for amounts not
exceeding $100,000 per year.

Date: 7/21/2026
Item No.: 6.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 6., Item Page 1, Packet Page 46 №12/25
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

ReGen estimates that the total MOU implementation cost for FY 2026-2027 will be $381,954 for all member agencies combined. Some costs which were not applied to the City of Monterey, including HF&H franchise management and Recyclist database fees (Attachment 3).

Of the $381,954, the City’s portion, when factored by population, waste hauler franchise, and subtracting non-applicable costs, is $63,001 (Attachment 4). The City has appropriated funds for this cost in the Community Development Department’s FY 26/27 adopted 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 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 alternatives were considered for this action.

DISCUSSION:

SB 1383 has been regarded as one of the most significant diversion legislation efforts in the past 30 years. The State of California estimates that 20 to 23 million tons of organic waste (food/yard waste) are disposed of per year, which accounts for roughly two-thirds of all disposal.

In addition to the amount of waste, the other main concern with this waste stream is the production of methane, which is estimated to be 80 times more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide over the first 20 years that it reaches the atmosphere. Landfills are estimated to be responsible for 21% of the State’s methane emissions.

Due to the magnitude and complexity of SB 1383 requirements, ReGen member agencies, regional waste haulers, and the two solid waste management agencies in the County (ReGen Monterey and Salinas Valley Recycles) began meeting to discuss compliance strategies in Q4 of 2020. While each member agency is responsible for compliance on its own, the funding and staffing levels required are greatly reduced by collaborating with regional agencies expected to comply with the same regulations.

Some of the key tasks associated with the SB 1383 compliance require extensive program implementation by the City, including:
• Collection and Processing – Processing of organic (green/food) waste from commercial and residential sources, labeling and color coding all carts Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 6., Item Page 2, Packet Page 47 №12/25
• Monitoring and Enforcement – Conducting annual route reviews for contaminants, perform waste composition studies, issue notices and violations and penalties
• Product Procurement – Annually procure an amount of organic material (compost, renewable gas, mulch) that complies with the target established by CalRecycle
• Ordinance Adoption – Adopt code requiring compliance with SB 1383 and establishing enforcement mechanism
• Edible Food Recovery Program – Implement a program that connects edible food generators with recovery organizations
• Education and Outreach – Annually provide information including but not limited to edible food recovery, material separation, waste prevention, methane reduction
• Record Keeping and Reporting – Maintaining a centralized implementation record relating to SB 1383 compliance (available within 10 days notice) in addition to annual reporting to the State
The FY 26/27 MOU continues the effort by ReGen member agencies to share in the costs of implementing or expanding diversion programs to comply with SB 1383. The MOU also has a potential benefit in that member agencies can show that they are making every reasonable effort to comply by cooperating with neighboring jurisdictions and working on compliance plans together to comply with State law.

For these reasons, it is the recommendation of staff that the City Council approve the resolution authorizing the MOU with ReGen for FY 2026-2027 costs. Because this item is routine and occurs annually, it is also recommended that the City Council authorize subsequent MOUs through FY 2031-2032 for these services in an amount not to exceed $100,000 per fiscal year which will improve efficiencies.

KC/tjt
Attachments: 1. Resolution

2. FY 2025/2026 Regen MOU

3. Updated Shared Costs for FY 26/27

4. Jurisdictional Allocations for FY 26/27
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, 7/21/2026, Item No. 6., Item Page 3, Packet Page 48 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№011/24
APPROVING THE FISCAL YEAR 2026-2027 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU)

BETWEEN THE MONTEREY REGIONAL WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (REGEN MONTEREY) AND MEMBER AGENCIES FOR $63,001 FOR COMPLIANCE WITH ORGANIC WASTE RECYCLING AND FOOD RECOVERY LAWS (SB 1383) AND AUTHORIZING SUBSEQUENT MOUs THROUGH FY 2031-2032 FOR THESE SERVICES IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $100,000 PER FISCAL YEAR WHEREAS, SB 1383 is recognized throughout the industry as being the most significant solid waste legislation in the past 30 years and focuses on the diversion of organic waste from disposal in landfills;
WHEREAS, according to the State of California, in 2017, 67% of waste in the state was organic;
WHEREAS, organic waste generates methane during decomposition, which has 80 times the warming power of carbon dioxide within the first 20 years of reaching the atmosphere; WHEREAS, recovering edible food is critical in that 1 in 9 Californians are food insecure, and that unrecovered food becomes an organic waste product; WHEREAS, regulatory compliance will require the City, its waste hauler, and the Monterey Regional Waste Management District (MRWMD) to establish new or increase existing waste diversion programs to comply with state regulations; 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:

Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 6., Item Page 4, Packet Page 49

1. The City Manager, or designee, is authorized to execute the FY 2026-2027 MOU between ReGen Monterey and its member agencies to include FY 2026-27 costs of $63,001.

2. The City Manager, or designee, is authorized to execute annual MOUs, or amendments to MOUs, between ReGen Monterey and its member agencies through Fiscal Year 2031-2032 in an amount not to exceed $100,000 per Fiscal Year.

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, 7/21/2026, Item No. 6., Item Page 5, Packet Page 50 Docusign Envelope ID: E30DB626-33FD-8AB1-80A4-4F79C6DA3EC7 Attachment 2

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

BETWEEN THE MONTEREY REGIONAL WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AND ITS

MEMBER AGENCIES REGARDING ASSISTANCE WITH COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA SENATE BILL 1383

This Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) is made and entered into as of the date of the signatures set forth below by and between the MONTEREY REGIONAL WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (“District”, “MRWMD”), a California Garbage and Refuse Disposal District, and its member agencies including the cities of CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, DEL REY OAKS, MARINA, MONTEREY, PACIFIC GROVE, SAND CITY, and SEASIDE; THE PEBBLE BEACH COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT; and THE COUNTY OF MONTEREY (“Member Agencies”). Collectively these entities shall be known herein as “Parties” or individually as a “Party.”

Recitals
A. The State of California has passed legislation, known as Senate Bill 1383, California’s Short-Lived Climate Pollutants regulation. The regulation will have significant impact on each Member Agency, with the goal of reducing organic material being landfilled by 75% by 2025, compared to a 2014 basis. The legislation mandates that Member Agencies undertake certain activities around the handling of organic waste materials collected within their jurisdictions. The regulation also requires 20% recovery of edible food by 2025 to direct it to a beneficial use and thus prevent it from entering the waste stream. Regulations take effect, and local program implementation will begin, on January 1, 2022.

B. The Member Agencies have determined that it is in their best interest to coordinate their activities related to this legislation. This coordination is being facilitated by the District’s Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) comprised of staff from each Member Agency, the three Haulers in the District service area (Haulers), Salinas Valley Recycles (SVR) and MRWMD.

C. The Member Agencies have further determined that the District has the expertise and resources necessary to implement some of these activities on the Member Agencies’ behalf and have now requested that the District incur costs to provide these activities.

D. The Member Agencies have agreed to reimburse the District for proportionate shares of certain designated annual costs incurred by the District for these activities.

E. The form and content of this MOU have been presented to the TAC, and the TAC has recommended it for approval by the Parties
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 6., Item Page 6, Packet Page 51 Docusign Envelope ID: E30DB626-33FD-8AB1-80A4-4F79C6DA3EC7 NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits to be derived by the District and the Member Agencies, and of the promises contained in this MOU, the Parties agree as follows:

Section 1. Recitals: The recitals set forth above are incorporated into this MOU.

Section 2. Purpose: The purpose of this MOU is to provide a structure for the Member Agencies to reimburse the District for SB 1383 related activities it performs on behalf of the Member Agencies.

Section 3. Voluntary: This MOU is voluntarily entered into by the Parties for the purpose of facilitating the implementation of SB 1383.

Section 4. Term: This MOU shall become effective on the last day of its execution by a Party and shall remain in effect until terminated by the Parties.

Section 5. Scope of Work, Costs & Cost Sharing: The scope of work, and associated costs, are set out in Exhibit A, entitled Detailed Activities and Costs, attached hereto and incorporated herein. Allocation of such costs to the Member Agencies is set out in Exhibit B, entitled Member Agencies’ Annual Proportionate Shares and Costs, attached hereto and incorporated herein.

Exhibit C outlines estimated individual Member Agencies’ allocations related to the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant Program (OWR1: 2021-22), attached hereto and incorporated herein. Exhibit D defines the estimated annual procurement requirements of organic material and estimated cost per ton of compost for each Member Agency, attached hereto and incorporated herein.

No later than March 1 of each year, and at such other times as directed by the Parties, the TAC shall meet to consider and, if deemed necessary, modify Exhibits A, B, C, and/or D subject to direction from the governing bodies of each Member Agency to its TAC representative.

Section 6. The District Agrees:
(a) District staff will manage activities as identified in Exhibit A, C, and D which activities include contracting with third party vendors when reasonably necessary and paying those vendors for contracted costs.

(b) Two times per year, on dates to be determined by the TAC, District will invoice Member Agencies for each Member Agency’s proportionate share of costs as shown in Exhibit B with each invoice to be fifty percent (50%) of the Member Agency’s share of costs.

(c) Upon award of CalRecycle SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant Program funds, the District will invoice Member Agencies for their full allocation of grant funds as shown in Exhibit Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 6., Item Page 7, Packet Page 52 Docusign Envelope ID: E30DB626-33FD-8AB1-80A4-4F79C6DA3EC7 C. Four times during the grant term, aligned with dates identified by CalRecycle grant Terms & Conditions, the District shall report to Member Agencies a summary of actual grant expenditures and progress toward grant tasks to date.
(d) District will maintain an accounting of activities and expenses and provide reconciliation of payments annually. Material differences between estimated costs and actual incurred costs will result in either: 1) an adjustment made to the final annual payment for each Member Agency, or 2) such cost difference shall be incorporated into the subsequent year cost allocation.

(e) In year one only, in recognition of expected continuation of improved recycling revenues for the District from recyclable material sales, the District will off-set $140,000 of the costs identified in Exhibit A. This off-set is reflected in the cost allocations set out in Exhibit B for FY 2021-22.

Section 7. The Member Agencies Agree:
(a) To reimburse the District for all expenses incurred by the District under this MOU in accordance with each Member Agency’s proportionate share as shown on Exhibit B, C, and D.

(b) To make a full-faith effort to cooperate with one another and with the District to achieve the purposes of this MOU by providing information, reviewing information in a timely manner, and informing their respective administration and governing bodies.

Section 8. Termination. Any Party may terminate its participation in this MOU upon giving written notice to the District no later than April 1 of any calendar year during the term of this MOU. Within ten days following a Party’s termination date, such party shall pay District all charges then due and payable and shall pay when determined any additional charges that shall later come due under the MOU, subject to the limits set out in Exhibits A, B, C, and D.

Section 9. General Provisions.
(a) This MOU is binding and for the benefit of the respective successors, heirs, and assigns of each Party and the District; provided however, no Party may assign its respective rights or obligations under this MOU without the prior written consent of the District.

(b) This MOU is governed by, interpreted under, and construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

(c) If any provision of this MOU is determined by any court to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable to any extent, then the remainder of this MOU will not be affected, and this MOU will be construed as if the invalid, illegal, or unenforceable provision had never been contained in this MOU.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 6., Item Page 8, Packet Page 53 Docusign Envelope ID: E30DB626-33FD-8AB1-80A4-4F79C6DA3EC7

(d) Waiver by the District or any Party to this MOU of any term, condition, or covenant of this MOU will not constitute a waiver of any other term, condition, or covenant.

Waiver by the District or any Party of any breach of the provisions of this MOU will not constitute a waiver of any other provision, nor a waiver of any subsequent breach or violation of any provision of this MOU.

(e) This MOU may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which is an original but all of which taken together will constitute one and the same instrument, provided, however, that such counterparts have been delivered to all parties to this MOU.

(f) All parties acknowledge they have been represented, or have had the opportunity to be represented, by counsel in the preparation and negotiation of this MOU. Accordingly, this MOU will be construed according to its fair language. Any ambiguities will be resolved in a collaborative manner by the District and the Parties and must be rectified by amending this MOU.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the District and the Parties have caused this MOU to be executed by their duly authorized representatives as of the date of their respective signatures.

MONTEREY REGIONAL WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
By: DATE:
4/23/2026
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

C818464A-FA6C 4 C-B1AF-EACC1CC9061D

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 6., Item Page 9, Packet Page 54 Docusign Envelope ID: E30DB626-33FD-8AB1-80A4-4F79C6DA3EC7 By: DATE:
1/23/2026
brandon swanson Acting City Administrator APPROVED AS TO FORM:
1/23/2026
Brian Pierik
City Attorney

Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 6., Item Page 10, Packet Page 55 Docusign Envelope ID: E30DB626-33FD-8AB1-80A4-4F79C6DA3EC7 Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 6., Item Page 11, Packet Page 56 Docusign Envelope ID: E30DB626-33FD-8AB1-80A4-4F79C6DA3EC7 Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 6., Item Page 12, Packet Page 57 Docusign Envelope ID: E30DB626-33FD-8AB1-80A4-4F79C6DA3EC7 3632936A-C86C-86BF-8276-49268438CE7A
City Manager DATE:
4/17/2026 | 4:09 PM PDT

CITY OF MONTEREY
By:

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

City Attorney
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 6., Item Page 13, Packet Page 58 Docusign Envelope ID: E30DB626-33FD-8AB1-80A4-4F79C6DA3EC7 Agreement #: Ag-13155 - Page 8 of 18
4EC3AF 5 E7F8 42B0-9B04-1136E139029A

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
By: ________________________Mayor DATE: _______________ 6/11/2025

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

6/11/2025
_______________________ City Attorney
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 6., Item Page 14, Packet Page 59 Docusign Envelope ID: E30DB626-33FD-8AB1-80A4-4F79C6DA3EC7 9 F512666A-8551-44B5-8991-929379130B55

SAND CITY
2/13/2026
By: DATE:

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 6., Item Page 15, Packet Page 60 Docusign Envelope ID: E30DB626-33FD-8AB1-80A4-4F79C6DA3EC7 Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 6., Item Page 16, Packet Page 61 Docusign Envelope ID: E30DB626-33FD-8AB1-80A4-4F79C6DA3EC7 Docusign Envelope ID: E30DB626-33FD-8AB1-80A4-4F79C6DA3EC7 Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 6., Item Page 17, Packet Page 62 13E91007-73E9-4C70-9A55-C8B41BC5AA04

COUNTY OF MONTEREY
1/5/2026 | 8:28 AM PST
By: DATE:

Elsa Jimenez
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
1/2/2026 | 8:46 AM PST
Robert I. Brayer

Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 6., Item Page 18, Packet Page 63 Docusign Envelope ID: E30DB626-33FD-8AB1-80A4-4F79C6DA3EC7

EXHBIT A
DETAILED ACTIVITIES & COSTS FY 2025-2026

Scope of Work
The activities related to the implementation of SB 1383 may include contracting and policy development; public education; materials purchasing and distribution; reporting; contamination monitoring; edible food waste recovery; enforcement; procurement; organics processing; rate setting; cost monitoring; and any other related activities the Parties choose to address.

The District will take the lead producing public education campaigns in concert with the already provided Hauler and/or Member Agency resources. The Member Agencies will be responsible for production and mailing fees associated with outreach. The District will also contract with a vendor to administer contamination monitoring in the form of curbside lid flipping. The District will also provide CalRecycle reporting services to the Member Agencies. In addition, funds will be allocated to food recovery organizations for procurement of refrigerated holding facilities or transport vehicles to support edible food recovery efforts.

Costs
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 6., Item Page 19, Packet Page 64 Docusign Envelope ID: E30DB626-33FD-8AB1-80A4-4F79C6DA3EC7

EXHBIT B
MEMBER AGENCIES’ ANNUAL PROPORTIONATE SHARES & COSTS*
FY 2025-2026
*Member Agencies’ proportionate costs subject to adjustment annually in accordance with any change in scope and total costs.

Member agencies will be invoiced an annual amount not to exceed column below titled “with minimums.”
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 6., Item Page 20, Packet Page 65 Docusign Envelope ID: E30DB626-33FD-8AB1-80A4-4F79C6DA3EC7

EXHIBIT C
MEMBER AGENCIES’ ESTIMATED ALLOCATION OF CALRECYCLE LOCAL ASSISTANCE GRANT PROGRAM FUNDING (OWR1: 2021-22)**

The Member Agencies of Carmel, Del Rey Oaks, Marina, Monterey, Sand City, Seaside, Pacific Grove, and the Pebble Beach Community Services District (PBCSD) join the Local Assistance Grant Program as a regional collaborative project for the implementation of regulation requirements associated with SB 1383, in coordination with other jurisdictions of the Monterey County region to maximize project impact and cost-effectiveness across the countywide area.

This regional grant-funded project will be coordinated through the two local waste management governmental agencies within Monterey County, Monterey Regional Waste Management (MRWMD), and Salinas Valley Solid Waste Authority (SVSWA).

The Member Agencies, along with each of the MRWMD and SVSWA member agencies are applying individually to this grant program using a unified regional project design, budget and implementation approach. All participating jurisdictions’ individual grant funding will be pooled together and expended in a cooperative manner by their agencies’ respective waste districts, MRWMD and SVSWA. The County of Monterey is applying separately and will manage its budget and project implementation independently, in coordination with broader regional planning efforts.

Based on current regional needs and findings to date related to SB 1383 in Monterey County, the following four major components will comprise the principal focus areas of program expenditures under the proposed regional project approach:
1) Grant Management, Tracking & Reporting
2) Agency Procurement Support
3) Edible Food Recovery Implementation and Capacity Building 4) Organics & Edible Food Recovery Education, Outreach and Technical Assistance Each element will be informed by regional coordination through the established MRWMD and SVSWA Technical Advisory Committee forums, Capacity Planning Assessments and related studies completed or in process throughout the region, and new data and information obtained through program implementation trials, stakeholder feedback and best practices as identified.

All expenditures will be incurred jointly, facilitated through each respective waste agency, and tracked and reported by each jurisdiction, based on the percentage of grant funds received by each agency compared to the full funding received collectively by all participating member agencies. CalRecycle, based on per capita calculations, using the Department of Finance’s Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 6., Item Page 21, Packet Page 66 Docusign Envelope ID: E30DB626-33FD-8AB1-80A4-4F79C6DA3EC7 January 2021 population statistics, estimates jurisdictions’ proportionate grant allocations. A summary of individual and collective agency grant allocations is presented below as Table 1.

Table 1. Thirteen Agency Collaborative Approach Budget Summary Agencies Estimated
Funding
% of District
Subtotal
% of Region
Total
Waste
District
Carmel-by-the-Sea $20,000 9% 4% MRWMD
Del Rey Oaks $20,000 9% 4% MRWMD
Marina $29,771 14% 6% MRWMD
Monterey $38,247 18% 7% MRWMD
Pacific Grove $21,398 10% 4% MRWMD
Sand City $20,000 9% 4% MRWMD
Seaside $43,151 20% 8% MRWMD
Pebble Beach Community
Services District
$20,000 9% 4% MRWMD
Subtotal (MRWMD): $212,566 100% 41%
Gonzales $20,000 6% 4% SVSWA
Greenfield $25,157 8% 5% SVSWA
King City $20,665 7% 4% SVSWA
Salinas $211,143 68% 40% SVSWA
Soledad $33,095 11% 6% SVSWA
Subtotal (SVSWA): $310,060 100% 59%
TOTAL (13 Agency Regional
Approach): $522,626 100%
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 6., Item Page 22, Packet Page 67 Docusign Envelope ID: E30DB626-33FD-8AB1-80A4-4F79C6DA3EC7 ** Working in coordination with the designated CalRecycle grant manager or other agency representatives as appropriate, the region may adjust these proposed expenditure areas, amounts, or priorities, consistent with grant expenditure eligibility requirements, as needed during the course of the grant term based on the needs of the region.

EXHIBIT D
MEMBER AGENCIES’ ESTIMATED PROCURMENT REQUIRMENTS

OF ORGANIC MATERIAL
The list below indicates the annual recovered organic waste product procurement targets for each jurisdiction (city, county, or city and county) that will be in effect from January 1, 2022, through December 31, 2026 per CalRecycle.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 6., Item Page 23, Packet Page 68

!" #$%$&'()*++,&-"./01$$-2%34.'456783$%$&'(4*++,&-9"-'456:81,%-;(<./0 1$$-2%349,= !" !>?@?:+&,+,4'( CAB@@@ ?
DE2F($!,,EG$H,I$&<0'+'H2-<
J*2(E2%3
C7@B@@@=,&G$#$%+,&-2,%,=3&'%-'((,H'-2,%4C@B7@@ =,&3&'%-'E12%24-&'-2,%
C:@B7@@
#&'%-4,==$&$EK,2%-(<F<G$#$%"
)LGM0,*%-<24,12--$E=&,1-;24
(2%$2-$1M
N
DE2F($!,,EG$H,I$&<O&,3&'1 /E12%24-&'-2,%0'+'H2-</44$441$%-P+E'-$4QR2I2%3S,H*1$%- !GT/%%*'(0'+'H2-<)*&I$<P+E'-$4
T-;$&4*++,&-8.JS9U
DE2F($!,,ET*-&$'H;Q!,((,VQ*+-'&3$-3&,*+4
T&3'%2H40,(($H-2,%4T*-&$'H;Q!,((,VQ*+-'&3$-3&,*+4 )H;,,(!,,EW'4-$G$E*H-2,%4Q.'&3$-$E3&,*+4
0,%=$&$%H$+&$4$%-'-2,%4
C7B:N7
G$#$%1$1F$&'3$%H<+,&-2,%
,%(<M)+(2-7@X7@V2-;)LGM
A
T*-&$'H;".$H;%2H'(/4424-'%H$-,
!GT4'%ED!#4
T*-&$'H;'%E-$H;%2H'('4424-'%H$=,&=,,E&$H,I$&<
,&3'%2Y'-2,%48!GT49'%EDE2F($!,,E#$%$&'-,&48D!#49B 0'&$2-/++4*++,&- CZB[@
O&$I2,*4(<=*%E$EF<0'(G$H<H($
R/#O3&'%-4M
7 DE2F($!,,E#$%$&'-,&\%4+$H-2,%4=,&
.2$&"?
\%4+$H-2,%4,%(<
CAB:@?
T12-40,*%-<,=],%-$&$<'4-;$<
+$&=,&1-;$2&,V%2%4+$H-2,%4
:
0,11$&H2'('%E]*(-2Q!'12(<T&3'%2H4
T*-&$'H;
O&,I2E$,*-&$'H;B$E*H'-2,%B'%E-$H;%2H'('4424-'%H$
4*++,&--,-'&3$-$E1*(-2Q='12(<'%EH,11$&H2'(
F*42%$44$4 CZBA7@
O&$I2,*4(<=*%E$EF<0'(G$H<H($
R/#O3&'%-4M
[
O*F(2HDE*H'-2,%S$423%XH&$'-2,%,=+*F(2H$E*H'-2,%1'-$&2'(48C759MS,$4 %,-2%H(*E$+&,E*H-2,%,&E24-&2F*-2,%,=1'-$&2'(4H&$'-$EM 0,%-2%*'-2,%,=),&-V2-; $'&-H'1+'23%8C?751$E2'
+('H$1$%-2%H(*42I$,=F,,52%3=$$49M
CN@B@@@
),&-V2-; $'&-H'1+'23%
+&$I2,*4(<=*%E$EF<0'(G$H<H($
R/#O3&'%-M
^
0,%-'12%'-2,%],%2-,&2%38R2E!(2++2%39
C^BA@@
T12-40,*%-<,=],%-$&$<E*$-,
W])1'&-.&*H5M
Z
G$H<H(24-!$$40(,*EQF'4$E&$H,&E5$$+2%3'%E&$+,&-2%34<4-$14;'&$E F<;'*($&4BK*&24E2H-2,%4'%E+&,H$44,&M
CAB@@?
T12-40,*%-<"02-<,=],%-$&$<B
V;,4*F4H&2F$4$+'&'-$(<M
@
G$#$%],%-$&$<)-'==.21$ 0,,&E2%'-2,%'%E ,4-2%3,=],%-;(<./0]$$-2%34 ,4-2%3'%EX,&+'&-2H2+'-2%32%./0)*FH,112--$$4
)JN^NO&,3&'10,,&E2%'-2,%'%E\1+($1$%-'-2,%
0'(G$H<H($G$+,&-2%3)*++,&-QD($H-&,%2H/%%*'(G$+,&- "\1+($1$%-'-2,%G$H,&E4
C[7B@@@
c_`ab
d
ef
g
highh
ji

e
h
khliemn
ocah
h

ip
qi

mq

e
h

0'&1$(QF<Q-;$Q)$'^[CZN7M@@ S$(G$<T'54 [^CNZ@M@@ ]'&2%'B@[C7B@^7M@@ ],%-$&$< BN[C:B7^7M@@ O'H2=2H#&,I$[?CNB:@7M@@ )'%E02-< ^CZ@M@@ )$'42E$BAZC[BA77M@@ O$FF($J$'H;0)S ?@ CB@7@M@@
P%2%H,&+,&'-$E0,*%-<8W$4-9r N@[ C7BN77M@@ s
t
hdh

` _cu_`aa_v__
w
xw
hiy
dh
e
h

C:B@@@
CNB@@@
CNB@@@
C7@B@@@
C?AB@@@

hiy
dh
e
h cb`___
z{yfg c

`bau
z{yfg

giq
h

_p_

ji

e
hl|hid

km
e
ef

hil

ihz{yfn
!&'%H;24$]'%'3$1$%-4$&I2H$4
'&$=,&#&$$%W'4-$1$1F$&
'3$%H2$4,%(<8,12--2%3-;$02-<'%E
0,*%-<,=],%-$&$<9M
r.;$0,*%-<,=],%-$&$<;'4
4$+'&'-$+&,H*&$1$%-]TPVX
G$#$%-;&,*3;?@?[M.;$2&'1,*%-
24%,-2%H(*E$E2%-;24-,-'(M

MG$I2$V0,%-&'H-,&}4~*'&-$&(<G$+,&-4
?MG$I2$V0,%-&'H-,&}4/%%*'(G$+,&-
NMG$I2$V!&'%H;24$!$$O'<1$%-4
AMG$I2$V0,%-&'H-,&}4/%%*'(G'-$/EK*4-1$%-4
^M],%2-,&0,%-&'H-0,1+(2'%H$
Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 6., Item Page 24, Packet Page 69

" !""# $%&' *( !%() * !'##
" !""# $%&+ *,' *)!'## -./ )) !'%" $'&" *( !%', *- !'## ./) ) !'%" $'& * 0 *)!'## " ""! '% #$0&0 * )!'"% * ,!%0 " " "! '% #$0&0 *!+(( * !(## 1 ) )'!#%# $(&" *" (!#"( * '!+#( 1) ) '!#%# $(& *!)+0 *"!'+' 2
3- 0 0!' ) $)&( *( !0)+ * !'## 2 3-0 0 !' ) $)&% *'# *)!'## 3 4

# "' $ &+ *( #0 *3 !'## 4
# "' $ &+ *( *)!'## 34 " "! ++ %$'&+ *' #!))+ *3 0!%"' 4 " "! ++ %$'&+ *!,(+ *'!'#)

" #!")( ,$'&' *' +!)"+ * )!"(#

" #!")( ,$'&+ *! + *'!) +

" ' !%)' *" #!### *
#!###

' 5 !%)' * *5
6/67 :
898
8 : :9; 6 :9; /67
: 898
8 9: :9:
<=>) ( ?@ABA)50!+!,C)#<=>) ( ?@ABA'C(

0 !""# $)&0 *!0'+ *'!### -./ -./) " !'%" $#&" *!"# *'!### " " "! '% ($)& *#!%00 *"(!',) 1 1) ) '!#%# %$#&" *#!((0 *)%!"( 2
3- 2
3-0 ' !' ) $,&+ *!",) *'!,%# 3 4

3 4

# "' $0&0 *'# *'!### 34 34 0 "! ++ #$,&0 *0!,%0 *0)! '(

6/67;
DE9
:

:
6/67 <=>) ( ?@AB%

*)'!% '
-./ *)'! %#
*,'! %%
1 *')!#+#
2
3- *)+!(0#
3 4

*)'!#%#
34 *)#%!" %

*+ !##)

*"#!###
6/67 9
DE
<FGHIGJ@KGLMNGAOPJQPQJ?NQL@?GMQA?AARISGM??Q@TSRA?HGL?@LLR@UUVNL@MMQJT@LMGWN?X@LVMX@LKGNLAMQPG@LT?Q?@UMQA?A$ 6Y
6Y:
6Y9 6YE

Z

:
D[
)!#),
,")
")#
32
99

\/
]^_]^

^ 4.

^`

Z

a

4
b
c
Z
c4

*% '
* %#
*'!#('
*)!#'#
*%#
*,!0''
*+!'('
* !+#'
!""#
)!'%"
""! '%
)'!#%#
0!' )
"'
"! ++
#!")(
' !%)'

898
8

*)"!#0,
*'!((0
*("!"0+
*''!+()
9
DE
"$#&
)$#&
) $,&
%$"&
"(
#"
)%$(&
('
#

[
*)+!+(,
*)!")"
*))%!)')
*+%!#0,
*"#!###
deY2

Y
f

Z

3
\

`
^::8b::;
6Yb6

Y
gY c

4

e
4

Y
g4h

h
]^_]1 3
ZZ
id^.
Z

4
_6

i

/_^-/

i
Yd4i_.1 3\\6
`d4Y^

41
j Z

4

`
)! ),
)(
)!0%)

Z

6k

\

Z
l
)(,
,(
Attachment 4
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 6., Item Page 25, Packet Page 70 Council
Agenda Report
№12/25
FROM: Andrea Renny, P.E., PTOE, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Richard F. Llantero, P.E., Associate Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Award a Job Order Contract for General Municipal Improvements 2026-2027 for Intergovernmental Service Agreement (IGSA) Projects in the Amount of $1,000,000 to The Don Chapin Co., Inc. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080, subd. (b)(1).); Categorical Excluded (CX) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations 32 CFR 651, Appendix B, CX(e)(1))
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt the attached resolution:

1. Approving the Specifications for the General
Municipal Improvements Job Order Contract
2026-2027 for IGSA, and granting the Public
Works Director, or their designee, the authority to
approve all amendments and addenda thereto as
necessitated by conditions in the field;

2. Accepting the only responsive, responsible bid;

3. Awarding a job order contract to the lowest
responsive, responsible bidder, The Don Chapin
Co., Inc., with a term of one year with the option
to renew for two additional one-year terms, and
with a not to exceed annual funding limit of
$1,000,000; and

4. Authorizing the City Manager, or their designee,
to execute the contract upon the receipt of
information required by the Specifications.

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.

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.

Agenda Report Highlights
• The City Council is asked to award
a job order contract for general
municipal improvements to The Don
Chapin Co., Inc. for an amount up to
$1,000,000.
• The agreement would establish an
initial one-year term with options to
renew for two additional years.
• Projects completed under this
agreement would be fully funded
and reimbursed by the U.S. Army.
• This contracting method would
provide a readily available workforce
to efficiently complete urgent
infrastructure repairs on short
notice.

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

Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 7., Item Page 1, Packet Page 71 №12/25
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

This action is consistent with the City’s policy to provide services to the U.S. Department of the Army (U.S. Army) through the IGSA between the City of Monterey and the Federal Government.

The use of job order service contracts is also consistent with City Council policy and direction for timely delivery of projects.

The job order contract scope of services may include work that overlaps bargaining unit work.

Consistent with the Section 58 of the General Employees of Monterey (GEM) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) a 60-day notice was given to the union on May 8, 2026.

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

This action does not appropriate any funding. Any projects constructed under this Job Order contract will be fully funded by the U.S. Army through the IGSA within current appropriations.

On June 2, 2026, one (1) bid was received and was deemed responsive and responsible. The apparent lowest bidder came in within five percent of the Engineer’s estimate of $108,860.00.

The bid was opened by the Finance Director’s designee as follows:

Bidder Total Bid
The Don Chapin Co., Inc. $113,154.03
The Total Base Bid, as shown on the attached Bid Tabulation, represents the total costs of representative work items typical of infrastructure projects, quantified for bidding purposes only and does not encompass all the work that may be completed under the contract. Total award amount for the contract is (not to exceed) $1,000,000 annually. There is no minimum dollar value of work guaranteed under this on-call contract, and assignment of work orders is at the sole discretion of the City and the U.S. Army.

As set forth in Monterey City Code Section 28-9, City Council may award individual annual contracts, referred to as job order contracts, none of which may exceed one million dollars ($1,000,000) for repair, remodeling, or other work to be done according to unit prices. The contracts shall be awarded to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder and shall be based on plans and specifications for typical work. No job order contract shall exceed three (3) years (including any extensions), except as necessary to complete outstanding work orders that were awarded within the three (3) year period.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

CEQA applies to discretionary projects. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080, subd. (a).) CEQA does not apply to ministerial projects. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080, subd. (b)(1).) There is a recognized policy consideration underlying the distinction between ministerial and discretionary projects. The purpose of CEQA is to minimize the adverse effects of new construction on the environment. To trigger CEQA compliance, the discretion must be of a certain kind; it must provide the agency with the ability and authority to mitigate environmental damage to some degree. Unless a public agency can shape the project in a way that would Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 7., Item Page 2, Packet Page 72 №12/25
respond to concerns raised in an EIR, or its functional equivalent, environmental review would be a meaningless exercise.

Here, the City does not have the power to deny or condition the permit, or otherwise modify the project in ways which would mitigate environmental problems an environmental impact report might conceivably have identified. The City does not have the authority to dictate changes to the Army’s project’s design or location in response to any impacts that an environmental review might reveal, the City’s authority under CEQA is essentially ministerial and therefore no further environmental review is required by the City.

The U.S. Army has determined that the proposed action qualifies for a Categorical Exclusion (CX) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Army implementing regulations 32 CFR 651, Appendix B, CX(e)(1) Routine procurement of goods and services (complying with applicable procedures for sustainable or "green" procurement) to support operations and infrastructure, including routine utility services and contracts. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for NEPA applicability.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council could choose to reject the bid received and not award this job order contract and direct staff to advertise for bids for each construction project individually. However, job order contracts have been proven to be an effective tool to construct routine IGSA projects in a timely, efficient manner. Job order contracts also give the City the capability to perform emergency repairs on short notice. Non-routine infrastructure projects will continue to be bid via the formal and informal bidding process as per the City’s purchasing guidelines.

DISCUSSION:

Overview
Under IGSA, the City of Monterey provides services to the Department of the U.S. Army, which are fully reimbursed by the Federal government. The City coordinates a variety of projects on the Presidio of Monterey (POM), Ord Military Community (OMC), and U.S. Army Signal Activity (USASA) Camp Roberts. The City of Monterey utilizes four methods to construct projects in the most cost-effective and efficient manner possible, including formal bidding, informal bidding, job order contracting, and in-house work utilizing City crews. Job order contracting has proven to be an effective tool in delivering emergency work and other U.S. Army projects in a timely manner.

Project
Historically, job order contracts have been awarded by Council to expedite repairs and upgrades of common, repetitive work according to competitively bid unit pricing based on quantities that are unknown at the time of award of the contract. The City has successfully completed projects utilizing job order contracts for many years. This resource gives the City the capability to construct the most urgent projects and perform emergency repairs on short notice with competitively bid rates.

The publicly advertised call for bids contained a bid schedule, whereupon bidders were required to list rates for the various routine construction items. These rates cover the repair, replacement, upgrade, and construction of any infrastructure and miscellaneous associated work.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 7., Item Page 3, Packet Page 73 №12/25
The Base Bid establishes unit prices for the various bid items that may be used in the execution of project work orders during normal construction hours (Monday through Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.) at POM and OMC. The Alternate Additive Bid establishes an Adjustment Factor to be applied to all bid items that may be used in the execution of project work orders that must be performed outside of these normal construction hours and work at Camp Roberts. The premium work week is a provision required by the IGSA contract to reduce the impact of construction noise during class hours. For the purpose of awarding this Job Order contract, the basis for determining the low bidder is the Total Base Bid (items A-1-a through ll-1-a). The unit prices submitted by The Don Chapin Company are comparable with previous job order contract prices adjusted for inflation.

The contract shall remain in effect for all written work orders issued by the City during a twelvemonth period beginning with the effective date of the Notice to Proceed or until the exhaustion of the contract limit, whichever occurs first. There is no minimum dollar value of work guaranteed under the contracts, and assignment of work orders is at the sole discretion of the City. With successful performance, this contract may be extended up to two (2) additional 12-month periods with the same annual contract limit.

The intent of these contracts is to provide the City with a readily available workforce for new construction, repairs and upgrades to existing infrastructure, and emergency repairs of any value up to the contract limit, as the City deems appropriate. These contracts do not give the contractors exclusive rights to perform any work for the City. Certain projects may be performed by City crews or be issued for bid proposals throughout the term of the contract, even if such contracts include this same type of work.

AR/rl
Attachments: 1. Resolution

2. Bid Evaluation Tab
e: The Don Chapin Co., Inc.

U.S. Army IGSA Manager
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 7., Item Page 4, Packet Page 74 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

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

AWARDING A JOB ORDER CONTRACT FOR GENERAL MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS 2026-2027 FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICE AGREEMENT (IGSA) PROJECTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,000,000 TO THE DON CHAPIN CO., INC.

WHEREAS, on the 2nd day of June 2026 at 2:00 p.m. the City Finance Director’s Designee received (1) one bid for the General Municipal Improvements Job Order Contract 2026-2027 for Intergovernmental Service Agreement (IGSA) Projects; WHEREAS, job order contracts have been proven to be an effective tool to construct routine projects in a timely, efficient manner, and give the City the capability to construct urgent projects and perform emergency repairs on short notice; WHEREAS, The Don Chapin Co., Inc., with their grand total bid of $113,154.03 was the lowest responsive, responsible bidder; the total base bid represents the total costs of representative work items typical of infrastructure projects, quantified for bidding purposes only and does not encompass all the work that may be completed under the contract; WHEREAS, this action is consistent with the City’s policy to provide services to the U.S.

Department of the Army (U.S. Army) per the Intergovernmental Support Agreement (IGSA) between the City of Monterey and the Federal Government. The City will be contracting directly with the Don Chapin Co., Inc., per the IGSA; and
WHEREAS, CEQA applies to discretionary projects. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080, subd. (a).) CEQA does not apply to ministerial projects. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080, subd. (b)(1).) There is a recognized policy consideration underlying the distinction between ministerial and discretionary projects. The purpose of CEQA is to minimize the adverse effects of new construction on the environment. To trigger CEQA compliance, the discretion must be of a certain kind; it must provide the agency with the ability and authority to mitigate environmental damage to some degree. Unless a public agency can shape the project in a way that would respond to concerns raised in an EIR, or its functional equivalent, environmental review would be a meaningless exercise.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 7., Item Page 5, Packet Page 75

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

1. Approves the Specifications for the General Municipal Improvements Job Order Contract 2026-2027 for Intergovernmental Service Agreement (IGSA), and grants the Public Works Director, or their designee, the authority to approve all amendments and addenda thereto as necessitated by conditions in the field;

2. Accepts the only responsive, responsible bid;

3. Awards a job order contract to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, The Don Chapin Co., Inc., with a term of one year with the option to renew for two additional one-year terms, and with a not to exceed annual funding limit of $1,000,000; and

4. Authorizes the City Manager, or their designee, to execute the contract upon the receipt of information required by the Specifications.

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, 7/21/2026, Item No. 7., Item Page 6, Packet Page 76 City of Monterey
Public Works
Andrea Renny, Public Works Director
580 Pacific Street, Monterey, CA 93940

EVALUATION TABULATION
GEN No. TBD
GENERAL MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS JOB ORDER CONTRACT 2026-2027 FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICE

AGREEMENT (IGSA) PROJECTS
RESPONSE DEADLINE: June 2, 2026 at 2:00 pm
Report Generated: Tuesday, June 23, 2026

SELECTED VENDOR TOTALS
Vendor Total
The Don Chapin Company $78,154.03

BASE BID SCHEDULE
BASE BID SCHEDULE The Don Chapin Company
Selected Line Item Description Quantity Unit of
Measure
Unit Cost Total
A – TREE PROTECTION
X A-1-a Tree Protection with Fencing (Chain-link) 1 LF $10.00 $10.00 X A-1-b Tree Protection with Fencing (Plastic) 1 LF $16.00 $16.00 X A-2-a Tree Protection Labor Premium 1 Hr $100.00 $100.00 X A-3-a Spray/Wrap Tree 1 Ea $75.00 $75.00
X A-4-a Tree Well Liner 1 Ea $60.00 $60.00
B – CLEARING AND GRUBBING
X B-1-a Clearing and Grubbing (Grass) 1 SF $20.00 $20.00 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 7., Item Page 7, Packet Page 77

EVALUATION TABULATION
GEN No. TBD
GENERAL MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS JOB ORDER CONTRACT 2026-2027 FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICE AGREEMENT (IGSA)

PROJECTS

EVALUATION TABULATION
General Solicitation - GENERAL MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS JOB ORDER CONTRACT 2026-2027 FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICE AGREEMENT (IGSA)

PROJECTS

Page 2 ends

BASE BID SCHEDULE The Don Chapin Company
Selected Line Item Description Quantity Unit of
Measure
Unit Cost Total
X B-1-b Clearing and Grubbing (Grass) 1 SF $5.00 $5.00
X B-2-a Clearing and Grubbing (Bushes) 1 SF $22.00 $22.00 X B-2-b Clearing and Grubbing (Bushes) 1 SF $6.00 $6.00 X B-3-a Clearing and Grubbing (Objectionable Material) 1 SF $25.00 $25.00 X B-3-b Clearing and Grubbing (Objectionable Material) 1 SF $6.00 $6.00 X B-4-a Tree Removal and Disposal (12” Diameter Base Bid) 1 Ea $1,250.00 $1,250.00 X B-4-b Tree Removal and Disposal (12” Diameter Increment) 1 Ea $625.00 $625.00 C – EARTHWORK
X C-1-a Earthwork on site (Excavation/stockpiling) 1 CF $45.00 $45.00 X C-1-b Earthwork on site (Excavation/stockpiling) 1 CF $32.00 $32.00 X C-1-c Earthwork on site (Excavation/stockpiling) 1 CF $11.00 $11.00 X C-1-d Earthwork on site (Excavation/stockpiling) 1 CF $3.00 $3.00 X C-1-e Earthwork on site (Onsite Handling, Place and Compact) 1 CF $45.00 $45.00 X C-1-f Earthwork on site (Onsite Handling, Place and Compact) 1 CF $32.00 $32.00 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 7., Item Page 8, Packet Page 78

EVALUATION TABULATION
GEN No. TBD
GENERAL MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS JOB ORDER CONTRACT 2026-2027 FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICE AGREEMENT (IGSA)

PROJECTS

EVALUATION TABULATION
General Solicitation - GENERAL MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS JOB ORDER CONTRACT 2026-2027 FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICE AGREEMENT (IGSA)

PROJECTS

Page 3 ends

BASE BID SCHEDULE The Don Chapin Company
Selected Line Item Description Quantity Unit of
Measure
Unit Cost Total
X C-1-g Earthwork on site (Onsite Handling, Place and Compact) 1 CF $11.00 $11.00 X C-1-h Earthwork on site (Onsite Handling, Place and Compact) 1 CF $3.00 $3.00 X C-2-a Earthwork off haul and Disposal (Excavation, off haul, disposal) 1 CF $76.00 $76.00 X C-2-b Earthwork off haul and Disposal (Excavation, off haul, disposal) 1 CF $38.00 $38.00 X C-2-c Earthwork off haul and Disposal (Excavation, off haul, disposal) 1 CF $14.00 $14.00 X C-2-d Earthwork off haul and Disposal (Excavation, off haul, disposal) 1 CF $4.00 $4.00 X C-3-a Earthwork and Import Backfill (Furnish, Place, Compact) 1 CF $75.00 $75.00 X C-3-b Earthwork and Import Backfill (Furnish, Place, Compact) 1 CF $39.00 $39.00 X C-3-c Earthwork and Import Backfill (Furnish, Place, Compact) 1 CF $15.00 $15.00 X C-3-d Earthwork and Import Backfill (Furnish, Place, Compact) 1 CF $4.00 $4.00 D – CONCRETE VERTICAL CURB (VC)
X D-1-a Sawcut (VC) 1 Ea $65.00 $65.00
X D-2-a Demolition and Disposal (VC) 1 LF $60.00 $60.00 X D-2-b Demolition and Disposal (VC) 1 LF $35.00 $35.00 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 7., Item Page 9, Packet Page 79

EVALUATION TABULATION
GEN No. TBD
GENERAL MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS JOB ORDER CONTRACT 2026-2027 FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICE AGREEMENT (IGSA)

PROJECTS

EVALUATION TABULATION
General Solicitation - GENERAL MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS JOB ORDER CONTRACT 2026-2027 FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICE AGREEMENT (IGSA)

PROJECTS

Page 4 ends

BASE BID SCHEDULE The Don Chapin Company
Selected Line Item Description Quantity Unit of
Measure
Unit Cost Total
X D-2-c Demolition and Disposal (VC) 1 LF $30.00 $30.00 X D-3-a Form, Place and Finish (VC) 1 LF $100.00 $100.00 X D-3-b Form, Place and Finish (VC) 1 LF $65.00 $65.00
X D-3-c Form, Place and Finish (VC) 1 LF $40.00 $40.00
X D-4-a Furnish, Place and Compact Class II Aggregate Base (under VC, 4" Thick Base Bid)
1 SF $30.00 $30.00
X D-4-b Furnish, Place and Compact Class II Aggregate Base (under VC, 4" Thick Base Bid)
1 SF $15.00 $15.00
X D-4-c Furnish, Place and Compact Class II Aggregate Base (under VC, 4" Thick Base Bid)
1 SF $10.00 $10.00
X D-4-d Furnish, Place and Compact Class II Aggregate Base (under VC, 2" Thick Increment)
1 SF $5.00 $5.00
X D-5-a Dowel (VC) 1 Ea $60.00 $60.00
E – CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER (CG)
X E-1-a Sawcut (CG) 1 Ea $75.00 $75.00
X E-2-a Demolition and Disposal (CG) 1 LF $95.00 $95.00 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 7., Item Page 10, Packet Page 80

EVALUATION TABULATION
GEN No. TBD
GENERAL MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS JOB ORDER CONTRACT 2026-2027 FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICE AGREEMENT (IGSA)

PROJECTS

EVALUATION TABULATION
General Solicitation - GENERAL MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS JOB ORDER CONTRACT 2026-2027 FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICE AGREEMENT (IGSA)

PROJECTS

Page 5 ends

BASE BID SCHEDULE The Don Chapin Company
Selected Line Item Description Quantity Unit of
Measure
Unit Cost Total
X E-2-b Demolition and Disposal (CG) 1 LF $75.00 $75.00 X E-2-c Demolition and Disposal (CG) 1 LF $36.00 $36.00 X E-2-d Demolition and Disposal (CG) 1 LF $25.00 $25.00 X E-3-a Form, Place and Finish (CG) 1 LF $150.00 $150.00 X E-3-b Form, Place and Finish (CG) 1 LF $110.00 $110.00 X E-3-c Form, Place and Finish (CG) 1 LF $70.00 $70.00
X E-3-d Form, Place and Finish (CG) 1 LF $35.00 $35.00
X E-4-a Furnish, Place and Compact Class II Aggregate Base (under CG, 4" Thick Base Bid)
1 SF $60.00 $60.00
X E-4-b Furnish, Place and Compact Class II Aggregate Base (under CG, 4" Thick Base Bid)
1 SF $19.00 $19.00
X E-4-c Furnish, Place and Compact Class II Aggregate Base (under CG, 4" Thick Base Bid)
1 SF $10.00 $10.00
X E-4-d Furnish, Place and Compact Class II Aggregate Base (under CG, 4" Thick Base Bid)
1 SF $6.00 $6.00
X E-4-e Furnish, Place and Compact Class II Aggregate Base (under VC, 2" Thick Increment)
1 SF $4.00 $4.00
Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 7., Item Page 11, Packet Page 81

EVALUATION TABULATION
GEN No. TBD
GENERAL MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS JOB ORDER CONTRACT 2026-2027 FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICE AGREEMENT (IGSA)

PROJECTS

EVALUATION TABULATION
General Solicitation - GENERAL MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS JOB ORDER CONTRACT 2026-2027 FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICE AGREEMENT (IGSA)

PROJECTS

Page 6 ends

BASE BID SCHEDULE The Don Chapin Company
Selected Line Item Description Quantity Unit of
Measure
Unit Cost Total
X E-5-a Form, Place and Finish 12” Gutter (CG) 1 LF $45.00 $45.00 X E-6-a Form, Place and Finish 18” Gutter (CG) 1 LF $60.00 $60.00 X E-7-a Dowel (CG) 1 Ea $60.00 $60.00
F – CONCRETE SIDEWALK (SW)
X F-1-a Sawcut (SW, 4" Thick Base Bid) 1 LF $55.00 $55.00 X F-1-b Sawcut (SW, 4" Thick Base Bid) 1 LF $7.00 $7.00 X F-1-c Sawcut (SW, 1" Thick Increment) 1 LF $6.00 $6.00 X F-2-a Demolition and Disposal (SW) 1 CF $45.00 $45.00 X F-2-b Demolition and Disposal (SW) 1 CF $33.00 $33.00 X F-3-a Form, Place and Finish (SW) 1 SF $60.00 $60.00
X F-3-b Form, Place and Finish (SW) 1 SF $38.00 $38.00
X F-3-c Form, Place and Finish (SW) 1 SF $10.00 $10.00
X F-4-a Furnish, Place and Compact Class II Aggregate Base (under SW, 4" Thick Base Bid)
1 SF $60.00 $60.00
Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 7., Item Page 12, Packet Page 82

EVALUATION TABULATION
GEN No. TBD
GENERAL MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS JOB ORDER CONTRACT 2026-2027 FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICE AGREEMENT (IGSA)

PROJECTS

EVALUATION TABULATION
General Solicitation - GENERAL MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS JOB ORDER CONTRACT 2026-2027 FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICE AGREEMENT (IGSA)

PROJECTS

Page 7 ends

BASE BID SCHEDULE The Don Chapin Company
Selected Line Item Description Quantity Unit of
Measure
Unit Cost Total
X F-4-b Furnish, Place and Compact Class II Aggregate Base (under SW, 4" Thick Base Bid)
1 SF $19.00 $19.00
X F-4-c Furnish, Place and Compact Class II Aggregate Base (under SW, 4" Thick Base Bid)
1 SF $6.00 $6.00
X F-4-d Furnish, Place and Compact Class II Aggregate Base (under SW, 2" Thick Increment)
1 SF $5.00 $5.00
X F-5-a Dowel (SW) 1 Ea $60.00 $60.00
G – CONCRETE SIDEWALK CROSSING (SWX)
X G-1-a Sawcut (SWX, 6" Thick Base Bid) 1 LF $60.00 $60.00 X G-1-b Sawcut (SWX, 6" Thick Base Bid) 1 LF $7.00 $7.00 X G-1-c Sawcut (SWX, 1" Thick Increment) 1 LF $5.00 $5.00 X G-2-a Demolition and Disposal (SWX) 1 CF $48.00 $48.00 X G-2-b Demolition and Disposal (SWX) 1 CF $38.00 $38.00 X G-3-a Form, Place and Finish (SWX) 1 SF $60.00 $60.00 X G-3-b Form, Place and Finish (SWX) 1 SF $25.00 $25.00 X G-3-c Form, Place and Finish (SWX) 1 SF $8.00 $8.00
Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 7., Item Page 13, Packet Page 83

EVALUATION TABULATION
GEN No. TBD
GENERAL MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS JOB ORDER CONTRACT 2026-2027 FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICE AGREEMENT (IGSA)

PROJECTS

EVALUATION TABULATION
General Solicitation - GENERAL MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS JOB ORDER CONTRACT 2026-2027 FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICE AGREEMENT (IGSA)

PROJECTS

Page 8 ends

BASE BID SCHEDULE The Don Chapin Company
Selected Line Item Description Quantity Unit of
Measure
Unit Cost Total
X G-4-a Furnish, Place and Compact Class II Aggregate Base (under SWX, 4" Thick Base Bid)
1 SF $60.00 $60.00
X G-4-b Furnish, Place and Compact Class II Aggregate Base (under SWX, 4" Thick Base Bid)
1 SF $19.00 $19.00
X G-4-c Furnish, Place and Compact Class II Aggregate Base (under SWX, 4" Thick Base Bid)
1 SF $2.50 $2.50
X G-4-d Furnish, Place and Compact Class II Aggregate Base (under SWX, 2" Thick Increment)
1 SF $5.00 $5.00
X G-5-a Dowel (SWX) 1 Ea $60.00 $60.00

H - CONCRETE CURB RAMPS (CR)
X H-1-a Sawcut (CR, 6" Thick Base Bid) 1 LF $60.00 $60.00 X H-1-b Sawcut (CR, 1" Thick Increment) 1 LF $5.00 $5.00 X H-2-a Demolition and Disposal (CR) 1 CF $55.00 $55.00 X H-3-a Form, Place and Finish (CR) 1 SF $75.00 $75.00
X H-4-a Furnish, Place and Compact Class II Aggregate Base (under CR, 4" Thick Base Bid)
1 SF $60.00 $60.00
Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 7., Item Page 14, Packet Page 84

EVALUATION TABULATION
GEN No. TBD
GENERAL MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS JOB ORDER CONTRACT 2026-2027 FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICE AGREEMENT (IGSA)

PROJECTS

EVALUATION TABULATION
General Solicitation - GENERAL MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS JOB ORDER CONTRACT 2026-2027 FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICE AGREEMENT (IGSA)

PROJECTS

Page 9 ends

BASE BID SCHEDULE The Don Chapin Company
Selected Line Item Description Quantity Unit of
Measure
Unit Cost Total
X H-4-b Furnish, Place and Compact Class II Aggregate Base (under CR, 2" Thick Increment)
1 SF $6.00 $6.00
X H-5-a Dowel (CR) 1 Ea $60.00 $60.00
X H-6-a Install Truncated Domes (Federal Yellow) 1 SF $50.00 $50.00

I - CONCRETE CROSS GUTTER (XG)
X I-1-a Sawcut (XG, 6" Thick Base Bid) 1 LF $65.00 $65.00 X I-1-b Sawcut (XG, 1" Thick Increment) 1 LF $5.00 $5.00 X I-2-a Demolition and Disposal (XG) 1 CF $55.00 $55.00 X I-3-a Form, Place and Finish (XG) 1 SF $75.00 $75.00
X I-4-a Furnish, Place and Compact Class II Aggregate Base (under XG, 4" Thick Base Bid)
1 SF $60.00 $60.00
X I-4-b Furnish, Place and Compact Class II Aggregate Base (under XG, 2" Thick Increment)
1 SF $6.00 $6.00
X I-5-a Dowel (XG) 1 Ea $60.00 $60.00

J - HOT MIX ASPHALT DIKE (HMAD)
X J-1-a Sawcut (HMAD) 1 Ea $50.00 $50.00
Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 7., Item Page 15, Packet Page 85

EVALUATION TABULATION
GEN No. TBD
GENERAL MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS JOB ORDER CONTRACT 2026-2027 FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICE AGREEMENT (IGSA)

PROJECTS

EVALUATION TABULATION
General Solicitation - GENERAL MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS JOB ORDER CONTRACT 2026-2027 FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICE AGREEMENT (IGSA)

PROJECTS

Page 10 ends

BASE BID SCHEDULE The Don Chapin Company
Selected Line Item Description Quantity Unit of
Measure
Unit Cost Total
X J-2-a Demolition and Disposal (HMAD) 1 LF $25.00 $25.00 X J-3-a Furnish and Place (HMAD, Type A) 1 LF $32.00 $32.00 X J-3-b Furnish and Place (HMAD, Type A) 1 LF $12.00 $12.00 X J-4-a Furnish and Place (HMAD, Type E) 1 LF $32.00 $32.00 X J-4-b Furnish and Place (HMAD, Type E) 1 LF $15.00 $15.00

K - WIRE MESH
X K-1-a Furnish and Install Wire Mesh (6x6-W10xW10) 1 SF $6.50 $6.50

L - TINTED CONCRETE
X L-1-a Add Integral Color 1 Lb $28.00 $28.00

M - DECOMPOSED GRANITE SIDEWALK (DGSW)
X M-1-a Furnish, Place and Finish (DGSW, 4" Thick) 1 SF $18.00 $18.00 X M-2-a Furnish, Place and Finish Cement Stabilized Decomposed Granite Sidewalk, 4" Thick
1 SF $35.00 $35.00
X M-3-a Furnish, Place and Finish Decomposed Granite Sidewalk with Binder, 4" Thick
1 SF $45.00 $45.00
Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 7., Item Page 16, Packet Page 86

EVALUATION TABULATION
GEN No. TBD
GENERAL MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS JOB ORDER CONTRACT 2026-2027 FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICE AGREEMENT (IGSA)

PROJECTS

EVALUATION TABULATION
General Solicitation - GENERAL MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS JOB ORDER CONTRACT 2026-2027 FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICE AGREEMENT (IGSA)

PROJECTS

Page 11 ends

BASE BID SCHEDULE The Don Chapin Company
Selected Line Item Description Quantity Unit of
Measure
Unit Cost Total
X M-4-a Furnish and Install 2" x 4" Header Board with Stake (DGSW) 1 LF $25.00 $25.00 X M-4-b Furnish and Install 2" x 4" Header Board with Stake (DGSW) 1 LF $9.00 $9.00

N - HOT MIX ASPHALT SIDEWALK (HMASW)
X N-1-a Demolition and Disposal (HMASW) 1 SF $15.00 $15.00 X N-1-b Demolition and Disposal (HMASW) 1 SF $7.00 $7.00 X N-2-a Furnish, Place and Finish (HMASW, 2" Thick) 1 SF $25.00 $25.00 X N-2-b Furnish, Place and Finish (HMASW, 2" Thick) 1 SF $8.00 $8.00 X N-3-a Furnish, Place and Compact Class II Aggregate Base (under HMASW, 4" Thick Base Bid)
1 SF $35.00 $35.00
X N-3-b Furnish, Place and Compact Class II Aggregate Base (under HMASW, 4" Thick Base Bid)
1 SF $6.50 $6.50
X N-3-c Furnish, Place and Compact Class II Aggregate Base (under HMASW, 2" Thick Increment)
1 SF $4.00 $4.00
X N-4-a Furnish and Install 2" x 4" Header Board with Stake (HMASW) 1 LF $25.00 $25.00 X N-4-b Furnish and Install 2" x 4" Header Board with Stake (HMASW) 1 LF $9.00 $9.00

O - CONCRETE STREET (CST)
Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 7., Item Page 17, Packet Page 87

EVALUATION TABULATION
GEN No. TBD
GENERAL MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS JOB ORDER CONTRACT 2026-2027 FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICE AGREEMENT (IGSA)

PROJECTS

EVALUATION TABULATION
General Solicitation - GENERAL MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS JOB ORDER CONTRACT 2026-2027 FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICE AGREEMENT (IGSA)

PROJECTS

Page 12 ends

BASE BID SCHEDULE The Don Chapin Company
Selected Line Item Description Quantity Unit of
Measure
Unit Cost Total
X O-1-a Sawcut (CST, 6" Thick Base Bid) 1 LF $50.00 $50.00 X O-1-b Sawcut (CST, 1" Thick Increment) 1 LF $4.00 $4.00 X O-2-a Demolition and Disposal (CST, 6" Thick Maximum) 1 CF $55.00 $55.00 X O-2-b Demolition and Disposal (CST, 6" Thick Maximum) 1 CF $16.00 $16.00 X O-3-a Demolition and Disposal (CST, Greater Than 6" Thick) 1 CF $55.00 $55.00 X O-3-b Demolition and Disposal (CST, Greater Than 6" Thick) 1 CF $17.00 $17.00 X O-4-a Form, Place and Finish (CST, 6" Thick Base Bid) 1 SF $70.00 $70.00 X O-4-b Form, Place and Finish (CST, 6" Thick Base Bid) 1 SF $20.00 $20.00 X O-4-c Form, Place and Finish (CST, 6" Thick Base Bid) 1 SF $12.00 $12.00 X O-4-d Form, Place and Finish (CST, 1" Thick Increment) 1 SF $10.00 $10.00 X O-5-a Furnish, Place and Compact Class II Aggregate Base (under CST, 4" Thick Base Bid)
1 SF $35.00 $35.00
X O-5-b Furnish, Place and Compact Class II Aggregate Base (under CST, 4" Thick Base Bid)
1 SF $8.00 $8.00
X O-5-c Furnish, Place and Compact Class II Aggregate Base (under CST, 2" Thick Increment)
1 SF $4.00 $4.00
Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 7., Item Page 18, Packet Page 88

EVALUATION TABULATION
GEN No. TBD
GENERAL MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS JOB ORDER CONTRACT 2026-2027 FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICE AGREEMENT (IGSA)

PROJECTS

EVALUATION TABULATION
General Solicitation - GENERAL MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS JOB ORDER CONTRACT 2026-2027 FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICE AGREEMENT (IGSA)

PROJECTS

Page 13 ends

BASE BID SCHEDULE The Don Chapin Company
Selected Line Item Description Quantity Unit of
Measure
Unit Cost Total
X O-6-a Furnish and Install Reinforcing Bars (CST, Grade 40) 1 Lb $14.00 $14.00 X O-6-b Furnish and Install Reinforcing Bars (CST, Grade 60) 1 Lb $15.00 $15.00

P - TRENCH AND CONFORM PAVING (TCP)
X P-1-a Sawcut (TCP, 2" Thick Base Bid) 1 LF $25.00 $25.00 X P-1-b Sawcut (TCP, 1" Thick Increment) 1 LF $7.00 $7.00 X P-2-a Demolition and Disposal (TCP, 6" Thick Maximum) 1 CF $40.00 $40.00 X P-2-b Demolition and Disposal (TCP, 6" Thick Maximum) 1 CF $20.00 $20.00 X P-3-a Demolition and Disposal (TCP, Greater Than 6" Thick) 1 CF $40.00 $40.00 X P-3-b Demolition and Disposal (TCP, Greater Than 6" Thick) 1 CF $20.00 $20.00 X P-4-a Furnish, Place and Compact Class II Aggregate Base (under TCP, 4" Thick Base Bid)
1 SF $35.00 $35.00
X P-4-b Furnish, Place and Compact Class II Aggregate Base (under TCP, 4" Thick Base Bid)
1 SF $15.00 $15.00
X P-4-c Furnish, Place and Compact Class II Aggregate Base (under TCP, 2" Thick Increment)
1 SF $4.00 $4.00
X P-5-a Furnish, Place and Compact Hot Mix Asphalt (TCP, 2” Thick Base Bid) 1 SF $70.00 $70.00 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 7., Item Page 19, Packet Page 89

EVALUATION TABULATION
GEN No. TBD
GENERAL MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS JOB ORDER CONTRACT 2026-2027 FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICE AGREEMENT (IGSA)

PROJECTS

EVALUATION TABULATION
General Solicitation - GENERAL MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS JOB ORDER CONTRACT 2026-2027 FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICE AGREEMENT (IGSA)

PROJECTS

Page 14 ends

BASE BID SCHEDULE The Don Chapin Company
Selected Line Item Description Quantity Unit of
Measure
Unit Cost Total
X P-5-b Furnish, Place and Compact Hot Mix Asphalt (TCP, 2” Thick Base Bid) 1 SF $30.00 $30.00 X P-5-c Furnish, Place and Compact Hot Mix Asphalt (TCP, 1" Thick Increment)
1 SF $12.00 $12.00

Q - PRODUCTION PAVING (PP)
X Q-1-a Sawcut (PP, 2" Thick Base Bid) 1 LF $25.00 $25.00 X Q-1-b Sawcut (PP, 1" Thick Increment) 1 LF $6.00 $6.00 X Q-2-a Demolition and Disposal (PP, 6" Thick Maximum) 1 CF $40.00 $40.00 X Q-2-b Demolition and Disposal (PP, 6" Thick Maximum) 1 CF $9.00 $9.00 X Q-2-c Demolition and Disposal (PP, 6" Thick Maximum) 1 CF $4.00 $4.00 X Q-3-a Demolition and Disposal (PP, Greater Than 6" Thick) 1 CF $40.00 $40.00 X Q-3-b Demolition and Disposal (PP, Greater Than 6" Thick) 1 CF $9.00 $9.00 X Q-3-c Demolition and Disposal (PP, Greater Than 6" Thick) 1 CF $3.00 $3.00 X Q-4-a Demolition by Grinding 1 CF $10.00 $10.00
X Q-4-b Demolition by Grinding 1 CF $2.00 $2.00
X Q-4-c Disposal of Grinding 1 CF $3.00 $3.00
Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 7., Item Page 20, Packet Page 90

EVALUATION TABULATION
GEN No. TBD
GENERAL MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS JOB ORDER CONTRACT 2026-2027 FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICE AGREEMENT (IGSA)

PROJECTS

EVALUATION TABULATION
General Solicitation - GENERAL MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS JOB ORDER CONTRACT 2026-2027 FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICE AGREEMENT (IGSA)

PROJECTS

Page 15 ends

BASE BID SCHEDULE The Don Chapin Company
Selected Line Item Description Quantity Unit of
Measure
Unit Cost Total
X Q-5-a Furnish, Place and Compact Class II Aggregate Base (under PP, 4" Thick Base Bid)
1 SF $25.00 $25.00
X Q-5-b Furnish, Place and Compact Class II Aggregate Base (under PP, 4" Thick Base Bid)
1 SF $10.00 $10.00
X Q-5-c Furnish, Place and Compact Class II Aggregate Base (under PP, 4" Thick Base Bid)
1 SF $2.00 $2.00
X Q-5-d Furnish, Place and Compact Class II Aggregate Base (under PP, 2" Thick Increment)
1 SF $4.00 $4.00
X Q-6-a Furnish, Place and Compact Hot Mix Asphalt (PP, 2” Thick Base Bid) 1 SF $30.00 $30.00 X Q-6-b Furnish, Place and Compact Hot Mix Asphalt (PP, 2” Thick Base Bid) 1 SF $9.00 $9.00 X Q-6-c Furnish, Place and Compact Hot Mix Asphalt (PP, 2” Thick Base Bid) 1 SF $4.50 $4.50 X Q-6-d Furnish, Place and Compact Hot Mix Asphalt (PP, 1" Thick Increment) 1 SF $6.00 $6.00 X Q-6-e Furnish, Place and Compact Hot Mix Asphalt (PP, Leveling Course) 1 Ton $450.00 $450.00

R - SIGN AND SIGN POST
X R-1-a Removal and Disposal of Sign and Sign Post 1 Ea $95.00 $95.00 X R-2-a Salvage and Reinstall Sign and Sign Post 1 Ea $275.00 $275.00 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 7., Item Page 21, Packet Page 91

EVALUATION TABULATION
GEN No. TBD
GENERAL MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS JOB ORDER CONTRACT 2026-2027 FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICE AGREEMENT (IGSA)

PROJECTS

EVALUATION TABULATION
General Solicitation - GENERAL MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS JOB ORDER CONTRACT 2026-2027 FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICE AGREEMENT (IGSA)

PROJECTS

Page 16 ends

BASE BID SCHEDULE The Don Chapin Company
Selected Line Item Description Quantity Unit of
Measure
Unit Cost Total
X R-3-a Install New Sign and Sign Post (City Furnished Sign) 1 Ea $325.00 $325.00

S - STORM DRAIN AND SANITARY SEWER
X S-1-a Furnish and Install High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) Pipe, 8" Diameter
1 LF $25.00 $25.00
X S-1-b Furnish and Install High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) Pipe, 8" Diameter
1 LF $15.00 $15.00
X S-2-a Furnish and Install High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) Pipe, 12" Diameter
1 LF $50.00 $50.00
X S-2-b Furnish and Install High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) Pipe, 12" Diameter
1 LF $20.00 $20.00
X S-3-a Furnish and Install High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) Pipe, 15" Diameter
1 LF $52.00 $52.00
X S-3-b Furnish and Install High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) Pipe, 15" Diameter
1 LF $28.00 $28.00
X S-4-a Furnish and Install High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) Pipe, 24" Diameter
1 LF $75.00 $75.00
X S-4-b Furnish and Install High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) Pipe, 24" Diameter
1 LF $50.00 $50.00
Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 7., Item Page 22, Packet Page 92

EVALUATION TABULATION
GEN No. TBD
GENERAL MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS JOB ORDER CONTRACT 2026-2027 FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICE AGREEMENT (IGSA)

PROJECTS

EVALUATION TABULATION
General Solicitation - GENERAL MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS JOB ORDER CONTRACT 2026-2027 FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICE AGREEMENT (IGSA)

PROJECTS

Page 17 ends

BASE BID SCHEDULE The Don Chapin Company
Selected Line Item Description Quantity Unit of
Measure
Unit Cost Total
X S-5-a Furnish and Install Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC), 8" Diameter 1 LF $35.00 $35.00 X S-5-b Furnish and Install Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC), 8" Diameter 1 LF $22.00 $22.00 X S-6-a Furnish and Install Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC), 12" Diameter 1 LF $70.00 $70.00 X S-6-b Furnish and Install Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC), 12" Diameter 1 LF $45.00 $45.00 X S-7-a Furnish and Install Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC), 15" Diameter 1 LF $75.00 $75.00 X S-7-b Furnish and Install Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC), 15" Diameter 1 LF $55.00 $55.00 X S-8-a Furnish and Install Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC), 24" Diameter 1 LF $165.00 $165.00 X S-8-b Furnish and Install Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC), 24" Diameter 1 LF $90.00 $90.00 X S-9-a Furnish and Install Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP), 8" Diameter 1 LF $0.01 $0.01 X S-9-b Furnish and Install Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP), 8" Diameter 1 LF $0.01 $0.01 X S-10-a Furnish and Install Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP), 12" Diameter 1 LF $35.00 $35.00 X S-10-b Furnish and Install Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP), 12" Diameter 1 LF $20.00 $20.00 X S-11-a Furnish and Install Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP), 15" Diameter 1 LF $38.00 $38.00 X S-11-b Furnish and Install Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP), 15" Diameter 1 LF $25.00 $25.00 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 7., Item Page 23, Packet Page 93

EVALUATION TABULATION
GEN No. TBD
GENERAL MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS JOB ORDER CONTRACT 2026-2027 FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICE AGREEMENT (IGSA)

PROJECTS

EVALUATION TABULATION
General Solicitation - GENERAL MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS JOB ORDER CONTRACT 2026-2027 FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICE AGREEMENT (IGSA)

PROJECTS

Page 18 ends

BASE BID SCHEDULE The Don Chapin Company
Selected Line Item Description Quantity Unit of
Measure
Unit Cost Total
X S-12-a Furnish and Install Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP), 24" Diameter 1 LF $50.00 $50.00 X S-12-b Furnish and Install Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP), 24" Diameter 1 LF $40.00 $40.00 X S-13-a Furnish and Install Vitrified Clay Pipe (VCP), 8" Diameter 1 LF $30.00 $30.00 X S-13-b Furnish and Install Vitrified Clay Pipe (VCP), 8" Diameter 1 LF $25.00 $25.00 X S-14-a Furnish and Install Vitrified Clay Pipe (VCP), 12" Diameter 1 LF $65.00 $65.00 X S-14-b Furnish and Install Vitrified Clay Pipe (VCP), 12" Diameter 1 LF $55.00 $55.00 X S-15-a Furnish and Install Vitrified Clay Pipe (VCP), 15" Diameter 1 LF $90.00 $90.00 X S-15-b Furnish and Install Vitrified Clay Pipe (VCP), 15" Diameter 1 LF $80.00 $80.00 X S-16-a Furnish and Install Vitrified Clay Pipe (VCP), 24" Diameter 1 LF $210.00 $210.00 X S-16-b Furnish and Install Vitrified Clay Pipe (VCP), 24" Diameter 1 LF $185.00 $185.00 X S-17-a Demolition and Disposal of Catch Basin (Standard, 4' Deep Maximum Base Bid)
1 Ea $2,500.00 $2,500.00
X S-17-b Demolition and Disposal of Catch Basin (Extended Inlet, 4' Deep Maximum Base Bid)
1 Ea $2,750.00 $2,750.00
X S-17-c Demolition and Disposal of Manhole (4' Deep Maximum Base Bid) 1 Ea $2,250.00 $2,250.00 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 7., Item Page 24, Packet Page 94

EVALUATION TABULATION
GEN No. TBD
GENERAL MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS JOB ORDER CONTRACT 2026-2027 FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICE AGREEMENT (IGSA)

PROJECTS

EVALUATION TABULATION
General Solicitation - GENERAL MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS JOB ORDER CONTRACT 2026-2027 FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICE AGREEMENT (IGSA)

PROJECTS

Page 19 ends

BASE BID SCHEDULE The Don Chapin Company
Selected Line Item Description Quantity Unit of
Measure
Unit Cost Total
X S-17-d Demolition and Disposal of Catch Basin or Manhole (1' Deep Increment)
1 LF $350.00 $350.00
X S-18-a Install Catch Basin (Standard, 4’ Deep Maximum Base Bid) 1 Ea $5,750.00 $5,750.00 X S-18-b Install Catch Basin (Extended Inlet, 4' Deep Maximum Base Bid) 1 Ea $6,500.00 $6,500.00 X S-18-c Install Catch Basin (Standard and Extended Inlet, 1' Deep Increment) 1 LF $400.00 $400.00 X S-19-a Install Manhole (4’ Deep Maximum Base Bid) 1 Ea $5,750.00 $5,750.00 X S-19-b Install Manhole (1' Deep Increment) 1 LF $450.00 $450.00 X S-20-a Install Clean Out 1 Ea $225.00 $225.00
X S-21-a Install Curb Drain 1 Ea $225.00 $225.00
X S-22-a Install Edge Drain (4" Diameter) 1 LF $25.00 $25.00 X S-23-a Slurry Cement Backfill 1 CF $38.00 $38.00
X S-24-a Drain Rock Backfill 1 CF $25.00 $25.00
X S-25-a Repair Sewer Lateral 1 LF $140.00 $140.00
X S-25-b Repair Sewer Lateral 1 LF $30.00 $30.00
T - RAILROAD TIE: RETAINING WALL AND STEPS
Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 7., Item Page 25, Packet Page 95

EVALUATION TABULATION
GEN No. TBD
GENERAL MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS JOB ORDER CONTRACT 2026-2027 FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICE AGREEMENT (IGSA)

PROJECTS

EVALUATION TABULATION
General Solicitation - GENERAL MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS JOB ORDER CONTRACT 2026-2027 FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICE AGREEMENT (IGSA)

PROJECTS

Page 20 ends

BASE BID SCHEDULE The Don Chapin Company
Selected Line Item Description Quantity Unit of
Measure
Unit Cost Total
X T-1-a Furnish and Install Railroad Tie Retaining Wall (First Course Base Bid) 1 LF $25.00 $25.00 X T-1-b Furnish and Install Railroad Tie Retaining Wall (Additional Course Increment
1 LF $25.00 $25.00
X T-2-a Furnish and Install Railroad Tie Steps 1 LF $30.00 $30.00 U - WOOD RETAINING WALL (4" x 4" Posts with 3" X 12" Planks) X U-1-a Furnish and Construct Wood Retaining Wall, 1' Retaining Wall Height 1 LF $190.00 $190.00 X U-1-b Furnish and Construct Wood Retaining Wall, 1' Retaining Wall Height 1 LF $70.00 $70.00 X U-2-a Furnish and Construct Wood Retaining Wall, 2' Retaining Wall Height 1 LF $210.00 $210.00 X U-2-b Furnish and Construct Wood Retaining Wall, 2' Retaining Wall Height 1 LF $80.00 $80.00 X U-3-a Furnish and Construct Wood Retaining Wall, 3' Retaining Wall Height 1 LF $220.00 $220.00 X U-3-b Furnish and Construct Wood Retaining Wall, 3' Retaining Wall Height 1 LF $90.00 $90.00 X U-4-a Furnish and Construct Wood Retaining Wall, 4' Retaining Wall Height 1 LF $225.00 $225.00 X U-4-b Furnish and Construct Wood Retaining Wall, 4' Retaining Wall Height 1 LF $95.00 $95.00

V - MASONRY RETAINING WALL (MRW)
X V-1-a Furnish and Construct Concrete Foundation (MRW) 1 SF $85.00 $85.00 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 7., Item Page 26, Packet Page 96

EVALUATION TABULATION
GEN No. TBD
GENERAL MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS JOB ORDER CONTRACT 2026-2027 FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICE AGREEMENT (IGSA)

PROJECTS

EVALUATION TABULATION
General Solicitation - GENERAL MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS JOB ORDER CONTRACT 2026-2027 FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICE AGREEMENT (IGSA)

PROJECTS

Page 21 ends

BASE BID SCHEDULE The Don Chapin Company
Selected Line Item Description Quantity Unit of
Measure
Unit Cost Total
X V-1-b Furnish and Construct Concrete Foundation (MRW) 1 SF $45.00 $45.00 X V-2-a Furnish and Install Reinforcing Bars (MRW) 1 Lb $18.00 $18.00 X V-3-a Furnish and Construct Masonry Retaining Wall 1 SF $45.00 $45.00 X V-3-b Furnish and Construct Masonry Retaining Wall 1 SF $30.00 $30.00

W - CONCRETE RETAINING WALL (CRW)
X W-1-a Furnish and Construct Concrete Foundation (CRW) 1 SF $85.00 $85.00 X W-1-b Furnish and Construct Concrete Foundation (CRW) 1 SF $45.00 $45.00 X W-2-a Furnish and Install Reinforcing Bars (CRW) 1 Lb $18.00 $18.00 X W-3-a Furnish and Construct Concrete Retaining Wall 1 SF $90.00 $90.00 X W-3-b Furnish and Construct Concrete Retaining Wall 1 SF $50.00 $50.00

X - HANDRAIL
X X-1-a Furnish and Install Wood Handrail (Attached to Retaining Wall) 1 LF $35.00 $35.00 X X-2-a Furnish and Install Wood Handrail (Freestanding) 1 LF $45.00 $45.00 X X-3-a Furnish and Install 1 1/2" Diameter Galvanized Steel Pipe Handrail (Attached to Retaining Wall)
1 LF $125.00 $125.00
Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 7., Item Page 27, Packet Page 97

EVALUATION TABULATION
GEN No. TBD
GENERAL MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS JOB ORDER CONTRACT 2026-2027 FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICE AGREEMENT (IGSA)

PROJECTS

EVALUATION TABULATION
General Solicitation - GENERAL MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS JOB ORDER CONTRACT 2026-2027 FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICE AGREEMENT (IGSA)

PROJECTS

Page 22 ends

BASE BID SCHEDULE The Don Chapin Company
Selected Line Item Description Quantity Unit of
Measure
Unit Cost Total
X X-4-a Furnish and Install 1 1/2" Diameter Galvanized Steel Pipe Handrail (Freestanding)
1 LF $175.00 $175.00

Y - STREET AND PARKING LOT LIGHTING
X Y-1-a Furnish and Install Light Post and Fixture (Street, Detail 510) 1 Ea $4,000.00 $4,000.00 X Y-1-b Furnish and Install Light Post and Fixture (Parking Lot, Detail 505) 1 Ea $5,000.00 $5,000.00 X Y-2-a Install Conduit, 1" Diameter 1 LF $26.00 $26.00 X Y-2-b Install Conduit, 1" Diameter 1 LF $5.00 $5.00
X Y-3-a Install Conduit, 2" Diameter 1 LF $32.00 $32.00 X Y-3-b Install Conduit, 2" Diameter 1 LF $6.00 $6.00
X Y-4-a Install Conduit, 3" Diameter 1 LF $35.00 $35.00 X Y-4-b Install Conduit, 3" Diameter 1 LF $7.00 $7.00
X Y-5-a Install Conductor 1 LF $20.00 $20.00
X Y-6-a Install Electric Pull Box 1 Ea $250.00 $250.00
Z – Not Used
AA – Not Used
Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 7., Item Page 28, Packet Page 98

EVALUATION TABULATION
GEN No. TBD
GENERAL MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS JOB ORDER CONTRACT 2026-2027 FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICE AGREEMENT (IGSA)

PROJECTS

EVALUATION TABULATION
General Solicitation - GENERAL MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS JOB ORDER CONTRACT 2026-2027 FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICE AGREEMENT (IGSA)

PROJECTS

Page 23 ends

BASE BID SCHEDULE The Don Chapin Company
Selected Line Item Description Quantity Unit of
Measure
Unit Cost Total
BB – Fence and Gates
X BB-1-a Removal and Disposal of Fence and Gates 1 LF $26.00 $26.00 X BB-2-a Furnish and Install Chain-link Fence (6-Foot Height Maximum) 1 LF $50.00 $50.00 X BB-2-b Furnish and Install Chain-link Fence (Greater than 6-Foot Height) 1 LF $55.00 $55.00 X BB-3-a Furnish and Install Gate 1 SF $30.00 $30.00
X BB-4-a Furnish and Install Strands of Barbed Wire on Top of Chain-link Fence and Gates (3-Foot Height Maximum)
1 LF $7.00 $7.00
X BB-4-b Furnish and Install Strands of Barbed Wire on Top of Chain-link Fence and Gates (Greater than 3-Foot Height)
1 LF $7.00 $7.00

CC - ADA ACCESS RAMPS (ADA RAMPS)
X CC-1-a Form, Place and Finish (ADA Ramps) 1 SF $75.00 $75.00

DD - BRICK SURFACING (BRICK)
X DD-1-a Sawcut (BRICK, 4" Thick Base Bid) 1 LF $10.00 $10.00 X DD-1-b Sawcut (BRICK, 1" Thick Increment) 1 LF $1.00 $1.00 X DD-2-a Demolition and Disposal (BRICK) 1 CF $55.00 $55.00 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 7., Item Page 29, Packet Page 99

EVALUATION TABULATION
GEN No. TBD
GENERAL MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS JOB ORDER CONTRACT 2026-2027 FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICE AGREEMENT (IGSA)

PROJECTS

EVALUATION TABULATION
General Solicitation - GENERAL MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS JOB ORDER CONTRACT 2026-2027 FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICE AGREEMENT (IGSA)

PROJECTS

Page 24 ends

BASE BID SCHEDULE The Don Chapin Company
Selected Line Item Description Quantity Unit of
Measure
Unit Cost Total
X DD-3-a Furnish, Place and Finish Brick Surfacing (on Concrete Underslab) 1 SF $75.00 $75.00 X DD-3-b Furnish, Place and Finish Brick Surfacing (on Concrete Underslab) 101 SF $55.00 $5,555.00 X DD-4-a Repair Brick Surfacing (on Concrete Underslab) 1 SF $75.00 $75.00 X DD-4-b Repair Brick Surfacing (on Concrete Underslab) 101 SF $44.00 $4,444.00 X DD-5-a Dowel (BRICK) 1 Ea $0.01 $0.01
X DD-6-a Furnish, Place and Finish Brick Surfacing (on Sand Bedding) 1 SF $60.00 $60.00 X DD-7-a Repair Brick Surfacing (on Sand bedding) 1 SF $55.00 $55.00 X DD-7-b Repair Brick Surfacing (on Sand bedding) 101 SF $25.00 $2,525.00

EE - PAVER SURFACING (PAVER)
X EE-1-a Sawcut (PAVER, 4" Thick Base Bid) 1 LF $10.00 $10.00 X EE-1-b Sawcut (PAVER, 1" Thick Increment) 1 LF $1.00 $1.00 X EE-2-a Demolition and Disposal (PAVER) 1 CF $35.00 $35.00 X EE-3-a Furnish, Place and Finish Paver Surfacing (on Concrete Underslab) 1 SF $75.00 $75.00 X EE-3-b Furnish, Place and Finish Paver Surfacing (on Concrete Underslab) 101 SF $45.00 $4,545.00 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 7., Item Page 30, Packet Page 100

EVALUATION TABULATION
GEN No. TBD
GENERAL MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS JOB ORDER CONTRACT 2026-2027 FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICE AGREEMENT (IGSA)

PROJECTS

EVALUATION TABULATION
General Solicitation - GENERAL MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS JOB ORDER CONTRACT 2026-2027 FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICE AGREEMENT (IGSA)

PROJECTS

Page 25 ends

BASE BID SCHEDULE The Don Chapin Company
Selected Line Item Description Quantity Unit of
Measure
Unit Cost Total
X EE-4-a Repair Paver Surfacing (on Concrete Underslab) 1 SF $65.00 $65.00 X EE-4-b Repair Paver Surfacing (on Concrete Underslab) 101 SF $50.00 $5,050.00 X EE-5-a Dowel (PAVER) 1 Ea $1.00 $1.00

FF - CONCRETE INTERLOCKING PAVERS
X FF-1-a Furnish, Place and Finish Concrete Interlocking Pavers 1 SF $45.00 $45.00 X FF-1-b Furnish, Place and Finish Concrete Interlocking Pavers 101 SF $25.00 $2,525.00

GG - STONE WALL
X GG-1-a Furnish and Construct Stone Wall 1 SF $105.00 $105.00 X GG-1-b Furnish and Construct Stone Wall 101 SF $35.00 $3,535.00

HH - CONCRETE SIDEWALK SLICING
X HH-1-a Concrete Sidewalk Slicing 1 in-ft $125.00 $125.00 Total $78,154.03

GENERAL CONDITIONS
Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 7., Item Page 31, Packet Page 101

EVALUATION TABULATION
GEN No. TBD
GENERAL MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS JOB ORDER CONTRACT 2026-2027 FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICE AGREEMENT (IGSA)

PROJECTS

EVALUATION TABULATION
General Solicitation - GENERAL MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS JOB ORDER CONTRACT 2026-2027 FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICE AGREEMENT (IGSA)

PROJECTS

Page 26 ends

General Conditions The Don Chapin Company
Line Item Description Unit of Measure Percentage Amount II-1-a General Conditions $100,000 35% 35,000.00
Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 7., Item Page 32, Packet Page 102 Council
Agenda Report
№12/25
FROM: Rafaela T. King, CPA, MBA, Finance Director
Prepared By: Youssef Hanalla, CPA, CIA, Finance Manager SUBJECT: Certifying Compliance with State Law with Respect to Levying Assessments and Special Taxes; and Approve the Agreement with the County of Monterey (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council adopt the
attached resolution certifying compliance with State Law with respect to levying assessments and special taxes;
and approve the agreement for the collection of special taxes, fees, and assessments as required by the County
of Monterey.

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:

The passage of this resolution will ensure the continued collection of assessments and special taxes by the
County Tax Collector.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE
ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

Passage of the resolution will have a positive fiscal
effect on the City because the County will continue to
collect assessments and special taxes on our behalf.

This resolution has no effect on the amount of
assessments and special taxes.

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 Agenda Report Highlights
• The City Council is recommended to
adopt a resolution certifying
compliance with State Law
regarding the levying of local
assessments and special taxes.
• This action would approve a
required agreement allowing the
County of Monterey to continue
collecting these specific revenues
on the City's behalf.
• These recurring collections currently
include the Emergency Medical
Services special tax alongside
downtown street maintenance
district fees and sewer service
charges.
• Disapproving this resolution would
require the City to independently
collect these individual obligations
directly from property owners.

Date: 7/21/2026
Item No.: 8.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 1, Packet Page 103 №12/25
rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

Non passage of the resolution or agreement would mean that the County would discontinue collection of assessments and special taxes for the City of Monterey. If this were to occur, the city would be in a position of (1) collecting our own assessments and special taxes from individual property owners, (2) paying our outstanding assessment obligations with General Fund monies or (3) defaulting on the outstanding obligations.

DISCUSSION:

In 1997 the County of Monterey informed each agency using their tax rolls for collection of taxes, assessments, fees and charges (other than the 1% ad valorem tax) that they will require, for the 1997-98 fiscal year and each year thereafter, a certification resolution to ensure that Proposition 218’s provisions are being addressed by the agency. The City Attorney and the Finance Director have reviewed the City’s assessments and special taxes that are collected by the County on the annual tax bills and have concluded that we are complying on all issues.

The recurring assessments and special taxes are as follows:
1) Emergency Medical Services – this is a special tax approved by the voters in March 2000. The tax is currently set at $5.00 per benefit unit, and the proceeds are used to fund paramedic emergency medical service to the citizens of Monterey. 2) Alvarado Street Maintenance District – this is an annual assessment collected from property owners with property fronting Alvarado Street. The funds are used to repair and maintain improvements.
3) Calle Principal Maintenance District – this is an annual assessment collected from property owners with property fronting Calle Principal. The funds are used to repair and maintain improvements.
4) Sewer Service Charges – this assessment was added the county tax roll starting with fiscal year 2024-25. The City Council reauthorized collection on the tax roll for Fiscal Year 2026-2027 as a majority protest was not made by a majority of the owners of the property subject to the charge. This action has met all California Health and Safety Code requirements under Section 543 as approved by the City Council on July 16, 2024.

The resolution certifies compliance with the Proposition and includes a hold harmless and indemnification provision for administrative expenses of the County. Additionally, the County of Monterey has updated their agreement to be consistent across all agencies and are requiring Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 2, Packet Page 104 №12/25
the agreement to be submitted with the Resolution for the processing of the 2026-27 secured roll tax bills, which includes taxes, assessments, fees, and charges.

The resolution, signed agreement, and the assessment information are due, and will be delivered to the County of Monterey Auditor-Controller’s Office upon ratification.

RTK/yh
Attachments: 1. Resolution

2. Exhibit A
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 3, Packet Page 105 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

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

CERTIFYING COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW WITH RESPECT TO THE LEVYING OF

GENERAL AND SPECIAL TAXES, ASSESSMENTS, AND

PROPERTY-RELATED FEES AND CHARGES
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey requests that the Monterey County Auditor-Controller enter those general or special taxes, assessments, or property-related fees or charges identified in Exhibit “A” on the tax roll for collection and distribution by the Monterey County Treasurer-Tax Collector commencing with the property tax bills for fiscal year 2026-27; and WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project.

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

1. Certifies that, the City of Monterey has, without limitation, complied with all legal procedures and requirements necessary for the levying and imposition of the general or special taxes, assessments, or property-related fees or charges identified in Exhibit “A”, regardless of whether those procedures and requirements are set forth in the Constitution of the State of California, in State statues, or in the applicable decisional law of the State of California.

2. The City of Monterey further certifies that, except for the sole negligence or misconduct of the County of Monterey, its officers, employees, and agents, with regard to the handling of the compact disc or electronic file identified as Exhibit “A”, the City of Monterey shall be solely liable and responsible for defending, at its sole expense, cost, and risk, each and every action, suit, or other proceeding brought against the County of Monterey, its officers, employees, and agents for every claim, demand, or challenge to the levying or imposition of the general or special taxes, assessments, or property-related fees or charges identified in Exhibit “A” and that it Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 4, Packet Page 106 shall pay or satisfy any judgment rendered against the County of Monterey, its officers, employees, and agents on every such action, suit, or other proceeding, including all claims for refunds and interest thereon, legal fees and court costs, and administrative expenses of the County of Monterey to correct the tax rolls.

3. Approves the agreement between the County of Monterey and the City of Monterey for the collection of special taxes, fees, and assessments and authorizes the City Manager to execute the agreement.

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, 7/21/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 5, Packet Page 107 Exhibit A
EXHIBIT "A"
TO

RESOLUTION CERTIFYING COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW WITH RESPECT TO THE LEVYING OF GENERAL AND SPECIAL TAXES, ASSESSMENTS, AND PROPERTYRELATED FEES AND CHARGES FISCAL YEAR 2026-27
GENERAL TAXES:

None
SPECIAL TAXES:

Emergency Medical Services
ASSESSMENTS:
(#528) Alvarado Street Maintenance District 85-1
(#533) Calle Principal Maintenance District 00-01

PROPERTY-RELATED FEES AND CHARGES:

City of Monterey Sewer Fees
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 6, Packet Page 108 Council
Agenda Report
№12/25
FROM: Dante Hall, City Manager
Prepared By: Mark Ackermann, Management Analyst
SUBJECT: Authorize Grant Application to the Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation for the Installation Readiness Program and, if Awarded, Appropriate Funds and Authorize Grant Agreement (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt a Resolution: (1) authorizing the City Manager to submit a grant application to the
Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation
(OLDCC) Installation Readiness Program in the amount
of $635,900, with a non-federal match of $79,961.57
(11.17% of the $715,861.57 total project cost), to fund a Military Installation Readiness Review (MIRR) of
external infrastructure supporting U.S. Army Garrison
Presidio of Monterey and Naval Support Activity
Monterey; and (2) if the grant is awarded, appropriating the grant funds and authorizing the City Manager to
execute the grant agreement and any other documents
necessary to accept and implement the award, subject
to approval as to form by the City Attorney.

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 action is consistent with City policy to pursue
outside grant funding that advances City priorities and reduces reliance on the General Fund. This also
provides an opportunity to strengthen infrastructure
shared by the military installations and the surrounding community.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

Agenda Report Highlights
• The Council is recommended to
authorize a grant application to the
Office of Local Defense Community
Cooperation.
• The application seeks $635,900 to
conduct a Military Installation
Readiness Review of external
infrastructure supporting local
installations.
• The required non-federal match
would be met entirely through inkind staff time and donated facility use.
• This proposed review would identify
critical vulnerabilities across
regional energy, water,
transportation, and communications
networks.
• If awarded, the City Manager is
authorized to appropriate these
grant funds and execute the
necessary agreements.

Date: 7/21/2026
Item No.: 9.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 1, Packet Page 109 №11/25
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

No General Fund appropriation is required to submit the grant application. The proposed federal request is $635,900, requiring a non-federal match of at least 10%. The non-federal match will be met through in-kind contributions of existing, already-budgeted staff time from participating departments (City Manager's Office, Police, Fire, and Public Works) and through donated use of the Monterey Conference Center, valued at $9,920. No new cash outlay from the General Fund is anticipated to meet the match requirement.

If the grant is awarded, this action authorizes the City Manager to appropriate the $635,900 in federal grant revenue and corresponding expenditure authority for the 18-month period of performance and to execute the grant agreement, without the need for a separate future appropriation action by the City Council. Staff will administratively track and report grant expenditures consistent with City and OLDCC financial management requirements.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, №07/19this 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 decline to authorize submission of the grant application. This is not recommended, as the City would forgo the opportunity to secure up to $635,900 in federal funding to study and document infrastructure vulnerabilities affecting the U.S. Army Garrison Presidio of Monterey (USAG POM) and Naval Support Activity Monterey (NSAM), and could weaken the City's competitive position for future defense-related infrastructure funding, including OLDCC's Defense Community Infrastructure Program (DCIP).

The City Council could authorize submission of the application only, and defer appropriation of grant funds and authorization of the grant agreement to a future meeting contingent on award.

This is not recommended, as it would require an additional Council action and could cause delays in hitting milestones during the 18-month period of performance once an award is made.

DISCUSSION:

The Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation (OLDCC), an agency of the U.S.

Department of Defense, administers the Installation Readiness Program under 10 U.S.C. § 2391. Unlike competitive Department of Defense (DoD) grant programs, Installation Readiness is needs-based and provides technical and financial assistance to state and local governments to study and address external, off-installation factors, such as energy, water, transportation, and Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 2, Packet Page 110 №11/25
communications infrastructure, that could affect the readiness, sustainability, or lethality of nearby military installations. The Monterey Peninsula is home to two co-located Department of Defense installations: U.S. Army Garrison Presidio of Monterey (USAG PoM), home to the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center (DLIFLC), and Naval Support Activity Monterey (NSAM), home to the Naval Postgraduate School (NPS) and the Fleet Numerical Meteorology and Oceanography Center (FNMOC). According to the Monterey County Military Economic Impact Report (2024), defense-related spending and activity generated approximately $4.9 billion in total economic impact to Monterey County in 2023, including approximately $2.4 billion in direct Department of Defense spending, underscoring the military's role as one of the region's most significant economic drivers.

Following a regional resilience summit held in June 2025, the cities of Monterey, Seaside, Pacific Grove, and Carmel-by-the-Sea joined with USAG POM and NSAM to pursue an Installation Readiness grant that would be beneficial to all parties. If awarded, the grant would fund a Military Installation Readiness Review (MIRR), a comprehensive study evaluating external, “beyond-the-fence-line” infrastructure vulnerabilities in four (4) domains: energy, water and wastewater, transportation and evacuation, and communications. These domains were selected due to their potential for affecting the ability of USAG POM and NSAM to sustain their missions. Deliverables include a vulnerability assessment, a regional tabletop exercise (TTX) with participating jurisdictions and installation representatives, and a TTX after-action report and improvement plan identifying prioritized recommendations, over an 18-month period of performance.

The total federal request is $635,900 and requires a non-federal match of 10%, which would be met through in-kind, already-budgeted staff time and donated use of the Monterey Conference Center. The application was developed by staff from the City Manager's Office in coordination with OLDCC's Western Regional Office Program Manager, who provided two rounds of formal reviewer feedback incorporated into the final narrative, budget, and supporting documentation.

Beyond funding the study itself, staff expects a completed MIRR to provide lasting value to the City and the region. The MIRR would support the City’s future Economic Development Strategy, which includes support for and analysis of the military as an important economic sector.

The review would produce a documented, DoD-informed inventory of priority infrastructure vulnerabilities and recommended improvements, the type of supporting evidence that OLDCC's competitive Defense Community Infrastructure Program (DCIP) considers when scoring applications for construction funding, including alignment with installation mission needs, the consequences of inaction, and construction readiness.

A completed MIRR would better position the City and its partners to compete for DCIP awards and other defense-related infrastructure funding in future grant cycles, deepen the City's working relationship with OLDCC and the installations, and inform the City's own capital improvement planning and emergency management efforts. Staff recommends the City Council authorize submission of the application and pre-authorize acceptance of the award at this time so that, if OLDCC selects the application for funding, the City can execute the grant agreement and begin work promptly without returning to the City Council for a separate appropriation action.

DH/ma
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 3, Packet Page 111 №11/25
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, 7/21/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 4, Packet Page 112 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY

AUTHORIZING GRANT APPLICATION TO THE OFFICE OF LOCAL DEFENSE

COMMUNITY COOPERATION (OLDCC) FOR THE INSTALLATION READINESS

PROGRAM AND, IF AWARDED, APPROPRIATE FUNDS AND AUTHORIZE GRANT

AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation (OLDCC), an agency of the United States Department of Defense, administers the Installation Readiness Program under 10 U.S.C. § 2391 to provide technical and financial assistance to state and local governments to study and address external factors affecting the readiness, sustainability, and lethality of nearby military installations;
WHEREAS, the Monterey Peninsula is home to two co-located Department of Defense installations, U.S. Army Garrison Presidio of Monterey (USAG POM), home of the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center (DLIFLC), and Naval Support Activity Monterey (NSAM), home of the Naval Postgraduate School (NPS) and the Fleet Numerical Meteorology and Oceanography Center (FNMOC). According to the Monterey County Military Economic Impact Report (2024), defense-related spending and activity is a significant economic driver for Monterey County;
WHEREAS, City staff have prepared an application to OLDCC's Installation Readiness Program to fund a Military Installation Readiness Review (MIRR) evaluating external infrastructure vulnerabilities in the areas of energy, water and wastewater, transportation and evacuation, and communications affecting USAG POM and NSAM, and requiring a non-federal match as described in the application;
WHEREAS, the non-federal match will be met through in-kind contributions of existing, already-budgeted staff time and through donated use of the Monterey Conference Center, and no new General Fund appropriation is required to submit the application; WHEREAS, OLDCC requires that an authorized representative of the applicant be designated by resolution of the governing body to submit the application and, if the application is selected for funding, to execute the resulting grant agreement; WHEREAS, authorizing the City Manager to accept the award, appropriate the funds, and execute the grant agreement at this time, if the application is selected for funding, will allow the City to begin work promptly upon notification of award, without the need for further City Council action; and
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey has 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), because it consists of submitting a grant application and conducting a planning study (the MIRR) to evaluate external infrastructure vulnerabilities, and does not commit the City to any physical activity or approve, adopt, or fund any specific improvement or construction project. In addition, because the action is limited to a feasibility and Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 5, Packet Page 113 planning study for possible future actions the City has not approved, adopted, or funded, and the environmental effects of any such future actions cannot reasonably be ascertained at this stage, the action is exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15262. Any physical improvements or construction projects identified as a result of the MIRR would be brought back to the City Council and separately evaluated for CEQA applicability at that time. The Planning Office will make the final CEQA determination for any subsequent actions;

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

1. Authorizes the City Manager, or designee, to submit an application to the Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation for an Installation Readiness Program grant to fund a Military Installation Readiness Review, including the non-federal match described in the application.

2. Authorizes the City Manager, or designee, to appropriate the grant funds and corresponding expenditure authority upon award of the grant, if awarded.

3. Authorizes the City Manager, or designee, to enter into a grant agreement with the Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation for an Installation Readiness Program grant, if awarded, and to execute any amendments, extensions, or related documents necessary to accept and implement the award, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney.

4. Authorizes a waiver of fees for use of the Monterey Conference Center up to $10,000.

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

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 6, Packet Page 114 Council
Agenda Report
№12/25
FROM: Kimberly Cole, AICP, Community Development Director Prepared By: Janna Aldrete, Leasing and Property Manager SUBJECT: Appoint Agency Negotiators for Conference with Real Property Negotiators Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8; Property: 47 Fisherman's Wharf (Café Fina); Agency Negotiators: Kimberly Cole and Janna Aldrete; Negotiating Parties: Mr. Dominic Mercurio; Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment for Lease Amendment (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council appoint agency negotiators for
conference with real property negotiators pursuant to
Government Code Section 54956.8 to discuss and
provide confidential direction for terms and conditions for a lease amendment with Mr. Dominic Mercurio.

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:

City Council approval is required for real estate
transactions. Closed session confidential review of real estate matters is allowed.

The Surplus Land Act does not apply to Tidelands
property.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE
ACT) APPLIES: The Levine Act does not apply to the
appointment of negotiators, but it does apply to the
underlying negotiations for a lease extension.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no fiscal implications related to the recommendation to appoint agency negotiators.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the Agenda Report Highlights
• The City Council is recommended to
appoint agency negotiators to
discuss terms and conditions for a
lease amendment with Mr. Dominic
Mercurio.
• Mr. Mercurio owns and operates
Café Fina at 47 Fisherman's Wharf
and has formally requested that the
City consider a lease extension.
• The current ground lease for the
popular restaurant property
commenced in 1991 and is currently
scheduled to expire on July 31,
2041.
• City Council approval is necessary
for real estate transactions and
closed session confidential reviews
are legally permitted for this type of
matter.

Date: 7/21/2026
Item No.: 10.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 1, Packet Page 115 №12/25
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 CEQA Guidelines Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council could decide not to appoint negotiators or to appoint different negotiators. This is not recommended by staff. It is appropriate that the City Council appoint agency negotiators and authorize a confidential discussion regarding a lease amendment.

DISCUSSION:

Café Fina, located at 47 Fisherman’s Wharf, is owned and operated by Mr. Dominic Mercurio.

The property is subject to a ground lease that commenced on August 1, 1991 and is scheduled to expire on July 31, 2041. Café Fina is a popular Fisherman’s Wharf restaurant serving lunch and dinner seven days per week.

Mr. Mercurio has requested the City consider a lease extension. Closed session discussions are allowed and appropriate for confidential direction in real estate matters of this type.

KC/ja/ad
e: Mr. Dominic Mercurio, Café Fina
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, 7/21/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 2, Packet Page 116 Council
Agenda Report
№12/25
FROM: Kimberly Cole, AICP, Community Development Director Prepared By: Janna Aldrete, Leasing and Property Manager SUBJECT: Appoint Agency Negotiators for Conference with Real Property Negotiators Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8; Property: 50 Fisherman's Wharf (Domenico's Restaurant); Agency Negotiators: Kimberly Cole and Janna Aldrete; Negotiating Parties: Mr. Dominic Mercurio (Mercurio Brothers, Inc.); Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment for Lease Amendment (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

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:

City Council approval is required for real estate
transactions. Closed session confidential review of real estate matters is allowed.

The Surplus Land Act does not apply to Tidelands
property.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE
ACT) APPLIES: The Levine Act does not apply to the appointment of negotiators, but it does apply to the underlying negotiations for a lease amendment.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no fiscal implications related to the recommendation to appoint agency negotiators.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the Agenda Report Highlights
• The City Council is recommended to
appoint agency negotiators to
discuss terms for a lease
amendment with Mercurio Brothers,
Inc.
• Domenico's Restaurant at 50
Fisherman's Wharf operates under a
ground lease scheduled to expire in
2041.
• The restaurant tenant has requested
that the City consider an extension
of this lease.
• Confidential closed session
discussions are permitted and
appropriate to provide direction on
this real estate matter.

Date: 7/21/2026
Item No.: 11.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 11., Item Page 1, Packet Page 117 №12/25
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 CEQA Guidelines Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

DISCUSSION:

Domenico’s Restaurant, located at 50 Fisherman’s Wharf, is owned by Mr. Sam Mercurio and Mr. Dominic Mercurio. The property is subject to a ground lease that commenced on March 1, 1991 and is scheduled to expire on February 28, 2041. The lease was assigned from John and Cheryl Pisto to Mercurio Brothers, Inc. on August 24, 2007.

The tenant has requested the City consider a lease extension. Closed session discussions are allowed and appropriate for confidential direction in real estate matters of this type.

KC/ja/ad
e: Mr. Sam Mercurio, Domenico’s Restaurant
Mr. Dominic Mercurio, Domenico’s Restaurant
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, 7/21/2026, Item No. 11., Item Page 2, Packet Page 118 Council
Agenda Report
№11/25
FROM: Kimberly Cole, AICP, Community Development Director Levi Hill, AICP, Planning Manager
Prepared By: Christy Sabdo, AICP, Principal Planner
SUBJECT: Resilient Coast Monterey: Receive a Presentation and Provide Comment on the 2025 Sea Level Rise Assessment Background Report and 2026 Sea Level Rise and Vulnerability Assessment Update (Exempt from CEQA Article 19, Section 15306, Class 6)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council receive a presentation and provide comments on the Sea Level Rise Assessment
Background Report (2025) and the Sea Level Rise and
Vulnerability Assessment Update (2026).

VALUE DRIVERS:

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

On October 9, 2024, the California Coastal Commission
approved an award of $818,600 in Local Coastal
Program (LCP) Local Assistance grant funds for the City of Monterey to complete Phase 1 of the Resilient Coast
Monterey project, including a sea level rise vulnerability assessment, adaptation plan, economic analysis, LCP
amendment, and associated public outreach and
engagement. The grant agreement requires the City to
bring forth the Background Report and Vulnerability
Assessment for review. Furthermore, if the City does not complete the work authorized by the grant, the City will, in short time, be out of compliance with SB 2721
approved by the Governor on October 7, 2023, which
requires local governments to incorporate sea level rise plans as part of new or updated Local Coastal
Programs.
1 Senate Bill 272: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB272 Agenda Report Highlights
• The City Council is requested to
review and provide comments on
two recently updated sea level
rise assessment reports.

• Council review of these
documents would satisfy
obligations for an $818,600 state
grant funding the first phase of the
Resilient Coast Monterey project.

• The assessment findings would
help establish a strategic roadmap
to mitigate sea level rise impacts
on coastal resources and public
access.
• Completing these reviews would
also ensure compliance with state
legislation mandating that local
coastal programs address sea
level rise adaptation.

Date: 7/21/2026
Item No.: 12.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 1, Packet Page 119 №10/24
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The City has been awarded an $818,600 grant from the California Coastal Commission to support Phase 1 of the project, which is required to be completed by the end of 2027. Grant funding will be used to prepare an updated sea level rise vulnerability assessment, adaptation plan, economic analysis, and LCP amendment, all of which are required components of the Draft Local Coastal Plan (Draft LCP). Review of the Background Report and Vulnerability Assessment by the City Council is necessary to satisfy grant requirements and demonstrate completion of the associated work tasks. If these documents are not reviewed by the City Council, the grant-funded tasks may not be considered complete, potentially resulting in the City being ineligible for full reimbursement of grant funds associated with this phase of work. In that event, the City would need to utilize General Fund resources to complete the required tasks and cover any unreimbursed project costs.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey Planning Office determined that the following action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15306, Class 6) because the proposed action involves basic data collection, research, and resource evaluation activities for a sea level rise assessment update, which provides an up-to-date evaluation of the City of Monterey’s assets, coastal resources, and habitats at risk from sea level rise and related coastal hazards, using the latest scientific guidance and policy requirements.

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

Exception a - Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located -a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply in all instances, except where the project may have impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies. The proposed action involves data collection and analysis; therefore, would not have any impacts on the environment.

Exception b - Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. The proposed action is data collection and analysis; therefore, no cumulative impacts are anticipated.

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 Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 2, Packet Page 120 №10/24
negative declaration or certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The proposed action would involve data collection and analysis; therefore, no impacts to scenic highways would occur.

Exception e - Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. The proposed action would involve data collection and analysis; no projects are located on hazardous waste sites listed pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.

Exception f - Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. The proposed action would involve data collection and analysis, not specific projects; therefore, there would be no impacts to historic or cultural resources.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

None. The California Coastal Commission Local Coastal Program (LCP) Local Assistance Grant requires Planning Commission and City Council review.

DISCUSSION:

Background
California Senate Bill 272 (SB 272), signed by the Governor in 2023, requires local governments within the coastal zone to develop a sea level rise (SLR) plan as part of a local coastal program that is subject to approval by the California Coastal Commission consistent with the guidelines established pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 30985.2 by January 1, 2034.

California Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) was signed into law in 2021. SB 1 directs the state to provide funding to local and regional governments to develop sea level rise adaptation plans and implementation projects. As of January 2026, OPC has $21.3 million available for funding SB 1 projects. OPC’s SB 1 SLR Adaptation Grant Program aims to provide funding for coastal communities to development consistent sea level adaptation plans and projects to build resilience to sea level rise along the entire coast of California.

To comply with SB 272 requirements and to provide an updated SLR analysis to inform the Local Coastal Program (LCP) update, in 2024, the City applied for and was awarded an LCP Local Assistance Grant from the Coastal Commission. The Local Assistance Grant is the sole funding source for Phase 1 of the SLR Vulnerability Assessment, which includes data gathering and existing conditions analysis, preparation of a background report, completion of a vulnerability assessment, an economic analysis, and development of preliminary adaptation plan strategies. The City is pursuing funding through OPC’s SB 1 SLR Adaptation Grant Program to support Phase 2 of the project. If awarded, Phase 2 would build upon the findings of the vulnerability assessment by developing adaptation actions and pathways, including implementation and funding strategies, preliminary engineering design concepts and cost estimates, a final adaptation plan focused on near-term adaptation actions, and amendments to the LCP (Figure 1).

Both phases of the project include public outreach and community engagement efforts, such as community meetings, focus groups, virtual reality engagement, workshops, surveys, and pop-up outreach at community events and gathering spaces.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 3, Packet Page 121 №10/24
Figure 1. Phases of the Resilient Coast Monterey Project (Currently in Phase 1) The primary objectives of the Resilient Coast Monterey project is to:
• Create a Roadmap for Resource Allocation: Develop a strategic plan to allocate resources effectively to address sea level rise and climate change challenges. • Mitigate Sea Level Rise Impacts: Identify strategies to reduce the negative effects of sea level rise on coastal resources, habitats, public access, recreational spaces, and coastal assets.
• Support Local Coastal Program (LCP) Development: Inform and support the preparation of the City’s comprehensive LCP, including amendments to address sea level rise and adaptation strategies.
• Maximize Public Benefits: Address issues of statewide significance to enhance public benefits across the City’s coastal zone.
• Promote Environmental Justice: Ensure equitable access to the City’s coastal zone and actively involve historically marginalized communities in planning and decisionmaking processes.

Sea Level Rise Assessment Background Report, 2025 (Attachment 1) The Sea Level Rise Assessment Background Report summarizes the findings of previous SLR studies and other relevant analyses completed for the City and wider Monterey Bay area. These previous assessments provide a strong foundation for understanding the City’s vulnerabilities to coastal hazards, including storm-driven flooding, tidal inundation, and shoreline erosion under projected SLR scenarios. The report also synthesizes previously identified vulnerabilities and summarizes proposed adaptation strategies to address future coastal risks.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 4, Packet Page 122 №10/24
In addition, the 2025 Background Report found that there are several hazards that can be added or expanded
upon using new science, SLR projections, and updated
data on local conditions and infrastructure; these include:
• evaluating SLR hazards at 3.3 ft for beaches,
• assessing groundwater flooding,
• assessing fluvial + SLR flooding impacts to drainage
infrastructure, and
• re-evaluating erosion projections and hazard extents
with SLR.

The State of California Sea Level Rise Guidance: 2024
Science and Policy Updates (2024 State SLR
Guidance)
2 provides new SLR scenarios along with
guidance for how to update SLR vulnerability
assessments. The previous assessment reports for the
City consistently used the following SLR scenarios: 0.7 ft, 2.4 ft, and 5.2 ft for conducting risk and vulnerability assessments. Based on the new SLR projections from
the 2024 State SLR guidance1, the 0.7 ft and 2.4 ft scenarios are still within the SLR ranges and represent plausible near-term scenarios3. As shown on Table 1, 0.7 ft now represents projected 2050 conditions in the Intermediate scenario and 2.4 ft represents projected SLR for the Intermediate-High scenario in the 2070-2080 timeframe. For long-term SLR, 5.2 ft is also still within the projected range for 2100 and represents potential SLR between the IntermediateHigh and High scenarios for that year. For areas with critical infrastructure, such as Del Monte Avenue, previous studies demonstrated that critical infrastructure was already at high risk of damages and inoperability with 5.2 ft of SLR, therefore, this remains a valuable threshold to use for these types of assets.
2 State of California Sea Level Rise Guidance, 2024 Science and Policy Update 3 Key takeaways from the science update were that 1 ft of SLR was no longer expected to occur earlier than 2050 and 10+ ft of SLR was no longer considered possible until 2140. The guidance recommends examining the new SLR scenarios out to 2130 (100 years from now) and confirming if previous SLR scenario values still provide a robust picture of potential future SLR for the Monterey area. In other words, the range of 0.7-5.2 ft should still represent plausible near-term and long-term futures for SLR in Monterey out to 2130 (GHD, 2025).

Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 5, Packet Page 123 №10/24
Table 1. 2024 State of California SLR Scenarios for the Monterey Tide Gauge4 Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment Update, 2026 (Attachment 2) The objective of updating the City’s SLR Vulnerability Assessment is to provide an up-to-date evaluation of the City of Monterey’s assets, coastal resources, and habitats at risk from sea level rise and related coastal hazards, using the latest scientific guidance and policy requirements. The 2026 Assessment is also intended to address relevant gaps identified in the City of Monterey SLR Background Report (GHD, 2025) and address new 2024 State SLR Guidance2 and SB 272 requirements, including considerations of impacts to historically marginalized communities. The 2026 Assessment is also intended to support the City with prioritizing assets or coastal areas for mitigation of SLR impacts, resource allocation, and the development of adaptation strategies.

The 2026 Assessment builds on vulnerabilities identified in previous SLR studies for the City and complements this existing information with new analysis on beach-dune erosion,
groundwater and additional storm scenarios. Existing conditions have been refined to reflect recent infrastructure changes, 40- year historic beach trends, current public access locations, and socio-economic factors. The 2026 Assessment characterizes coastal hazards by type and anticipated timeline (near-, mid-, and long-term), defines impact thresholds and expected
frequencies, and examines key sensitivities. Together, these findings aim to guide the City’s Local Coastal Program (LCP), inform adaptation priorities, and promote resilient, equitable management of Monterey’s coastal zone in the face of rising seas. 4 GHD, Sea Level Rise Assessment Background Report, 2025 Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 6, Packet Page 124 №10/24
The study area for this 2026 Assessment extends along the City’s coastline from its northeastern boundary at Highway 218 and Highway 1 to its northwestern boundary at David Avenue.

SLR-related vulnerabilities are assessed for five of the six coastal LCP Land Use Planning (LUP) subareas (Figure 1). The Skyline LUP subarea is not included in this assessment because no SLR-related impacts are anticipated within this area.

The 2026 Assessment identifies four hazard zones that correspond to distinct coastal hazard vulnerabilities affecting coastal resources within the study area. As shown on Figure 2, these hazard zones include Eastern Del Monte/Laguna Grande, Western Del Monte/El Estero, Monterey Harbor, and Cannery Row. The hazard zone boundaries extend beyond the LUP subarea boundaries to capture flood pathways that originate in, or extend into, adjacent noncoastal areas of the City. This broader delineation provides a more comprehensive representation of potential coastal flooding impacts and hazard connectivity across the study area.

Figure 2. 2026 Vulnerability Assessment Study Zones
Community Engagement and Public Outreach
A project website5 was created on the City’s Have Your Say Monterey platform (https://haveyoursaymonterey.org/sea-level-rise-adaptation-plan) to provide information and collect public feedback on the project. The website is frequently updated to track the project’s progress and to distribute new and updated materials.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 7, Packet Page 125 №10/24
On April 22, 2026, the City hosted a Community Meeting for Phase 1 of the Resilient Coast Monterey project. The event began with a presentation introducing attendees to the project, the science and implications of sea level rise, and the overall project schedule and phased approach. Following the presentation, attendees were invited to explore a series of informational displays designed to provide additional context on sea level rise, identify areas of Monterey that are vulnerable to future coastal impacts, and
highlight examples of adaptation strategies
being implemented in other communities.

Each station included opportunities for
participants to engage with project staff and
provide feedback. Community members
were encouraged to share their hopes and
concerns for the project, identify valued
community assets within the coastal zone,
and learn about locations along Monterey’s
coastline that are most vulnerable to sea
level rise. The meeting provided multiple
pathways for public input and helped inform
the project team’s understanding of the
community priorities and concerns. The presentation and all boards displayed are available on the project website.5 Spanish translation services were available at the meeting and Spanish language versions of all display boards were provided at the meeting and on the project website.

Planning Commission Review
On June 23, 2026, the Planning Commission received a presentation from Planning staff and GHD. Following the presentation, the Commissioners asked for clarification on multiple topics including: whether the study considered the potential for changing atmospheric conditions, such as tropical cyclones extending farther north due to climate change; the type of equity considerations incorporated into the study; the differences among national, state, and local sea level rise climate models; and whether the proposed adaptation measures would be incorporated into the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Commissioners also requested additional information on beach nourishment and resilient berms, emphasized the importance of continued public outreach in the selection of adaptation measures, and inquired about the City's coordination with regional partners as the project advances.

Next Steps and Future Community Engagement
As discussed above, the updated Vulnerability Assessment represents Phase 1 of the City’s Sea Level Rise planning. On June 2, 2026 the City Council authorized staff to apply for an SB1 Sea Level Rise Adaptation Grant intended to fund Phase 2 of the Resilient Coast Monterey project. Phase 2 would include a Final Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan with phased adaptation strategies extending through the year 2100. Specifically, the Final SLR Adaptation Plan will synthesize key findings from the 2026 Vulnerability Assessment, economic analysis, and community engagement activities with adaptation strategies, preliminary design plans (10% 5 Resilient Coast Monterey – Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment, Adaptation Plan, and Economic Analysis Project Website
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 8, Packet Page 126 №10/24
engineering) and a funding and monitoring strategy. The findings and recommendations from the Final SLR Adaptation Plan will be incorporated into the City’s LCP bringing the City into compliance with SB272. Community and stakeholder engagement will continue to be a key component of Phase 2 as adaptation strategy recommendations are finalized. City staff are in the process of establishing focus groups with key stakeholders including business associations, property owners, and community based organizations. Additional communitywide workshops are also being scheduled for Q4 2026.

In conclusion, Staff recommends the City Council receive a presentation and provide comments on the Sea Level Rise Assessment Background Report (2025) and the Sea Level Rise and Vulnerability Assessment Update (2026).

KC/LH/CS
Attachments: 1. Sea Level Rise Assessment Background Report, 2025

2. Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment Update, 2026 e: Andrea Renny, Public Works Director
Andrew Easterling, Deputy Public Works Director
Laura Engeman, Senior Project Manager/Coastal Scientist, GHD Aaron Holloway, Senior Engineer, GHD
Neighborhood Associations
Business Associations
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, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 9, Packet Page 127 Sea Level Rise Assessment
Background Report
City of Monterey
7 October 2025
The Power of Commitment
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 10, Packet Page 128 Project name City of Monterey SLR Assessment
Document title Sea Level Rise Assessment | Background Report Project number 12663782
File name Monterey SLR Background Report.docx
Status
Code
Revision Author Reviewer Approved for issue
Name Name Date
S3 Draft L. Engeman A. Holloway A. Holloway 7/31/2025
S4 Draft L. Engeman A. Holloway A. Holloway 9/3/2025
S5 Draft L. Engeman A. Holloway A. Holloway 10/3/2025
S6 Final L. Engeman A. Holloway A. Holloway 10/7/2025
GHD, Inc.

Contact: Aaron Holloway, Project Manager
2305 Historic Decatur Road, Suite 102
San Diego, CA 92106, USA
T 562.857.6068 | E [email protected] | www.ghd.com © GHD 2026
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 11, Packet Page 129 Contents

1. INTRODUCTION 1

2. PREVIOUS CITY OF MONTEREY STUDIES 1

2.1 Sea Level Rise Studies 1
City of Monterey Final Sea Level Rise and Vulnerability Analyses, Existing Conditions and Issues Report 1
AB-691 State Public Trust Lands Sea Level Rise Assessment City of Monterey, California 2 Adapting a Threatened Transportation Network to Sea Level Rise: City of Monterey 4

2.2 Previous Regional Studies 4
Coastal Regional Sediment Management Plan for Southern Monterey Bay 5 Evaluation of Erosion Mitigation Alternatives for Southern Monterey Bay 5 Economic Impacts of Climate Adaptation Strategies for Southern Monterey Bay 6 An Integrated Climate Science-Economic Model for Evaluating Adaptations to SLR: A Prototype Model for Monterey, California 6
Monterey Bay Opportunistic Beach Nourishment Program: Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 7
Climate-Smart Conservation of Beaches and Dunes for Western Snowy Plover Recovery in Monterey Bay, California 7
Monterey One Water Climate Action and Adaptation Plan 8 PG&E Climate Adaptation and Vulnerability Assessment 8

3. SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND PROPOSED ADAPTATIONS 9

4. IDENTIFIED GAPS AND RECOMMENDED UPDATES 17

4.1 Updated 2024 SLR Scenarios 17

4.2 Groundwater Flooding 19

4.3 Fluvial Flooding and Drainage Infrastructure 19

4.4 Shoreline Erosion 19

4.5 Coastal Storm Wave Flooding 20

5. REFERENCES 20
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 12, Packet Page 130

1. Introduction
A variety of sea level rise (SLR) studies and analyses have been completed for the City of Monterey (City) and wider Monterey Bay area. This Background Report provides a synthesis of the previous studies performed with a summary of the types of hazards assessed, identified vulnerabilities, specific sectors and assets exposures, and proposed adaptation strategies. A matrix of identified vulnerabilities and proposed adaptation concepts is also included and provides the general location and associated SLR scenario (see Section 3). This Background Report concludes with a discussion of gaps and how the previous data can be integrated, updated, or expanded upon to reflect scientific advances and best practices.

2. Previous City of Monterey Studies
SLR and regional studies were reviewed to prepare this Background Report and are summarized below.

2.1 Sea Level Rise Studies
The following SLR studies were reviewed for this Background Report:
– 2016 City of Monterey Final Sea Level Rise and Vulnerability Analyses, Existing Conditions and Issues Report (Revell Coastal 2016)
– AB-691 State Public Trust Lands Sea Level Rise Assessment City of Monterey, California (M&N/MBI 2019)
– Adapting a Threatened Transportation Network to Sea Level Rise: City of Monterey (GEI/KM 2021) City of Monterey Final Sea Level Rise and Vulnerability Analyses, Existing Conditions and Issues Report
The Revell Coastal (2016) report evaluated four primary coastal hazards: coastal tidal flooding, coastal flooding from a wave storm event, short-term coastal erosion, and long-term coastal erosion.

These were assessed under existing conditions (2010), and future SLR scenarios of approximately 1 ft, 2.4 ft, and approximately 5 ft (Table 1). For the remainder of this Background Report, these are referenced as the 1ft, 2.4 and 5 ft scenarios.

Table 1: SLR Scenarios used in Revell Coastal (2016).

Year SLR (ft) SLR (in)
2030 0.7 8.8
2060 2.4 28.3
2100 5.2 62.6
Impacts were analyzed across 11 sectors: land use and structures, roads and parking, public transportation, wastewater, water supply, stormwater, hazardous materials, public access (beach access and trails), emergency services (evacuation routes), public and military facilities, and biological resources.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 13, Packet Page 131 To evaluate hazards, the authors conducted coastal storm flood modeling consistent with the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA’s) Pacific Coast Flood Guidelines (FEMA 2005). Wave induced coastal flooding was modeled using the Hunt (1959) method to create wave impact zones, and wave overtopping was modeled to create FEMA ponded water
flooding hazard zones. These were combined into a single extent to represent coastal storm flood hazards. Erosion was modeled for two backshore types – dune-backed and cliffbacked shorelines. These coastal erosion and flood hazard projections depicted the potential erosion distance without considering the influence of existing water outfall structures and coastal armoring and, therefore, likely provided an overestimate of the hazard extents. The high tide coastal storm flood modeling was integrated with 10-year incremental coastal erosion projections to demonstrate where eroded areas were more exposed to wave flooding. The tidal inundation model used an average maximum monthly water level from the Monterey Tide Gage (6.5 ft NAVD88) and applied it to each of the SLR scenarios.

The study found that the Del Monte Avenue area had several vulnerabilities, noting that during a large storm in February 1998, a section of this road flooded disrupting bus routes and recreational trail use. Based on City records, this flooding event was likely caused by a pump failure coinciding with heavy rainfall, high tides and rising groundwater. With 1 ft and 2.4 ft SLR, the report concluded that coastal flooding and erosion impacts along Del Monte Avenue were expected to escalate rapidly, causing disruptions to bus routes and use of the recreational trail, as well impacting this route’s use as an evacuation route. With 2.4 ft of SLR, approximately 2 miles of wastewater pipeline along Del Monte Avenue and the Mesa Pump station near Lake El Estero were determined to be at risk for coastal flooding. In addition, two unresolved leaky underground storage tanks in the Del Monte Avenue corridor were found to be at risk to coastal flooding with 5 ft of SLR.

For the Monterey downtown area, the report concluded that coastal storm flooding was projected to impact commercial and residential structures substantially when SLR reached between 2.4 ft and 5 ft when compared to the 1 ft SLR Scenario. The report identified that most of the businesses storing hazardous materials are located in the harbor; one at Monterey Bay Boatworks was already exposed to coastal hazards and 12 others became vulnerable to coastal flooding with 5 ft of SLR. In Cannery Row, the Reeside Pump station was projected to be vulnerable to coastal erosion under existing conditions. Large coastal wave storms were also projected to impact open spaces along Cannery Row, particularly small pocket beaches. The report also mapped several structures and land areas in Cannery Row as vulnerable under existing conditions and many as vulnerable with 5 ft of SLR. However, these maps overlapped coastal flooding and erosion hazards along with projected timelines so specific structures or their associated vulnerabilities were difficult to distinguish.

The Revell (2016) report identified several adaptation recommendations. These included: flood proofing or relocating pump stations; retrofitting manholes to prevent flooding overwhelming conveyance capacity; developing alternative alignments for bus routes and the recreational trail; and evaluating ideas for elevating Del Monte Avenue and/or relocating the main sewer line beneath it.

AB-691 State Public Trust Lands Sea Level Rise Assessment City of Monterey, California
The AB-691 SLR Assessment (M&N/MBI 2019) was intended to complement the 2016 City of Monterey SLR Vulnerability Assessment (Revell Coastal 2016), but with a focus on the tideland resources of the City. The study, therefore, focused on the waterfront parcels along Cannery Row and Monterey Harbor using the same SLR scenarios used in the Revell Coastal (2016) study. Tidal flooding, waves (100-year storm), and shoreline ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 14, Packet Page 132 change were evaluated along eight transects of the study area shoreline that aligned with the 2017 FEMA California Coastal Analysis Sand Mapping Project Open Pacific Coast Study (FEMA CCAMP OPC).

The study used several methods to evaluate potential impacts, extent of the damage, and economic losses.

Tidal flooding analysis was expanded from the Revell Coastal (2016) study to include combined tidal and fluvial flooding in the El Estero area extending toward the municipal marina waterfront. Historic data from the FEMA CCAMP OPC (2017) was used to model a 100-year coastal wave storm event and associated total water level, wave set up, and wave run up. For waterfront infrastructure, wave heights were estimated where they reached pile infrastructure to evaluate the extent of possible wave forcing on the structures. The limited beach areas in this study scope were backed by infrastructure (e.g., seawalls or revetments) so similar beach profiles were assumed under future conditions but with a decreased beach area due to rising sea levels. Physical depthdamage functions were developed based on methods published in the North Atlantic Coast Comprehensive Study (USACE 2015) to estimate an order of magnitude for potential storm damages under future SLR scenarios.

Impacts from storm events and SLR were evaluated based on five categories: public access, commerce, recreation, coastal habitats, and navigability. The report found that Cannery Row has sufficient vertical buffer against inundation of its waterfront structures, even when considering the 5-ft SLR scenario. However, some of these could be vulnerable to coastal storm damage and dependent on the characteristics of the foundation type, age, and condition. The report also determined that both Wharf 1 and Wharf 2 are the most vulnerable structures in Monterey Harbor, particularly those concessions located on lower-level decks. With 2.4 ft of SLR, storm damage at these wharves could be up to 30%, and with 5 ft of SLR, they are expected to incur significant damage or total loss. For beach recreation and habitat, the San Carlos Beach area was projected to have the greatest impact, losing 70% of its beach with 2.4 ft of SLR. Results also showed that the breakwater would continue to be effective at wave protection for 1-2.4 ft of SLR, but with 5 ft of SLR, waves would reach the inner harbor, causing damage to docks, boats, and mooring infrastructure.

The AB-691 (MN/MBI 2019) study also included an economic analysis performed to describe the potential market and non-market losses to the City. Market impacts reflected direct and indirect revenue losses to the City and non-market impacts were represented by the community cost of fewer beach visitors due to beach loss. The results found that with 1-2.4 ft of SLR, a 100-year storm could result in minor revenue losses from closures at the wharves or 1-2 commercial businesses. With 5 ft of SLR and a 100-year storm, the results found a much greater potential impact on revenue loss due to a loss of visitors and sales caused by the possible closure of both wharves and the Monterey Bay Aquarium. It was estimated that a one-year closure of both wharves would equal approximately $2 million lost in rents and sale tax. The loss of beaches with 2.4 ft of SLR was estimated to result in a loss of over $1 million to the community.

Adaptation concepts presented in the AB-691 Report (MN/MBI 2019) included proactive maintenance and potential replacement of wharf and waterfront structures in Monterey Harbor and Cannery Row, and coastal habitat adaptations such as restoration of rocky intertidal habitat restoration, artificial reef construction, and opportunistic beach nourishment. Additional details on location-specific adaptation options are provided in Section 3.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 15, Packet Page 133 Adapting a Threatened Transportation Network to Sea Level Rise:

City of Monterey
In 2021, an additional study was commissioned to
further evaluate City of Monterey transportation
assets threatened by SLR with a focus on the Del
Monte Avenue corridor. This transportationfocused study applied the same SLR scenarios as the two previous SLR assessments. The study
found that with approximately 1 ft of SLR, portions
of Del Monte Avenue, near Lake El Estero, would
flood and potentially the Lighthouse Tunnel as
well. With 2.4 ft of SLR, flooding was expected to
occur along portions of Del Monte Avenue, the
Lighthouse Tunnel, Sloat Avenue, and Pearl
Street where it crosses Lake El Estero. Large
storm waves were projected to reach the Cannery
Row area with 2.4 ft of SLR as well. With 5 ft of
SLR, flooding was projected to expand to Fremont
Street at Lake El Estero.

The study identified and evaluated two adaptation concepts for the Del Monte Avenue corridor. One was to build a sea wall to protect the trail and road, using pumps to address flooding in low-elevation areas. The second was to reconstruct Del Monte Avenue as a viaduct and retreat up to 45 acres of developed infrastructure to allow flooding in this zone. A community survey was conducted that demonstrated a higher preference for retreating the highest flood prone areas and constructing a viaduct. Cost estimates were developed for converting Del Monte Avenue into either a two-lane and four-lane viaduct and the community was surveyed. Other prioritized adaptation concepts included providing wave protection and beach enhancements along Cannery Row, an ecotone levee at the Hwy 1 and State Route 218 interchange, wharf upgrades, and raising the revetment at San Carlos Beach.

The study also provided several recommended next steps. These included: 1) confirming physical elevations to validate flood projections and likely pathways; 2) designing temporary flood mitigation strategies for Del Monte Avenue such as storm drain backflow prevention measures and small seawalls or dune improvements; 3) installing backflow prevention at storm drains below 8.9 ft NAVD88; 4) assessing groundwater vulnerability; 5) preparing more detailed adaptation designs and cost estimates; and 6) identifying pathways to retreat, including triggers and thresholds.

2.2 Previous Regional Studies
The following regional studies were reviewed for this Background Report:
– Coastal Regional Sediment Management Plan for Southern Monterey Bay (PWA 2008) – Evaluation of Erosion Mitigation Alternatives for Southern Monterey Bay (ESA PWA 2012) – Economic Impacts of Climate Adaptation Strategies for Southern Monterey Bay (Leo, et al. 2016) – An Integrated Climate Science-Economic Model for Evaluating Adaptations to SLR: A Prototype Model for Monterey, California (Colgan et al. 2019)
– Monterey Bay Opportunistic Beach Nourishment Program: Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (ESA 2019)
– Climate-Smart Conservation of Beaches and Dunes for Western Snowy Plover Recovery in Monterey Bay, California (Point Blue 2019)
– Monterey One Water Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (LSA 2021) – PG&E Climate Adaptation and Vulnerability Assessment (PG&E 2024) ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 16, Packet Page 134 Coastal Regional Sediment Management Plan for Southern
Monterey Bay
In 2008, PWA (now ESA [Environmental Science Associates]) completed a Coastal Regional Sediment Management Plan (CRSMP) for Southern Monterey Bay for the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) and the Coastal Sediment Management Workgroup. The report describes sensitive habitats in the area such as rocky reef, kelp forests, eelgrass meadows, sandy beaches, sandy subtidal, and coastal dunes. It also provides historical context on shifting erosion rates, citing data that demonstrated that erosion rates along the northern City shoreline and dunes slowed after the cessation of the beach-sand mining at Sand City in 1990.

The CRSMP for southern Monterey Bay identified several assets within the City at high risk to erosion. One of the more significant assets was the Monterey Interceptor pipeline that carries untreated wastewater from the City to the Seaside Pump Station and the regional water treatment plant. The middle pipeline section from Tide Avenue to Monterey Pump Station is located in the dunes a minimum of 115 ft from the shoreline. This was designated as a moderate risk with the potential for storm damage, assuming an average erosion rate of

1.5 ft/yr. The southern section that extends to Wharf II was originally buried beneath the back beach, but with erosion is now located about mid-beach. This was designated an imminent threat and high risk due to existing evidence of beach scour during storms and manhole covers already exposed at low tide during winter.

The report also determined that a hotel and several residential areas were at high risk of erosion. The Monterey Beach Hotel (previously the Monterey Tides Hotel) on north Del Monte Beach had lost all beach access in front of the hotel during high tides. The California Coastal Commission (CCC) approved a new seawall for this location in 2008. The Ocean Harbor House Condos/Del Monte Beach Subdivision is comprised of an apartment complex that was constructed on the dunes at Surf Way. In 2008, CCC approved the building of a seawall with mitigation fees required to be used to nourish the beach in front of the seawall. West of the condos, 15 homes run parallel to the shoreline on the dune top (the Tide Avenue community). While the Del Monte subdivision and Tide Avenue communities were considered as high risk to erosion, it was noted that these risks could have been mitigated with the proposed seawalls. Further south, the La Playa townhomes are located in the dunes at the end of La Playa Street. Structures on the western end of the complex were considered at risk for erosion by 2050 and more vulnerable to wave flooding damage as the front dunes eroded.

The report provided three recommendations for sediment management in the region and a list of potential sediment sources. The management strategies recommended included beach nourishment to slow erosion, eliminating factors that exacerbate erosion, and allowing natural dune erosion without intervention.

Evaluation of Erosion Mitigation Alternatives for Southern Monterey Bay
In 2012, ESA PWA (now ESA) conducted a study in response to recommendations in the 2008 CRSMP. While the study did not directly address SLR, it provided an assessment of 22 erosion mitigation measures to support development of a regional strategy to address coastal erosion hazards in southern Monterey Bay. Through a technical evaluation of various erosion mitigation measures, a cost benefit analysis was performed for several adaptation measures, and recommendations were made on subregional approaches for effectively addressing coastal erosion in the study area.

Within the regional recommendations, it was suggested that reducing or eliminating sand mining could reduce erosion rates by at least 60% across the entire region. Other regional actions recommended included allowing dune erosion to supply beach sediments (e.g., not allowing more armoring in dune areas), beach nourishment, and an opportunistic sand placement program. Within the subregional recommendations, the report identified immediate term actions that included land use planning measures (rolling easements, fee simple acquisition with lease back option, conservation easements), sand mining cessation, opportunistic sand placement, and temporary storm protections (e.g., sandbags, K-rails). Short-term recommendations were then outlined as structural adaptation, relocation of portions of the interceptor pipeline, and large beach nourishment. Medium ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 17, Packet Page 135 and long-term strategies included groins, structural adaptation or relocation of transportation infrastructure, and managed retreat.

The report also identified several toxic-related hazards in the northwestern region of the City that are not Cityowned properties but should be considered with respect to erosion hazards and mitigation strategies. These include a former petroleum tank site owned by the State of California and managed by California Department of Parks and Recreation between the Ocean Harbor House condos and the Monterey Beach Resort. The other is a plume of gasoline-contaminated groundwater where the recreational trail is in closest proximity to Del Monte Avenue. The plume is being monitored using a nearby well with funding by Chevron. Another is a historic landfill owned by the Naval Support Activity (NSA) Monterey between Beach Way and the Monterey Pump Station that is periodically uncovered by storm waves.

Economic Impacts of Climate Adaptation Strategies for Southern Monterey Bay
In 2016, the Nature Conservancy conducted a study designed to complement the 2012 ESA PWA report by providing an analysis of the economic costs and benefits for a range of erosion mitigation and adaptation strategies. The study evaluated the economic costs and benefits to private property, public goods, and coastal habitats for each of the adaptation options proposed for southern Monterey Bay. Del Monte Beach was one of the study’s focus areas and five strategies for this subregion were evaluated. These consisted of small opportunistic beach nourishment of 5,000 cubic yards (CY) every ten years, a continuous revetment across the backshore, managed retreat (fee simple acquisition), medium scale nourishment with groins, and elevating structures.

The study compared the value of the five Del Monte Beach strategies for the three SLR scenarios (approximately 1 ft in 2030, 2.4 ft in 2060, and approximately 5 ft in 2100) to determine their net present value (NPV). The NPV referred to the sum of all the benefits minus the costs. The costs included the cost of the adaptation implementation and the costs of assets lost due to the strategy. The results found that opportunistic beach nourishment had the highest NPV for all three scenarios. However, this was highly dependent on the availability of sand and assumed costs of $26-$45 per CY. Shoreline armoring provided the least NPV in all three SLR scenarios. Groins with nourishment were found to have the second highest NPV if SLR reached 5 ft in 2100; however, managed retreat and/or elevating structures had more value at lower SLR rates through 2060. For the analysis, it was noted that the elevating structures approach assumed that all roads and structures were elevated, which may not be the case.

The study used a variety of methods to estimate costs and benefits. For example, both count and survey data were used to estimate yearly attendance and spending at the beach. Results estimated that 88,000 people visit Del Monte Beach a year and spend approximately $2.7 million. Coastal storm-related flood damages were estimated using U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) depth-damage curves that were linked to cost per square foot replacement values of structures. Damaged parcels were estimated using inundation maps and market values were adjusted depending on the flooding/erosion extent of the parcel.

An Integrated Climate Science-Economic Model for Evaluating Adaptations to SLR: A Prototype Model for Monterey, California In 2019, Colgan et al. published a journal article that used the City of Monterey as a case study for testing a prototype Monte Carlo-based integrated climate change/cost-benefit model. The model is designed to evaluate the economic viability of selected SLR adaptation strategies at specific locations and includes methods for incorporating future uncertainties in science, technology, and socioeconomics. In the model, costs represented flood damage values of property structures either incurred or avoided, the costs of adaptation strategies based on the year deployed, and a depreciation rate of the adaptation measure over time. Both the probabilities of a given SLR and El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) storm condition were used to represent hazards, and the probability of them jointly occurring was also included. For SLR, the model used 10,000 Monte Carlo iterations for each of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) scenarios from 2020 to 2100 ranging from ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 18, Packet Page 136

0.5 ft to 10 ft. A third set of variables captured the area affected and the storm related damage with and without adaptation measures.

The study evaluated three subregions of Monterey: Del Monte, the Harbor, and Cannery Row. In Del Monte and the Harbor subregions, damages were largely incurred by flooding moving further inland across a growing number of parcels and structures. For Cannery Row, triggers for when SLR and waves overtopped were used to determine how just the seaward properties were expected to experience increasing costs due to erosion and undermining of structural supports. Key findings were that beach nourishment at Del Monte Beach was likely a more viable and cost-effective strategy if implemented in 2030 as opposed to waiting until 2040. For Cannery Row, a $25 million investment in strengthening building structures and constructing offshore wave barriers was cost effective if implemented in the mid-late 2020s. A more robust $50 million effort with similar strategies was determined to have no NPV.

Monterey Bay Opportunistic Beach Nourishment Program: Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
The purpose of the Monterey Bay Opportunistic Beach Nourishment Program: Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MBOBNP, ESA 2019) was to define a process for making suitable beach material available for directly placing on the beach or stockpiling for future placement on the beach. A significant oceanfront facility identified as high risk due to beach erosion was the Monterey interceptor pipeline. The pipeline carries all of the untreated wastewater from the cities of Pacific Grove and Monterey up to the Seaside Pump station and eventually the Monterey Regional Treatment Plant. Between Wharf II and the Monterey Pump Station, the pipeline was originally buried beneath the back beach, but due to erosion is now at mid-beach. From the Monterey Pump Station north to Tide Avenue, the pipeline is located in the dunes. To address this risk, Del Monte (Wharf II to the Beach Way terminus at Del Monte Beach) and North Monterey (Ocean Harbor House Condominiums to the Monterey Beach Hotel) were identified as priority sand receiver sites for nourishment.

Climate-Smart Conservation of Beaches and Dunes for Western Snowy Plover Recovery in Monterey Bay, California
In 2019, Point Blue Conservation Science published a report focused on Monterey Bay as an important geography for implementing climate-smart recovery strategies. Climate-smart strategies are defined in the report as approaches that enhance present and future ecological functions so that ecosystems will be resilient to a range of potential future climate conditions. This report includes strategies to help maintain the integrity of sandy beach and dune habitats in Monterey Bay that support snowy plovers in the face of climate change, and it identified vulnerable nesting sites along the Monterey Bay shoreline where strategies could be prioritized. The geographic scope of the report covered the area from Sunset Beach in the north to Monterey State Beach in the south, noting that this section of shoreline is on average the most erosive sandy shore in California (Hapke et al. 2006). Monterey State Beach was the only portion of the study area within the City.

Monterey State Beach was projected to experience lower SLR exposure than other parts of the Monterey Bay shoreline (25% inundation at 4 ft of SLR and up to 50% with 5-6 ft of SLR). However, it was determined to be very vulnerable because of a limited capacity to adapt due to backshore constraints. Suggested actions for this shoreline included: eliminating high impact recreational activities to improve habitat quality and integrity; reducing or relocating beach access points to reduce erosion; removing revetments to protect landforms and increase habitat connectivity; increasing habitat refugia1 such as interdune or rear dune swales; eliminating beach raking; experimenting with building new dunes or protecting foredunes; and experimenting with beach nourishment that minimizes ecological impact.
1 Habitat refugia are areas within the landscape which are naturally buffered from extreme variation in environmental conditions.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 19, Packet Page 137 Monterey One Water Climate Action and Adaptation Plan
In 2021 LSA Associates completed the Monterey One Water (M1W) Climate Action and Adaptation Plan, a comprehensive assessment of greenhouse gas emissions, climate change vulnerabilities, and adaptation strategies. The report found that the Monterey interceptor pipeline, a M1W owned asset, will be impacted by shoreline scouring once SLR reaches approximately 2 ft. It further identifies that sea levels will affect the outflow of M1W’s ocean outfall pipeline, along with pump stations near the coast. Specifically, the analysis identifies the Monterey Pump Station (1951 Del Monte Avenue) as a vulnerable asset within the City, projecting that beach sand depletion and scouring at this location will make the pump station no longer viable without major reinforcement or relocation. Presently, the Monterey Pump Station is approximately 24 feet above mean sea level. Taking into account storm surge combined with high tides, the analysis also projects that if SLR reaches 5.6 ft, then the Monterey Pump Station would be 13.2 ft above mean sea level and the groundwater table at this location would be less than 5 ft below the surface. To accommodate these risks, the report suggests that Monterey Pump Station and the Reeside Pump Station (Pump Station 7) could undertake major renovations, including elevating all electrical and mechanical equipment by approximately 10 feet and hardening the foundations and wet wells. Relocation of the pump stations to higher ground is the other alternative. For the interceptor pipeline, the report suggests protecting the pipeline from scouring or relocating it to stable ground.

PG&E Climate Adaptation and Vulnerability Assessment
In 2024, PG&E published a report that identified PG&E system vulnerabilities based on future environmental conditions in 2050. The report spotlights that there is a concentrated risk of transmission towers and poles exposed to inundation from 1.6 ft SLR + 100-year coastal storm in Santa Clara and Monterey County. It also identified one substation within the City of Monterey as projected to be at risk of inundation with 1.25 meters (~4 ft) of SLR and a 100-year storm. The specific substation was not identified in the report; however, it can be identified through discussions with PG&E staff.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 20, Packet Page 138

3. Summary of Potential Impacts and
Proposed Adaptations
The following is a summary of potential impacts and proposed adaptation identified in existing studies. The summary tables and associated figures are separated into three coastal subregions: Cannery Row, Monterey Harbor, and Del Monte Avenue/Beach.

Figure 1 Potential SLR impacts in the Cannery Row region ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 21, Packet Page 139 Table 2 Matrix of Cannery Row potential impacts and proposed adaptations Location Source SLR Impacts Adaptation Concepts
Transect
#34 – MB
Aquarium

M&N/MBI
(2019)
1-2 ft – Wave forcing on foundations
– Possible wave break near 1st level, associated
structural damages
– Pro-active repair, maintenance of foundation structures – Rocky intertidal habitat restoration, artificial reef 5 ft – Waves break at 1st level of structures
– Flooding of deck areas, damage to structures
– Structural upgrades, wave-return wall (already one at MB Aquarium)
– Rocky intertidal habitat restoration, artificial reef Transect
#33 –
Spindrift Inn

M&N/MBI
(2019)
1-2 ft – Beach loss, intertidal habitat shift
– Impacts to ADA access and recreation use at beach
– Beach nourishment
– Rocky intertidal habitat restoration, artificial reef 5 ft – No dry beach, intertidal habitat shift
– Minor flooding of road, 1st floor of structures
– Erosion, undermining of back beach structures
– Beach nourishment, artificial reef, rocky intertidal restoration – Wave-return wall, maintain seawalls
– Upgrades to Spindrift Inn
Transect
#32 – El
Torito to
Chart
House

M&N/MBI
(2019)
1-2 ft – Wave forcing on piles and foundations could lead to uplift of El Torito structure (steeper wave run up).
– Building damage, repair costs
– Building retrofits (windows resistant to waves)
– New development in empty lot to withstand higher SLR
– Rocky intertidal habitat restoration, artificial reef 5 ft – Run up still below 1st floor and roadway
– More substantial damage to El Torito structure
– Intertidal habitat shift
– Wave-return wall
– Rocky intertidal habitat restoration, artificial reef Transect
#31 –
Monterey
Plaza Hotel

M&N/MBI
(2019)
1-2 ft – Beach retreat at pocket beach, intertidal habitat shift – Wave forcing to lower deck, foundation damages
– 1st floor and deck levels flooding from breaking waves – Close deck areas during large wave events
– Beach nourishment
– Rocky intertidal habitat restoration, artificial reef 5 ft – Loss of dry beach, intertidal habitat shift
– Up to 4 ft of inundation on 1st floor and deck levels with 100-year event
– Close deck areas during large wave events
– Wave-return wall
– Rocky intertidal habitat restoration, artificial reef Transect
#30
Monterey
Bay Inn –
North San
Carlos
Beach

M&N/MBI
(2019)
Revell
Coastal
(2016)
LSA (2021)
1-2 ft – Wave forcing at pile structures
– Possible erosion of rocky bluffs
– Intertidal habitat shift
– Erosion Risks near Reeside lift station
– Maintain foundation structures, seawalls
– Erosion triggers for rock bluffs and park area
– Rocky intertidal habitat restoration, artificial reef – Relocate or elevate pump station equipment by 10 ft.
5 ft – Wave run up 1 ft below 1st floor, splashing
– Erosion of rocky bluff and park area
– Intertidal habitat shift
– Erosion impacts to Reeside lift station
– Maintenance and repair of seawalls, foundation at MB Inn – Monitor erosion below lift station and park areas
– Rocky intertidal habitat restoration, artificial reef – Relocate or elevate pump station equipment by 10 ft.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 22, Packet Page 140 Figure 2 Potential SLR impacts in the Monterey Harbor region ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 23, Packet Page 141 Table 3 Matrix of Monterey Harbor potential impacts and proposed adaptations Location Source SLR Impacts Adaptation Concepts
Transect
#29 – San
Carlos
Beach

M&N/MBI
(2019)
GEI/KM (2021)
Revell Coastal
(2016)
1-2 ft – Retreating shoreline (70% loss with 2 ft)
– Undermining of revetment, mean high water line
reaches toe of revetment at 2 ft of SLR
– Erosion, coastal flood threats to roads, parking
– Beach nourishment
– Raise the revetment
– Reconfigure revetment and upper park to accommodate SLR 5 ft – No more dry beach, intertidal habitat shift
– Possible wave run up over revetment onto park and
parking, revetment damage
– Reconfigure revetment and upper park to accommodate SLR Transect
#28 –
Monterey
Harbor Rec
Trail

M&N/MBI
(2019)
1-2 ft – Wave run up below trail but erosion may occur on non-engineered bluff sections undermining trail.
– Intertidal habitat shift
– Monitor erosion to identify need for adaptation
– Nearshore reef and rocky intertidal habitat restoration to protect bluff and help intertidal adapt
5 ft – Wave run up 4 ft below the trail. Erosion of bluff may undermine trail
– Intertidal habitat shift
– Protect bluff with concrete retaining wall
– Nearshore reef and rocky intertidal habitat restoration to protect bluff and help intertidal adapt
Transect
#27 – Wharf
1 Old
Fisherman’s
Wharf

M&N/MBI
(2019)
1-2 ft – Damage possible during a significant wave event requiring repair, limited closure
– Base is at 20 ft NAVD88
– Focused study on wharf structure conditions and potential life span
– Pro-active wharf repair and maintenance
5 ft – Deck still above wave crest elevation but low deck sections and foundation likely to experience damage
– Impacts will be greater if breakwater not raised
– Phased replacement of wharf to withstand higher SLR
Monterey
Harbor
Marinas

M&N/MBI
(2019)
1-2 ft – Impacts to boating, navigation if breakwater not raised – Water levels reach breakwater. Floating docks could
break free, damages possible
– Service life of docks likely to expire before SLR becomes a major concern
– Marina upgrades should address infrastructure concerns 5 ft – Substantial hazards from a wave event if breakwater not raised. Water above floating docks and pilings
– Marina infrastructure like boat launch, utility
connections may be damaged
– New piles that are higher could accommodate SLR
Monterey
Harbor
Municipal
Wharf 2

M&N/MBI
(2019)
1-2 ft – Wave crest still below deck elevations
– Degraded foundations vulnerable to damages, could
impact commercial ship operations
– Maintenance and repair can help mitigate impacts from 1-2 ft of SLR
5 ft – Wave crests with large wave event could result in 1 ft of flooding, damaging wharf and building
– Damages to wharf could impact commercial ship
operations
– Phased replacement program
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 24, Packet Page 142 Location Source SLR Impacts Adaptation Concepts
Monterey
Harbor
Municipal
Wharf 2
Revell Coastal
(2016)
1-2 ft – Coastal flooding threat to parking lots at Wharf 2 – No adaptation suggested Monterey
Harbor
Lighthouse
Tunnel
GEI/KH (2021) 1-2 ft – Lighthouse Tunnel likely to experience flooding at 2 ft – No adaptation suggested ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 25, Packet Page 143 Figure 3 Potential SLR impacts in the Del Monte Avenue/Beach region ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 26, Packet Page 144 Table 4 Matrix of Del Monte Avenue/Beach potential impacts and proposed adaptations Location Source SLR Impacts Adaptation Concepts
Monterey
Pump
Station
LSA (2021) 1-2 ft – Scour will impact interceptor pipeline with 2 ft of SLR
– Scour may impact Monterey Pump
Station
– Protect the pipeline from scouring or relocate it
– Major renovations at Monterey Pump Station including elevating all electrical and mechanical equipment by 10 ft, hardening foundations and wet wells Monterey
Pump
Station
LSA (2021) 5 ft – Scour will impact interceptor pipeline – Scour can impact Monterey Pump
Station and water table could be less
than 5 ft
– Protect the pipeline from scouring or relocate it
– Major renovations at Monterey Pump Station including elevating all electrical and mechanical equipment by 10 ft, hardening foundations and wet wells Del Monte
Substation
PG&E (2024) 4 ft – Risk of inundation at 1.25 meters/4 ft of SLR and a 100-year storm
– No adaptation suggested
Del Monte
Avenue
Revell Coastal
(2016)
1-2 ft – Coastal flooding impacts along Del
Monte Avenue near El Estero
– Consider phased relocation of sewer main
– Consider elevating road, realigning segments
5 ft – Del Monte Avenue coastal flooding
– Coastal flooding at Myers Lift Station
(Roberts Lake)
– No adaptation suggested
Del Monte
Avenue
GEI/KH (2021) 1-2 ft – Del Monte Avenue will experience flooding at 1 ft
– 45,000 vehicles would be diverted
– Reconstruct Del Monte Avenue as a two-lane viaduct with the Rec Trail.

Retreat 35-40 acres of development and open up El Estero to tidal flow – Sea wall along Del Monte Avenue
Del Monte
Avenue
GEI/KH
(2021)
5 ft – Del Monte Avenue will experience
significant flooding
– Ecotone Levee to protect Hwy 1 and Rte 218
Sloat
Avenue
GEI/KH
(2021)
1-2 ft – Sloat Avenue will experience
flooding at 2 ft
– Reconstruct Sloat Avenue as a four-lane facility
Del Monte
and
Monterey
State Beach
PWA (2008) Existing
risks
– High risk of erosion threatens
interceptor pipeline southern section
– Mid-section (tide avenue to Monterey
Pump Station) is at moderate risk
from erosion
– Monterey Beach resort, Del Monte
Subdivision, La Playa townhomes at
risk from erosion
– Beach nourishment
– Eliminate factors that exacerbate erosion
– Allow natural dune erosion
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 27, Packet Page 145 Location Source SLR Impacts Adaptation Concepts
Del Monte
and
Monterey
State Beach

ESA PWA
(2012)
Existing
conditio
ns no
SLR
– None listed – Eliminate sand mining in region
– Allow dune erosion to supply beach sand
– Near-term options:
• Beach nourishment
• Opportunistic beach placement
• Temporary storm protections
• Relocation of interceptor pipeline
• Structural adaptations
– Long-term options
• Groins
• Structural adaptation
• Relocation of roads
• Managed retreat
Monterey
State Beach
Neuman
(2019)
4-5 ft – 25% inundation with 4 ft of SLR
– Up to 50% inundation with 5-6 ft of
SLR
– Beach-dunes have low adaptive
capacity
– Eliminate high impact recreational activities to improve habitat quality and integrity
– Reduce or relocate beach access points to reduce erosion – Remove revetments to protect landforms and increase habitat connectivity – Increase habitat refugia such as interdune or rear dune swales – Eliminate beach raking
– Experiment with building new dunes or protecting foredunes – Experiment with beach nourishment that minimizes ecological impact El Estero Revell Coastal
(2016)
1-2 ft – Coastal flood risk to Mesa Lift Station
at 2 ft
– manholes at risk from coastal
flooding at 2 ft SLR, El Estero
– Flood proofing of pump stations or relocate
– Retrofit manholes to reduce floods into sewer lines
5 ft – Coastal flooding of around Lake
Estero and into lower downtown
– Coastal flood risk to Mesa lift station
at 2 ft
– Manholes at risk from coastal
flooding, El Estero and downtown
El Estero GEI/KH
(2021)
5 ft – Fremont Street will experience
flooding
– Reconstruct into a 4 and 6 lane facility
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 28, Packet Page 146

4. Identified Gaps and Recommended
Updates
Previous assessments of SLR for the City provide a robust foundation for understanding vulnerabilities to coastal storm, tidal flooding, and erosion hazards with projected SLR. Results from these existing studies will be leveraged and integrated into the City’s 2025 Vulnerability Assessment update. In addition, there are several hazards that can be added or expanded upon using new science, SLR projections, and updated data on local conditions and infrastructure. These include:
• evaluating SLR hazards at 3.3 ft for beaches,
• assessing groundwater flooding,
• assessing fluvial + SLR flooding impacts to drainage infrastructure, and • re-evaluating erosion projections and hazard extents with SLR.

In addition, SB 272 (Laird, 2023) was approved after the prior assessments and requires consideration of equity in developing SLR vulnerability assessments. Since prior vulnerability assessments did not identify environmental justice or equity considerations, this is a gap that will be filled as part of City’s 2025 Vulnerability Assessment update. The following provides more details on how these gaps could be filled and identifies how previous studies would be leveraged or complemented.

4.1 Updated 2024 SLR Scenarios
The previous assessment reports for the City consistently used the following SLR scenarios: 0.7 ft, 2.4 ft, and

5.2 ft for conducting risk and vulnerability assessments. Recently, the State of California Sea Level Rise Guidance: 2024 Science and Policy Updates (OPC, 2024) provided new SLR scenarios along with guidance for how to update SLR vulnerability assessments. Key takeaways from the science update were that 1 ft of SLR was no longer expected to occur earlier than 2050 and 10+ ft of SLR was no longer considered possible until 2140. The guidance recommends examining the new SLR scenarios out to 2130 (100 years from now) and confirming if previous SLR scenario values still provide a robust picture of potential future SLR for the Monterey area. In other words, the range of 0.7-5.2 ft should still represent plausible near-term and long-term futures for SLR in Monterey out to 2130.

Based on the recent SLR projections in OPC (2024), the 0.7 ft and 2.4 ft scenarios are still within the SLR ranges and represent plausible near-term scenarios. As seen in Table 5, 0.7 ft now represents projected 2050 conditions in the Intermediate scenario and 2.4 ft represents projected SLR in the 2070-2090 timeframe. For long-term SLR, 5.2 ft is also still within the projected range for 2100 and between the range projected for the Intermediate-High and High projection for that year. For areas with critical infrastructure, such as Del Monte Avenue, previous studies demonstrated that critical infrastructure was already at high risk of damages and inoperability with 5.2 ft of SLR, therefore, this remains a valuable threshold to use for these types of assets.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 29, Packet Page 147 Table 5 2024 State of California SLR Scenarios for the Monterey Tide Gage Monterey Median SLR
in feet from baseline 2000 (OPC 2024)
YEAR Intermediate Int-High High
2040 0.5 0.6 0.7
2050 0.7 0.9 1.2
2060 1 1.4 1.9
2070 1.3 2.1 2.8
2080 1.7 2.9 3.9
2090 2.3 3.7 5.2
2100 2.9 4.6 6.4
2130 4.7 6.8 9.7
2140 5.2 7.3 10.6
The guidance recommends using the Intermediate (3.3 ft by 2100), Intermediate-High (4.9 ft by 2100), and High scenarios (6.6 ft by 2100) to assess potential impacts, consequences, and responses. It also suggests that for extreme risk aversion cases (e.g., critical infrastructure with a design life beyond 2100), the High scenario is used to evaluate the worst-case scenario. For medium-high risk aversion cases (e.g. commercial, residential development with a lifespan of 2075 and beyond), it is suggested to use the Intermediate-High scenario. As part of the vulnerability assessment, certain infrastructure assets may be further evaluated using

6.6 ft to determine if flood risks could occur during the design life of the asset.

Table 6 Description of Scenarios based on the OPC SLR (2024) report.

Intermediate Scenario: a future with high emissions and thus higher global warming. This scenario provides a reasonable upper bound for the most likely range of SLR by 2100.

Intermediate-High Scenario: a future with rapid ice sheet loss processes driven by high emissions and high global warming. This scenario corresponds to the plausible high end of SLR projections.

High Scenario: a future with extreme rapid ice sheet loss processes driven by high emissions and high global warming. This scenario represents global warming exceeding 4° C in 2100.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 30, Packet Page 148 A gap not addressed by the previous SLR scenarios is an evaluation of the Del Monte/Monterey State Beach and the smaller pocket beaches at 3.3 ft of SLR. In the previous studies, many beaches had a dramatic shift between 2.4-5.2 ft, so it was difficult to determine their tipping point relative to SLR and associated flooding and erosion. Adding analysis of 3.3 ft of SLR would help to better determine the threshold when 75%-100% of the beaches may be lost or underwater and when mitigations such as nourishment would no longer be effective.

4.2 Groundwater Flooding
Groundwater flood hazards due to SLR are another gap not addressed in the previous studies. Groundwater flooding projections are now available for the City of Monterey. This is a valuable gap to fill for understanding future flood hazards, particularly in the Del Monte Avenue corridor and Monterey Harbor area.

4.3 Fluvial Flooding and Drainage Infrastructure
Several of the previous assessments identified the 100-year and 500-year FEMA flood zones. Vulnerabilities to draining infrastructure and conveyance capacity were mentioned but not evaluated in any detail. Since fluvial flooding can impact the effectiveness of coastal drainage and compound SLR and groundwater flooding impacts, an evaluation of the drainage infrastructure network in the City, and specific sensitivities to SLR, groundwater, and fluvial flooding would be a beneficial complement to the existing reports. This type of analysis would provide insight into the specific conditions that might trigger failures and the extent of adaptive capacity.

4.4 Shoreline Erosion
Erosion hazards were covered in previous reports that provide valuable insight into erosion hotspots and potential mitigation measures. However, these reports don’t reflect current shoreline conditions, including protective measures that have been constructed, and some did not evaluate erosion with SLR. For example, the ESA PWA (2012) study provided a valuable inventory of shoreline areas vulnerable to erosion but did not project erosion rates with the addition of SLR. Revell Coastal (2016) did include erosion projections with SLR but depicted future hazards assuming armoring was not in place and, therefore, likely provided an overestimate of the hazard extents. Re-evaluating erosion hazards with armoring is, therefore, considered a beneficial gap to fill for the 2025 Vulnerability Assessment update. To complement this effort, new data such as historic shoreline positions from satellite imagery and maps of coastal dune profiles are now available, which would further advance analysis of erosion vulnerabilities to the beach-dune regions of Monterey.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 31, Packet Page 149

4.5 Coastal Storm Wave Flooding
Coastal storm flooding was evaluated robustly in previous reports using SLR scenarios coupled with simulations of a representative 100-year storm. These methods and results remain useful for understanding wave forcing impacts to Cannery Row infrastructure and the wharves. Given that coastal storm models have been improved since these studies, it is suggested that previous flood extent maps are compared with updated U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Coastal Storm Modeling System (CoSMoS) 3.1 flood results to validate flood hazard extents.

4.6 Equity Considerations
To comply with the requirements of SB 272, it is suggested that the City’s updated SLR Vulnerability Assessment be expanded to include an assessment of equity considerations as part of the vulnerability analysis. This may include identifying environmental justice impacts, evaluating losses of public access and public recreational spaces, and considerations of how coastal hazards or disruptions to public services may impact disadvantaged communities.

5. References
Colgan, C. S., DePaolis, F., & King, P. (2019). An Integrated Climate Science-Economic Model for Evaluating Adaptations to Sea Level Rise: A Prototype Model for Monterey, California. Journal of Ocean and Coastal Economics, 6(1), 6.

Environmental Science Associates (ESA). (2019). Monterey Bay Opportunistic Beach Nourishment Program:

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration.

ESA PWA. (2012). Evaluation of Erosion Mitigation Alternatives for Southern Monterey Bay.

Federal Emergency Response Agency (FEMA). (2005). Pacific Coastal Flood Guidelines.

FEMA. (2017). California Analysis Sand Mapping Project Open Pacific Coast Study.

GEI and Kimley Horn (GEI/KM). (2021). Adapting a Threatened Transportation Network to Sea Level Rise: City of Monterey.

Hapke, C., Reid, D., Richmond, B. M., Ruggiero, P., & List, J. (2006). National Assessment of Shoreline Change Part 3: Historical Shoreline Change and Associated Coastal Land Loss Along Sandy Shorelines of the California Coast.

Hunt Jr, I. A. (1959). Design of Seawalls and Breakwaters. Journal of the Waterways and Harbors Division, 85(3), 123-152.

Leo, K., Newkirk, S., Heady, W., Cohen, B., Calil, J., King, P., & DePaolis, F. (2016). Economic impacts of climate adaptation strategies for Southern Monterey Bay.

LSA Associates, Inc. (2021). Monterey One Water Climate Action and Adaptation Plan.

Moffat & Nichol and Michael Baker International (M&N/MBI). (2019). AB-691 State Public Trust Lands Sea Level Rise Assessment City of Monterey, California.

Neuman, K.K., Stein, R.W., Eyster, C.R., and Gardali, T. (2019). Climate-smart conservation of beaches and dunes for western snowy plover recovery, in Monterey Bay, California. Point Blue Conservation Science.

Contribution #2301. Petaluma, CA.

Ocean Protection Council (OPC). (2024) State of California Sea Level Rise Guidance: 2024 Science and Policy Updates.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 32, Packet Page 150 PG&E. (2024). PG&E Climate Adaptation and Vulnerability Assessment.

Philip Williams and Associates Ltd. (PWA). (2008). Coastal Regional Sediment Management Plan for Southern Monterey Bay.

Revell Coastal, LLC. (2016). 2016 City of Monterey Final Sea Level Rise and Vulnerability Analyses, Existing Conditions and Issues Report.

United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). (2015). North Atlantic Coast Comprehensive Study.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 33, Packet Page 151 ghd.com The Power of Commitment
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 34, Packet Page 152 Sea Level Rise
Vulnerability
Assessment Update
City of Monterey
5 May 2026
The Power of Commitment
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 35, Packet Page 153 Contents

1. Executive Summary 1

2. Introduction 2

2.1 Background 2

2.2 Goals and Objectives 2

2.3 Project Phases 2

2.4 Study Area 3

3. Coastal Hazards 5

3.1 Sea Level Rise 5

3.2 Tidal Flooding 6

3.2.1 Tidal Water Levels 6

3.2.2 Extreme Water Levels 7

3.3 Coastal Flooding 8

3.4 Fluvial Flooding 8

3.5 Groundwater Flooding 9

3.6 Beach-Dune Erosion Updates 9

4. Hazard Zones and Coastal Vulnerabilities 10

4.1 Zone 1: Eastern Del Monte Beach/Laguna Grande Lake 10

4.1.1 Existing Coastal Hazards 13

4.1.2 Future SLR hazards 15

4.1.3 Near-term impacts 15

4.1.4 Mid-term hazards 17

4.1.5 Long-term hazards 20

4.2 Zone 2: Western Del Monte/El Estero 22

4.2.1 Existing Coastal Hazards 24

4.2.2 Future SLR Hazards 26

4.2.3 Near-term hazards 26

4.2.4 Mid-term Hazards 28

4.2.5 Long-term Hazards 32

4.3 Zone 3: Monterey Harbor 34

4.3.1 Existing Coastal Hazards 36

4.3.2 Future SLR Hazards 36

4.3.3 Near-term hazards 36

4.3.4 Mid-term hazards 40

4.3.5 Long-term Hazards 42

4.4 Zone 4: Cannery Row 44

4.4.1 Existing Coastal Hazards 46

4.4.2 Future SLR Hazards 47

4.4.3 Near-term Hazards 47

4.4.4 Mid-term Hazards 55

4.4.5 Long-term Hazards 55

5. Sensitivities and Adaptive Capacity 56

5.1 Transportation Infrastructure 56
Sensitivities 57
Adaptive Capacity 58
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 36, Packet Page 154

5.2 Recreational Infrastructure 58
Sensitivities 59
Adaptive Capacity 59

5.3 Utility Infrastructure 60
Sensitivities 60
Adaptive Capacity 60

5.4 Aging Waterfront Infrastructure 60
Sensitivities 61
Adaptive Capacity 61

5.5 Cannery Row Structures 61
Sensitivities 61
Adaptive Capacity 61

5.6 Equity-related Sensitivities 61

5.7 Environmental Sensitive Habitats 62

6. References 64
Table index
Table 1. Sea Level Rise Scenarios for Monterey (OPC 2024). 6 Table 2. Tidal Datums for Monterey (NOAA Station 9413450) 6 Table 3. Current Extreme Water Levels for Monterey (NOAA Station 9413450) 7 Table 4. Projected Extreme Water Levels for Monterey in 2050 with approximately 1 foot of SLR 7 Table 5. Relevant Fluvial Floodplain Area BFEs 8
Table 6. Monterey Coastal Hazard Timelines (based on OPC 2024 Intermediate-High SLR Scenarios) 10
Table 7. Summary of Hazards Evaluated for Each Zone 10
Table 8. Projected near-term impacts for Zone 1: Eastern Del Monte/Laguna Grande Lake 15 Table 9. Projected mid-term hazards for Zone 1: Eastern Del Monte/Laguna Grande Lake 17 Table 10. Projected long-term hazards for Zone 1: Eastern Del Monte/Laguna Grande Lake 20 Table 11. Projected near-term hazards for Zone 2: Western Del Monte/El Estero 26 Table 12. Projected mid-term hazards for Zone 2: Western Del Monte/El Estero 29 Table 13. Projected mid-term hazards for Zone 2: Western Del Monte/El Estero 32 Table 14. Projected near-term hazards for Zone 3: Monterey Harbor 36 Table 15. Projected mid-term hazards for Zone 3: Monterey Harbor 40 Table 16. Projected long-term hazards for Zone 3: Monterey Harbor 42 Table 17. Projected near-term hazards for Zone 4: Cannery Row 47 Table 18. Projected mid-term hazards for Zone 4: Cannery Row 55 Table 19. Projected long-term hazards for Zone 4: Cannery Row 55 Figure index
Figure 1. Summary of Near-Term SLR Vulnerabilities in the City of Monterey 1 Figure 2. Project Phases 3
Figure 3. City of Monterey LUP areas and Vulnerability Assessment Study Areas 4 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 37, Packet Page 155 Figure 4. Existing Conditions for Zone 1: Eastern Del Monte/Laguna Grande Lake 12 Figure 5. CoastSat transects along Zone 1: Eastern Del Monte/Laguna Grande Lake 14 Figure 6. USGS CoSMoS maximum flood projections under varying storm conditions with 0.8 ft SLR for Zone 1: Eastern Del Monte/Laguna Grande Lake 16 Figure 7. USGS CoSMoS maximum flood projections under 100-yr storm conditions with 2.5 ft and

3.3 ft of SLR for Zone 1: Eastern Del Monte/Laguna Grande Lake 18 Figure 8. USGS groundwater depth and emergence projections with 2.5 ft SLR for Zone 1:

Eastern Del Monte/Laguna Grande Lake 19
Figure 9. USGS CoSMoS standard flood projections under varying storm conditions with 4.9 ft SLR for Zone 1: Eastern Del Monte/Laguna Grande Lake 21 Figure 10. Existing Conditions for Zone 2: Western Del Monte/El Estero 23 Figure 11. CoastSat transects along Zone 2: Western Del Monte/El Estero are color-coded with their rate of change (m/year). Data from three transects is shown in popout graphs that show cross-shore change since 1984 25
Figure 12. USGS CoSMoS maximum flood projections under varying storm conditions with 0.8 ft SLR for Zone 2: Western Del Monte/El Estero 27
Figure 13. USGS CoSMoS maximum flood projections under 100-yr storm conditions with 2.5 ft and 3.3 ft SLR for Zone 2: Western Del Monte/El Estero 30 Figure 14. USGS groundwater depth and emergence projections with 2.5 ft SLR for Zone 2:

Western Del Monte/El Estero 31
Figure 15. USGS CoSMoS flood projections under varying storm conditions with 4.9 ft SLR for Zone 2: Western Del Monte/El Estero 33
Figure 16. Existing Conditions for Zone 3: Monterey Harbor 35 Figure 17. Elevations of key features in Zone 3: Monterey Harbor 37 Figure 18. Monterey Harbor (Zone 3) Hazards: Municipal Wharf 2 38 Figure 19. Monterey Harbor (Zone 3) Hazards: Old Fisherman’s Wharf and Coast Guard Pier 39 Figure 20. USGS CoSMoS maximum flood projections under 100-yr storm conditions with 2.5 ft and 3.3 ft of SLR for Zone 3: Monterey Harbor 41
Figure 21. USGS CoSMoS standard flood projections under varying storm conditions with 4.9 ft SLR for Zone 3: Monterey Harbor 43
Figure 22. Existing Conditions for Zone 4: Cannery Row 45 Figure 23. Cannery Row (Zone 4) Hazards - East San Carlos Beach 48 Figure 24. Cannery Row (Zone 4) Hazards - West San Carlos Beach 49 Figure 25. Cannery Row (Zone 4) Hazards - Monterey Plaza Hotel Beach 50 Figure 26. Cannery Row (Zone 4) Hazards - El Torito Restaurant 51 Figure 27. Cannery Row (Zone 4) Hazards - East McAbee Beach 52 Figure 28. Cannery Row (Zone 4) Hazards - West McAbee Beach 53 Figure 29. Cannery Row (Zone 4) Hazards - Monterey Bay Aquarium 54 Figure 30. Expected flood pathways for Del Monte Avenue, Figueroa Street, and Franklin Street 57 Figure 31. USGS CoSMoS shoreline erosion projections with 3.3 ft of SLR. 59 Figure 32 California Aquatic Resources Inventory (CARI) identified coastal habitats in Zone 1 and Zone 2. 63
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 38, Packet Page 156

1. Executive Summary
The 2026 Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment Update (2026 Assessment) provides an up-to-date evaluation of the City of Monterey’s assets, coastal resources, and habitats at risk from sea level rise (SLR) and related coastal hazards, using the latest scientific guidance and policy requirements. This assessment incorporates new 2024 State of California SLR Guidance and Senate Bill 272 mandates, including a focus on equity and the impacts to historically marginalized communities.

The 2026 Assessment builds on vulnerabilities identified in previous SLR studies for the City and incorporates updated analysis. Existing conditions have been refined to reflect recent infrastructure changes, long-term beach trends, and socio-economic factors. The 2026 Assessment characterizes coastal hazards by type and anticipated timeline (near-, mid-, and long-term), defines impact thresholds and expected frequencies, and examines key sensitivities. An appendix will include an analysis of potential economic losses from SLR under a no-action scenario. Together, these findings aim to guide the City’s Local Coastal Program (LCP), inform adaptation priorities, and promote resilient, equitable management of Monterey’s coastal zone in the face of rising seas.

Significant near-term SLR vulnerabilities for the City of Monterey are outlined in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1. Summary of Near-Term SLR Vulnerabilities in the City of Monterey ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 39, Packet Page 157

2. Introduction

2.1 Background
The City of Monterey (City) is known for its iconic coastline that plays host to a variety of coastal ecosystems and marine biodiversity. The richness of these coastal resources has attracted researchers and visitors from around the world, making the City a hub for marine research, conservation initiatives, and recreational activities. It is also a popular area for inland California residents looking to recreate or escape extreme heat conditions. Increasing sea level rise (SLR) and coastal hazards due to climate change have the potential to negatively impact the City’s coastal zone. These impacts may result in deterioration or losses to coastal resources and assets that would also affect public access, recreation, city communities, and the local economy.

The City is in its final stages of preparing a comprehensive Local Coastal Program (LCP) for certification. In 2025, a Coastal Commission LCP Local Assistance Grant was awarded to the City to carry out the City of Monterey Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment, Adaptation Plan, and Economic Analysis project (Project). The goal for this Project is to navigate the challenges posed by SLR and climate change and create a roadmap for allocating resources to projects and programs based on observed conditions and projected hazard timing. The Project will support the preparation of the comprehensive LCP and future adaptation measures by identifying strategies and solutions designed to mitigate the impacts of SLR and climate change.

2.2 Goals and Objectives
The goals for City of Monterey Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment, Adaptation Plan, and Economic Analysis project are to:
- Create a Roadmap for Resource Allocation: Develop a strategic plan to allocate resources effectively to address sea level rise and climate change challenges.
- Mitigate Sea Level Rise Impacts: Identify strategies to reduce the negative effects of sea level rise on coastal resources, habitats, public access, recreational spaces, and coastal assets. - Support Local Coastal Program (LCP) Development: Inform and support the preparation of the City’s comprehensive LCP, including amendments to address sea level rise and adaptation strategies. - Maximize Public Benefits: Address issues of statewide significance to enhance public benefits across the City’s coastal zone.
- Promote Environmental Justice: Ensure equitable access to the City’s coastal zone and actively involve historically marginalized communities in planning and decision-making processes.

2.3 Project Phases
Phase 1 of the Project called for the development of a Background Report and updated SLR Vulnerability Assessment. The Background Report (GHD, 2025) summarized previous SLR vulnerability assessment findings and identifying hazard analyses that would benefit from new science or expanded analysis. This report fulfills the task of updating the City of Monterey SLR Vulnerability Assessment and incorporates today’s best available science and current state SLR guidance.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 40, Packet Page 158 Figure 2. Project Phases
The objective of updating the City’s SLR Vulnerability Assessment is to provide a summary of the risks and vulnerabilities of the City’s assets, coastal resources, and habitats to SLR and coastal hazards using today’s best available science. The 2026 Assessment is also intended to address relevant gaps identified in the City of Monterey SLR Background Report (GHD, 2025) and address new 2024 State of California SLR Guidance and Senate Bill 272 requirements, including considerations of impacts to historically marginalized communities. The 2026 Assessment is also intended to support the City with prioritizing assets or coastal areas for mitigation of SLR impacts, resource allocation, and the development of adaptation strategies.

2.4 Study Area
The study area for this 2026 Assessment extends from the City’s northeastern coastal boundary at Highway 218 and Highway 1 to the City’s northwestern boundary at David Avenue. SLR-related vulnerabilities are described for five of the six coastal Land Use Planning (LUP) subareas (Figure 1). There are no foreseen SLR-related impacts to the Skyline LUP subarea, so this subarea was not included. The 2026 Assessment describes four distinct hazard zones that align with specific coastal hazard vulnerabilities for the coastal resources in these areas. Shown in Figure 1, the four hazard zones are: Eastern Del Monte/Laguna Grande, Western Del Monte/El Estero, Monterey Harbor, and Cannery Row. The four hazard zones are larger than the LUP subarea boundaries to illustrate flood pathways that originate or extend into other non-coastal LUP regions of the City.

The 2026 Assessment includes vulnerabilities identified in previous SLR studies for the City and complements this existing information with new analysis on beach-dune erosion, groundwater and additional storm scenarios.

Existing conditions for the hazard zones were updated to reflect infrastructure modifications, 40-year historic beach trends, current public access locations, and socio-economic considerations. The 2026 Assessment also expands on previous work by further characterizing coastal hazard impact thresholds, expected frequency of occurrence, and sensitivities including estimates of potential economic losses.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 41, Packet Page 159 Figure 3. City of Monterey LUP areas and Vulnerability Assessment Study Areas ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 42, Packet Page 160

3. Coastal Hazards
Coastal hazards evaluated under this 2026 Assessment include tidal, coastal, fluvial and groundwater flooding in addition to beach-dune erosion. The following sections describe how SLR projections were updated, the extent to which previous hazard findings were leveraged, and where new science was used to address gaps.

3.1 Sea Level Rise
In November 2024, the California Coastal Commission (CCC) adopted the Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance 2024 Update that formally replaced the 2018 Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance. This 2024 update refers to the Ocean Protection Council’s (OPC) recently adopted California Sea Level Rise Guidance: 2024 Science and Policy Update as the “best available science” on SLR projections in California. These projections are recommended by the CCC for planning, permitting, and other coastal management decisions.

Within this revised policy guidance, SLR projections are provided for 14 active tide gauges along the coast of California. The projections are represented by five sea level rise scenarios with a range of plausible changes through 2150 based on the modeled projections in the IPCC AR6 (OPC 2024). The five scenarios (Low, Intermediate-Low, Intermediate, Intermediate-High, and High) reflect the plausible range of future SLR in consideration of emissions and global development futures and eliminate the need to select single emission futures for sea level planning (OPC 2024). The OPC (2024) guidance recommends a precautionary approach, when feasible, through an evaluation of the Intermediate, Intermediate-High, and High scenarios to inform appropriate SLR planning and project decisions. These scenarios are defined below:

Intermediate Scenario: This scenario represents a future with high emissions and thus higher global warming, and is considered a reasonable estimate for the upper bound of the most likely sea level rise in 2100 (OPC 2024).

Intermediate-High Scenario: This scenario is representative of a world where rapid ice sheet loss processes contribute to SLR, associated with intermediate to high future emissions, and high warming (OPC 2024). This corresponds to scientific estimates for plausible high-end SLR projections by 2100.

High Scenario: This scenario is representative of rapid ice sheet loss processes due to high future emissions and high warming that result in global warming exceeding 4°C in 2100, and should be utilized with careful caution and consideration (OPC 2024). The large uncertainties and ambiguity associated with this scenario reflect a worst case toward 2100 and beyond. The likelihood of this occurrence is not possible to state, but it is based on a combination of high emissions and low confidence processes.

A notable advancement in the 2024 California SLR science is the increased understanding of how low confidence processes (e.g., ice-shelf disintegration, marine ice-sheet-ice-cliff instability, and faster-than-projected changes in surface-mass balance) are anticipated to affect sea levels near the end of the century (OPC 2024). As a result, the H++ scenario was determined to no longer be physically realistic for 2100. Instead, the Intermediate-High and High scenarios now account for plausible rapid ice sheet processes.

Previous vulnerability assessment reports for the City of Monterey evaluated 0.7 feet, 2.4 feet and 5.2 feet of SLR.

When comparing these ranges to the new 2024 Monterey tide gauge SLR projections (OPC, 2024), it was determined that these are still valid representations of near-, mid- and long-term scenarios for the City of Monterey as shown in Table 1. Based on the new SLR scenarios, the timelines of these SLR scenarios shifted slightly so that 0.7 feet is likely to occur in 2050, 2.4 feet is expected to occur between 2070-2090, and 5.2 ft is expected to occur between 2100- 2140.

For the purposes of this vulnerability assessment, we rounded our scenarios to 0.5 ft increments. There is little difference in the 2050 scenarios (0.7-1.2 ft) and hazard model data is only available in 0.5 ft increments. For the 2070-2090 timeframe, we use approximately 2.5-3 ft. This range encompasses hazard model data for projections of 2.4 ft - 3.3 ft of SLR and accounts for uncertainty in the models for timeframes over 30 years out. For 2100- 2140, there is even greater uncertainty, so this is a suitable SLR range for describing potential vulnerabilities referenced to 4.9 ft - 5.5 ft of SLR.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 43, Packet Page 161 Table 1. Sea Level Rise Scenarios for Monterey (OPC 2024). Sea levels in light blue are represented in this report by the 1 ft SLR scenario, projections in grey are represented by the 2.5 and 3 ft scenarios, and projections in orange are represented by the 5.5 ft scenario.

Year
Sea Level Rise Planning Scenarios (ft)
Intermediate Intermediate-High High
2040 0.5 0.6 0.7
2050 0.7 0.9 1.2
2060 1.0 1.4 1.9
2070 1.3 2.1 2.8
2080 1.7 2.9 3.9
2090 2.3 3.7 5.2
2100 2.9 4.6 6.4
2130 4.7 6.8 9.7
2140 5.2 7.3 10.6

3.2 Tidal Flooding
Tidal flooding, also known as nuisance flooding or sunny day flooding, refers to the condition when coastal areas are exposed to short duration (episodic) standing water as a result of high or extreme tides. Coastal inundation is a condition when coastal areas are exposed to longer duration periods of standing water as a result of more frequently occurring water levels (daily, weekly, or monthly tides). As seas rise, an area that experiences flooding only under an extreme tide condition will soon experience flooding daily under high tides and then eventually be permanently inundated. Sea level anomalies caused by low atmospheric pressure, abnormally warm water temperatures, and meteorological conditions can also lead to an increase in tidal flooding. For example, California typically experiences higher than average sea levels during El Nino conditions.

For this 2026 Assessment, updated tidal datums for Monterey are provided with new information on estimated Extreme Water Levels with 1 foot of SLR.

3.2.1 Tidal Water Levels
The tide cycle in Central California is mixed semi-diurnal, meaning that there are two uneven high and low tides for each lunar day, which is approximately a 25-hour time period. NOAA operates tide stations globally and the nearest station to the City is located in the Monterey Harbor. This station has a data repository as far back as 1973 and is representative of high-water levels along the City’s shoreline. The tidal datums for Monterey relative to NAVD88 are shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Tidal Datums for Monterey (NOAA Station 9413450) Datum Elevation (ft, NAVD88)
Highest Observed Tide (1/27/1983) 8.02
Highest Astronomical Tide (HAT) 7.21
Mean Higher High Water (MHHW) 5.48
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 44, Packet Page 162 Datum Elevation (ft, NAVD88)
Mean High Water (MHW) 4.78
Mean Sea Level (MSL) 2.97
NAVD88 0.00
Mean Low Water (MLW) 1.23
Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) 0.14
Lowest Astronomical Tide (LAT) -1.80
Lowest Observed Tide (1/11/2009) -2.25
Typical daily tides range from mean lower low water (MLLW) to mean higher high water (MHHW), a range of about

5.34 feet. During spring tides, which occur twice per lunar month, the tide range increases due to the additive gravitational forces caused by alignment of the sun and moon. The largest spring tides of the year, which occur in the winter and summer are sometimes referred to as “King” tides, resulting in water levels of 7 feet or greater.

During neap tides, which also occur twice per lunar month, the forces of the sun and moon partially cancel out, resulting in a smaller tide range and lower high tides.

3.2.2 Extreme Water Levels
Extreme water levels are provided by NOAA’s Center for Oceanographic Products (NOAA CO-OPS) for annual occurrence probabilities of 1%, 10%, 50%, and 99% for tidal stations with adequate data records (Table 3). These probabilities correspond to an annual return period of 100-years, 10-years, 2-years, and 1-year; respectively. The extreme water levels at the Monterey station are shown in and are representative of extreme still water levels (ESWL). However, these ESWLs do not include the dynamic effects of wave setup and runup nor do they account for future rising sea levels.

Table 3. Current Extreme Water Levels for Monterey (NOAA Station 9413450) Annual Exceedance Probability Return Period (years) Elevation (ft, NAVD88) 1% 100 8.27
10% 10 7.77
50% 2 7.37
99% 1 6.97
In 2022, the US Interagency SLR Technical Report (Sweet et al, 2022) published estimated future Extreme Water Levels with SLR scenarios for the U.S. This provides coastal communities with an idea of how often low elevation areas may flood during extreme and high tides in the future. For example, Table 4 shows with approximately 1 foot of SLR in Monterey in 2050, today’s rare (1%) chance of high tides reaching 8.27 ft (NAVD99) is expected to occur 10 days a year by 2080 and 45 days a year in 2090 (Sweet et al, 2022).

Table 4. Projected Extreme Water Levels for Monterey in 2050 with approximately 1 foot of SLR 2050 ESWLs with Intermediate SLR Scenario
Annual Exceedance Probability Return Period (years) Elevation (ft, NAVD88) 1% 100 9.33
10% 10 8.73
50% 2 8.19
99% 1 7.97
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 45, Packet Page 163

3.3 Coastal Flooding
Coastal flooding refers to the condition when coastal areas are exposed to short duration (episodic) standing water due to a combination of waves, higher sea levels and high tides. In order to appropriately evaluate the effect of coastal flooding, it is important to understand the total water levels (TWL) for the area since they include wave setup and runup. The TWL represents the “limit of swash” as waves approach the shoreline and is temporary.

In the City’s AB-691 SLR Assessment (M&N/MBI, 2019), historic data from the FEMA CCAMP OPC (2017) was used to model a 100-year coastal wave storm event and calculate TWLs for transects along Cannery Row and Monterey Harbor. For waterfront infrastructure, wave heights were estimated where they reached pile infrastructure to evaluate the extent of possible wave forcing on the structures. These coastal flooding hazard findings remain valid and have been incorporated into the description of vulnerabilities and impact thresholds for Cannery Row and the Monterey Harbor zones.

For the shoreline along Del Monte Beach, coastal flooding was previously modelled in Revell (2016) and concluded that coastal storm flooding was projected to impact commercial and residential structures when SLR reached between 2.4 ft and 5 ft. Since that study was published, the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) Coastal Storm Modeling System 3.0 (CoSMoS) was published and now provides the best available model for evaluating coastal flooding and shoreline erosion for coastal beach areas. The CoSMoS model also provides expanded capabilities for evaluating SLR with 1-year, 20-year, and 100-year coastal storm scenarios, maximum flood exposure that accounts for uncertainties, and projected flood depths. Due to the near-identical flood extents under the 1-year and 20-year storm scenarios along the City’s shoreline, only the 1-year and 100-year scenarios are displayed in the coastal hazard projections.

Coastal flooding and shoreline erosion for the Del Monte Beach zones was therefore re-evaluated using CoSMoS.

The CoSMoS SLR increments slightly differ from the OPC (2024) projections, so 0.8 feet, 2.5 feet, and 4.9 feet were applied in the CoSMoS Model to evaluate near-term, mid-term, and long-term coastal flooding impacts. For near-term and mid-term coastal flooding impacts at Del Monte Beach, this 2026 Assessment evaluated the maximum flood exposure to account for worst case flooding scenarios in the next 25-45 years. The maximum flood extent represents possible extreme flooding given uncertainties in the model for predicting TWLs and assumptions about topographic elevations. To evaluate long-term impacts of coastal flooding, we used the standard CoSMoS TWL output and assessed potential flood depth. Given the large amount of uncertainty for SLR scenarios, the standard CoSMoS TWL output provides a reasonable estimate for flood extent and uncertainties for end of century and beyond.

3.4 Fluvial Flooding
Fluvial flow primarily results from upstream precipitation and runoff in the watershed. Fluvial flooding may result from high stormwater flows triggered by an extreme rainfall event. FEMA has developed FIRMs that identify Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), which are defined as areas with a 1% or greater chance of flooding in any given year (100-year return period or less). Floodplain impacts would be most anticipated in situations where ocean water levels are equal to or greater than the BFE, which would result in water backing up within the floodplain. Several sites away from the open coast are considered part of this floodplain area. These areas have been designated as Zone AE, which indicates that a BFE has been established for this area but it does not include wave runup. The Revell Coastal (2016) study provided BFEs for these specific areas and these have been updated where there were previously gaps (e.g., El Estero Lake) below in Table 5.

Table 5. Relevant Fluvial Floodplain Area BFEs
Floodplain Area Base Flood Elevation (ft, NAVD88)
Roberts Lake 16
Laguna Grande Lake 16 – 17
Del Monte Lake 15 – 20
El Estero Lake 11
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 46, Packet Page 164

3.5 Groundwater Flooding
Coastal groundwater levels can increase with SLR where shallow groundwater floats on underlying seawater, resulting in shoaling where groundwater moves closer to the surface or emergence where flooding of the surface occurs. An assessment of groundwater flood hazards due to SLR was not conducted in previous studies, but is an important gap to address for understanding future flood hazards, particularly in the Del Monte Avenue corridor and Monterey Harbor area.

Recently, the USGS conducted numerical modeling to project coastal areas that may be vulnerable to elevated groundwater levels driven by SLR (Befus et al. 2020). These simulations accounted for a range of horizontal hydraulic conductivity scenarios (i.e., 0.1, 1, and 10 m/day) under two model versions. The hydraulic conductivity scenarios represent the assumed permeability and depth of the existing water table for any specific site. For example, 0.1 m/day means a less permeable and shallower water table, 1 m/day signifies a moderately permeable and moderately deep, water table, and 10 m/day denotes a more permeable and deeper water table. The first model version attempts to simulate loss via natural drainage by removing groundwater that reaches the land surface. The second model simulates the “worse-case” scenario where SLR simply raises the present-day groundwater level, retaining the groundwater that reaches the land surface. The results of these models are provided for increments of 0.25 meters, from no SLR (0 meters) to 2 meters (6.6 feet), and further elevated scenarios of 2.5 meters (8.2 feet), 3 meters (9.8 feet), and 5 meters (16.4 feet). Thus, similar to CoSMoS’s difference from OPC (2024) projections, there is still general alignment in the selected scenarios.

This USGS groundwater flooding projection tool provides a simplified overview of potential groundwater flooding areas. Since little is known about the groundwater geology in this area, a “moderate” subsurface geology was selected in the tool to represent a moderately permeable and deep, water table. For the purposes of this assessment, groundwater flooding hazards are identified as areas where the water table is projected to be elevated into a shallow zone, 0 m to 1 m below ground surface (bgs), or to emerge above ground surface (ags) assuming “moderate” subsurface geology. The USGS model predicted emerging groundwater flooding hazards with 2.5 ft of SLR around the coastal lake shorelines in Zone 1 (Eastern Del Monte/Laguna Grande Lake) and Zone 2 (Western Del Monte/ El Estero) as shown in Figure 8 and Figure 14.

3.6 Beach-Dune Erosion Updates
Due to gaps in previous studies and the availability of more accurate shoreline data, an updated analysis was considered appropriate for this hazard. First, historical shoreline change was evaluated using CoastSat, an opensource software toolkit developed by the University of New South Wales and the USGS that enables users to obtain time-series of shoreline position at any sandy coastline worldwide for the past 40 years (Vos et al. 2019).

The datasets for Monterey were derived from publicly available satellite imagery available from 1984 to 2021. This is considered to provide a more representative historical shoreline change rate for the area than previous erosion rates provided in the ESA PWA (2012) study. However, CoastSAT data is only available for the more prevalent Del Monte Beach area, not for the small pocket beaches located along Cannery Row.

Second, projected shoreline evolution for the Del Monte Beach area was re-evaluated using CoSMoS. Revell Coastal (2016) previously assessed SLR erosion projections with the assumption that existing armoring was not in place, which likely provided an overestimate of the hazard extents. Whereas the CoSMoS flood projections incorporate long-term shoreline change for sandy beaches and assume that existing coastal armoring and urban infrastructure remain in place. This allows for beach-dune vulnerabilities to be evaluated in combination with coastal flooding processes and hazards.

The third component to updating this analysis involved incorporating new coastal dune data from a California state-wide dune inventory (Baxter et al, 2026). Using a statewide LiDAR elevation model from 2016, this dataset derived dune extents across coastal California as well as the elevations of the dune crest and toe. This dataset is used in combination with the USGS CoSMoS shoreline projections to evaluate the potential for beach migration with SLR in addition to coastal dune vulnerabilities.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 47, Packet Page 165

4. Hazard Zones and Coastal Vulnerabilities
The City’s coastal vulnerabilities are summarized below based on an evaluation of coastal hazards for each of the four hazard zones. Timelines for expected impacts are broken down into three scales (near-term, mid-term, and long-term) based on the updated scenarios in the 2024 OPC SLR report (Table 6).

Table 6. Monterey Coastal Hazard Timelines (based on OPC 2024 Intermediate-High SLR Scenarios) SLR Condition Time Horizon Time Scale
~1 ft SLR 2050 – 2060 Near-term
~2.5-3 ft SLR 2070 – 2090 Mid-term
~5 ft SLR 2100 – 2140 Long-term
A variety of hazard analysis methods and models were used to effectively capture the distinct coastal characteristics and hazard exposure within each of the hazard areas. These are summarized below:

Table 7. Summary of Hazards Evaluated for Each Zone
Zone 1 Primary Hazards
and Data Sources:

Zone 2 Primary Hazards
and Data Sources:

Zone 3 Primary Hazards
and Data Sources:

Zone 4 Primary Hazards
and Data Sources:

Shoreline & dune erosion
(USGS CoSMoS)
Compound Flooding
• High water levels
(NOAA)
• Coastal storm
flooding (USGS
CoSMoS)
• Fluvial flooding
(FEMA)
• Groundwater flooding
(USGS CoSMoSGW)
Shoreline & dune erosion
(USGS CoSMoS)
Compound Flooding
• High water levels
(NOAA)
• Coastal storm
flooding (USGS
CoSMoS)
• Fluvial flooding
(FEMA)
• Groundwater flooding
(USGS CoSMoSGW)
Compound Flooding
• High water levels
(NOAA)
• Coastal wave run up
(TWL) and crests
(FEMA CCAMP)
Beach erosion (FEMA
CCAMP)
Compound Flooding
• High water levels
(NOAA)
• Coastal wave run up
(TWL) and crests
(FEMA CCAMP)

4.1 Zone 1: Eastern Del Monte Beach/Laguna Grande
Lake
Zone 1 includes the eastern portion of the Del Monte Beach LUP subarea and the Laguna Grande Lake LUP subarea (Figure 4). It also includes the Navy Support Activity– Monterey (NSA-Monterey) property which extends across Del Monte Avenue and to the beach. Residential communities within the LUP subareas include the Del Monte Beach and the Del Monte Grove/Laguna Grande Lake neighborhoods. The community of Del Monte Grove/Laguna Grande Lake is culturally diverse with a strong Spanish-speaking population. Demographics for this neighborhood also reflect that residents have a higher rate of housing burden compared to other Monterey neighborhoods. This neighborhood along with New Monterey and Oak Grove also represent higher percentages of people of color than other Monterey neighborhoods.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 48, Packet Page 166 Coastal amenities and public access within Zone 1 include the eastern portion of Del Monte Beach which is comanaged by the City of Monterey and California Department of Parks and Recreation and also known as Monterey State Beach. On the far eastern city boundary is the Monterey Beach Hotel. The Monterey Bay Coastal Recreational Trail (MBCRT) passes through the hotel property, winds through the dunes and then follows Del Monte Avenue. Additional beach access and boardwalk trails wind through the dunes and NSA-Monterey property.

Public parking areas connected to these trails exist at the south end of the hotel, the end of Beach Way, and the intersection of Cunningham Road and Del Monte Avenue. There is also a hotel, recreational trail, park, and soccer field along the western edge of Laguna Grande Lake.

Zone 1 includes a significant segment of Del Monte Avenue which serves as a primary transportation route to and from the downtown area of Monterey. Running the entire length of Zone 1 is a Monterey One Water (M1W) pipeline that pumps wastewater from the cities of Monterey and Pacific Grove up to a treatment plant in Marina that is buried in the back beach-dunes of Del Monte Beach. Within the NSA-Monterey beach side parcel, the Monterey Pump Station serves as a key asset for this wastewater treatment network. Additionally, there are three stormwater outfalls in Zone 1. The Roberts Lake outfall is located northeast of the Monterey Beach Hotel and drains overflows from Roberts Lake. The Beach Way outfall is located at the end of Beach Way and drains stormwater from the nearby residential streets (Tide Avenue, Beach Way). The Del Monte Lake outfall is located on the beach north of the NSA-Monterey Ocean Acoustic Laboratory and drains Del Monte Lake overflows.

Del Monte Beach (GHD)
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 49, Packet Page 167 Figure 4. Existing Conditions for Zone 1: Eastern Del Monte/Laguna Grande Lake M1W Pump Station
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 50, Packet Page 168

4.1.1 Existing Coastal Hazards
The coastal environment in Zone 1 is comprised of sandy beach backed by coastal dunes. Del Monte Beach is currently vulnerable to coastal flooding during large storm wave conditions. In response, seawalls have been constructed in front of both the Monterey Beach Hotel and the Ocean Harbor House condominiums. The Monterey Beach Hotel’s seawall had a crest elevation of about 24 ft (NAVD88). The Ocean Harbor House condominiums’ seawall’s crest elevation ranged from approximately 27 ft to 31 ft (NAVD88). Zone 1 also includes the coastal water bodies of Del Monte Lake, Roberts Lake, and Laguna Grande Lake. While these are not within the coastal LUP areas, flooding may originate in these water bodies and extend into the LUP subareas.

Historical shoreline change evaluated using CoastSat (Vos et al. 2019) are shown in Figure 5. Based on data from 1984 to 2021, the beach has been relatively stable and showing an annual trend of only -0.2 ft/year. This indicated that the existing beaches and dunes here are likely experiencing relatively limited erosion over the past four decades. The pop out graphs in Figure 5 show that that the beach closer to the Monterey Hotel is the most stable (+0.04 ft/yr) while the transects moving west indicate mild erosion trends of -0.05 ft/year and -0.16 ft/year. The graphs also demonstrate that these beaches have relatively large seasonal variability of around 80 meters (262 ft), with the maximum beach in the late summer and minimum occurring in the winter.

Del Monte Beach during a King Tide on 1/11/2021 (California King Tides Project) ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 51, Packet Page 169 Figure 5. CoastSat transects along Zone 1: Eastern Del Monte/Laguna Grande Lake are color-coded with their rate of change (m/year). All transects are light pink representing a range of -0.3 to 0.3 meters. Data from three transects is shown in popout graphs that show cross-shore change since 1984 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 52, Packet Page 170

4.1.2 Future SLR hazards
The primary SLR hazards along the shoreline in Zone 1 include tidal and coastal flooding, beach-dune erosion, and combined fluvial and groundwater flooding (Table 8,Table 9,Table 10).

To assess coastal flooding, the CoSMoS model was applied differently across time scales. For near- and mid-term periods, projected maximum flood exposure was utilized to account for varying coastal dune topography and to identify worst case flooding scenarios. For the long-term, standard CoSMoS TWL flood exposure was used. Due to relatively high coastal dune crest elevations and private seawalls in Zone 1, coastal flooding is generally expected to occur within the existing beach area. As sea levels rise, wave action will erode the dunes enabling the beach to shift inland where unconstrained by seawalls.

Just inland in Zone 1, there is the potential for fluvial and groundwater flooding, which could worsen with SLR.

FEMA flood maps show that regions near Del Monte Lake, Roberts Lake, and Laguna Grande Lake are vulnerable during extreme rainfall if overflow drainage systems exceed their capacity. Additionally, the depth of subsurface water basins is unknown, limiting understanding of groundwater capacity to absorb runoff and potential tidal intrusion risk. With these uncertainties, combined fluvial-groundwater flooding hazard zones are identified to highlight where additional data and risk assessments may be warranted.

4.1.3 Near-term impacts
With approximately 1 ft of SLR, the coastal impacts detailed in Table 8 are expected to occur between 2050-2060.

This SLR scenario is expected to consist of coastal flooding that is constrained by the existing beach-dunes and seawall structures due to their higher crest elevations.

Table 8. Projected near-term impacts for Zone 1: Eastern Del Monte/Laguna Grande Lake (Labels correlate with Figure 6)
Label Threshold Expected Frequency Anticipated Consequence 1-1 Wave run up reaches Del Monte
Lake stormwater outfall

0.8 ft SLR w/ 100-yr
coastal storm
Wave action reduces effectiveness of stormwater
system
1-2 Waves run up reaches Beach Way
stormwater outfall

0.8 ft SLR w/ 100-yr
coastal storm
Wave action reduces effectiveness of stormwater
system
1-3 Waves run up reaches Roberts
Lake culvert outfall

0.8 ft SLR w/ 100-yr
coastal storm
Wave action reduces effectiveness of stormwater
system
1-4 High Tide Line reaches Monterey
Beach Hotel seawall.

0.8 ft SLR w/ 100-yr
coastal storm
Lateral beach access lost in front of seawall. Del
Monte Beach split into separate beach areas.
1-5
High Tide Line reaches Ocean
Harbor House condominiums’
seawall.

0.8 ft SLR w/ 100-yr
coastal storm
Lateral beach access lost in front of seawall. Del
Monte Beach split into separate beach areas.
1-6 M1W manholes inundated along
NSA-Monterey’s Beach.

0.8 ft SLR w/ annual
(1-yr) coastal storm Dune erosion. Beach migrates inland.

Del Monte Lake Outfall (City of Monterey) Beach Way Outfall (City of Monterey) ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 53, Packet Page 171 Figure 6. USGS CoSMoS maximum flood projections under varying storm conditions with 0.8 ft SLR for Zone 1: Eastern Del Monte/Laguna Grande Lake Del Monte
Lake outfall
Ocean Harbor House
Condominiums
Monterey
Beach Hotel
Beach
Way
outfall
M1W Pump Station
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 54, Packet Page 172

4.1.4 Mid-term hazards
With approximately 2.5 ft to 3 ft of SLR, the coastal hazards described in Table 9 are expected to occur between 2070-2090. Similar to the near-term hazards, the projected coastal flooding is anticipated to be generally limited by the existing beach-dunes and seawall structures (Figure 7). However, some overtopping of the Monterey Beach Hotel seawall is expected, which could result in minor flooding of the hotel property.

Based on an assumption of moderate subsurface geology and 2.5 feet of SLR, the USGS-GW model indicates potential for groundwater emergence along the western shoreline area of Laguna Grande Lake (Figure 8). The model also suggests shallow groundwater depths (less than 3 feet below the surface) near the M1W Monterey Pump Station, Del Monte Lake and Laguna Grande Lake/Roberts Lake. However, the M1W Climate Action and Adaptation Report (LSA Associates, 2021) provides more site-specific groundwater data and indicates deeper groundwater conditions at the M1W Monterey Pump Station than those projected by the USGS-GW model.

According to the M1W report, groundwater depths near the Pump Station would become shallower than 5 feet below ground surface until SLR reaches approximately 5.6 feet.

Based on FEMA’s 100-year flood zone, areas at risk for potential fluvial flooding cover similar extents to areas with groundwater flooding risks (Figure 8). During extreme rainfall, outflow volumes may exceed the capacity of the pipes or the pumps could require more frequent use. For El Estero Lake, the FEMA projections account for the maximum drainage pump capacity used to maintain lake levels below critical thresholds. If groundwater is elevated by SLR in these areas, there is a risk that it could further elevate lake levels.

Table 9. Projected mid-term hazards for Zone 1: Eastern Del Monte/Laguna Grande Lake (Labels correlate with Figure 7 and Figure 8)
Label Threshold Expected Frequency Anticipated Consequence 1-7
Waves overtop the Monterey Beach
Hotel seawall (Crest Elev: 23.97 ft,
NAVD88)

3.3 ft SLR w/ 100-yr
coastal storm Flooding into hotel property.
1-8 Waves overtop beach area where
M1W pipeline is buried.

2.5 ft SLR w/ 100-yr
coastal storm
Waves erode the beach and the pipeline is
exposed to scouring or damage
1-9
Potential groundwater flooding of
the Laguna Grande Lake western
shoreline

2.5 ft SLR, monthly
high tide Possible damage to City Pump Station #4.
1-10
Flooding of the Laguna Grande
Lake western shoreline (City of
Monterey)
100-yr rainfall event
Lake overflows and floods residential and
commercial properties along western shoreline of
Laguna Grande Lake
1-11 Flooding potential around Del Monte
Lake
100-yr rainfall event or

2.5 ft of SLR, monthly
high tide
Flooding onto adjacent Del Monte Avenue from
Lake overtopping (rainfall event) or groundwater
emergence (tidal and sea level event).

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 55, Packet Page 173 Figure 7. USGS CoSMoS maximum flood projections under 100-yr storm conditions with 2.5 ft and 3.3 ft of SLR for Zone 1: Eastern Del Monte/Laguna Grande Lake Monterey
Beach Hotel
Ocean Harbor House
Condominiums
Del Monte
Lake outfall
Beach
Way
outfall
Roberts
Lake outfall
M1W Pump Station
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 56, Packet Page 174 Figure 8. USGS groundwater depth and emergence projections with 2.5 ft SLR for Zone 1: Eastern Del Monte/Laguna Grande Lake City Pump
Station #4
M1W Monterey
Pump Station
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 57, Packet Page 175

4.1.5 Long-term hazards
With approximately 5.5 ft to 6 ft of SLR, the coastal hazards detailed in Table 10 and shown in Figure 9 are expected to occur between the 2100-2140 timeframe. Due to the uncertainties associated with SLR projection under this time scale, the standard CoSMoS TWL flood extents were used rather than the CoSMoS maximum wave extents that would likely exaggerate the amount of flooding that can be reasonably predicted. Similar to the other investigated time scales, the extent of coastal flooding would be limited by the existing beach-dunes due to their higher crest elevations. However, the seawalls along Monterey Beach Hotel and the Ocean Harbor House condominiums would be considered more likely to experience wave overtopping.

Table 10. Projected long-term hazards for Zone 1: Eastern Del Monte/Laguna Grande Lake (Labels correlate with Figure 9)
Label Threshold Expected Frequency Anticipated Consequence 1-12
Waves erode beach-dunes and
threaten the MBCRT (recreational
trail) south of the hotel.

4.9 ft SLR w/100-yr
coastal storm
Models show the MBCRT is above flood
elevations, but the CoastSAT historic beach data
demonstrates that this beach has historically
eroded up to 40 meters or 130 ft in a season
(Figure 5). Significant erosion would enable
extreme waves to reach the trail resulting in
closure and/or repair of the trail.
1-13
Waves overtop the Ocean Harbor
House condominiums’ seawall (27 ft
– 31 ft NAVD88)

4.9 ft SLR w/100-yr
coastal storm
Waves overtop the seawall. More waves breaking
at the seawall will also result in scouring in front
of the wall.
1-14 Waves breaking on the Del Monte
Lake outfall

4.9 ft SLR w/100-yr
coastal storm
Outfall largely submerged with potential impact
on ability of lift doors to open and release
outflows.

Ocean Harbor House condominiums and
seawall. Photo courtesy of City of Monterey
Ocean Harbor House condominiums and seawall
(City of Monterey)
Del Monte Lake outfall (City of Monterey)
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 58, Packet Page 176 Figure 9. USGS CoSMoS standard flood projections under varying storm conditions with 4.9 ft SLR for Zone 1: Eastern Del Monte/Laguna Grande Lake Roberts
Lake outfall
Monterey
Beach Hotel
Ocean Harbor House
Condominiums
Del Monte
Lake outfall
Beach
Way
outfall
M1W Pump Station
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 59, Packet Page 177

4.2 Zone 2: Western Del Monte/El Estero
Zone 2 includes the portion of the Del Monte Beach LUP subarea west of the NSA-Monterey property (Figure 10).

Residential communities within the LUP subareas include Oak Grove and a segment of the Downtown neighborhood. Oak Grove is a primarily residential neighborhood with diverse housing options and some commercial toward the coast. Demographic data for the area illustrates that there is a higher percentage of people of color in Oak Grove when compared with some of the other neighborhoods in the City.

Coastal amenities and public access within Zone 2 include Municipal Beach for the segment closest to Wharf 2 and Monterey Bay Park – also known as the “Window on the Bay”. The MBCRT runs along the back of the beach and provides several popular viewpoints for locals and visitors. Connecting to the MBCRT are several access paths to the beach and trails through Monterey Bay Park. A public parking area, public restrooms, and boat storage area are located at the most western edge. There are also several hotels and visitor serving businesses along Del Monte Avenue.

Similar to Zone 1, public infrastructure in this area includes Del Monte Avenue that serves as a significant transportation route to the downtown area. The M1W wastewater pipeline buried under Del Monte Beach also spans the entire Zone and there are two city-managed ocean outfalls – The El Estero Lake outfall is located in front of Monterey Bay Park and drains overflows from El Estero Lake and the Municipal Wharf No. 2 Ocean Outfall is located within Wharf 2 and drains stormwater from the Figueroa Box Culvert Basin, a 1.85 square mile watershed (Schaaf & Wheeler 2024) which extends to the ridgeline along Highway 68..

Municipal Beach/Western Del Monte Beach on 11/5/2025 (City of Monterey) ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 60, Packet Page 178 Figure 10. Existing Conditions for Zone 2: Western Del Monte/El Estero M1W Pump Station
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 61, Packet Page 179

4.2.1 Existing Coastal Hazards
The shoreline in this segment is comprised of sandy beach backed by coastal dunes. While not directly within the coastal LUP subarea, Lake El Estero is a coastal lagoon adjacent to this area that was historically connected to the ocean. In the past, Del Monte Avenue within this segment experienced flooding during a large storm event which was attributed to heavy rainfall and pump failure near Lake Estero. During high tides, beach erosion occurs and waves reach the front of the Del Monte Beach
Townhome complex. During high tides and large waves,
the Municipal Wharf No. 2 Ocean Outfall has been
submerged causing stormwater to emerge from manholes
on Franklin Street and flooding this roadway.

Shoreline data from CoastSat indicate that this section of the coast has remained generally stable over time, with annual averages only varying ±0.3 meters (±1 foot) (Figure 11). This is likely because the shoreline faces the protected side of Monterey Bay. The beach naturally changes with
the seasons—wider in the summer and narrower in the
winter—by about 131 feet on average. Even so, some parts of Municipal Beach have experienced short-term erosion of up to 200 feet in certain years.

Monterey Beach Station on 12/15/2024 (California King Tides Project) Del Monte Beach Townhome complex, 1/11/2024
(California King Tides Project)
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 62, Packet Page 180 Figure 11. CoastSat transects along Zone 2: Western Del Monte/El Estero are color-coded with their rate of change (m/year). Data from three transects is shown in popout graphs that show cross-shore change since 1984
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 63, Packet Page 181

4.2.2 Future SLR Hazards
The primary coastal vulnerabilities within Zone 2 include coastal flooding, beach-dune erosion, and combined fluvial-groundwater flooding (Table 11,Table 12,Table 13). Similarly to Zone 1, CoSMoS coastal flooding projections were applied differently across time scales. For near- and mid-term periods, projected maximum flood exposure accounted for variable dune topography to identify worst-case scenarios. For the long term, standard CoSMoS TWL flood exposure were used to estimate flood extent.

East of the Del Monte Beach Townhomes, the high coastal dune formations limit the intrusion of coastal flooding.

However, the shoreline decreases in elevation along the west side of Zone 2, leaving it vulnerable to flood events through this pathway. Additionally, due to the low-lying conditions directly behind this pathway, coastal flooding quickly spreads to other areas once it overtops the beach-dune area.

Similar to Zone 1, there is also potential for fluvial and groundwater flooding which could worsen with SLR. FEMA flood maps show that the area surrounding Lake El Estero is vulnerable during extreme rainfall if overflow drainage systems exceed their capacity. Additionally, the depth of subsurface water basins is unknown, limiting understanding of groundwater capacity to absorb runoff and potential tidal intrusion risk. With these uncertainties, combined fluvial-groundwater flooding hazard zones are highlighted to demonstrate where additional data and risk assessments may be warranted.

4.2.3 Near-term hazards
The coastal hazards detailed in Table 11 are anticipated to occur with approximately 1 foot of SLR between 2050- 2060. In this scenario, waves and ocean waters are expected to flow over the current beach area, resulting in beach erosion.

Table 11. Projected near-term hazards for Zone 2: Western Del Monte/El Estero (Labels correlate with Figure 12) Label Threshold Expected Frequency Anticipated Consequence 2-1
Waves and high tide water levels
overtop beaches where M1W
pipeline is buried and manholes lie.

0.8 ft of SLR w/1-yr
coastal storm
Beach erosion leads to scouring and exposure of
the pipeline. Flooding of manholes along the
beach.
2-2 Municipal Beach mostly inundated 0.8 ft of SLR w/1-yr coastal storm
Loss of beach recreation and access.

Beach migration into dunes where feasible.
2-3 Municipal Wharf No. 2 Ocean
Outfall submerged

0.8 ft of SLR w/1-yr
coastal storm
Outfall is blocked by waves, high tide forces
stormwater to emerge through manholes and
flood Del Monte Ave, Figueroa St and Franklin St.

Municipal Wharf 2 ocean outfall (City of Monterey)
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 64, Packet Page 182 Figure 12. USGS CoSMoS maximum flood projections under varying storm conditions with 0.8 ft SLR for Zone 2: Western Del Monte/El Estero Municipal Wharf
2 ocean outfall
Lake El
Estero outfall
M1W Pump Station
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 65, Packet Page 183

4.2.4 Mid-term Hazards
The coastal hazards detailed in Table 12 are anticipated to occur with approximately 2.5 ft to 3 ft of SLR between 2070-2090. With 2.5 ft of SLR, there is a worst-case scenario that coastal flooding could occur along Del Monte Avenue if waves push water through the lower-level accessways between the beach-dunes of Municipal Beach/Monterey State Beach. As seen in the below photos, minor flooding has already been observed in these low-lying areas during recent King tide conditions. Once coastal waters reach the backside of Monterey Bay Park, they would inundate the areas surrounding El Estero Lake and extend west and east within this low-lying area.

Low-elevation beach accessways near Municipal beach flooded during the King Tide on November 6, 2025, and the temporary beach berm constructed at Municipal beach (City of Monterey) On the shoreline side, 2.5-3 ft of SLR with only moderate wave conditions poses substantial risk to the M1W wastewater pipeline and infrastructure. The Del Monte Beach Townhomes also become vulnerable to wave action and potential flooding.

Since little is known about the groundwater geology in this area, the potential for groundwater flooding with SLR was evaluated using a “moderate” subsurface geology that assumes the area has a moderately deep water table.

Based on this assumption, the USGS-GW model projects that with 2.5 ft of SLR, there is potential for groundwater emergence along the northern shoreline of Lake El Estero and extending into the Del Monte Avenue corridor (Figure 14). These projections for possible emergent and shallow groundwater tables (less than 3 feet) highlight that historically Lake El Estero was connected to the ocean and there may be risk of salt water intrusion into the Lake through groundwater. Similarly, the FEMA 100-year flood zone illustrates that Lake El Estero overflows have a high propensity for flooding a large area of the Del Monte Avenue corridor given the low-lying topography of this zone (Figure 14). The FEMA projections account for current maximum drainage pump capacity used to maintain ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 66, Packet Page 184 lake levels below critical thresholds. There is a risk that as sea levels rise, groundwater could contribute more to lake levels challenging the pump capacity or requiring more pump use to maintain lake levels.

Table 12. Projected mid-term hazards for Zone 2: Western Del Monte/El Estero (Labels correlate with Figure 13 and Figure 14)
Label Threshold Expected Frequency Anticipated Consequence 2-4
Waves overtop majority of beach
where M1W pipeline is buried and
manholes lie.

2.5 ft SLR w/1-yr
storm
Beach erosion leads to scouring and exposure of
the pipeline.

Flooding of manholes along the beach.
2-5 Waves reach Del Monte Beach
Townhome fence line.

2.5 ft SLR w/100-yr
Storm
Possible flooding of townhomes and
neighborhood.
2-6
Waves overtop dunes or flow
through low accessways toward Del
Monte Avenue.

2.5 ft SLR w/100-yr
Storm
Minor to moderate flooding of boat storage,
parking, Monterey Bay Park, Del Monte Avenue,
townhomes, and into downtown/Harbor area
2-7 Groundwater flooding around El
Estero Lake

2.5 ft SLR w/monthly
high tide
Lake levels elevated by additional groundwater
requiring pump to operate more frequently.

Possible saltwater intrusion into Lake.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 67, Packet Page 185 Figure 13. USGS CoSMoS maximum flood projections under 100-yr storm conditions with 2.5 ft and 3.3 ft SLR for Zone 2: Western Del Monte/El Estero Del Monte Beach
Townhomes Fence Lake El
Estero outfall
Municipal Wharf
2 ocean outfall
Low-lying beach access paths
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 68, Packet Page 186 Figure 14. USGS groundwater depth and emergence projections with 2.5 ft SLR for Zone 2: Western Del Monte/El Estero ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 69, Packet Page 187

4.2.5 Long-term Hazards
As seen in Figure 15, the coastal flooding extent with approximately 5 feet of SLR is expected to be very similar to the flooding impact with 2.5-3 ft of SLR (Figure 13; Figure 15). This is largely due to the topography of the area.

Once coastal waters connect with the El Estero Lake, flooding is expected to travel west and east of this low-lying area resulting in more flooding of the downtown area and further up Del Monte Avenue.

Table 13. Projected mid-term hazards for Zone 2: Western Del Monte/El Estero (Labels correlate with Figure 15) Label Threshold Expected Frequency Anticipated Consequence 2-8
Waves overtop dunes or flow
through low accessways toward Del
Monte Avenue.

4.9 ft SLR w/100-yr
Storm
Flooding of Monterey Bay Park, Del Monte
Avenue, and into downtown/Harbor area
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 70, Packet Page 188 Figure 15. USGS CoSMoS flood projections under varying storm conditions with 4.9 ft SLR for Zone 2: Western Del Monte/El Estero Del Monte Beach
Townhomes Fence Lake El
Estero outfall
Municipal Wharf
2 ocean outfall
Low-lying beach access paths
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 71, Packet Page 189

4.3 Zone 3: Monterey Harbor
Zone 3 encompasses the coastal areas between Wharf 2 and the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) Pier (Figure 16).

This hazard assessment zone aligns with the Coast Guard, Fisherman’s and Municipal Wharf LUP subarea and the Downtown Adjacent LUP subarea. SLR hazard analysis for this zone evaluated the two wharves, the marina facilities and structures, and the USCG pier that also functions as a breakwater. The downtown residential neighborhood and Lighthouse Tunnel was also evaluated for flood risks. Of note, San Carlos Beach was excluded and is assessed as part of Zone 4 for this study.

Zone 3 hosts a dense concentration of visitor serving coastal amenities and public access. The Coast Guard pier and breakwater provide a sheltered harbor for docking boats and marina services. A portion of the MBCRT (recreational trail) runs directly along the shoreline here and is a popular viewpoint for locals and visitors of marine life. The area also includes a large public parking lot behind Wharf 2.

Transportation infrastructure in Zone 3 includes the terminus of Del Monte Avenue and the Lighthouse Tunnel – a below ground tunnel that serves as a primary roadway between Old Monterey and New Monterey/Cannery Row.

Monterey Harbor (GHD)
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 72, Packet Page 190 Figure 16. Existing Conditions for Zone 3: Monterey Harbor ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 73, Packet Page 191

4.3.1 Existing Coastal Hazards
The shoreline in Zone 3 is comprised of rocky and sandy intertidal habitat and virtually all of it has some form of shoreline protection. The US Coast Guard breakwater, the Wharf 2 sheetpile breakwater and the Municipal Marina Wave wall also provide additional wave protection for the piers and marina infrastructure. The condition of both Wharf 1 and Wharf 2 pier foundations makes these assets vulnerable to damages under conditions where wave energy reaches the pilings and foundational structures. For example, the Foth report (2024) concluded that half of the leased portions on Wharf 1 remain in “poor” or “serious” condition and the COWI report (2024) rated Wharf 2 in “poor” condition due to widespread timber, concrete and asphalt deterioration.

4.3.2 Future SLR Hazards
The primary SLR hazards within Zone 3 include coastal flooding and coastal storm wave damages. As sea levels rise, elevated water levels in the marina will put pressure on floating docks, storm waves that get around the breakwaters will cause damage to piers, and eventually waves are expected to overtop breakwater structures.

4.3.3 Near-term hazards
With approximately 1 ft of SLR, the coastal hazards detailed in Table 14 are expected to occur between 2050- 2060.

Under this SLR scenario, the U.S. Coast Guard Pier breakwater is anticipated to be capable of providing effective wave protection. At Wharf 1, the wave crest is projected to remain below the deck. However, the additional wave energy in the harbor during an extreme storm has the potential to impact the lower-level platforms like the Monterey Bay Whale Watching Center (Concession 18) and the other concessions with lower-level decks. Given the poor state of repair at Wharf 1, larger storm waves may also be problematic for deficient structural elements and corroded connections (M&N, 2019). On Wharf 2, the outer end will be exposed to higher water levels and waves and the facilities on the lower decks (restaurants, yacht club) may flood during extreme tides.

Table 14. Projected near-term hazards for Zone 3: Monterey Harbor (Labels correlate with Figure 18 and Figure 19) Label Threshold Expected Frequency Anticipated Consequence 3-1
Extreme Water Levels in marina
increases to 6 ft to 9 ft (NAVD88).

See Figure 17.

0.8 ft of SLR w/1%
chance extreme water
level event
(100-year extreme
water level event)
Increased wave transmission, resulting in more
wave energy at the marinas. Potentially impact
navigation, commercial operations, and public
access.

Wharf 2 lower deck structures likely to experience
flooding.

City stormwater outfalls may be inundated
3-2 Wave crest elevations of 9 ft to 12 ft
(NAVD88) at Municipal Wharf 2

0.8 ft of SLR w/100-yr
coastal storm
Outer end of Wharf 2 exposed to large waves
(~16 ft)
3-3 Wave crest elevations of 6 ft to 9 ft
(NAVD88) at Wharf 1

0.8 ft of SLR w/100-yr
coastal storm
Potential for damage at Wharf 1 lower platforms
(elev. 10 ft to 11 ft)
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 74, Packet Page 192 Figure 17. Elevations of key features in Zone 3: Monterey Harbor ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 75, Packet Page 193 Figure 18. Monterey Harbor (Zone 3) Hazards: Municipal Wharf 2 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 76, Packet Page 194 Figure 19. Monterey Harbor (Zone 3) Hazards: Old Fisherman’s Wharf and Coast Guard Pier ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 77, Packet Page 195

4.3.4 Mid-term hazards
With approximately 2.5 ft to 3 ft of SLR, the coastal hazards detailed in Table 15 are expected to occur between 2070-2090.

With 2 feet of SLR, water levels will reach the top of the piles at Breakwater Cove marina resulting in the potential for floating docks to break free. During 100-year storm conditions, the lower-level concessions at Wharf 1 are likely to experience wave damages (e.g. waves crashing on windows) and flooding into decks and buildings. Storm waves are also expected to be problematic for deficient structural elements and corroded connections at Wharf 1 (M&N, 2019).

While the USCG Pier breakwater is anticipated to remain capable of providing effective wave protection to the Monterey Harbor during extreme storm conditions, some overtopping of the Coast Guard breakwater is possible with over 2 ft of SLR and could result in ~1 ft waves in the harbor. This would increase the potential for wave damages to structures in the marina. There is also potential for minor damage to the pier depending on the condition of the piles, connections and utility locations.

Along the MBCRT (recreational trail), wave run up will increase but remain below the trail. However, there is potential for erosion and undermining of the trail in areas that lack shoreline protection or where protection is in poor condition.

Table 15. Projected mid-term hazards for Zone 3: Monterey Harbor (Labels correlate with Figure 18 and Figure 19) Label Threshold Expected Frequency Anticipated Consequence 3-4 EWLs in marina reach 8 ft to 11 ft
(NAVD88)
2 ft of SLR w/1%
chance extreme water
level event
(100-year extreme
water level event)
Water levels approach top of pile elevation at the
Breakwater cove marina with potential for floating
docks to break free.
3-5 Wave crest elevations of 8 ft to 11 ft
(NAVD88) at Wharf 1
2 ft of SLR w/100-yr
Storm
Wave and flood damage at Wharf 1 lower platforms
at 10 ft to 11 ft (NAVD88)
Lower foundations subject to increased degradation,
potentially requiring continuous maintenance or
partial/full replacement.
3-6 Waves reach the top of the US
Coast Guard Pier and breakwater

2.5 ft of SLR w/100-yr
storm Possible damage to Coast Guard Pier structure.
3-7 Wave runup w/TWL of 14 ft
(NAVD88) at MBCRT (recreational
trail)

3.3 ft of SLR w/100-yr
Storm
Wave run up still below the trail. Potential for
erosion of bluff and undermining of trail in places
that lack shoreline protection or where protection
is in poor condition.

Stormwater outfalls along the trail possibly
inundated
3-8
Coastal flooding into Wharf 2
parking lots, lower Del Monte
Avenue, Lighthouse Avenue &
Tunnel, downtown streets

2.5 ft of SLR w/100-yr
storm
Significant flooding during a 100-yr storm that
flows from Del Monte Avenue into the downtown
area, Lighthouse Tunnel and Wharf 2 parking
lots.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 78, Packet Page 196 Figure 20. USGS CoSMoS maximum flood projections under 100-yr storm conditions with 2.5 ft and 3.3 ft of SLR for Zone 3: Monterey Harbor ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 79, Packet Page 197

4.3.5 Long-term Hazards
With approximately 5.5 ft to 6 ft of SLR, the coastal hazards detailed in Table 16 are expected to occur between 2100- 2140.

Extreme water levels are expected to exceed the top of the pile elevation and result in substantial hazards to marina infrastructure. With 5 ft of SLR, moderately sized waves will overtop the USCG Pier breakwater and dramatically increase wave energy in the harbor. This is expected to result in substantial wave damages to structures in the marina.

With 5 ft of SLR, coastal flooding originating from the Del Monte Beach side of Wharf 2 is expected to flow into the public parking lots and downtown streets behind the Harbor.

Table 16. Projected long-term hazards for Zone 3: Monterey Harbor (Labels correlate with Figure 18, Figure 19, and Figure 21)
Label Threshold Expected Frequency Anticipated Consequence 3-9
EWLs in marina reach 11 ft to 14 ft
(NAVD88)

5.5 ft of SLR w/1%
chance extreme water
level event
(100-year extreme
water level event)
Marina infrastructure (utility connections, gangways,
boat launch ramps) may be damaged/dysfunctional
during extreme tide conditions. Substantial hazards
with water levels above the top of pile elevation,
allowing floating docks to break free.
3-10 Wave heights exceed U.S. Coast
Guard Pier breakwater elevation 5.5 ft of SLR, Monthly
Potential 1 ft to 2 ft increase in wave heights within
the Monterey Harbor considered to be capable of
damaging docks and mooring infrastructure.

Especially problematic for vessels moored to Coast
Guard Pier and Breakwater Cove Marina.
3-11
Wave crest elevations of 12 ft to 20
ft (NAVD88) at Municipal Wharf 2

5.5 ft of SLR w/100-yr
coastal storm
Wave crest elevations could result in 1 ft of flooding
and damage of Wharf 2. Wharf damages would
impact commercial ship operations while repairs are
made.
3-12
Coastal flooding into Wharf 2
parking lots, lower Del Monte
Avenue, Lighthouse Avenue &
Tunnel, downtown streets

4.9 ft of SLR w/1-yr
coastal storm
Significant flooding of the Harbor and downtown
areas during an annual storm.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 80, Packet Page 198 Figure 21. USGS CoSMoS standard flood projections under varying storm conditions with 4.9 ft SLR for Zone 3: Monterey Harbor ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 81, Packet Page 199

4.4 Zone 4: Cannery Row
Zone 4 includes the area between the US Coast Guard Pier and David Avenue, known as Cannery Row (Figure 22). The hazard zone aligns with the Cannery Row LUP subarea with the addition of San Carlos Beach. The residential community within Zone 4 is known as the New Monterey neighborhood.

The Cannery Row zone is a popular area for tourism that includes restaurants, hotels and businesses located directly on the edge of the rocky cliffs, including the Monterey Bay Aquarium. There are three pocket beaches in this zone (McAbee, San Carlos, and Plaza Hotel) that provide public access and are frequented by locals and visitors. The MBCRT in this zone includes several vertical access points including McAbee Beach which is considered ADA accessible. There is also one public parking lot behind El Torito.

Cannery Row is the primary transportation route through Zone 4 and lies just behind the oceanfront businesses.

The Reeside Pump station at San Carlos Beach is part of the M1W wastewater conveyance system. There are also several city-managed stormwater ocean outfalls.

Spindrift Inn during a King Tide on 12/4/2021 (California King Tides Project) ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 82, Packet Page 200 Figure 22. Existing Conditions for Zone 4: Cannery Row
M1W Pump Station
Reeside Pump
Station
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 83, Packet Page 201

4.4.1 Existing Coastal Hazards
The Cannery Row shoreline is comprised of rocky intertidal backed largely by rock substrate with a few pocket beaches. This zone is vulnerable to coastal flooding during large wave energy storms or events when moderate swells and high tides coincide (see photos). During these events, the building structures have seen waves splash onto decks, weaken under-deck foundations (e.g. pilings), and inundate the pocket beaches. These types of wave events can also accelerate deterioration of the building foundations and accelerate beach loss.

San Carlos Beach with a King Tide on 11/15/2020 (California King Tides Project).

King Tide at Monterey Bay Aquarium (Monterey Bay Aquarium).

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 84, Packet Page 202

4.4.2 Future SLR Hazards
The primary SLR hazards along the shoreline in Zone 4 consist of coastal flooding, beach erosion, and coastal storm wave damages.

San Carlos Beach is the most vulnerable of the three beaches. The M1W Pump station and the restroom at this location also become vulnerable with higher sea level rise, beach erosion and more exposure to storm waves.

The entire Cannery Row waterfront is exposed to strong wave energy and wave forcing will only increase with SLR. Parcels with deteriorating pile or foundations are expected to be the most vulnerable as well as areas with steeper wave run up.

4.4.3 Near-term Hazards
The coastal hazards described in Table 17 are anticipated to occur with approximately 1 ft of SLR between 2050 - 2060.

Table 17. Projected near-term hazards for Zone 4: Cannery Row (Labels correlate with Figure 23, Figure 24, Figure 26, Figure 29)
Label Threshold Expected Frequency Anticipated Consequence 4-1
Wave runup w/TWL of 14 ft
(NAVD88) reaches toe of San
Carlos Beach revetment and toe of
Reeside Pump Station.

0.8 ft of SLR w/100-yr
coastal storm
Beach shoreline shifts landward, further limiting
public access and recreational beach use area.

Increased wave runup elevations and water
levels could undermine or damage the revetment
or Pump Station Structure.
4-2 TWL of 35 ft at El Torito structure. 0.8 ft of SLR w/100-yr coastal storm
The pile supported structure here is fronted by a
steeper slope compared to other areas causing
higher runup elevations. Anecdotal evidence
indicates past damage to windows during
significant wave events.
4-3
Wave runup w/TWL of 35 ft at
Aquarium seawall. Wave crest
elevations of 11 ft to 15 ft at pile
supported structures.

0.8 ft of SLR w/100-yr
coastal storm
Wave forces may act at higher elevations on the
foundation of the structure and increase the
frequency or potential for damage if unable to
withstand this wave runup.
4-4 Wave run up w/TWL at 20 feet at
seawall at Monterey Bay Inn

0.8 ft of SLR w/100-yr
coastal storm
Field observations of the seawall foundation
indicate evidence of corrosion and spalling
raising the question about the life span of this
structure. Increasing coastal hazards could be
problematic for buildings supported on aging
foundations.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 85, Packet Page 203 Figure 23. Cannery Row (Zone 4) Hazards - East San Carlos Beach ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 86, Packet Page 204 Figure 24. Cannery Row (Zone 4) Hazards - West San Carlos Beach ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 87, Packet Page 205 Figure 25. Cannery Row (Zone 4) Hazards - Monterey Plaza Hotel Beach ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 88, Packet Page 206 Figure 26. Cannery Row (Zone 4) Hazards - El Torito Restaurant ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 89, Packet Page 207 Figure 27. Cannery Row (Zone 4) Hazards - East McAbee Beach ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 90, Packet Page 208 Figure 28. Cannery Row (Zone 4) Hazards - West McAbee Beach ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 91, Packet Page 209 Figure 29. Cannery Row (Zone 4) Hazards - Monterey Bay Aquarium ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 92, Packet Page 210

4.4.4 Mid-term Hazards
The coastal hazards described in Table 18 are anticipated to occur between 2070 and 2090 with approximately

2.5 ft to 3 ft of SLR.

In this scenario, much of the beach area in Cannery Row is expected to be lost during daily mean high water (MHW). Wave run up is also expected to begin uplifting foundational structures and flooding some first floor or lower deck levels.

Table 18. Projected mid-term hazards for Zone 4: Cannery Row (Labels correlate with Figure 23, Figure 24, Figure 25, Figure 27, and Figure 28)
Label Threshold Expected Frequency Anticipated Consequence 4-5 MHW line is at toe of San Carlos
Beach revetment. 2.5 ft of SLR, Daily
Loss of 70% of San Carlos Beach. Wave runup
during storms has greater potential to undermine
revetment and M1W Pump Station foundation.
4-6 MHW leaves 25 ft of beach at Plaza
Hotel Beach 2.5 ft of SLR, Daily Loss of 54% of Plaza Hotel Beach 4-7 MHW reaches historic wall at
McAbee beach 2.5 ft of SLR, Daily Loss of sandy beach area 4-8
TWL reaches 14 ft at Monterey
Plaza Hotel seawall; wave crest
elevation 11 ft – 16 ft at pile
supported structures.

2.5 ft of SLR, 100-yr
coastal storm
The first floor and deck levels of the pile
supported structures could experience up to 1 ft
of inundation from breaking waves, increasing
vulnerability to damage, repair costs, and
downtime.
4-9 Wave runup w/TWL of 17 ft
(NAVD88) at Spindrift Inn seawall.

2.5 ft of SLR, 100-yr
coastal storm
Wave runup will likely interact with the vertical
walls of the Spindrift Inn and Cannery Row
Company building. Wave runup against these
structures could result in problematic uplift forces
against the timber return wall and deck of the
Spindrift Inn.

4.4.5 Long-term Hazards
The coastal hazards described in Table 19 are anticipated to occur between 2100-2140 with approximately 5.5 ft to 6 ft of SLR.

Table 19. Projected long-term hazards for Zone 4: Cannery Row (Labels correlate with Figure 23, Figure 24, Figure 25, Figure 27, Figure 28, and Figure 29)
Label Threshold Expected Frequency Anticipated Consequence 4-10 Wave runup w/TWL of 29 ft
(NAVD88) at San Carlos Beach

5.5 ft of SLR w/100-yr
coastal storm
Waves overtop revetment and may flood/erode
the park and lower parking areas. Potential
damage to revetment.

Public restroom and M1W Pump station at 24 ft
to 26 ft (NAVD88) vulnerable to flooding from
wave runup.

Coastal habitats impacted by loss of sandy beach
and intertidal zone changes.
4-11
Wave runup w/TWL of 18 ft
(NAVD88)at Monterey Plaza Hotel
seawall. Wave crest elevation (14 ft
– 19 ft) exceeds FFE of the
Monterey Plaza Hotel (18 ft
NAVD88).

5.5 ft of SLR w/100-yr
coastal storm
Public access and recreational usage is lost.

Up to 4 ft of inundation on 1st floor and deck
levels of pile supported structures.
4-12
Wave runup w/TWL of 20 ft
(NAVD88) at Spindrift Inn seawall.

Runup extends to the edge of the

5.5 ft of SLR w/100-yr
coastal storm
Structures along the back of the beach and the
roadway are susceptible to erosion and
undermining from scour as wave energy reaches
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 93, Packet Page 211 Label Threshold Expected Frequency Anticipated Consequence road/first floor of Spindrift Inn
structure.
higher elevations and frequently impacts the
vertical seawalls along the backshore. Minor
flooding from splash over conditions.
4-13
Wave runup w/TWL of 43 ft at
Aquarium seawall. Wave crest
elevations of 18 ft to 21 ft at pile
supported structures. Wave crest at
or very close to FFE of most parcels
along Transect 34

5.5 ft of SLR w/100-yr
coastal storm
Waves may break at the first level of structures.

Breaking waves could result in flooding of deck
areas. Waves likely to result in significant
damage to pile supported structures.

5. Sensitivities and Adaptive Capacity
SLR vulnerability is a measure of potential harm caused by SLR that combines exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity. The previous sections of the 2026 Assessment characterize coastal hazard exposure including impact thresholds and the expected frequency of occurrence. To comprehensively understand vulnerability, it is also critical to consider sensitivities that characterize how severely exposed infrastructure, natural resources or populations will be affected. Sensitivities consider criticality of infrastructure or resources, socio-cultural implications, equity considerations, and economic impacts.

The following summarizes key sensitivities anticipated in the near-term (2050-2060) with the exception of economic impacts. Economic impacts will be evaluated separately and included as an appendix to this report.

Together, these analyses are intended to help the City prioritize areas for addressing SLR impacts and investments in adaptation.

5.1 Transportation Infrastructure
Transportation infrastructure in the high traffic corridor of Del Monte Avenue and Figueroa Street is particularly exposed and sensitive to disruptions with 1 ft of SLR. Coastal flooding maps for Zones 2 and 3 identify the western end of Figueroa Street—just beyond the Monterey Beach Station—as the initial entry point for floodwaters (Light blue arrows in Figure 28). At this stretch of Del Monte/Municipal Beach, the absence of substantial coastal dune formations allows waves to push water inland, overtopping the beach, flooding the MBCRT, and reaching the roadway and Monterey Bay Park parking lot. Once floodwater breaches this area, it is expected to flow along Figueroa Street and onto Del Monte Avenue. Flooding of Lighthouse Avenue and Lighthouse Tunnel are also expected under this scenario due to the low lying topography at the tunnel entrance (south portal).

Additionally, during high sea levels and large waves, the Figueroa Box Culvert outfall, known as the Municipal Wharf No. 2 ocean outfall has already proven vulnerable to coastal inundation. When this occurs, stormwater surfaces through manholes along Franklin and Figueroa Street expanding the extent of roadway vulnerable to flooding (see dark blue arrows in Figure 28). Several catch basins along Del Monte Avenue also connect to the Figueroa Box Culvert and could be subject to similar flooding due to high tailwater conditions at the ocean outfall.

These two flooding sources are expected to lead to compound disruptions and losses of roadways within this key transportation corridor.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 94, Packet Page 212 Figure 30. Expected flood pathways for Del Monte Avenue, Figueroa Street, and Franklin Street. (Light blue represents ocean overtopping onto the roadways. Dark blue represents ocean and storm water surfacing from manholes due to the Municipal Wharf No. 2 ocean outfall being inundated with high sea levels and waves).

Sensitivities
Flooding in this transportation corridor could have significant repercussions for the City’s transportation infrastructure. Del Monte Avenue is a critical transportation route to the City’s harbor and downtown neighborhoods. If Figueroa and Franklin Streets are simultaneously flooded, this limits alternative routes available in this area. According to the previous study of SLR impacts on transportation (GEI/KM, 2021), if moderate flooding occurs on Del Monte Avenue, some vehicle and bus traffic are likely to be diverted to Sloat Avenue and then use Fremont Street to access downtown. Trucks would be detoured to Hwy 68 to avoid low hanging communication cables. In the case of greater projected flooding on Del Monte Avenue that impacts Sloat Avenue (2.5 ft of SLR and coastal storms), vehicles and trucks would need to stay on Highway 1 and use Hwy 68 to reach the western area of the City. Other alternative roads in the City are not equipped for truck traffic or heavy congestion, so a Del Monte Avenue closure would result in significant detours to avoid congestion on these routes.

Figueroa
Box Culvert
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 95, Packet Page 213 Coastal flooding along Del Monte Avenue is projected to extend to Lighthouse Avenue and the southern portal of the Lighthouse Tunnel. The Lighthouse Tunnel dips well below present-day mean sea level near the south portal and is equipped with a drainage system and pump station designed to convey stormwater from the roadway and adjacent drainage area. The extent of flooding within the tunnel would depend on the pump station’s ability to keep pace with coastal flooding which has not been evaluated in the previous studies. The coastal flood hazards depicted in prior sections of this report simply map flood extents based on topography, but do not account for the flood mitigation capabilities of the existing infrastructure (i.e. pump stations) at Lake El Estero and Lighthouse Tunnel. The extent of flooding in Lighthouse Tunnel is difficult to estimate based on available information.

However, the tunnel roadway would be highly sensitive to flooding in this scenario and would pose a significant hazard to transportation, particularly for vehicles entering through the north portal that may be unaware of widespread coastal flooding.

In addition, the terminus of Figueroa Street serves as the gateway to Wharf 2 and two large and heavily used public parking lots. Flooding along Figueroa Street would have a severe impact on access to these areas, impacting tourism and local businesses. Coastal flooding in this area is also expected to result in temporary closures of the MBCRT (see yellow dotted line in Figure 28). Flooding of this section of the trail would cause disruptions and loss of the trail for bike and pedestrian commuters and recreational users.

Adaptive Capacity
The City has demonstrated adaptive capacity to the threat of coastal flooding in this area by constructing a seasonal berm west of Monterey Beach Station that currently prevents flooding onto Figueroa Street during large wave energy events. There are also some alternative roadways should Del Monte Avenue flood, but it is expected that traffic will significantly increase on Hwy 1 and 68 and overwhelm routes such as Munras Avenue and Soledad Drive.

5.2 Recreational Infrastructure
East of Wharf 2 at Municipal Beach (western Del Monte Beach), there is a high density of recreational access areas and amenities vulnerable to near-term sea level rise impacts. The shoreline here includes Monterey Bay Park, known as the “Window on the Bay,” and several beach access points including ADA accessible beach paths.

Adjacent to the park, there is also a public parking lot, kayak rental facilities, boat storage, and the Monterey Beach Station event facility.

Recreational amenities in this area already see some exposure to flooding and more frequent and greater impacts are anticipated with 1 ft of SLR. For example, in December 2025, high tide-driven flood waters were observed flowing into the public parking lot and between the coastal dune segments onto the MBCRT. There is also risk of erosion to the coastal dunes, Monterey Bay Park, and the MBCRT. While the USGS CoSMoS shoreline projections (Figure 29) depict erosion of the park with 3 ft of SLR, the dunes fronting the park have low crest elevations of 4-6 ft NAVD88 and they are fragmented weaking their ability to withstand and recover from large wave scarping.

Photo of December 2025 flooding on MBCRT (City of
Monterey)
Photo of December 2025 flooding on MBCRT (City of
Monterey)
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 96, Packet Page 214 Figure 31. USGS CoSMoS shoreline erosion projections with 3.3 ft of SLR. (The orange band represents the minimum and maximum extent of potential shoreline erosion).

Sensitivities
With 1 ft of SLR, it is expected that lateral beach access will be lost daily during the highest tide in front of the seawalls at Ocean Harbor House condominiums and the Monterey Beach Hotel. While the beaches are still accessible, Del Monte Beach will be fragmented into smaller beach zones.

With 2.5 ft of SLR, there is a high risk of losing approximately 2,000 linear feet of the MBCRT to flooding and erosion. This will result in a loss of a heavily used and popular recreational asset for locals and visitors. It is expected that there will also be impacts to access and use of Monterey Bay Park which is a culturally and recreationally significant asset for the City. Flooding of the parking lot and beach access ways will additionally result in a loss of one of the few low cost and ADA accessible beach access points in the City. Flooding is also expected to impact the use of, and access to, the marine recreational amenities in this area that include kayak rentals and marine vessel storage.

Adaptive Capacity
Depending on the extent of flooding, users may be able to access the unpaved paths connected to the MBCRT; however, these paths are not Class I trails and would require improvements to serve as safe alternatives for multiuse commuting and recreation. In the parking lot, flooded areas may be closed while allowing parking in unaffected sections. Beach access points located farther east are likely to remain open; however, none of these access points are ADA-compliant.

Based on the last 40 years of beach data (CoastSAT), Del Monte Beach is relatively stable and is experiencing limited erosion (Figure 5 and Figure 11). The coastal dunes that back the majority of this beach provide significant ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 97, Packet Page 215 adaptive capacity for the beach to migrate inland and recover after large storms (with the exception of the areas backed by seawalls). As the high tide line migrates inland with higher sea levels, the dune systems will erode and transition into beach areas.

5.3 Utility Infrastructure
Wastewater, stormwater, and subsurface utilities present near- term SLR vulnerabilities for Monterey. The M1W wastewater pipeline, associated manholes, and two M1W Pump stations (Reeside Pump Station on Cannery Row and Monterey Pump Station on Del Monte Beach) carry sewage to the regional treatment facility in the City of Marina. The pipeline’s location—beneath the back edge of Del Monte Beach—makes its resilience dependent on beach-dune adaptation. The pipeline’s ability to resist scouring and corrosion if exposed to ocean waters is not currently known. Although not City-owned, any disruption to wastewater services or a pipeline break would severely impact residents and businesses. If the pipeline were to leak or break, it could result in sewage spilling into the surrounding beach and nearby waters leading to a severe public health and environmental hazard for the community.

City-managed stormwater outfalls (primarily Beach Way outfall and Municipal Wharf No. 2 ocean outfall) are also at risk of inundation with only 1 ft of SLR during elevated tides and large wave events. These gravity-fed outfalls sit at low elevations, increasing the likelihood of stormwater backing up and surfacing through manholes, potentially flooding streets. The City has already experienced large waves and high tides submerging Municipal Wharf No.2 ocean outfall, which led to stormwater surfacing through manhole along Figueroa Street and Franklin Street.

Several catch basins along Del Monte Avenue also connect to the Figueroa Box Culvert Basin and could be subject to similar flooding due to high tailwater conditions at the ocean outfall. Stormwater surfacing from manholes within the Figueroa Box Culvert Basin is expected to cause disruptions and losses of roadways within this key transportation corridor.

There are also sensitive electricity and communication infrastructure along the Del Monte Avenue corridor that may be vulnerable during flooding events in this area. This includes subsurface electricity conduit for traffic signals and communication lines beneath Del Monte Avenue. Findings from the Pacific Gas & Electric Climate Adaptation and Vulnerability Assessment report (PG&E, 2024) indicate that its electricity substation, also located on Del Monte Avenue, is projected to be at risk with 1.25 meters, or 4 feet of SLR combined with the 100-year storm.

Additionally, the area’s coastal lakes (El Estero, Del Monte Lake, Roberts Lake) all discharge overflow to the ocean during heavy rainfall. With 1 ft of SLR, large waves and high tides are expected to partially submerge these outfalls which may impede their ability to drain overflows.

Sensitivities
The M1W wastewater pipeline and pump stations are sensitive to beach erosion, scouring, and saltwater exposure due to their location beneath Del Monte Beach. Potential breaks or leaks of this system would result in a public health hazard if sewage were to flow onto the beach or into marine waters. City stormwater outfalls at low elevations are vulnerable to tidal inundation and storm surge, increasing the risk of backflow and flooding. Coastal lakes add further sensitivity, as overflow during heavy rainfall could extend onto Del Monte Avenue. If Del Monte Avenue were to flood, subsurface utilities may be impacted, resulting in service disruptions and safety risks.

Adaptive Capacity
Current seasonal beach berm building strategies are helping to protect the wastewater pipeline and preventing flooding of Del Monte Avenue, including the subsurface utilities. Current city maintenance includes placing sand on manholes located on Del Monte Beach when they become exposed. M1W has the ability to close off segments of the wastewater pipe and pump around damaged pipeline as a temporary measure.

5.4 Aging Waterfront Infrastructure
The condition of both Wharf 1 and Wharf 2 pier foundations makes these assets vulnerable to damages under conditions where wave energy reaches the pilings and foundational structures. For example, the Foth report ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 98, Packet Page 216 (2024) concluded that half of the leased portions on Wharf 1 remain in “poor” or “serious” condition and the COWI report (2024) rated Wharf 2 in “poor” condition due to widespread timber, concrete and asphalt deterioration.

The outer end of Wharf 2 has the greatest exposure to large waves which could cause damage to the foundational structure. With 1 ft of SLR, the lower deck structures at Wharves 1 and 2 are vulnerable to flooding particularly during high tide events. These high-water events will also increase the probability of Wharf 1 and 2 foundational structures being exposed to wave energy and potential damage.

Aging sewer main lines run below the decks of both wharves. During extreme water level events and moderate wave energy, these lines may be susceptible to damage.

Sensitivities
The wharves are critical for tourism-serving concessions including several that are located or rely upon the lower level decks. The fishing industry also relies on access to their facilities on Wharf 2. Temporary closures to conduct repairs could have significant impacts on tourism, the fishing industry, and other coastal-dependent businesses.

Once SLR exceeds 2 ft, there is a probability that waves will overtop the US Coast Guard Breakwater and increase wave energy in the harbor and associated marinas. This will dramatically increase the exposure of the two wharves to wave energy and is likely to result in significant damage and disruptions to businesses that are dependent on these structures. Greater wave action and elevated sea levels are also likely to reach the sewer main lines on the underside of the wharves. Damage to these lines could result in sewage spills into the nearshore waters, resulting in beach closures due to the environmental and public health hazard.

Adaptive Capacity
Wharf repairs undertaken now or within the next 5 years could increase resilience to large waves. Upgrades or elevating sewer lines could also reduce exposure to large waves and high sea levels.

5.5 Cannery Row Structures
Several parcels are recognized to have foundational structures that are already deteriorating. These will be more vulnerable to damages in the near-term under 1 ft of SLR. At San Carlos Beach, the M1W Reeside Pump Station and rock revetment and access stairs could see erosion and scouring as waves already reach the foundations of these structures. Increased frequency of wave impacts make these more susceptible to damage in the near term.

Sensitivities
Temporary or long-term closures required for Cannery Row foundation repairs will disrupt business and tourism.

Safety and decreased accessibility at San Carlos Beach would reduce use of beach by visitors, including dive tourism.

Adaptive Capacity
Repairs and upgrades have the potential to increase resilience of foundational structures to large waves and higher sea level.

5.6 Equity-related Sensitivities
Disadvantaged communities that could experience disproportionate impacts from SLR were identified using three screening tools: CalEnviroScreen 4.0, the California Department of Water Resources Disadvantaged Communities Mapping Tool, and the Coastal California Environmental Justice Mapping Tool. Across all three tools, the southern half of the City of Seaside and more than half of the City of Marina are identified as disadvantaged communities.

Although these areas are outside the City of Monterey, this assessment assumes that residents from these ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 99, Packet Page 217 communities visit, recreate, and may work in Monterey’s coastal zone; therefore, the transportation and recreational sensitivities described above could have greater socio-economic consequences for these populations.

Public access points and coastal parking lots are concentrated in the western Del Monte and Harbor areas, making these locations especially important for low-income residents and visitors. The Municipal Beach ADA access is one of the more vulnerable access points to coastal flooding. Preserving public access and inclusivity will therefore depend, in part, on maintaining beach access. Additionally, the MBCRT—particularly near Wharf 2— supports both affordable recreation and daily commuting. Several segments (including those near Wharf 2, Monterey Bay Park, and the non-engineered sections near the Harbor) have already seen flooding during King Tides and should be priorities for coastal adaptation.

The three beaches in Cannery Row area—San Carlos Beach Park, Monterey Plaza Hotel Beach, and McAbee Beach—also serve as important public access points. San Carlos Beach and McAbee Beach have ADA access, however, both beaches are vulnerable to frequent inundation with approximately 2.5 ft of SLR.

Laguna Grande Lake Park and its associated trail system provide important recreational amenities for communities across the Monterey Peninsula. The park is managed through the Laguna Grande Regional Park Joint Powers Agency (JPA), established in 1976 by the City of Monterey, the City of Seaside, and the Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District (MPRPD), to coordinate park planning, development, operation, and maintenance consistent with the adopted General Concept Plan and Areas of Responsibility Map. Under this framework, member agencies plan, develop, and maintain facilities within their respective jurisdictions while coordinating through the JPA on park-wide issues. Management of Laguna Grande Lake and associated water features is likewise carried out within the JPA framework, recognizing that hydrologic conditions and water-related management considerations can affect areas in both Monterey and Seaside. Continued coordination among the member agencies is therefore essential to support long-term planning, maintenance, and adaptive management of the park and lake system.

An additional equity consideration is the potential public safety hazard that could result if wastewater and sewer infrastructure leaks or spills on the City’s beaches or into nearshore waters. This infrastructure is vulnerable to waves and beach erosion, particularly with approximately 2.5 ft of SLR. In the case of contamination, affected areas would be closed for public health and environmental protection. Such closures would disproportionately affect residents and visitors from nearby communities who rely on low-cost and free public beach spaces for recreation and open space.

5.7 Environmental Sensitive Habitats
Using the California Aquatic Resources Inventory (CARI), environmentally sensitive habitats were identified in the study area. These include coastal beaches and dunes in Zone 1 and 2 shown in Figure 32. Del Monte Lake and El Estero Lake were classified as ponds with no sensitive wetland species, and Roberts Lake was classified as a lake with no sensitive wetland species. The Cannery Row shoreline (Zone 4) includes sensitive rocky intertidal habitat and three coastal beaches. Within the Harbor area (Zone 3), there is a small pocket beach at low tide commonly used by seals. Eelgrass habitat has not been documented in any of the hazard zones.

Coastal flooding due to SLR will impact environmentally sensitive habitats through beach loss and dune erosion and inundation of rocky intertidal habitat. As shown in Figure 32 with the future projected mean high tide line, high tides are expected to inundate Municipal Beach, Navy Beach (the beach in front of the NSA-Monterey property), and Monterey State Beach with 3.3 ft of SLR. Where seawalls exist (Ocean Harbor House Condominiums and the Monterey Beach Hotel), the beach will be permanently lost and fragmented. Apart from the seawall areas, Monterey State Beach and Navy Beach are backed almost entirely by coastal dunes, which will provide accommodation space for the beach to migrate landward as sea levels rise. As a result, these beaches are not expected to be completely lost, but overall coastal dune extent in this area is likely to decrease over time. In contrast, Municipal Beach is not backed by dunes, so the majority of the beach is expected to be inundated during high tides. Should Monterey Bay Park, the MBCRT, and coastal amenities (e.g., boat storage) be retreated or relocated inland, there would be additional space for the beach to adapt to SLR by migrating inland.

In the Harbor area, the small beach frequented by seals will be lost with 1 ft of SLR. Along the Cannery Row shoreline, extensive rocky intertidal habitat is present. Because coastal development constrains landward ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 100, Packet Page 218 migration in this area, species that occupy the upper intertidal and “splash” zones are expected to experience increasing inundation as sea levels rise, which could reduce habitat suitability and persistence. Other climate stressors—such as ocean acidification, higher ocean temperatures, and changes in upwelling—are also expected to further stress intertidal species and habitats (NMS-NOAA, 2020).

Figure 32 California Aquatic Resources Inventory (CARI) identified coastal habitats in Zone 1 and 2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 101, Packet Page 219

6. References
Baxter, et al. (2026). Significant coastal dune loss in California revealed using historical maps and machine learning. Earth’s Future. (Accepted publication).

Befus, K.M., P.L. Barnard, D.J. Hoover, J.A. Finzi Hart, and C.I. Voss. 2020. Increasing threat of coastal groundwater hazards from sea-level rise in California. Nature Climate Change 10, 946-952.

COWI (2024). Wharf II Condition Survey Report.

ESA PWA. (2012). Evaluation of Erosion Mitigation Alternatives for Southern Monterey Bay.

Foth. (2024). Wharf I Inspection and Assessment Report of Findings.

GEI and Kimley Horn (GEI/KM). (2021). Adapting a Threatened Transportation Network to Sea Level Rise: City of Monterey.

LSA Associates, Inc. (2021). Monterey One Water Climate Action and Adaptation Plan.

Moffat & Nichol and Michael Baker International (M&N/MBI). (2019). AB-691 State Public Trust Lands Sea Level Rise Assessment City of Monterey, California.

Ocean Protection Council (OPC). (2024) State of California Sea Level Rise Guidance: 2024 Science and Policy Updates.

Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NMS-NOAA). 2020.

Climate Change Impacts: Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary.

PG&E. (2024). PG&E Climate Adaptation and Vulnerability Assessment.

Philip Williams and Associates Ltd. (PWA). (2008). Coastal Regional Sediment Management Plan for Southern Monterey Bay.

Revell Coastal, LLC. (2016). 2016 City of Monterey Final Sea Level Rise and Vulnerability Analyses, Existing Conditions and Issues Report.

Schaaf & Wheeler. (2024). Lake El Estero Diversion Project Urban Runoff Yield Study.

Sweet, W.V. et al. (2022). Global and Regional Sea Level Rise Scenarios for the United States: Updated Mean Projections and Extreme Water Level Probabilities Along U.S. Coastlines. NOAA Technical Report NOS

01. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, Silver Spring, MD.

Vos, Kilian, Kristen D. Splinter, Mitchell D. Harley, Joshua A. Simmons, and Ian L. Turner. 2019. “CoastSat: A Google Earth Engine-enabled Python Toolkit to Extract Shorelines from Publicly Available Satellite Imagery.” Environmental Modelling & Software 122: 104.528. ISSN 1364-8152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j/envsoft/2019/104528
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 102, Packet Page 220 The Power of Commitment
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 103, Packet Page 221 Council
Agenda Report
№11/25
FROM: Clementine Bonner Klein, City Clerk
SUBJECT: Receive Subcommittee Recommendations; Appoint Applicant to Position on Parks and Recreation Commission – Continued from July 7, 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 and consider the
recommendations from the Council Subcommittee for
Board, Commission, and Committee Nominations, and
make an appointment to fill a vacancy on the Parks and
Recreation Commission.

VALUE DRIVERS:

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

This action to appoint members to City bodies is compliant with the Council’s Governance Policy, which provides that the Council receives appointment nominations from the
standing Subcommittee, and makes the final appointments by majority vote of the full Council in accordance with the City Charter.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE
ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: There are no fiscal impacts
related to filling these positions.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

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

Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, Agenda Report Highlights
• The City Council will consider
recommendations from the
Subcommittee and will appoint an
applicant to the Parks and
Recreation Commission.
• The vacancy was advertised
according to law and policy, and
interviews were conducted publicly
on June 18, 2026.
• On July 7, 2026, the City Council
made numerous recommended
appointments but continued the
split-vote discussion regarding the
Parks and Recreation Commission
to the July 21 meeting for full
Council consideration.
• Residents are encouraged to apply
for positions that remain unfilled
following Council’s appointment.

Date: 7/21/2026
Item No.: 13.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 1, Packet Page 222 №11/25
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 make an alternate appointment from those recommended by the Subcommittee or could decline to make an appointment.

DISCUSSION:

Due to various unscheduled vacancies and term end dates of June 30, 2026, positions on the City of Monterey’s boards, commissions, and committees were posted as required by the California Maddy Act and are available to be filled. Applications for these positions from qualified, willing applicants were received.

On June 18, 2026, the Subcommittee consisting of the Mayor and Vice Mayor conducted public interviews of all qualified applicants, deliberated, and formulated its recommendations. In the case of the Parks and Recreation Commission position, the Subcommittee did not reach consensus and instead provided two recommendations for the one position. Then, on July 7, 2026, the City Council considered the Subcommittee’s recommendations and made numerous appointments, and following a split vote regarding the Parks and Recreation Commission appointment, the Council continued the discussion to the July 21, 2026 meeting for consideration when the full Council is present.

Attachment 1 to this report outlines details about the Parks and Recreation Commission role and applicants including Council district representation as required by the Governance Policy, names of qualified applicants with individual time-stamped links to video recordings of each public interview, and the Subcommittee’s recommendations for appointment. It also includes a link to the Subcommittee’s discussion of the two applicants for the Parks and Recreation Commission.

Attachment 2 to this report contains all application materials provided by the qualified applicants for this position, in alphabetical order by last name.

Note: Appointment is not limited to the body(s) that an applicant checked on their application, but the Subcommittee’s recommendations do coincide with the applicants’ expressed appointment interests. Members may serve on only one body at a time, per City Code, except that those who serve on Measure P & S Oversight Committee and the Appeals boards may also serve on another City body.

Following the Council’s appointments, the City Clerk’s Office will contact all applicants, and will post and publicize any remaining unfilled positions. Monterey residents are encouraged to apply.

The Subcommittee gratefully acknowledges all applicants for their enthusiasm, contributions to the process, and willingness to volunteer on behalf of the community, and thanks the community for its participation at the Subcommittee’s public meetings.

Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council receive and consider the Subcommittee’s recommendations, and appoint an applicant to fill the Parks and Recreation Commission position with a term ending June 30, 2030.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 2, Packet Page 223 №11/25
CBK
Attachments: 1. Details of vacancy, districts, and qualified applicants

2. Application materials for all applicants, in alphabetical order by last name e: Applicants
Boards and Commissions Interest List
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 3, Packet Page 224 ATTACHMENT 1
1 VACANCY AND APPLICANTS
Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC):
• City Code: https://monterey.municipal.codes/Code/2_Art6 • Vacancy: One (1) member seat (vacant since March 2026) • Meets: Second Wednesday of each month at 5:30 p.m.
• Current District representation of PRC members:

District 1: 1 member
District 2: 1 member
District 3: 1 member
District 4: 3 members
• Applicants who expressed interest in being appointed to the PRC:

Name Council District Interview (Timestamped Link)
Adler, Emily 2 Interview
Kingman, Andrea S. 3 Interview
• Subcommittee Recommendation: Appoint Emily Adler or Andrea Kingman Timestamped link of Subcommittee discussion about the two applicants: Discussion Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 4, Packet Page 225 Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 5, Packet Page 226 Name:
2 NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (NCIP) COMMITTEE (meets seasonally) and directs tourist-generated NCIP dollars directly back into the City's residential neighborhoods by considering all submitted projects and recommending projects to Council. Eligibility: each representative and alternate must reside within the boundaries of the specific neighborhood, refer to neighborhood map at monterey.gov/ncip  Aguajito Oaks  Alta Mesa  Casanova-Oak Knoll  Deer Flats  Del Monte Beach  Del Monte Grove–Laguna Grande  Downtown  Fisherman Flats  Glenwood  Monterey Vista  New Monterey  Oak Grove  Old Town  Skyline  Villa Del Monte PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION (PRC) meets the 2nd Wed. of ea. month at 5:30 p.m. and advises the City Council on matters pertaining to the maintenance and development of the City's parks and recreation programs, and the Parks and Recreation Master Plan.

PLANNING COMMISSION (PC) meets 2nd and 4th Tues. of ea. month at 4 p.m. and 7 p.m., plus field trips, and implements the General Plan and specific and area plans; reviews the Capital Improvement and Neighborhood and Community Improvement Programs; develops community development programs; administers zoning and subdivision ordinances and recommends revisions to City Council; hears appeals on development, zoning, and architectural review issues; reviews projects to ensure orderly development, harmonious design, and the visual character of the City; reviews and oversees architectural review submittal requirements; and reviews and acts on applications for development approval, including use of land and buildings, height and bulk of buildings, open space regulations, parking requirements, etc.

Please answer the following questions.

Optional: you may attach a cover letter, resume, and/or additional pages to more fully describe your interest and qualifications or provide a longer answer to any of the below questions.

Why do you want to be appointed to serve on the body(s) that you selected above, and what motivates you to become involved at this time?
If appointed, what unique perspective would you bring to the body(s) that you selected above? * Applicants for BHAB, DAAB, HPC and/or MCAC:

Explain how you meet the specific eligibility requirements of the board/commission as described on page 1.

Building and Housing Appeals Board qualifications: Disabled Access Appeals Board qualifications:

Historic Preservation Commission qualifications: Museums and Cultural Arts Commission qualifications:

City Clerk’s Office Only: Residence is in specified neighborhood’s boundaries:  Yes  No Docusign Envelope ID: F21DBA31-A11A-470A-95A1-D119BC394E32 N/A
I come from a family that has lived in Monterey County for five generations, and the land and community have played a significant role in shaping who I am. Having grown up here and now living in Monterey, I feel a strong responsibility to give back. With the pace of new development, I am motivated to help shape projects that reflect the community’s needs and character while maintaining and protecting the spaces that make Monterey unique. Access to parks and public outdoor spaces is especially important to me, as they are essential to community health and connection, and are a consistent part of my daily life.

N/A
My background in landscape architecture and my work as Planning Studio Manager at National Fitness Campaign over the past four years have given me a strong foundation in understanding how thoughtful design can positively impact daily life. Our work focuses on bringing free outdoor fitness infrastructure to cities and schools, and my role involves analyzing master plans and identifying optimal locations for equipment that provide equitable access. Through this experience, I have developed a strong understanding of local governments, park systems, and how access to well-designed spaces can meaningfully improve community members’ daily lives. I would value the opportunity to apply this perspective to decisions that expand and improve access to parks and recreation spaces.

N/A
X
Emily Adler
N/A
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 6, Packet Page 227 Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 7, Packet Page 228 Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 8, Packet Page 229 Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 9, Packet Page 230 Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 10, Packet Page 231 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 11, Packet Page 232 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 12, Packet Page 233 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 13, Packet Page 234 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 14, Packet Page 235 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 15, Packet Page 236 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 16, Packet Page 237 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 17, Packet Page 238 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 18, Packet Page 239 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 19, Packet Page 240 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 20, Packet Page 241 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 21, Packet Page 242 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 22, Packet Page 243 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 23, Packet Page 244 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 24, Packet Page 245 Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 25, Packet Page 246 Name:
2 NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (NCIP) COMMITTEE (meets seasonally) and directs tourist-generated NCIP dollars directly back into the City's residential neighborhoods by considering all submitted projects and recommending projects to Council. Eligibility: each representative and alternate must reside within the boundaries of the specific neighborhood, refer to neighborhood map at monterey.gov/ncip  Aguajito Oaks  Alta Mesa  Casanova-Oak Knoll  Deer Flats  Del Monte Beach  Del Monte Grove–Laguna Grande  Downtown  Fisherman Flats  Glenwood  Monterey Vista  New Monterey  Oak Grove  Old Town  Skyline  Villa Del Monte PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION (PRC) meets the 2nd Wed. of ea. month at 5:30 p.m. and advises the City Council on matters pertaining to the maintenance and development of the City's parks and recreation programs, and the Parks and Recreation Master Plan.

Please answer the following questions.

Optional: you may attach a cover letter, resume, and/or additional pages to more fully describe your interest and qualifications or provide a longer answer to any of the below questions.

Explain how you meet the specific eligibility requirements of the board/commission as described on page 1.

Building and Housing Appeals Board qualifications: Disabled Access Appeals Board qualifications:

Historic Preservation Commission qualifications: Museums and Cultural Arts Commission qualifications:

City Clerk’s Office Only: Residence is in specified neighborhood’s boundaries:  Yes  No Docusign Envelope ID: 54523829-7600-4648-8D05-E00D49CB1176 N/A
During my career, I focused on K-12 Social Studies classroom resources and had the honor of learning from our partnership with National Geographic. I would bring the knowledge that curiosity and discovery of our outdoors enrich not just our youth but community members of all ages. I am also concluding my third (volunteer) year on the Monterey County Civil Grand jury, this year as Foreperson, and have experienced the satisfaction of working in collaboration with a team with different perspectives. In addition, I have just completed an excellent credential in Public Leadership (from Harvard Kennedy School of Government) and would love to put my understanding of policy, data-driven decision making, and public leadership into action. It would be an honor to volunteer with the City of Monterey's Parks and Recreation Commission and with the City Council.

X
N/A
The development of green spaces and the upkeep of community gathering locales, such as parks for our citizens of all ages, build a sense of community. I have always lived close to parks (currently Veteran's Park) and believe our parks and community centers provide the opportunity (without cost) to gather, enjoy the beauty of our area, exercise, sponsor or take part in events, improve our health, and simply enjoy our beautiful city. The Monterey Sports Center is a treasure my family and I enjoy; I would be proud to be part of a commission to help maintain our community areas and brainstorm new possibilities while taking into consideration the City's budget and priorities.

N/A
Andrea Kingman
N/A
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 26, Packet Page 247 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 27, Packet Page 248 Andrea S. Kingman Monterey, CA
Academic Background
Public Leadership Credential, Harvard Kennedy School, 2026 Master of Arts, Instructional Science and Technology, Cal State University, Monterey Bay, Monterey, CA
Secondary Teaching Credential, English/French, Cal Poly State University, San Luis Obispo, CA
Bachelor of Arts, English, University of California, Berkeley, CA Professional Experience
Board of Directors, Monterey County Chapter, Civil Grand Jurors Association of CA; Aug. 2024 to Present
Responsible for juror recruitment including designing and delivering presentations to various constituencies.

Monterey County Civil Grand Jury 2023-2024, 2024-2025, and 2025-2026 Foreperson (2025-226); Juror (2023-2024; 2025-2026)
Investigate and report on local government effectiveness National Geographic Learning/Cengage; Carmel, CA: January 2007- December 2022 Executive Product Marketing Manager, K12 Social Studies, Humanities, Partnerships, and Professional Development
Responsible for positioning, strategic planning, sales support, proposal writing, internal training, pricing, product launch, development of marketing collateral, print to online platform strategies, roadmap planning, revenue goals, sales presentations, revenue attainment. Managed sales channels’ partnerships.

CTB/McGraw-Hill; Monterey, CA: August 2002 to January 2007 Product Manager, Adult Education/Business and Industry (Test of Adult Basic Education) Product Manager for TABE®. Analyze adult education market and market share; write market requirements; launch new ELL product in fall 2006. Launch TABE® Online. Develop Business and Industry segment. Manage Adult Education Advisory Committee.

Product Manager, Online Products:

Product Manager for K–12 formative online assessments including online assessments in English/Language Arts, Reading, Mathematics, Science and Social Studies. Conduct market research, competitive analysis, market planning, product design, development of marketing materials and strategy, launch of CTB’s new online products. Launch 30 state-specific products.

Docusign Envelope ID: 54523829-7600-4648-8D05-E00D49CB1176 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 28, Packet Page 249 NCS Pearson; Mesa, AZ: 1997 to 2002
Senior Program Manager, Strategic Alliances-Certified Business Associate Program:

Design and manage Certified Business Associate program. Provide sales and marketing support, training, and Help Line support to NCS customers. Included commission management, strategic planning, development of business opportunities, and planning of future alternate channel opportunities for NCS.

McGraw-Hill School Systems; Monterey, CA: 1993 to 1997
Director of Marketing: Managed marketing communications, telemarketing, public relations, inside sales, customer service and technical support renewal. Managed sales and marketing budget. Launched three products. Coordinated alliance programs with Microsoft, Dell, and six third party companies. Started a telemarketing channel in 1996. Reached telemarketing goal for first two years.

CTB/McGraw-Hill; Monterey, CA: 1988 to 1993
Professional Assessment Project Director
Managed five professional state licensure examination contracts (including the National Council of State Boards of Nursing RN-PN examination). Responsible for all client/board contact, management of internal development teams, professional item-writers, and development of contract deliverables on budget and on schedule. Proposal writing and strategic planning.

Teaching/Volunteer Experience
n Global Volunteers: High School Teaching, Greece, Italy, Poland, Peru n Nancy’s Project, Monterey Peninsula, Volunteer
n Brooks School
North Andover, MA
English Teacher, Grades 9–12: Long-term substitute teacher for small New England private school. Taught Nature Writing, Grammar, and Literature. n North Monterey County High School
Castroville, CA
English Teacher/French Teacher, Grades 9-11
Awards and Recognitions
Project of the Year Team Award, National Geographic Learning, 2022 Sales Hero, National Geographic Learning, 2022
Marketer of the Year, National Geographic Learning, 2013 Docusign Envelope ID: 54523829-7600-4648-8D05-E00D49CB1176 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 29, Packet Page 250 Council
Agenda Report
№12/25
FROM: Christine Davi, City Attorney
Prepared By: Karin Krattli, Assistant City Attorney
SUBJECT: Conference with Legal Counsel: Anticipated Litigation, Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(2), (e)(3): Café Fina and Domenico’s Re: Trash Porter Services (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Attachments: Letters dated February 3, 2026
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
Date: 7/21/2026
Item No.: 16.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 16., Item Page 1, Packet Page 251 NOLAND

HAMERLY

ETIENNE
HOSS
Attorneys at Law
Stephen W. Pearson
Anne K. Secker
Randy Meyenberg
Christine G. Kemp
Timothy J. Baldwin
* Charles Des Roches
* Robert D. Simpson
Ana C. Toledo
* Leslie E. Finnegan
Lindsey Berg-James
Heidi A. Quinn
Daniel J. Little
Sharilyn R. Payne
Anne Frassetto Olsen
* Yvonne A. Ascher
William H. Falor If]
Geraldine A, Villa
Charles Mullaney
Chiara Veronesi
Sierra A. Rhodes
Jake J. Fathy
Michael Masuda
(Of Counsel)
Harry L. Noland
(1904-1991)
Paul M. Hamerly
(1920-2000)
Myron E. Etienne, Jr.
(1924-2016)
Peter T. Hoss
(1934-2018)
* CERTIFIED SPECIALIST IN

PROBATE, ESTATE PLANNING,

AND TRUST LAW BY

THE CALIFORNIA BOARD OF

LEGAL SPECIALIZATION

STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
WWW.NHEH.COM
E-MAIL [email protected]
831-424-1414 ExT. 248

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
February 3, 2026

VIA U.S. MAIL and EMAIL
City of Monterey — Leasing & Property Management
ATTN: Janna Aldrete
aldrete@monterey ory
580 Pacific Street
Monterey, CA 93940
Re: Porter Service — Domenico’s Restaurant
Dear Ms. Aldrete:

Thank you for your letter dated January 22, 2026 regarding the Trash Porter Service. While your letter provides some ancillary history regarding the trash compactor relocation, it does not address the fundamental issue raised by my letter dated October 7, 2025, which is that Ground Lease dated September 21, 1998 (“Ground Lease”) obligates the City to make waste disposal services available for Domenico’s use adjacent to the site and that the Lease does not allow the City to condition the use of those services on the payment of a fee.

Your letter does not acknowledge that my client’s payment of porter fees for the months identified in your letter was under protest. As such, the payment of any porter fees by my client did not constitute a waiver of the City’s performance under the Ground Lease. This City has been made aware of objections to the payment of the porter fees for several years. In addition to my client’s previous objections, | understand that similar objections were made on behalf of the tenants on Fisherman’s Wharf by the Wharf Association at least as far back as September of 2023.

Your letter threatens to bar my client’s use of the trash compactor beginning February 6, 2026 unless my client agrees to pay the porter service fees. This is a breach of the Ground Lease and will cause my client substantial losses. The City will be responsible for this additional damages including loss of income, together with attorneys’ fees. Demand is made that you immediately withdraw this ultimatum in writing. If the parties cannot resolve this dispute, my client reserves the right to seek a judicial determination that the Ground Lease does not allow the City to condition the use of the waste disposal services on the payment of a porter fee.

My client renews its offer to settle this matter as described in my letter dated October 7, 2025. If the City is willing to settle this dispute short of litigation, or if you would like to discuss further, please get back to me at your earliest convenience. My client reserves all rights and remedies under the Ground Lease and reserves the right to pay any charges under protest.

PHONE 831-424-1414 FROM MONTEREY 831-372-7525 FAX 831-424-1975 333 SALINAS STREET POST OFFICE BOX 2510 SALINAS, CA 93902-2510 OUR FILE NO. 14625.022
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 7/21/2026, Item No. 16., Item Page 2, Packet Page 252

Page 2 ends

Monterey City CouncilJuly 21, 2026

Monterey City Council
July 21, 2026