Agenda packet — Monterey City Council, August 4, 2026

Council Chamber,
580 Pacific St. Monterey,
California, and
Teleconference Location:
775 Snowberry Ln.,
Coupeville, WA 98239

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Council Regular Meeting
and Closed Session
Tuesday, August 4, 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 August 4, 2026 4:00 PM
2 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.

Teleconference Notice
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54953(b)(3), this City Council meeting will include teleconference participation by Councilmember Smith from the remote location listed above, which shall be accessible to the public pursuant to California Government Code Section 54954.3.

Call to Order
AFTERNOON SESSION: 4:00 p.m.

Presentations (Afternoon)

1. Recognition of Defense Language Institute Quarterly Joint Service Awards Third Quarter FY26 (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. July 21, 2026 Regular Meeting (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Consent: Resolutions
A resolution is an expression of opinion or evidence of a decision made by the City Council and often relates to administrative business of the City. Resolutions generally become effective immediately upon adoption.

3. Award Five Professional Services Agreements in the Amount of $1,000,000 Each for On-Call Architectural Professional Services Within the City of Monterey and Intergovernmental Services Agreement (IGSA) Projects to: (1) Wald, Ruhnke & Dost Architects, LLP; (2) TEF Architecture and Interior Design, Inc.; (3) Architectural Resources Group, Inc.; (4) HGHB; and (5) DES Architects + Engineers, Inc. (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Consent: Other

4. Appoint Agency Negotiators for Conference with Real Property Negotiators Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8; Property: A portion of land north of 731 Dry Creek Road (Assessor's Parcel No. 014-031-003-000); Agency Negotiators: Kim Cole, Janna Aldrete, Andrea Renny and Andrew Easterling; Negotiating Parties: Shad Thielman (Cal-Am Client Services Manager); Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment for granting an easement (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
August 4, 2026 4:00 PM
3 5. Appoint Councilmember Barber as the Voting Delegate for the 2026 League of California Cities Annual Conference -- September 23-25, 2026 in Anaheim (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
End of Consent Agenda
Afternoon Session Items
Public Hearing (Afternoon)
Public Hearings are held to receive a staff presentation and public comment on certain items prior to City Council action. NOTICE CONCERNING YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS: If you challenge the City Council’s zoning, planning, or land use decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing on the matter, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at the time of or prior to the public hearing. (Government Code section 65009.)

6. Adopt the Planning Commission Recommendation to Adopt 1st Reading of Ordinance to Amend Chapter 38 of the Monterey City Code to Establish Minimum Density Requirements in the Multifamily Residential Overlay District (CEQA: Certified Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2023080034), Article 11, Section 15168(c)) Public Appearance (Afternoon)
Public Appearance items are on non-routine issues that might stimulate public interest and comments.

7. Receive Feedback and Provide Direction to Staff to Halt or Continue the Madison/Herrmann/Larkin Intersection Safety Improvement Project ***CIP*** (Exempt from CEQA Article 19, Section 15303, Class 3)
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.

8. Conference with Agency Labor Negotiators Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 for Labor Negotiations; Agency Negotiators: Brette Neal, Gina Russo; Employee Organization: Monterey Police Association (MPA) (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 4, Section 15061)

9. Closed Session Conference with Real Property Negotiators Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 Property: A Portion of Land North of 731 Dry Creek Road (Assessor’s Parcel No. 014-031-003-000)
Agency Negotiators: Kim Cole, Janna Aldrete, Andrea Renny, and Andrew Easterling Negotiating Parties: Shad Thielman (California-American Water Company) Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment for Granting an Easement (Not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 CEQA Guidelines Article 20, Section 15378)
Recess
Reconvene
August 4, 2026 4:00 PM
4 EVENING SESSION AGENDA: Approximately 7:00 p.m.

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

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

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

10. Receive Update on Draft Economic Development Strategy (EDS) Stakeholder Engagement Plan (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Council Comments
Councilmembers may ask a question for clarification, make a brief announcement, or make a brief report on their activities. In addition, Councilmember or the City Council may provide a referral to staff or other resources for factual information. (Government Code section 54954.2(a)(3).)
City Manager Reports
The City Manager may make a brief report on their activities or a brief announcement. They may also ask for clarification or direction regarding scheduling of Council meetings and study sessions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

CITY OF MONTEREY 24-HOUR SUGGESTION HOTLINES: (831) 646-3799 or [email protected] Upcoming city meetings are listed at monterey.gov/agendas For more information, call (831) 646-3935 Council
Agenda Report
№12/25
FROM: Dante Hall, City Manager
Prepared By: Hayley Goodwein, Administrative Assistant
SUBJECT: Recognition of Defense Language Institute Quarterly Joint Service Awards Third Quarter FY26 (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

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

VALUE DRIVERS:

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

It is within the City Council’s scope and authority to
acknowledge and recognize members of the Monterey
community, including members of our Nation’s military
who are stationed at the U.S. Army Garrison Presidio of Monterey, located within Monterey’s city limits.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE
ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

No fiscal implications.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to Agenda Report Highlights
• The City Council would recognize
the winners of the Defense
Language Institute Third Quarter
FY26 Joint Enlisted Board Awards
at a meeting on August 4, 2026.
• The awards evaluate and honor
service members for going above
and beyond in their motivation and
knowledge of various joint service
subjects.
• The specific honorees would be
Staff Sergeant Tayler E. Aarness,
Private 1st Class Grant Kazi, and
Airman 1st Class Lisandro
Shanchez-Rosas.

Date: 8/4/2026
Item No.: 1.

Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 1., Item Page 1, Packet Page 5 №12/25
CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council could choose not to recognize the winners of the Third Quarter FY26 Joint Enlisted Board (JEB) Awards; however, this is not recommended.

DISCUSSION:

The Defense Language Institute, Foreign Language Center (DLIFLC), located in the U.S. Army Garrison Presidio of Monterey, trains military service members in all military branches. DLIFLC conducts a protocol known as the Joint Enlisted Board (JEB) each quarter to assess the motivation, knowledge, and ability to go above and beyond that of the average Soldier, Marine, Sailor, and Airman.

Noncommissioned officers, petty officers, and junior enlisted from each branch compete by displaying their knowledge in a variety of joint service subjects, including History of the Presidio of Monterey and DLIFLC, Current Affairs and World Events, Customs and Courtesies, Uniform Code of Military Justice, Military Leadership, and more. The service member's many weeks of studying and competing in unit boards culminate with an appearance before the DLIFLC Joint Enlisted Board.

As part of the City of Monterey’s longstanding relationship with the DLIFLC and Presidio of Monterey, the City Council frequently recognizes and honors these dedicated award recipients.

The Mayor and City Council will recognize the winners of the Third Quarter FY26 DLIFLC Quarterly Joint Service Awards at its meeting on August 4, 2026. • Staff Sergeant Tayler E. Aarness, from the U.S. Army
• Private 1st Class Grant Kazi, from the U.S. Army
• Airman 1st Class Lisandro Shanchez-Rosas, from the U.S. Air Force [DH/HG]
Attachments: 1. Proclamations
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 1., Item Page 2, Packet Page 6 Proclamation Honoring
The Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center's Quarterly Joint Service Award Recipient
Staff Sergeant Tayler Aarness
WHEREAS, the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center (DLIFLC) has established the Quarterly Joint Service Noncommissioned Officer/Petty Officer and Junior Enlisted Board; and,
WHEREAS, as a recipient of the Board award, Staff Sergeant Tayler Aarness, has demonstrated extraordinary personal abilities, leadership skills, and knowledge of the history of the Presidio of Monterey and DLIFLC, Chain of Command, World Events, Customs and Courtesies, First Aid, Code of Conduct, Uniform Code of Military Justice, Military Leadership, and the Armed Forces Insignia; and, WHEREAS, the Monterey Community is proud of the Country's service members as well as its outstanding relationship with DLIFLC.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED that I, Tyller Williamson, Mayor of the City of Monterey, on behalf of our City Council and citizens, hereby recognize Staff Sergeant Tayler Aarness, United States Army, for a job well done, and thank them for their continuing contributions to the Armed Services and to our Nation.

August 4, 2026 ______________________
Tyller Williamson, Mayor

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 1., Item Page 3, Packet Page 7 Proclamation Honoring
The Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center's Quarterly Joint Service Award Recipient
Private 1st Class Grant Kazi
WHEREAS, the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center (DLIFLC) has established the Quarterly Joint Service Noncommissioned Officer/Petty Officer and Junior Enlisted Board; and,
WHEREAS, as a recipient of the Board award, Private 1st Class Grant Kazi, has demonstrated extraordinary personal abilities, leadership skills, and knowledge of the history of the Presidio of Monterey and DLIFLC, Chain of Command, World Events, Customs and Courtesies, First Aid, Code of Conduct, Uniform Code of Military Justice, Military Leadership, and the Armed Forces Insignia; and, WHEREAS, the Monterey Community is proud of the Country's service members as well as its outstanding relationship with DLIFLC.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED that I, Tyller Williamson, Mayor of the City of Monterey, on behalf of our City Council and citizens, hereby recognize Private 1st Class Grant Kazi, United States Army, for a job well done, and thank them for their continuing contributions to the Armed Services and to our Nation.

August 4, 2026 ______________________
Tyller Williamson, Mayor

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 1., Item Page 4, Packet Page 8 Proclamation Honoring
The Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center's Quarterly Joint Service Award Recipient
Airman 1st Class Lisandro Shanchez-Rosas
WHEREAS, the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center (DLIFLC) has established the Quarterly Joint Service Noncommissioned Officer/Petty Officer and Junior Enlisted Board; and,
WHEREAS, as a recipient of the Board award, Airman 1st Class Lisandro Shanchez-Rosas, has demonstrated extraordinary personal abilities, leadership skills, and knowledge of the history of the Presidio of Monterey and DLIFLC, Chain of Command, World Events, Customs and Courtesies, First Aid, Code of Conduct, Uniform Code of Military Justice, Military Leadership, and the Armed Forces Insignia; and,
WHEREAS, the Monterey Community is proud of the Country's service members as well as its outstanding relationship with DLIFLC.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED that I, Tyller Williamson, Mayor of the City of Monterey, on behalf of our City Council and citizens, hereby recognize Airman 1st Class Lisandro Shanchez-Rosas, United States Air Force, for a job well done, and thank them for their continuing contributions to the Armed Services and to our Nation.

August 4, 2026 ______________________
Tyller Williamson, Mayor

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 1., Item Page 5, Packet Page 9

MINUTES

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING

CITY OF MONTEREY
Tuesday, July 21, 2026
4:00 PM
COUNCIL CHAMBER, 580 PACIFIC ST.

MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
Councilmembers

Present: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson

Absent: None
City Staff

Present:

City Manager, City Attorney, Assistant City Manager, Community Development Director, Finance Director, Assistant Police Chief, City Clerk, Property Manager, Deputy Public Works Director/City Engineer, Lieutenant, Planning Manager, Management Analyst (City Manager's Office), Recreation Manager
Call to Order
Mayor Williamson called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. City Clerk Klein called the roll with the Council present as indicated above.

AFTERNOON SESSION
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) Action: Received presentation
Housing Resource Center (HRC) Board Member Jonathan Ahmadi gave the presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions.

Public comment was received from: Sabrina McPherson, who made statements including alleging misuse of her housing vouchers; Tom Reeves, who that the process of accessing housing was difficult to navigate; and Esther Malkin, who praised HRC's work and said that there was a lot of need for housing assistance in the community.

General Public Comments
Public comment on non-agendized matters was received from: Tom Rowley of Fisherman Flats Homeowners and Residents Association, and Marta Kraftzeck.

Consent Agenda
On a motion by Councilmember Barber, seconded by Councilmember Rasch, and carried by the following vote, the City Council approved the Consent Agenda except Item 5:

AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
Date: 8/4/2026
Item No.: 2.

Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 2., Item Page 1, Packet Page 10 City Council Minutes July 21, 2026
2 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)
Action: Approved

3. July 7, 2026 Regular Meeting (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Approved
Consent: Resolutions

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) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 26-097 C.S.

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)
Action: Pulled from Consent; Adopted Resolution No. 26-098 C.S.

City Engineer/Deputy Public Works Director Easterling gave a verbal staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions. Public comment was received from Tom Rowley, who expressed concern about a poorly maintained sign at the intersection in question; and Esther Malkin, who said that roundabouts work well to improve traffic.

On a motion by Councilmember Smith, seconded by Councilmember Rasch, and carried by the following vote, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 26-098 C.S.:

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

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) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 26-099 C.S.

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))
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 26-100 C.S.

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) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 26-101 C.S.

Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 2., Item Page 2, Packet Page 11 City Council Minutes July 21, 2026
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)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 26-102 C.S.

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)
Action: Appointed negotiators Cole and Aldrete

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)
Action: Appointed negotiators Cole and Aldrete
End of Consent Agenda
Afternoon Session Items
Public Appearance (Afternoon)

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) Action: Received presentation, provided comment
Community Development Director Cole introduced the matter, and Principal Planner Sabdo gave the staff presentation together with consultant Laura Engman of GHD. Together they answered Councilmembers' questions. Public comment was received from Tom Reeves, who suggested that the subject of sea level rise should be addressed first at the regional level; and Esther Malkin, who asked about corresponding water table impacts at Roberts Lake and Laguna Grande Park.

The Council discussed the matter. On question from the Council, Ms. Engman provided context on lake water levels expected to be impacted by sea level rise. The Council expressed appreciation for Community Development Department staff and interest in the science and models behind the predictions. The Council expressed the desire to be sure that climate change impacts like changing weather and intensification of storms were being included in the City's assessment of sea level rise. It was expressed that there needed to be public access including for vulnerable populations such as people with disabilities. The Council stressed the need to conduct outreach to those who would be impacted by sea level rise, including to ensure and enforce addressing safety issues. Interest was expressed in finding immediate low-cost opportunities for mitigation, and in taking advantage of funding sources such as SB1 and the Ocean Protection Council for infrastructure like Wharf 2.

Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 2., Item Page 3, Packet Page 12 City Council Minutes July 21, 2026
4 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) Action: Appointed Emily Adler to the Parks and Recreation Committee for a term ending June 30, 2030 (3-2, Councilmembers Rasch and Smith voting no) Public comment was received from Marta Kraftzeck, who spoke in support of appointing Andrea Kingman, and Esther Malkin, who spoke in support of appointing Emily Adler.

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 ending June 30, 2030.

A substitute motion was introduced by Mayor Williamson, and seconded by Councilmember Garcia, to appoint Emily Adler to the Parks and Recreation Commission for a term ending June 30, 2030.

The Council discussed the merits and demographics of the applicants. It was affirmed by the Council that there had not been discussion outside of public meetings about the appointment recommendations.

The substitute motion passed by the following vote:

AYES: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Williamson
NOES: 2 COUNCILMEMBERS: Rasch, Smith
Adjourn to Closed Session
Public comment on the closed session was solicited but not received. The Council adjourned to closed session at 5:59 p.m.

Closed Session (Afternoon)

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)
Action: Continued to the end of the evening session; In the evening, confidential direction was given to legal counsel on a unanimous roll-call vote

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)
Action: Continued to the end of the evening session; In the evening, confidential direction was given to legal counsel on a unanimous roll-call vote Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 2., Item Page 4, Packet Page 13 City Council Minutes July 21, 2026
5 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)
Action: Continued to the end of the evening session; In the evening, no reportable action was taken.

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)
Action: Cases 7 (Stronghold Engineering, Inc. v. City of Monterey) and 10 (Richard and Mildred Zilinskas v. City of Monterey) were heard, with no reportable action taken; The remainder of the cases were continued to the end of the evening session; In the evening, the remaining cases were not heard.

The Council recessed at 7:02 p.m. and reconvened at 7:06 p.m.

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

General Public Comments, Continued
Continued public comment on non-agendized matters was solicited but not received.

Announcements from Closed Session
Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira reported out from the closed session as indicated in the actions recorded for the afternoon portion of the meeting on closed session items 14, 15, 16, and 17, above.

Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 2., Item Page 5, Packet Page 14 City Council Minutes July 21, 2026
6 Evening Session Items
Public Appearance (Evening)

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) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 26-103 C.S. as amended to add to Exhibit A (the ordinance), in Section 1(G) after the word "performed," the phrase "such as replacing the Lake El Estero Stormwater Pump Station"
City Manager Hall and Finance Director King gave the staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions together with City Engineer/Deputy Public Works Director Easterling.

Public comment was received from: Rick Aldinger of the Measure P & S Oversight Committee, who recommended that the tax measure be continued at the full 1%; and Gabriel Kramer, who asked about the City's contingency plan if the measure were not to pass.

The Council discussed the matter. It was noted that during a heavy rain event, Lake El Estero could flood Del Monte Boulevard and that the
The Council recessed at 7:36 p.m. and reconvened at 7:39 p.m.

On a motion by Councilmember Barber, seconded by Councilmember Rasch, and carried by the following vote, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 26-103 C.S., as amended to add to Exhibit A (the ordinance), in Section 1(G) after the word "performed," the phrase "such as replacing the Lake El Estero Stormwater Pump Station":

AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
The Council stated that there was no backup plan, and that it was strongly hoped that the measure would pass for the sake of the City's fiscal stability.

Council Comments
Councilmember Garcia reported from a recent Community Human Services (CHS) board meeting, sharing a fundraising campaign and stating that CHS would be grateful for any donations in light of significant funding reductions.

Councilmember Rasch thanked City staff for their work putting on the recent community meeting about the proposed quick-build traffic circle at Larkin, Madison, and Herrmann. She reported from a recent Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST) Regional Taxi Authority board meeting, where she said there was discussion about delays in the transit systems that result from members of the public parking or stopping in the pickup zones. She said she had also attended a CHS luncheon with Councilmember Garcia and noted the importance of CHS' work.

Councilmember Smith noted that MST would be working to enforce the issue about stopping in pickup zones. He said he looked forward to the August board meeting for the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC).

Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 2., Item Page 6, Packet Page 15 City Council Minutes July 21, 2026
7 Councilmember Barber reported from a recent ReGen Monterey board meeting, noting that more enforcement was coming to enforce the requirements of SB 1383. She spoke about "second shelf life" food programs that help people who are experiencing food insecurity.

City Manager Reports
No City Manager reports were made.

The Council recessed to closed session at 7:46 p.m.

Adjournment
The Council adjourned at 8:25 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted, Approved,
Clementine Bonner Klein Tyller Williamson
City Clerk Mayor
Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 2., Item Page 7, Packet Page 16 Council
Agenda Report
№12/25
FROM: Andrea Renny, P.E., PTOE, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Reginald Paulding, P.E., Senior Engineer
SUBJECT: Award Five Professional Services Agreements in the Amount of $1,000,000 Each for On-Call Architectural Professional Services Within the City of Monterey and Intergovernmental Services Agreement (IGSA) Projects to: (1) Wald, Ruhnke & Dost Architects, LLP; (2) TEF Architecture and Interior Design, Inc.; (3) Architectural Resources Group, Inc.; (4) HGHB; and (5) DES Architects + Engineers, Inc. (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt the attached resolutions:

1. Awarding a Professional Service Agreement for
On-Call Architectural Professional Services
within the City of Monterey and IGSA Projects to
Wald, Ruhnke & Dost Architects, LLP, for a term
of one year, with the option to extend for four
additional one-year terms, with an annual fee not
to exceed $1,000,000;

2. Awarding a Professional Service Agreement for
On-Call Architectural Professional Services
within the City of Monterey and IGSA Projects to
TEF Architecture and Interior Design, Inc., for a
term of one year, with the option to extend for
four additional one-year terms, with an annual
fee not to exceed $1,000,000;

3. Awarding a Professional Service Agreement for
On-Call Architectural Professional Services
within the City of Monterey and IGSA Projects to
Architectural Resources Group, Inc., for a term of
one year, with the option to extend for four
additional one-year terms, with an annual fee not
to exceed $1,000,000;

4. Awarding a Professional Service Agreement for
On-Call Architectural Professional Service within
the City of Monterey and IGSA Projects to
HGHB, for a term of one year, with the option to
extend for four additional one-year terms, with an
annual fee not to exceed $1,000,000;

5. Awarding a Professional Service Agreement for On-Call Architectural Professional Service within the City of Monterey and IGSA Projects to DES Architects + Engineers, Agenda Report Highlights
• The City Council would award five
professional services agreements
for on-call architectural services for
an annual fee not to exceed
$1,000,000 each.
• Each agreement would feature an
initial one-year term along with the
option to extend for four additional
one-year terms.
• These agreements would allow the
city to actively manage its Capital
Improvement Program by efficiently
addressing workload fluctuations
and specialized technical
requirements.
• Funding for the on-call architectural
professional services would be
determined on a project-by-project
basis and directly charged to
individual project budgets.

Date: 8/4/2026
Item No.: 3.

Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 1, Packet Page 17 №11/25
Inc., for a term of one year, with the option to extend for four additional one-year terms, with an annual fee not to exceed $1,000,000; and

6. Authorizing the City Manager, or their Designee, to execute the Professional Services agreements upon receipt of information required by the Request for Proposal (RFP).

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.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

This action is consistent with the City Council’s Value Drivers and Strategic Priorities of Quality of Life – “Recognize that public safety is a priority to ensure that our City is safe and welcoming to all, contributing to our economic vitality as a destination City;” Fiscal Stewardship – “Prioritize funding models and sources for facility rehabilitation, repair, and replacement.” This action is also consistent with Council policy to approve Professional Services Agreements exceeding $75,000. On-call agreements are used for other types of professional services throughout the City. These services will augment the City’s capacity for project delivery, consistent with the City Council’s vision and strategic initiative.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: Yes.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

Fees for on-call architectural professional services will be based on a project-by-project basis directly charged to individual project budgets. Each project is separately approved and budgeted by Council. The City is under no obligation to expend any funds under these professional services agreements.

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. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

Council could decide that on-call architectural professional services are not required at this time, or that a separate request for proposals (RFP) process be performed for each individual project; however, these alternatives are not recommended. Having pre-approved, on-call, as-needed Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 2, Packet Page 18 №11/25
firms readily available allow for more efficient and timely delivery of projects as multiple projects can be designed and implemented concurrently. Alternatively, Council could choose to approve a contract for less than the recommended number of firms. This alternative is not recommended as this would reduce flexibility and limit available expertise for the required services.

DISCUSSION:

Entering into on-call architectural professional services contracts allows the City to actively manage its Capital Improvement Program (CIP) by augmenting City staff and providing the City with expertise necessary to implement its Five-Year CIP goals. On-call consulting services benefit the City and its customers by providing flexibility to meet fluctuations in the workload by ensuring technical support is available to assist staff. These services allow the City to efficiently address periods of increased demand, specialized technical requirements, and on-going staffing shortages. This process maximizes cost savings and timing to provide prompt customer service and project delivery. It is important to have appropriate resources available to protect the City’s interests by ensuring projects are completed in a timely fashion and meet the objectives defined in the project specifications. On-call architectural professional services allow the City to meet the needs for building and facility CIP project implementation and provide confidence that the work will be done to current Federal and State standards.

Selection of the best-qualified firms was made in accordance with Section 28-10 of the City’s Purchasing Ordinance. On April 24, 2026, a request for proposals was issued and advertised through OpenGov. Sixteen (16) proposals were received on May 28, 2026. A selection committee consisting of City staff independently evaluated and ranked the proposals. After deliberations, all sixteen (16) proposals were ranked with the top five (5) firms selected for award. Each agreement will have an initial one-year term and a $1,000,000 aggregate not-toexceed fee for all tasks provided. The agreement will include an option for four (4) additional one-year extensions also with an annual not-to-exceed funding limit of $1,000,000, with a total maximum 5-year contract not-to-exceed amount of $5,000,000.

Individual project task orders will be issued based on the consultant’s expertise, workload capacity, services to be performed, schedule requirements, and negotiated hourly rates submitted in their proposal. All task orders will be issued based on an agreed-upon, written scope of work, implementation schedule, and maximum fee arrangements negotiated on a project-by-project basis.

Eligible work under these contracts will include CIP, Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program (NCIP) projects and Intergovernmental Services Agreement (IGSA) projects. The City is awarding professional services contracts to these qualified firms for architectural professional services, including but not limited to, services relating to building remodels that require renovations to meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility standards, as well as structural, geotechnical, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP) disciplines. The goal of MEP services is to have capacity to design, evaluate, and integrate building systems such as HVAC, lighting, power distribution, controls, fire/life safety systems, water sewer, and storm drainage systems. The firms were also evaluated for their ability to manage proposed projects and familiarity with the City of Monterey.

The City currently has 97 City-owned facilities covering 410,000 square feet including the Conference Center, police station, three (3) fire stations, Sports Center, four (4) recreation centers, Monterey Public Library, city offices, and restrooms. These facilities have an estimated Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 3, Packet Page 19 №11/25
need of approximately $22,000,000 over the next five years as presented in the City’s Five-Year CIP Plan presented to City Council on June 16, 2026.

CIP Project TOTAL
Projected 5-
Year Needs
Description
City Facilities
ADA Upgrades
$10,000,000 Implement ADA upgrades based on, but not limited to, 2024 ADA Transition Plan
City Facilities
Repairs and
Upgrades
$11,935,000 Funding to address maintenance and repairs at City Facilities, to include but not limited to: City Offices, Recreation Centers, Police Stations, and Restrooms.

Potential City facilities projects that may be awarded under these on-call contracts include:
• Vasquez Adobe:
o Rehabilitation and preservation of a City-owned historic adobe structure, which may include structural stabilization, seismic upgrades, ADA accessibility improvements, building systems (MEP) upgrades, and sensitive restoration consistent with historic preservation standards.
• Gordon House:
o Evaluation and improvement of a historic structure within the downtown historic area, which may include condition assessments, preservation planning, code compliance upgrades, and architectural rehabilitation consistent with the character of historic resources.
• Public Safety and Operations Facility Improvements:
o Improvements to existing public safety facilities, which may include interior renovations, space reconfiguration, building system upgrades (HVAC, electrical, and plumbing), ADA improvements, and modernization to support operational needs.
• Library ADA Compliance Upgrades:
o Accessibility improvements to existing public library facilities, including path-oftravel upgrades, interior modifications, and code compliance improvements. • San Carlos Beach Bathrooms ADA Upgrades
o Accessibility improvements to existing public bathroom facilities, including pathof-travel upgrades, interior modifications, and code compliance improvements. • Fire Facility Improvements:
o Repairs and upgrades to fire-related facilities, which may include structural improvements, building envelope repairs, and building system upgrades. • Waterfront and Wharf Facility Improvements:
o Rehabilitation and upgrades to various waterfront structures and facilities, including ADA improvements, exterior building rehabilitation, and support facility upgrades.
• Miscellaneous Building Repairs and Facility Maintenance:
o Ongoing repair and rehabilitation of City-owned buildings and facilities, including interior renovations, accessibility improvements, and deferred maintenance.

AR/rp
Attachments: 1. Resolution awarding a Professional Services Agreement to Wald, Ruhnke & Dost Architects, LLP
Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 4, Packet Page 20 №11/25

2. Resolution awarding a Professional Services Agreement to TEF Architecture and Interior Design, Inc.

3. Resolution awarding a Professional Services Agreement to Architectural Resources Group, Inc.

4. Resolution awarding a Professional Services Agreement to HGHB

5. Resolution awarding a Professional Services Agreement to DES Architects + Engineers, Inc.

6. Consultant Selection Evaluation Criteria
e: Wald, Ruhnke & Dost Architects, LLP
TEF Architecture and Interior Design, Inc.

Architectural Resources Group, Inc.

HGHB
DES Architects + Engineers, Inc.

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, 8/4/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 5, Packet Page 21 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№011/24
AWARDING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,000,000

FOR ON-CALL ARCHITECTURAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR PROJECTS WITHIN

THE CITY OF MONTEREY AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES AGREEMENT (IGSA)

TO WALD, RUHNKE & DOST ARCHITECTS, LLP
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey ("City") issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) seeking qualified firms to provide architectural professional services to assist the Public Works Department with the architectural design work for building remodels and improvements including, but not limited to renovations required to meet the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility Guidelines and current California Building Code requirements as applicable to each project;
WHEREAS, on April 24, 2026, the City issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for on-call architectural professional services within the City of Monterey and IGSA projects and notified firms that specialize in this work, including those firms who had expressed interest, as well as those who had previously completed work for the City;
WHEREAS, the City reserves the right to enter into agreements with multiple firms to ensure the availability of necessary expertise and resources to fulfill the requirements of the contract; and
WHEREAS, on May 28, 2026, the City received sixteen (16) proposals from firms that perform this work;
WHEREAS, staff formed a selection committee to independently review and score each firm’s proposal based upon specific criteria in the RFP in accordance with Section 28-10 of the City’s Purchasing Ordinance;
WHEREAS, after deliberations, sixteen (16) firms were ranked, with the top five (5) firms selected for award: Wald, Ruhnke & Dost Architects, LLP; TEF Architecture and Interior Design, Inc.; Architectural Resources Group, Inc.; HGHB; and DES Architects + Engineers, Inc.; WHEREAS, the firms will provide services on an on-call, as-needed, project-specific basis as defined by the City, and all task orders will have a defined scope, schedule, and fee arrangement that will be negotiated based on the hourly rate schedule included in the agreement; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 6, Packet Page 22 excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project.

Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability;

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

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

1. Awards a Professional Services Agreement for On-Call Architectural Professional Services within the City of Monterey and IGSA Projects to Wald, Ruhnke & Dost Architects, LLP, for a term of one year, with the option to extend for four (4) additional one-year terms, with an annual fee not-to-exceed limit of $1,000,000; and

2. Authorizes the City Manager, or their designee, to execute the On-Call Architectural Professional Services Agreements upon receipt of the information required by the Request for Proposals (“RFP”).

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, 8/4/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 7, Packet Page 23 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№011/24
AWARDING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,000,000

FOR ON-CALL ARCHITECTURAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR PROJECTS WITHIN

THE CITY OF MONTEREY AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES AGREEMENT (IGSA) TO TEF ARCHITECTURE AND INTERIOR DESIGN, INC.

WHEREAS, the City of Monterey ("City") issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) seeking qualified firms to provide architectural professional services to assist the Public Works Department with the architectural design work for building remodels and improvements including, but not limited to renovations required to meet the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility Guidelines and current California Building Code requirements as applicable to each project;
WHEREAS, on April 24, 2026, the City issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for on-call architectural professional services within the City of Monterey and IGSA projects and notified firms that specialize in this work, including those firms who had expressed interest, as well as those who had previously completed work for the City;
WHEREAS, the City reserves the right to enter into agreements with multiple firms to ensure the availability of necessary expertise and resources to fulfill the requirements of the contract; and
WHEREAS, on May 28, 2026, the City received sixteen (16) proposals from firms that perform this work;
WHEREAS, staff formed a selection committee to independently review and score each firm’s proposal based upon specific criteria in the RFP in accordance with Section 28-30 of the City’s Purchasing Ordinance;
WHEREAS, after deliberations, sixteen (16) firms were ranked, with the top five (5) firms selected for award: Wald, Ruhnke & Dost Architects, LLP; TEF Architecture and Interior Design, Inc.; Architectural Resources Group, Inc.; HGHB; and DES Architects + Engineers, Inc.; WHEREAS, the firms will provide services on an on-call, as-needed, project-specific basis as defined by the City, and all task orders will have a defined scope, schedule, and fee arrangement that will be negotiated based on the hourly rate schedule included in the agreement; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 8, Packet Page 24 excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, 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. Awards a Professional Services Agreement for On-Call Architectural Professional Services within the City of Monterey and IGSA Projects to TEF Architecture and Interior Design, Inc., for a term of one year, with the option to extend for four (4) additional one-year terms, with an annual fee not-to-exceed limit of $1,000,000; and

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, 8/4/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 9, Packet Page 25 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№011/24
AWARDING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,000,000

FOR ON-CALL ARCHITECTURAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR PROJECTS WITHIN

THE CITY OF MONTEREY AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES AGREEMENT (IGSA) TO ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP, INC.

WHEREAS, the City of Monterey ("City") issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) seeking qualified firms to provide architectural professional services to assist the Public Works Department with the architectural design work for building remodels and improvements including, but not limited to renovations required to meet the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility Guidelines and current California Building Code requirements as applicable to each project;
WHEREAS, on April 24, 2026, the City issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for on-call architectural professional services within the City of Monterey and IGSA projects and notified firms that specialize in this work, including those firms who had expressed interest, as well as those who had previously completed work for the City;
WHEREAS, the City reserves the right to enter into agreements with multiple firms to ensure the availability of necessary expertise and resources to fulfill the requirements of the contract; and
WHEREAS, on May 28, 2026, the City received sixteen (16) proposals from firms that perform this work;
WHEREAS, staff formed a selection committee to independently review and score each firm’s proposal based upon specific criteria in the RFP in accordance with Section 28-30 of the City’s Purchasing Ordinance;
WHEREAS, after deliberations, sixteen (16) firms were ranked, with the top five (5) firms selected for award: Wald, Ruhnke & Dost Architects, LLP; TEF Architecture and Interior Design, Inc.; Architectural Resources Group, Inc.; HGHB; and DES Architects + Engineers, Inc.; WHEREAS, the firms will provide services on an on-call, as-needed, project-specific basis as defined by the City, and all task orders will have a defined scope, schedule, and fee arrangement that will be negotiated based on the hourly rate schedule included in the agreement; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 10, Packet Page 26 excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project.

Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability. 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. Awards a Professional Services Agreement for On-Call Architectural Professional Services within the City of Monterey and IGSA Projects to Architectural Resources Group, Inc., for a term of one year, with the option to extend for four (4) additional one-year terms, with an annual fee not-to-exceed limit of $1,000,000; and

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, 8/4/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 11, Packet Page 27 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№011/24
AWARDING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,000,000

FOR ON-CALL ARCHITECTURAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR PROJECTS WITHIN

THE CITY OF MONTEREY AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES AGREEMENT (IGSA)

TO HGHB
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey ("City") issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) seeking qualified firms to provide architectural professional services to assist the Public Works Department with the architectural design work for building remodels and improvements including, but not limited to renovations required to meet the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility Guidelines and current California Building Code requirements as applicable to each project;
WHEREAS, on April 24, 2026, the City issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for on-call architectural professional services within the City of Monterey and IGSA projects and notified firms that specialize in this work, including those firms who had expressed interest, as well as those who had previously completed work for the City;
WHEREAS, the City reserves the right to enter into agreements with multiple firms to ensure the availability of necessary expertise and resources to fulfill the requirements of the contract; and
WHEREAS, on May 28, 2026, the City received sixteen (16) proposals from firms that perform this work;
WHEREAS, staff formed a selection committee to independently review and score each firm’s proposal based upon specific criteria in the RFP in accordance with Section 28-30 of the City’s Purchasing Ordinance;
WHEREAS, after deliberations, sixteen (16) firms were ranked, with the top five (5) firms selected for award: Wald, Ruhnke & Dost Architects, LLP; TEF Architecture and Interior Design, Inc.; Architectural Resources Group, Inc.; HGHB; and DES Architects + Engineers, Inc.; WHEREAS, the firms will provide services on an on-call, as-needed, project-specific basis as defined by the City, and all task orders will have a defined scope, schedule, and fee arrangement that will be negotiated based on the hourly rate schedule included in the agreement; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 12, Packet Page 28 excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, 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. Awards a Professional Services Agreement for On-Call Architectural Professional Services within the City of Monterey and IGSA Projects to HGHB, for a term of one year, with the option to extend for four (4) additional one-year terms, with an annual fee not-to-exceed limit of $1,000,000; and

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, 8/4/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 13, Packet Page 29 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№011/24
AWARDING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,000,000

FOR ON-CALL ARCHITECTURAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR PROJECTS WITHIN

THE CITY OF MONTEREY AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES AGREEMENT (IGSA) TO DES ARCHITECTS + ENGINEERS, INC.

WHEREAS, the City of Monterey ("City") issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) seeking qualified firms to provide architectural professional services to assist the Public Works Department with the architectural design work for building remodels and improvements including, but not limited to renovations required to meet the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility Guidelines and current California Building Code requirements as applicable to each project;
WHEREAS, on April 24, 2026, the City issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for on-call architectural professional services within the City of Monterey and IGSA projects and notified firms that specialize in this work, including those firms who had expressed interest, as well as those who had previously completed work for the City;
WHEREAS, the City reserves the right to enter into agreements with multiple firms to ensure the availability of necessary expertise and resources to fulfill the requirements of the contract; and
WHEREAS, on May 28, 2026, the City received sixteen (16) proposals from firms that perform this work;
WHEREAS, staff formed a selection committee to independently review and score each firm’s proposal based upon specific criteria in the RFP in accordance with Section 28-30 of the City’s Purchasing Ordinance;
WHEREAS, after deliberations, sixteen (16) firms were ranked, with the top five (5) firms selected for award: Wald, Ruhnke & Dost Architects, LLP; TEF Architecture and Interior Design, Inc.; Architectural Resources Group, Inc.; HGHB; and DES Architects + Engineers, Inc.; WHEREAS, the firms will provide services on an on-call, as-needed, project-specific basis as defined by the City, and all task orders will have a defined scope, schedule, and fee arrangement that will be negotiated based on the hourly rate schedule included in the agreement; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 14, Packet Page 30 excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, 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. Awards a Professional Services Agreement for On-Call Architectural Professional Services within the City of Monterey and IGSA Projects to DES Architects + Engineers, Inc., for a term of one year, with the option to extend for four (4) additional one-year terms, with an annual fee not-to-exceed limit of $1,000,000; and

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, 8/4/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 15, Packet Page 31 Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 16, Packet Page 32 Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 17, Packet Page 33 Council
Agenda Report
№12/25
FROM: Andrea Renny, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Andrew Easterling, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Appoint Agency Negotiators for Conference with Real Property Negotiators Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8; Property: A portion of land north of 731 Dry Creek Road (Assessor's Parcel No. 014-031-003-000); Agency Negotiators: Kim Cole, Janna Aldrete, Andrea Renny and Andrew Easterling; Negotiating Parties: Shad Thielman (Cal-Am Client Services Manager); Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment for granting an easement (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council appoint Kim Cole and Janna
Aldrete as additional agency negotiators for a
conference with real property negotiators pursuant to
Government Code Section 54956.8 to discuss and
provide confidential direction for price and terms of
payment for a new easement over City owned land.

VALUE DRIVERS:

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Closed session confidential review of real estate matters is allowed. Deeds conveying an interest in real property, such as an easement, cannot be recorded without a certificate or resolution of acceptance by the City Council (Government Code §27281).

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no fiscal implications related to the adoption of the resolution.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

Agenda Report Highlights
• The City Council would appoint
additional agency negotiators for a
confidential discussion regarding
real estate matters.
• The closed session would address
the price and payment terms for a
new utility easement over land
acquired by the City in 1961.
• Granting this permanent easement
would provide Cal-Am with reliable
and ongoing access to its pump
station near Dry Creek Road.

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

Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 4., Item Page 1, Packet Page 34 №11/25
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:

There are no recommended alternatives.

DISCUSSION:

The premises located on a parcel north of 731 Dry Creek Road (Assessor's Parcel No. 014-031- 003-000) were acquired by the City in 1961. Cal-Am has expressed interest in obtaining a new permanent utility easement from the City to allow for reliable, ongoing access to its pump station. A closed session discussion with the City’s real estate negotiators is recommended.

Closed session discussions are allowed and appropriate for real estate matters.

AR/ae
e: Shad Thielman, Cal Am Client Services 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, 8/4/2026, Item No. 4., Item Page 2, Packet Page 35 Council
Agenda Report
№11/25
FROM: Clementine Bonner Klein, City Clerk
SUBJECT: Appoint Councilmember Barber as the Voting Delegate for the 2026 League of California Cities Annual Conference -- September 23-25, 2026 in Anaheim (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council appoint Councilmember Barber as
the voting delegate to represent the City of Monterey at the annual business meeting of the 2026 League of
California Cities’ annual conference.

VALUE DRIVERS:

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The bylaws of the League of California Cities require that a city’s voting delegate and up to two alternates be
designated by City Council action.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE
ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are sufficient appropriations in the Mayor/City Council budget for sending the three members who plan to attend the League of California Cities’ Annual Conference. Travel arrangements are not yet complete for 2026, but average cost per Councilmember who attended the Annual Conference over the last two years was $2,347 including conference registration, hotels, reimbursements, and airfare.

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 Agenda Report Highlights
• Councilmember Barber is interested
in serving as the voting delegate to
represent the City of Monterey at
the 2026 League of California Cities
Annual Conference in Anaheim.
• Voting delegates attend the annual
business meeting and vote on any
policy resolutions.
• The City Council must approve the
designation of voting delegates and
alternates, as required by the
League of California Cities bylaws.

Date: 8/4/2026
Item No.: 5.

Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 5., Item Page 1, Packet Page 36 №11/25
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 appoint a voting delegate, or could select other delegates.

DISCUSSION:

The League of California Cities (“Cal Cities”) provides legislative advocacy, professional development, and educational resources for incorporated cities and towns in California, including the City of Monterey.

The Cal Cities’ Annual Conference is scheduled for September 23-25, 2026 in Anaheim. The general assembly will convene on the last day of the conference for the annual business meeting to consider and take action on resolutions that establish Cal Cities policy. Each member city may, with the approval of the City Council, designate a city official as their designated voting delegate and, in the event that the designated voting delegate is unable to serve in that capacity, up to two alternate voting delegates.

Designated voting delegates and alternates must be registered to attend the annual conference.

A staff member can be appointed to fill the voting role in the event that no Councilmember plans to attend, or as an alternate delegate.

Councilmember Barber plans to attend the Cal Cities Annual Conference this year and has expressed her interest in representing Monterey as its voting delegate at the annual business meeting.

Attachments: 1. League of California Cities memo with Annual Conference Voting Guidelines 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, 8/4/2026, Item No. 5., Item Page 2, Packet Page 37 1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org DATE: Wednesday, May 13, 2026
TO: Mayors, Council Members, City Clerks, and City Managers RE: DESIGNATION OF VOTING DELEGATES AND ALTERNATES
League of California Cities Annual Conference and Expo, Sept. 23-25, 2026 Anaheim Convention Center
Every year, the League of California Cities convenes a member-driven General Assembly at the Cal Cities Annual Conference and Expo. The General Assembly is an important opportunity where city officials can directly participate in the development of Cal Cities policy.

Taking place on Friday, Sept. 25, 2026 the General Assembly is comprised of voting delegates appointed by each member city; every city has one voting delegate. Your appointed voting delegate plays an important role during the General Assembly by representing your city and voting on resolutions.

To cast a vote during the General Assembly, your city must designate a voting delegate and up to two alternate voting delegates, one of whom may vote if the designated voting delegate is unable to serve in that capacity. Voting delegates may either be an elected or appointed official.

Action by Council Required. Consistent with Cal Cities bylaws, a city’s voting delegate and up to two alternates must be designated by the city council. Please note that designating the voting delegate and alternates must be done by city council action and cannot be accomplished by individual action of the mayor or city manager alone.

Following council action, please submit your city’s delegates through the online submission portal by Tuesday, Sept. 1, 2026. When completing the Voting Delegate submission form, you will be asked to attest that council action was taken. You will need to be signed in to your My Cal Cities account when submitting the form.

Submitting your voting delegate form by the deadline will allow us time to establish voting delegate/alternate records prior to the conference and provide pre-conference communications with voting delegates.

Conference Registration Required. The voting delegate and alternates must be registered to attend the conference. They need not register for the entire conference; they may register for Friday only. Conference registration opens June 2.

For a city to cast a vote, one voter must be present at the General Assembly and in possession of the voting delegate card and voting tool. Voting delegates and Council Action Advised by September 1, 2026

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 5., Item Page 3, Packet Page 38 alternates need to pick up their conference badges before signing in and picking up the voting delegate card at the voting delegate desk. This will enable them to receive the special sticker on their name badges that will admit the voting delegate into the voting area during the General Assembly.

Please view Cal Cities’ event and meeting policy in advance of the conference.

Transferring Voting Card to Non-Designated Individuals Not Allowed. The voting delegate card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates, but only between the voting delegate and alternates. If the voting delegate and alternates find themselves unable to attend the General Assembly, they may not transfer the voting card to another city official.

Seating Protocol during General Assembly. At the General Assembly, individuals with a voting card will sit in a designated area. Admission to the voting area will be limited to the individual in possession of the voting card and with a special sticker on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate.

The voting delegate desk, located in the conference registration area of the Anaheim Convention Center, will be open at the following times: Wednesday, Sept. 23, 8:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m. and Thursday, Sept. 24, 7:30 a.m.-4:00 p.m. On Friday, Sept. 25, the voting delegate desk will be open at the General Assembly, starting at 7:30 a.m., but will be closed during roll calls and voting.

The voting procedures that will be used at the conference are attached to this memo.

Please share these procedures and this memo with your council and especially with the individuals that your council designates as your city’s voting delegate and alternates.

Once again, thank you for submitting your voting delegate and alternates by Tuesday, Sept. 1. If you have questions, please contact Zach Seals at [email protected].

Attachments:
• General Assembly Voting Guidelines
• Information Sheet: Cal Cities Resolutions and the General Assembly

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 5., Item Page 4, Packet Page 39 1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org General Assembly Voting Guidelines

1. One City One Vote. Each member city has a right to cast one vote on matters pertaining to Cal Cities policy.

2. Designating a City Voting Representative. Prior to the Cal Cities Annual Conference and Expo, each city council may designate a voting delegate and up to two alternates; these individuals are identified on the voting delegate form provided to the Cal Cities Credentials Committee.

3. Registering with the Credentials Committee. The voting delegate, or alternates, may pick up the city's voting card at the voting delegate desk in the conference registration area. Voting delegates and alternates must sign in at the voting delegate desk. Here they will receive a special sticker on their name badge and thus be admitted to the voting area at the General Assembly.

4. Signing Initiated Resolution Petitions. Only those individuals who are voting delegates (or alternates), and who have picked up their city’s voting card by providing a signature to the credentials committee at the voting delegate desk, may sign petitions to initiate a resolution.

5. Voting. To cast the city's vote, a city official must have in their possession the city's voting card and voting tool; and be registered with the credentials committee. The voting card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates but may not be transferred to another city official who is neither a voting delegate nor alternate.

6. Voting Area at General Assembly. At the General Assembly, individuals with a voting card will sit in a designated area. Admission to the voting area will be limited to the individual in possession of the voting card and with a special sticker on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate.

7. Resolving Disputes. In case of dispute, the credentials committee will determine the validity of signatures on petitioned resolutions and the right of a city official to vote at the General Assembly.

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 5., Item Page 5, Packet Page 40 Sixty days before the
Annual Conference
and Expo, Cal Cities
members may submit
policy proposals on
issues of importance
to cities. The resolution must
have the concurrence of at least
five additional member cities or
individual members.

How it works: Cal Cities
Resolutions and the General Assembly
General Assembly
General Resolutions Policy Committees
Developing League of California Cities policy is a dynamic process that engages a wide range of members to ensure Cal Cities represents cities with one voice. These policies directly guide Cal Cities’ advocacy to promote local decision-making, and lobby against statewide policies that erode local control.

The resolutions process and General Assembly is one way that city officials can directly participate in the development of Cal Cities policy. If a resolution is approved at the General Assembly, it becomes official Cal Cities policy. Here’s how resolutions and the General Assembly work.

The petitioned
resolution is an
alternate method
to introduce policy
proposals during
the annual conference. The
petition must be signed by
voting delegates from 10% of
member cities, and submitted to
the Cal Cities President at least
24 hours before the beginning
of the General Assembly.

Petitioned Resolutions
The Cal Cities
President assigns
general resolutions
to policy committees
where members
review, debate, and recommend
positions for each policy proposal.

Recommendations are forwarded
to the Resolutions Committee.

Who’s who
The Resolutions Committee
includes representatives
from each Cal Cities
diversity caucus, regional
division, municipal
department, and policy
committee, as well as
individuals appointed by
the Cal Cities president.

Voting delegates
are appointed by each
member city; every city
has one voting delegate.

The General Assembly is a
meeting of the collective
body of all voting
delegates —one from
every member city.

Seven policy committees
meet throughout the year
to review and recommend
positions to take on bills
and regulatory proposals.

Policy committees include
members from each Cal
Cities diversity caucus,
regional division, and
municipal department,
as well as individuals
appointed by the Cal
Cities president.

During the General Assembly, voting delegates
debate and consider general and petitioned
resolutions forwarded by the Resolutions
Committee. Potential Cal Cities bylaws
amendments are also considered at this meeting.

Cal Cities policy
development is a memberinformed process,
grounded in the voices and
experiences of city officials
throughout the state.

For more information visit www.calcities.org/general-assembly Prior to the Annual Conference and Expo
Resolutions Committee
The Resolutions
Committee considers
all resolutions. General
Resolutions approved1 by
either a policy committee
or the Resolutions Committee are next
considered by the General Assembly.

General resolutions not approved, or
referred for further study by both a
policy committee and the Resolutions
Committee do not go to the General
Assembly. All Petitioned Resolutions
are considered by the General
Assembly, unless disqualified.2
During the Annual Conference and Expo
1 The Resolution Committee can amend a general resolution prior to sending it to the General Assembly. 2 Petitioned Resolutions may be disqualified by the Resolutions Committee according to Cal Cities Bylaws Article VI. Sec. 5(f).

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 5., Item Page 6, Packet Page 41 Council
Agenda Report
№11/25
FROM: Kimberly Cole, AICP, Community Development Director Prepared By: Levi Hill, AICP, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Adopt the Planning Commission Recommendation to Adopt 1st Reading of Ordinance to Amend Chapter 38 of the Monterey City Code to Establish Minimum Density Requirements in the Multifamily Residential Overlay District (CEQA:

Certified Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2023080034), Article 11, Section 15168(c))
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt 1st reading of an ordinance amending Chapter 38 of the Monterey City Code to
Establish Minimum Density Requirements in the
Multifamily Residential Overlay District.

VALUE DRIVERS:

Support efforts and policies that provide equitable
access to affordable housing in Monterey and the
region.

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Failure to adopt a minimum density standard in
accordance with Government Code section
65583.2(h)(2) could result in increased enforcement
action from the Department of Housing and Community
Development.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE
ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

Failure to adopt a minimum density standard in accordance with Government Code section 65583.2(h)(2) could result in monetary penalties from the Department of Housing and Community Development.

Agenda Report Highlights
• The proposed amendment would
establish a minimum residential
density of 20 dwelling units per acre
within the Multifamily Residential
Overlay District.
• Adopting these requirements would
ensure the city accommodates a
regional housing shortfall for lower
income affordability levels.
• Failure to adopt this standard could
result in monetary penalties and
increased enforcement action from
the State.
• The Planning Commission formally
recommended that the City Council
approve the ordinance on July 14,
2026.

Date: 8/4/2026
Item No.: 6.

Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 6., Item Page 1, Packet Page 42 №10/24
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey Planning Office determined that there are no substantial changes proposed by the Project or under the circumstances in which the Proposed Project would be undertaken that would require major revisions of the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR (SCH # 2023080034), certified July 16, 2024. The Proposed Project does not require preparation of a new subsequent or supplemental EIR due to either (1) the involvement of new significant environmental effects, (2) a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects, or (3) new information of substantial importance. No mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible. The Proposed Project is consistent with and within the scope of the Monterey 2031 General Plan EIR. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council may deny the amendments to the Zoning Code or adopt a modified ordinance.

Failure to adopt a minimum density standard in accordance with Government Code section 65583.2(h)(2) could result in increased enforcement action from the Department of Housing and Community Development.

DISCUSSION:

Background
On July 16, 2024, the City Council adopted the Monterey 2031 – General Plan Update, including the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element. The housing element was subsequently certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development on October 4, 2024.

The housing element identified locations for future housing development for all income levels. The plan considers the housing development goals (3,654 units) established for the city by the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG). This housing development goal is commonly referred to as the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA).

In addition to identifying specific sites for future housing, the housing element contains goals, updated information, and strategic directions (policies and implementing actions) that the City is committed to undertaking to fulfill the City’s RHNA obligation commonly referred to as the Housing Action Plan.

The first implementation phase of programs included in the Housing Action Plan were adopted by City Council on December 17, 2024 including Program 1-B, Multifamily Residential Overlay Amendments. The amendment expanded the Overlay to the Pacific/Munras/Cass area and the current County Courthouse site at 1200 Aguajito Road (Maps 1-3). Additionally, the amendment increased the maximum permitted density from 30 du/acre to 60 du/ac within the Overlay District and created an administrative approval process for qualifying housing developments.

On July 8, 2025, the State of California Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) provided a Technical Assistance Letter to City Planning staff to provide clarification on the statutory requirements of Government Code section 65583.2(h)(2), specifically noting the absence of minimum density standards for sites included in the housing element inventory intended to accommodate a RHNA shortfall for lower income affordability levels. The correspondence further directed the City to adopt minimum density standards in the Multifamily Residential Overlay District to meet the statutory requirements of Government Code section 65583.2(h)(2) in order to remain in substantial compliance with Housing Element Law.

Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 6., Item Page 2, Packet Page 43 №10/24
Map 1 – Existing Multifamily Overlay, South side of Garden Road Map 2 – Existing Multifamily Overlay, Pacific / Munras / Cass Area Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 6., Item Page 3, Packet Page 44 №10/24
Map 3 – Existing Multifamily Overlay, Aguajito Road Site Planning staff had previously met with HCD staff on April 29, 2025 and again on August 2, 2025 and October 7, 2025 following receipt of the Technical Assistance letter. In these meetings, Planning staff expressed significant concerns regarding the requested revisions to apply minimum density standards in the City. Planning staff highlighted the regulatory water constraints that impact the intensity of development in the City and how a minimum density requirement has the potential to further inhibit residential production. HCD staff communicated that current Housing Element Law fails to provide statutory relief from the minimum density requirement and continues to assert that the City must comply with requirements of Government Code section 65583.2(h)(2).

At the November 25, 2025, Planning Commission meeting, the Commission considered a proposed ordinance that would apply a minimum density standard to the Multifamily Overlay Areas.

At that time, the proposed ordinance included various provisions exempting projects proposing the conversion of existing floor area into residential uses, in addition to allowing for multi-phase developments to utilize complete buildout when calculating project density. Ultimately, the Commission tabled the item to allow for further consultation with HCD.

On November 26, 2025, HCD sent correspondence to City staff indicating the draft ordinance, along with the exemptions within, would not meet the requirements of Government Code section 65583.2(h)(2). HCD followed up with a Corrective Action Letter (Attachment 2) on May 20, 2026, finding that:
“The City had failed to implement Program 1-B (Multi-Family Residential Overlay Amendments) to accommodate its lower income Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) shortfall by applying a minimum density of 20 units per acre in its Multifamily Residential Overlay.” HCD requested that the City review the correspondence and provide a written response to the findings within 30 days of the date of the letter with proposed actions addressing the noncompliance.

Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 6., Item Page 4, Packet Page 45 №10/24
Proposed Amendment
The proposed amendment would apply a minimum density standard in the Multifamily Residential Overlay District of 20 dwelling units per acre. The amendment would require all mixed-use and residential developments within the Multifamily Overlay Areas provide at least one residential unit per 2,178 square-feet of lot area (Table 1). No exemptions are included in the proposed ordinance.

Table 1 – Example Unit Requirement Scenarios
Lot Size Units Required
1 acre (43,560 sf) 20

0.5 acre (21,780 sf) 10
10,000 sf 5
6,000 sf 3
5,000 sf 2
3,300 2
The proposed amendment reads as follows:

Monterey City Code, Chapter 38, Section 99.6(A)(1)

1. Density.
a. The maximum permitted residential density for the Multifamily Residential Overlay Districts shall be 60 dwelling units per acre. b. The minimum residential density for the Multifamily Residential Overlay Districts shall be 20 dwelling units per acre.
c. This subsection (A)(1) shall control when there is a conflict with the allowable density permitted by Section 38-112.5.

The Planning Commission considered the proposed amendment on July 14, 2026, and upon receiving the staff report and holding a public hearing, adopted a Resolution recommending the City Council approve the Ordinance.

The proposed amendment will ensure that the City remains in substantial compliance with Housing Element Law, avoiding further corrective action and enforcement.

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the 1st reading of an ordinance amending Chapter 38 of the Monterey City Code to Establish Minimum Density Requirements in the Multifamily Residential Overlay District.

KC/lh
Attachments: 1. Ordinance

2. Correspondence with HCD
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, 8/4/2026, Item No. 6., Item Page 5, Packet Page 46 8 ORDINANCE NO. _____ C.S.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
AMENDING SECTION 38-99.6 OF THE MONTEREY CITY CODE TO

ESTABLISH MINIMUM DENSITY REQUIREMENTS IN THE MULTIFAMILY

RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY DISTRICT
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY DOES ORDAIN, as follows:

SECTION 1:

WHEREAS, on July 16, 2024, the City Council adopted the City’s Sixth Cycle Housing Element for the 2023-2031 8-year planning period in compliance with State law to respond to current and near-term future housing needs in the City of Monterey and to provide a framework for the community’s long-term approach to addressing its housing needs. The Housing Element contains goals, updated information, and strategic directions (policies and implementing actions) that the City is committed to undertaking;
WHEREAS, the State of California Housing and Community Development Department certified the Housing Element on October 4, 2024;
WHEREAS, on December 17, 2024, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 3688 implementing Housing Action Plan Program 1-B and amending the City’s Multifamily Residential Overlay District to further facilitate housing development; WHEREAS, on July 8, 2025, the State of California Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) provided a Technical Assistance Letter directing the City to adopt minimum density standards in the Multifamily Residential Overlay District to meet the statutory requirements of Government Code section 65583.2(h)(2); WHEREAS, since July 2025, City staff engaged with HCD regarding Zoning Code amendments relating to minimum density in the Multifamily Residential Overlay District with HCD ultimately issuing a corrective action letter on May 20, 2026; WHEREAS, the City of Monterey Planning Office determined there are no substantial changes proposed by the Project or under the circumstances in which the Proposed Project would be undertaken that would require major revisions of the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update EIR (SCH #023080034), certified July 16, 2024. The Proposed Project does not require preparation of a new subsequent or supplemental EIR due to either (1) the involvement of new significant environmental effects, (2) a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects, or (3) new information of substantial importance. No mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible. The Proposed Project is consistent with and within the scope of the Monterey 2031 General Plan EIR. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability; WHEREAS, on August 3, 2026, the City Council conducted a duly and properly noticed public hearing, reviewed and considered the information presented, and took public comment; Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 6., Item Page 6, Packet Page 47 NOW THEREFORE, the Monterey City Council declares as follows:

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

SECTION 3: Monterey City Code, Chapter 38, Section 99.6(A)(1) is hereby amended to read as follows:

SECTION 4: Severability. If any section, sub-section, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted the Ordinance and each section, sub-section, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, sub-sections, sentences, clauses, phrases or portions to be declared invalid or unconstitutional. To this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are severable.

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

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

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this ____ day of ____, 20__, by the following vote:

AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 6., Item Page 7, Packet Page 48 STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
651 Bannon Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95811
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
July 8, 2025
Kimberly Cole, Director
Community Development Department
City of Monterey
570 Pacific Street
Monterey, CA 93940
RE: City of Monterey Rezone Implementation – Letter of Technical Assistance Dear Kimberly Cole:

The purpose of this letter is to provide technical assistance regarding the implementation of Program 1-B (Multi-Family Residential Overlay Amendments) to rezone sites to accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2, subdivision (h).

On December 11, 2024, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) sent a Letter of Inquiry to the City of Monterey (City) regarding the completion of Programs 1-B, 1-C, and 2-A. HCD received a letter of response from the City on December 23, 2024. On January 15, 2025, HCD received Ordinances No. 3688 C.S. and No. 3689 C.S., and Resolutions No. 24-187 C.S and No. 24-188 C.S. HCD reviewed the documentation submitted by the City and has determined that, while the ordinances meet most of the requirements of state law, the City must demonstrate those rezonings meet all requirements in Government Code section 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and (i).

Specifically, Monterey's Ordinance 3688, which implements Program 1-B, does not apply a minimum density of 20 units per acre in the Multifamily Residential Overlay, as required in Government Code section 65583.2(h)(2). Ordinance 3688, City code section 38-99.6 A(1), sets a maximum permitted residential density for the Multifamily Residential Overlay District of 60 dwelling units per acre. However, there is no mention of a minimum density either in the rezone ordinance or in existing code.

In a meeting on April 29, 2025 between HCD, Christy Sabdo, and Levi Hill regarding Monterey's rezones, staff explained that the omission of the minimum density provision reflects the lack of available water supply. Appendix D of the City’s Housing Element identifies water supply as a constraint on development. However, Programs 2-J and 2-K ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 6., Item Page 8, Packet Page 49 Kimberly Cole, Community Development Director
Page2
set forth the means to manage water supply so that the City can meet its RHNA requirements, including a commitment to develop a methodology for allocating new water supply in a manner that prioritizes affordable housing projects. The Housing Element provides that "When adequate water supply becomes available [the City will] establish a minimum density for the MFR overlay which would prevail over any density standards [in] the base zone." 1 However, parcels rezoned to meet a RHNA shortfall of lower-income units must meet the minimum density requirements in order to comply with Housing Element Law.

HCD requests that the City revise its zoning ordinance or provide written documentation clearly demonstrating the rezones meet these statutory requirements. If needed, a copy of the revised ordinance should be transmitted to HCD. HCD will review the documentation and issue correspondence before taking any action authorized by Government Code section 65585, subdivisions (i) and U). Such action may include issuance of written findings (Corrective Action Letter) and revoking HCD's finding that the City's housing element is in substantial compliance with Housing Element Law and/or referral to the California Office of the Attorney General.

HCD provides the City until August 8, 2025 to provide a written response to these findings. If you have questions or need additional information, please contact Mary Milner at Mary. [email protected].

Sincerely,
Melinda Coy
Proactive Housing Accountability Chief
1 2023-31 Housing Element, City of Monterey, p. 4-3.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 6., Item Page 9, Packet Page 50 July 31, 2025
Melinda Coy,
HCD Proactive Housing Accountability Chief
651 Bannon Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95811
**VIA EMAIL**
Subject: City of Monterey Rezone Implementation - Letter of Technical Assistance Dear Melinda Coy,
The purpose of this letter is to confirm receipt of correspondence from the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) dated July 8, 2025. In summary, the technical assistance letter informed the City of Monterey that the implementation of Housing Element Program 1-B (Multi-Family Residential Overlay Amendments) failed to include a minimum density requirement in accordance with Government Code section 65583.2(h)(2).

As detailed in the July 8th letter, City staff attended a meeting with HCD staff on April 29, 2025 and provided explanation for the omission, emphasizing that the City's water purveyor (California American Water) is subject to a State issued cease and desist order prohibiting the installation of new water meters. As a result of this regulatory moratorium imposed by the State of California, the development and use of property within the City of Monterey is limited by its water use at the time of the cease and desist order, rather than density controls imposed by zoning regulations. Furthermore, it's the City's staff position that the inclusion of a minimum density requirement will ultimately further constrain development potential for identified housing sites until the cease and desist order is lifted, since most sites don't have adequate water allocation to meet the required minimum density.

While the City maintains its position that a minimum density requirement will likely result in an unintended stagnation of housing development at all affordability levels, it is compelled to take necessary actions to remain in substantial compliance with applicable Housing Element Law.

Accordingly, City staff are preparing zoning amendments to incorporate a minimum density requirement of 20 dwelling units per acre in the Multifamily Residential Overlay. These amendments will be scheduled for consideration by the Planning Commission in August of 2025 and subsequently City Council in September of 2025. City staff will provide documentation of all revisions to HCD staff.

If there is an opportunity to appeal the requested revisions or to explore alternative means of compliance with Government Code section 65583.2(h)(2), City staff would like to discuss these ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 6., Item Page 10, Packet Page 51 options with HCD staff. Otherwise, City staff will move forward with the amendments as described above.

If you have any questions regarding this correspondence or any other related issue, please contact me at (831) 646-3759.

Sincerely,
/<thtb7 �&,
Kim Cole, AICP
Community Development Director
City of Monterey
Cc: Levi Hill, AICP, Planning Manager, City of Monterey Mary Milner, Department of Housing and Community Development Mao Lee, Department of Housing and Community Development Paul McDougal, Department of Housing and Community Development ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 6., Item Page 11, Packet Page 52

STATE OF CALIFORNIA-BUSINESS CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
651 Bannon Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95811
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7 453
www.hcd.ca.gov
May 20, 2026
Kimberly Cole, Director
Community Development Department
City of Monterey
570 Pacific Street
Monterey, CA 93940
RE: City of Monterey's Housing Element Implementation - Corrective Action Letter
Dear Kimberly Cole:

Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (i), the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has reviewed the City of Monterey's (City) obligations under the City's rezoning obligations under Housing Element Law. As a result of that review HCD hereby issues the following written finding that the City has failed to implement Program 1-B (Multi-Family Residential Overlay Amendments) to accommodate its lower income Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) shortfall by applying a minimum density of 20 units per acre in its Multifamily Residential Overlay1.

Findings
On October 4, 2024, HCD found the City's housing element in substantial compliance with Housing Element Law. HCD based its compliance finding on, among other things, a commitment to implement housing element Programs 1-B (Multifamily Residential Overlay Amendments), Program 1-C (Focused Specific Plan Updates), and Program 2-A (By-right Rezoning Sites from Prior Inventories) by December 15, 2024 to rezone adequate sites to satisfy its RHNA shortfall and allow by-right processing of sites identified in previous housing elements.

On December 11, 2024, HCD requested an update on the City's progress implementing rezone actions and timelines for Programs 1-B, 1-C, and 2-A by January 14, 2025. The City responded on December 23, 2024, stating the City Council adopted the relevant ordinances on December 17, 2024, and provided signed copies. Upon review, HCD found that Ordinance No. 3688 did not include the required minimum density of 20 units per 1 Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (h)(2).

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 6., Item Page 12, Packet Page 53 Kimberly Cole, Community Development Director

Page 2 ends

acre for lower-income sites under Program 1-B. HCD met with the City on April 29, 2025, regarding the City's concerns about water constraints.

On July 8, 2025, HCD issued a Technical Assistance Letter requesting ordinance revisions or documentation showing compliance. The City responded on July 31, 2025, reiterating concerns about the 20-unit minimum but committing to adopt amendments in September 2025.

HCD met with the City again on August 6, 2025, and followed up on August 12, 2025 with recommended options, including revising the Multifamily Overlay to include the 20-unit minimum. HCD requested an update on September 12. On October 7, 2025, HCD leadership met with City staff to discuss achieving minimum densities. The City replied on October 23, 2025, stating it would move forward with zoning code amendments requiring the minimum density for lower-income RHNA sites in the Multifamily Overlay.

HCD met again with the City on November 20, 2025, and sent suggested ordinance revisions on November 26. On February 4, 2026, the City stated it would proceed with the required amendments and would provide a draft ordinance by February 28, 2026.

As of this letter, HCD has not received updated ordinance language or a timeline for adoption. Based on the fact that the statutory timeline to complete required housing element rezones has passed2
, and the City has provided no timeline for the adoption of necessary revisions, HCD finds that the City has failed to implement this required rezone program action within the statutorily required timeframe.

In addition, when updating the ordinance, the City should also consult with legal counsel on compliance with the New Commune DTLA LLC v. City of Redondo Beach decision related to the establishment of minimum densities and required residential development in base zones when adopting an overlay to meet housing element rezoning requirements. 3
State Housing Element Law
HCD must review any action or failure to act by a City that it determines to be inconsistent with an adopted housing element or section 65583 generally, and it must issue written findings to the City accordingly.4 HCD must give the City a reasonable time, no longer than 30 days, to respond to these findings. 5 If HCD does not receive a written response from the City within 30 days, or the response does not demonstrate 2 Gov. Code, § 65583.4, subd. (a).
3 New Commune DTLA LLC v. City of Redondo Beach 115 Cal.App.5th 111, 337 Cal. Rptr. 3d 782 (2025)
4 Gov. Code, § 65585, subd. (i)(1 ).
5 Gov. Code, § 65585, subd. (i)(1 )(A).

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 6., Item Page 13, Packet Page 54 Kimberly Cole, Community Development Director

Page 3 ends

that the program action has been implemented, then HCD will revoke its findings that the City's housing element substantially complies with State Housing Element Law. 6 Additionally, HCD may notify the California Office of the Attorney General when a City takes actions that are inconsistent with an adopted housing element or Government Code sections 65583 and 65915, among other laws. 7
Next Steps
HCD requests that the City review this correspondence and provide a written response to these findings within 30 days and no later than June 19, 2026. HCD will review and consider the City's written response before taking any action authorized by Government Code section 65585, subdivisions (i) and U). As noted below, such action could include revoking HCD's finding that the City's housing element is in substantial compliance with Housing Element Law and/or referral to the Office of the Attorney General.

If you have questions, need additional information, or wish to schedule a meeting, please contact Mary Milner at [email protected], or Reid Miller at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Melinda Coy
Housing Accountability Unit Chief
6 Gov. Code, § 65585, subd. (i)(1 )(C).
7 Gov. Code, § 65585, subd. (j).

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 6., Item Page 14, Packet Page 55 June 16, 2026
Melinda Coy
Housing Accountability Unit Chief
651 Bannon Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95811
**VIA EMAIL**
Subject: City of Monterey’s Housing Element Implementation – Corrective Action Letter Dear Melinda Coy,
This letter responds to the correspondence from the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) dated May 20, 2026. In summary, HCD’s corrective action letter issues a written finding that the City has failed to implement Program 1-B (Multi-Family Residential Overlay Amendments) to accommodate its lower income Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) shortfall by applying a minimum density of 20 units per acre in its Multifamily Residential Overlay District.

As accurately detailed in the letter, City staff met with HCD staff on multiple occasions to explore various options to accommodate the requirements of Government Code section 65583.2(h)(2) in a way that continues to facilitate and encourage the development of housing while also acknowledging the legal realities facing the City of Monterey. Given the practical significance of the issue, it bears emphasizing again that the City’s water purveyor (California American Water) remains subject to a 2009 State-issued Cease and Desist Order prohibiting the installation of new water meters. As a result of this regulatory moratorium imposed by the State of California, the development and use of property within the City of Monterey is limited by its water use at the time of the Cease and Desist Order, rather than density controls imposed by zoning regulations. The City maintains its position that the inclusion of a minimum density requirement will ultimately further constrain development potential for identified housing sites until the Cease and Desist Order is lifted because most sites will not have adequate water allocations to meet the required minimum density.

HCD staff has communicated that State Housing Element Law does not provide any mechanism for relief from or flexibility regarding the provisions of Government Code section 65583.2(h)(2) and that extraordinary factors such as the Cease and Desist Order, are not considered when determining substantial compliance. While strict compliance with Government Code section 65583.2(h)(2) will likely result in an unintended stagnation of housing development at all affordability levels in the affected areas, City staff has prepared the necessary zoning amendments to incorporate a minimum density requirement of 20 dwelling units per acre in the Multifamily Residential Overlay District. The draft ordinance is attached for your review. This ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 6., Item Page 15, Packet Page 56 amendment will be scheduled for consideration by the Planning Commission at its July 14, 2026, meeting and subsequently by the City Council in August of 2026. City staff will provide documentation to HCD staff of any revisions upon adoption.

If you have any questions regarding this correspondence or any other related issue, please contact me at (831) 646-3759.

Sincerely,
Kimberly Cole
Kimberly Cole, AICP
Community Development Director
City of Monterey
Cc: Levi Hill, AICP, Planning Manager, City of Monterey Mary Milner, Department of Housing and Community Development Reid Miller, Department of Housing and Community Development ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 6., Item Page 16, Packet Page 57 Council
Agenda Report
№12/25
FROM: Andrea Renny, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Marissa Garcia, Engineering Assistant
SUBJECT: Receive Feedback and Provide Direction to Staff to Halt or Continue the Madison/Herrmann/Larkin Intersection Safety Improvement Project ***CIP*** (Exempt from CEQA Article 19, Section 15303, Class 3)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt either Resolution to:
1) Approve the plans and specifications for the
Madison/Herrmann/Larkin Intersection Safety
Improvement Project, or
2) Amend Resolution 26-083 to reject all bids of the
Madison/Herrmann/Larkin Intersection Safety
Improvement Project (CIP2422).

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.

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

This project is consistent with the “Move Monterey” Multimodal Plan for the City of Monterey, adopted by City Council on May 2021. This project is consistent with the Safe Routes to School and Vision Zero sections of the Multimodal Plan.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

Agenda Report Highlights
• The City Council must decide
whether to approve or reject bids for
the Madison, Herrmann, and Larkin
Intersection Safety Improvement
Project.
• This temporary demonstration
project would aim to reduce vehicle
speeds and improve pedestrian
visibility near Monterey High School.
• Canceling the project would result in
forfeiting grant funding and the City
absorbing approximately $29,000 in
existing design expenses.
• During a recent community meeting,
a majority of the attendees opposed
the project and favored preserving
the current intersection
configuration.

Date: 8/4/2026
Item No.: 7.

Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 7., Item Page 1, Packet Page 58 №12/25
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The project has an available funding balance of $210,212.98. All available funds are from the Regional Surface Transportation Program Grant and have specific terms of use. If the project does not proceed, the City will forfeit the grant and may need to absorb any project expenses that have already occurred associated with design, at a cost of approximately $29,000.

The quick build project is a temporary demonstration project. If the project is built, Staff will return to Council in 2027 to get direction if the improvements should be made permanent. If Council chooses to make the project permanent, on-going maintenance will require funding from Gas Tax, Measure X or General Funds.

If the project is built and the Council chooses to remove the quick build project, removal of the project improvements will require funding from the General Fund, unless the Transportation Agency for Monterey County authorizes the use of RSTP funds for removal.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey Planning Office determined that the following actions are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15303, Class 3) because the proposed project involves the design and construction of a “Quick Build” transportation improvement. “Quick Build” projects require minor construction activities and are typically built with durable, low to moderate cost materials, and last from one to five years. The project would involve the installation of traffic signs, striping, and vertical elements (i.e., plastic bollards, rubber curbs, and temporary curb). 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 project would be located in the public right-of-way; therefore, would not be located in a sensitive 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 project is limited in scope and would only include application of “Quick Build” on existing paved surfaces. Therefore, no cumulative impacts are anticipated.

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

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

Exception e – Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 7., Item Page 2, Packet Page 59 №12/25
located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. The project would not 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 project would be located within the public right-of-way and would not involve impacts to historic buildings. The “Quick Build” project would be applied to an existing road and would not involve digging. Therefore, the project would not result in an impact to historic or archeological resources.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

Council may approve the project’s plans and specifications as presented. Council may also approve the plans and specifications with modifications, such as removing the decorative “M” from the traffic circle or omitting the delineator posts.

Alternatively, Council may decline to approve the plans and specifications and reject all bids, in which case the intersection would remain in its existing configuration.

DISCUSSION:

Project Background
The Project was added to the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Project list in November 2023. This project is part of a Safe Routes to School (SRTS) initiative focused on improving conditions for students walking and bicycling to Monterey High School. Promoting Safe Routes to School Programs is a General Plan policy. Safe Routes to School programs are used throughout California and across the country because communities have recognized that one of the most effective ways to reduce school-related traffic congestion is to create safer, more comfortable routes for students to walk and bike. When families feel safe allowing their children to walk or ride to school, fewer vehicles are concentrated around drop-off and pick-up times, which can improve traffic conditions for everyone.

The project was funded through the Transportation Agency for Monterey County's Quick-Build Pilot Program, which was specifically created to help local agencies test safety improvements quickly and cost-effectively before investing in permanent construction. Quick-build projects are now widely used by transportation agencies throughout California and the United States as a proven tool to improve safety while gathering real-world data and community feedback.

A quick-build project is intentionally temporary. It is not intended to address every transportation issue in a neighborhood, nor is it intended to represent a final design. Rather, it allows a community to test improvements, observe actual traffic operations, evaluate safety benefits, and make adjustments before any long-term decisions are considered. One of the defining characteristics of a quick-build project is that community input continues throughout the demonstration period. Unlike traditional capital projects that may take years to design and construct before the public can experience them, quick-build projects are purposely implemented using temporary materials so that residents can observe how they function in realworld conditions and provide informed feedback based on actual experience. In many communities, some of the most meaningful public engagement occurs during this testing phase.

The project concept was presented to the Planning Commission and then introduced to Council on November 11th, 2023. The intersection of Madison Street, Herrmann Drive, and Larkin Street was selected because it serves a significant number of students traveling to and Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 7., Item Page 3, Packet Page 60 №12/25
from Monterey High School. The primary objective of the project is to reduce vehicle speeds and improve visibility and predictability at a complex five-leg intersection where pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles interact. Research consistently shows that even modest reductions in vehicle speed can significantly reduce the likelihood and severity of pedestrian injuries.

The goals of the project are:
• Reduce vehicle speeds at the intersection approaches
• Reduce vehicle speeds through the intersection and at pedestrian crossings on the intersection departures
• Provide better visibility of pedestrians
• Provide placemaking opportunity for Monterey High School students and neighbors, reminding drivers of the presence of pedestrians and student drivers • Promote Safe Routes to School (SRTS) so students feel safer walking and biking to reduce vehicular traffic
• Maintain Emergency Vehicle access through the intersection • Gather community feedback for the quick-build project and have staff evaluate the project once installed, considering input received from residents, students, and roadway users
• Join county-wide SRTS efforts , including Seaside, Gonzales, Soledad, Greenfield, and King City.

Council Action on June 26
On June 26, 2026, Staff presented the project to Council and requested approval of a construction contract to implement the project. During discussion of the agenda item, Council requested additional neighborhood outreach before moving forward with the proposed “Quick Build” project. Ultimately, the Council Adopted Resolution No. 26-083 C.S., which the contract was awarded to The Don Chapin Company, Inc., and directed staff to conduct neighborhood outreach, be open to project modifications based on community feedback, request an extension of grant funding from the Transportation Agency of Monterey County, and return to the Council at a later date for final project approval.

Update from Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) Following the June 26, 2026 meeting, staff discussed the Project and terms of the grant with TAMC Staff. If the City moves forward with the Project, the City will be able to request an extension to complete the Project without jeopardizing the grant funding. If the design of the Project changes, it must still meet the original purpose at the intersection of Madison Street, Herrmann Drive, and Larkin Street in order to utilize the grant funds.

The purpose of the project is to reduce vehicle speeds traveling through the intersection to enhance pedestrian crossing safety. The project’s improvements are anticipated to reduce collisions and near misses for motor vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists. If the project cannot meet the original stated purpose, funding must be returned to TAMC, and the design of the traffic circle will not be reimbursable. The overall goal of the quick build is straightforward: create a safer environment for students and other pedestrians while testing improvements that can be evaluated using real-world experience rather than assumptions alone. The project represents a measured, low-cost approach to safety that allows the City to learn what works before considering any permanent investment.

Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 7., Item Page 4, Packet Page 61 №12/25
Motion for Reconsideration
In accordance with the City Council’s Governance Policy, on June 26, 2026, Councilmember Rasch provided a written request to reconsider the June 16, 2026, adoption of Resolution No. 26-083 C.S. This request was considered on July 7th, the reconsideration motion failed and the staff continued with the July 9th community meeting.

July 9th Community Meeting
At the City Council’s direction, staff held a community meeting regarding the Project at the Monterey Public Library’s Community Room on Thursday, July 9, 2026. The meeting had over 45 attendees. Staff provided additional background on the Project, answered questions and took meeting attendees through an exercise to provide feedback or suggestions for the Project. During the meeting an informal survey was conducted of the attendees to gauge support of the project; 38 people voted to stop the Project, 6 people voted to proceed with the Project, and 2 people abstained from voting. Of the 6 people who supported the Project some requested modifications including replacing the stop signs with yield signs, removing the delineator posts, and removing the decorative “M” from the traffic circle. The community provided feedback that included MPUSD school operation changes, as well as adjustments to the Pacific Street at Madison St signal operations.

The meeting feedback reflected broad community opposition to the proposed Project, with many participants expressing concerns that it would not address the primary issue of school-related congestion and instead create new challenges, including narrowed travel lanes, loss of parking, visual impacts, potential effects on neighborhood character and property values. Residents emphasized that Monterey High School should take a more active role in managing student pick-up and drop-off operations through alternative locations, improved parent education, enhanced traffic management, crossing guards, staggered schedules, and expanded bus service. While a small number of attendees supported testing the Project, the overwhelming sentiment favored preserving the existing intersection configuration.

Conclusion
The Project was initially added to the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Project list in November 2023 and is funded from a RSTP grant. Staff prepared plans and specifications and advertised the project for construction bids. On May 26, 2026, the City received one (1) bid.

The lowest responsive, responsible bid was submitted by The Don Chapin Company, Inc. in the amount of $140,306.50. The bid proposal is valid for 90 days and will expire on August 24, 2026.

At the June 26, 2026 Council meeting, Council directed staff to conduct neighborhood outreach, and be open to project modifications based on community feedback. Staff held a community meeting on July 9, 2026 and 45 community members attended. The majority of participants opposed the Project, and a few participants supported the project in some capacity.

In light of the feedback received during the community meeting, staff is requesting Council’s direction on whether to reject the bid and discontinue the Project, proceed with the Project, or approve modifications. Direction from Council will ensure that staff has the next steps that appropriately reflect both the community input received and the Council’s policy objectives.

AR/mg
Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 7., Item Page 5, Packet Page 62 №12/25
Attachments: 1. Resolution 1

2. Resolution 2
e: Janneke Stause, Transportation Agency for Monterey County The Don Chapin Company, Inc.

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, 8/4/2026, Item No. 7., Item Page 6, Packet Page 63 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№011/24
AMEND RESOLUTION 28-083 TO APPROVE THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE

MADISON/HERRMANN/LARKIN INTERSECTION SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, City Staff was directed to host a public meeting and collect outreach for the Madison/Herrmann/Larkin Intersection Safety Improvement Project (CIP2422) (“Project”) and return to Council to provide feedback and request direction; WHEREAS, a public meeting was held at the Monterey Library Community Room on Thursday June 9th; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey Planning Office determined that the following actions are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15303, Class 3) because the proposed project involves the design and construction of a “Quick Build” transportation improvement. “Quick Build” projects require minor construction activities and are typically built with durable, low to moderate cost materials, and last from one to five years. The project would involve the installation of traffic signs, striping, and vertical elements (i.e., plastic bollards, rubber curbs, and temporary curb). Furthermore, the exempt projects do not qualify for any of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions found at CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2.

Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 7., Item Page 7, Packet Page 64 Exception e – Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. The project would not be located on hazardous waste sites listed pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby amends Resolution 28-083 to approve the plans and specifications for the Madison/Herrmann/Larkin Intersection Safety Improvement Project, which are available in the office of the City Engineer (Room 7), 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.

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, 8/4/2026, Item No. 7., Item Page 8, Packet Page 65 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№011/24
AMENDING RESOLUTION 26-083 TO REJECT ALL BIDS, DECLINING TO PROCEED WITH

THE MADISON/HERRMANN/LARKIN INTERSECTION SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

AND DIRECTING STAFF TO RETURN GRANT FUNDING TO THE TRANSPORTATION

AGENCY FOR MONTEREY COUNTY
WHEREAS, City Staff was directed to host a public meeting and collect outreach on the Madison/Herrmann/Larkin Intersection Safety Improvement Project (CIP2422) (“Project”) and return to Council to provide feedback and request direction; WHEREAS, a public meeting was held at the Monterey Library Community Room on Thursday June 9th;
WHEREAS, because of the feedback received at the meeting, the Project will not continue; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey Planning Office determined that the following actions are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15303, Class 3) because the proposed project involves the design and construction of a “Quick Build” transportation improvement. “Quick Build” projects require minor construction activities and are typically built with durable, low to moderate cost materials, and last from one to five years. The project would involve the installation of traffic signs, striping, and vertical elements (i.e., plastic bollards, rubber curbs, and temporary curb). Furthermore, the exempt projects do not qualify for any of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions found at CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2.

Exception d – Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 7., Item Page 9, Packet Page 66 may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The projects would not be visible from any scenic highways; therefore, no impacts to scenic highways would occur.

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

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

1. Amends Resolution 26-083 to reject all bids of the Madison/Herrmann/Larkin Intersection Safety Improvement Project (CIP2422).

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, 8/4/2026, Item No. 7., Item Page 10, Packet Page 67 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Nat Rojanasathira, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Receive Update on Draft Economic Development Strategy (EDS) Stakeholder Engagement Plan (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council receive an update on the Draft
Economic Development Strategy (EDS) Stakeholder
Engagement Plan.

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:

At its goal-setting workshop on January 29, 2025, the
Monterey City Council identified “Fiscal Stewardship:

Economic Development” among one of the most important
priority areas, tied for fifth place. It is within the City Council’s policy purview to review and adopt an Economic Development Strategy. At its meeting on March 26, 2025, the City Council received a presentation on the Draft
Economic Development Strategy. It is within the City
Council’s purview to receive an update on the EDS
Stakeholder Engagement Plan.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE
ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no fiscal implications to receiving this report. Staff intends to conduct industry, business association, and neighborhood outreach on the Draft Economic Development Strategy utilizing existing staff. In the future the City Council could choose to authorize the City Manager to budget for a full-time Economic Development Manager, which was not hired in Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-26 and frozen in FY 2026-27. The City intends to engage with an economic development advisory firm to assist with the analysis of potential Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts (EIFDs).

Agenda Report Highlights
• The City Council is asked to receive
an update regarding the Draft
Economic Development Strategy
Stakeholder Engagement Plan.
• City staff would restart the
stakeholder engagement process in
August 2026 and gather feedback
through December 2026.
• Engagement efforts would involve a
digital survey alongside sixteen
meetings with specific industry
groups, business associations, and
neighborhood residents.
• The finalized strategy and a
recommendation for future
economic development staffing
resources would be presented in
early 2027.

Date: 8/4/2026
Item No.: 10.

Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 1, Packet Page 68 №10/24
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 provide feedback on the Draft EDS Stakeholder Engagement Plan, but that is not recommended.

DISCUSSION:

State of Economic Development in Monterey
Tourism remains and will continue to be one of the top economic drivers for the City of Monterey. The City’s partnerships with hospitality groups such as the Monterey County Hospitality Association (MCHA) and destination marketing organization See Monterey remain strong. The City has supported economic development efforts such as supporting destination marketing, collaboration with business and industry, and continued investment in the Monterey Conference Center.

However, the City of Monterey is experiencing fierce competition in the region and has been losing market share to other municipalities. There are a total of 2,039 hotel rooms planned or under construction in the cities of Marina, Pacific Grove, Sand City, Salinas, and Seaside. In the last year, new hotels opened on the Peninsula, including the 101-room Kimpton Mirador in Pacific Grove and 215-room Courtyard by Marriott and Residence Inn by Marriott in Sand City.

With the planned Grand Hyatt in Seaside, American Tin Cannery Hotel in Pacific Grove, and resort hotels in Marina, there are an additional 1,723 rooms in the pipeline. This competition directly translates to slower growth in Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT), which is the City’s single largest source of General Fund revenue that pays for critical City services such as police, fire, parks, recreation services, libraries, and more.

The City of Monterey cannot take its position as a regional leader for the hospitality sector and other industries for granted. The City should make significant long-term investments in our infrastructure and replace or rehabilitate City-owned assets in our business districts such as Old Monterey, Lighthouse Avenue/New Monterey, Cannery Row and North Fremont.

Implementing a long-term economic development strategy would enable the City to support the high quality of life residents expect. There are vast opportunities to enhance the quality of life, visibility, sense of place, accessibility, and walkability of North Fremont Street, Old Town, Lighthouse Avenue, Old Fisherman’s Wharf, and other business areas. One of the biggest challenges is coordinating efforts among business owners, property owners, business associations, and other partners, as well as identifying and implementing sustainable funding Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 2, Packet Page 69 №10/24
mechanisms to fund these improvements. An Economic Development Strategy will lay the groundwork for that very purpose.

Given the City’s $11.7 million structural budget deficit, an Economic Development Strategy (EDS) that is future-focused, collaborative, community-focused, and realistic is more important than ever.

The Draft Economic Development Strategy
Economic Development was seen as a prime opportunity by the majority of councilmembers at the January 29, 2025 goal-setting workshop. In fact, it was identified as one of the most important priority areas for the City of Monterey (tied for fifth-most important).

At its meeting on March 26, 2025, staff presented the Draft 2025 Economic Development Strategy, which contained the following elements:
• A newly-defined vision and goal for economic development in the City; • A review of selected economic and employment data, and a rough analysis of the City’s economic development Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT);
• Opportunities for additional stakeholder engagement;
• Preliminary economic development strategies; and
• An economic development implementation roadmap.

A Draft 2025 Economic Development Strategy (EDS) is a first step toward encapsulating feedback received from Councilmembers and the community to date. City staff plans additional engagement with the City Council, business community, industry leaders, and residents.

Economic Development Vision and Goals
Proposed Economic Development Vision: Monterey will maintain its outstanding quality of life for residents by strengthening the community’s economic and fiscal vitality. It will do so by embracing its historic charm, protecting the coastal environment, supporting affordable housing for the community’s workforce, and fostering sustainable tourism through innovation and partnerships.

Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 3, Packet Page 70 №10/24
Proposed Economic Development Goals:

1. Remaining Competitive in the Hospitality
Marketplace through Quality of Place:

Foster the modernization and increased
appeal of outdated amenities and assets,
including hotels, retail areas, and business
districts.

2. Sustainable Redevelopment: Prioritize
redevelopment and adaptive reuse of
underutilized properties to meet modern
economic needs and identify funding
solutions to support those efforts.

3. Business Retention, Attraction, and
Promotion through Collaborative
Partnerships: Strengthen coordination with
business associations, commercial real estate
brokers, business districts, industry associations, and destination marketing organizations

4. Economic Diversification: Continue to focus on and retain the region’s existing economic strengths in the fields of hospitality, military, education, and healthcare, while exploring new growth industries, particularly with regard to high-wage jobs that support these sectors.

5. Affordable Workforce Housing Solutions: Develop strategies to address the current lack of workforce housing affordability that hinders the attraction and retention of talent in all industries.

Economic Development Strategy (EDS) Update
At its meeting on March 26, 2025, the City Council provided initial feedback on the Draft Economic Development Strategy (EDS). Council emphasized balancing economic growth with environmental and social responsibility. Councilmembers advocated for diversifying the local economy beyond hospitality, creating affordable workforce housing, and addressing deferred infrastructure maintenance through dedicated funding and specialized financing options like Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts. Furthermore, the Council stressed actively including residents in outreach efforts to secure community buy-in, and exploring practical improvements such as enhanced pedestrian access, electric vehicle charging stations, and the activation of vacant commercial spaces.

Staff had planned to conduct focus group meetings with business associations, industry partners, and neighborhood associations in summer 2025. Staff delayed this effort and sought to begin the Draft Economic Development Strategy outreach once a full-time Economic Development Manager was hired. However, the recruitment for an Economic Development Manager in fall 2025 did not result in a strong candidate pool. Subsequently, the position was frozen for the remainder of the fiscal year and for FY 2026-27 due to the City’s budget crisis.

Stakeholder engagement will restart in August through December 2026, and staff will bring forward a draft final EDS in early 2027, along with a staffing and resourcing recommendation on the potential hiring of an Economic Development Manager or use of an economic development consultant to implement the EDS.

Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 4, Packet Page 71 №10/24
EDS Stakeholder Engagement Plan
Given current staff’s extensive experience in economic development, staff plans to restart implementation of the Economic Development Strategy (EDS) Stakeholder Engagement Plan in August. This effort would continue through December 2026.

The Stakeholder Engagement Plan would focus on sharing the draft Economic Development Strategy, but most importantly listening to feedback from each of the focus groups, economic clusters, residents, and stakeholders. Each session will include broad-based questions seeking input on the SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) Analysis as well as group-specific questions.

Feedback in focus group meetings and workshops would be held on three different tracks, gathering feedback from three types of groups:
• Track 1: Industry-Specific Engagement would include five (5) separate focus group meetings with industry clusters: hospitality and tourism, education, military and defense, and marine sciences, fisheries, and agtech.
• Track 2: Business Association Engagement would include seven (7) meetings with each business district or association, including those representing North Fremont, Old Monterey, New Monterey, Cannery Row, and Fishermans’ Wharf, as well as the Monterey Commercial Property Owners’ Association and Monterey Peninsula Chamber of Commerce.
• Track 3: Neighborhood and Neighborhood Association Engagement would provide four (4) opportunities for residents and neighborhood associations to share their feedback in different parts of the community, in addition to one (1) virtual meeting.

During the four-month timespan, a total of 17 meetings and workshops would be held, at varying locations in the City that meets the needs of each stakeholder group.

In addition to engagement meetings, staff will develop and launch an EDS Digital Survey for participants to take before or after engagement surveys. The survey results will help staff identify economic development needs and priorities from stakeholders’ points of view.

Lastly, EDS engagement opportunities would be promoted through the City website and social media, business association newsletters, Have Your Say Monterey platform, Monterey Peninsula Chamber of Commerce, and other channels.

Finalizing the EDS
In early 2027, staff plans to deliver the draft final EDS that includes an engagement summary report, EDS survey report, and updated implementation schedule. Staff will also bring forward a staffing and resourcing recommendation on whether or not to plan for an Economic Development Manager or similar position in FY 2027-28, use a consultant, or a hybrid model.

NR
Attachments: 1. Draft Economic Development Strategy (March 2025) Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 5, Packet Page 72 №10/24
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, 8/4/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 6, Packet Page 73 DRAFT 2025 Economic Development Strategy
City of Monterey, California
March 2025

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 7, Packet Page 74 City of Monterey
DRAFT 2025 Economic Development Strategy

Page 2 ends

Table of Contents

1. Introduction.............................................................................................................................................3

1.1 Economic Context............................................................................................................................4

1.1.1 Employment......................................................................................................................6

1.1.2 City Revenue Sources .....................................................................................................8

1.1.2.1 Transient Occupancy Tax (Hotel Tax) ....................................................................8

1.1.2.2 Sales Tax...................................................................................................................11

1.1.2.3 Measure S Sales Tax ...............................................................................................14

1.1.2.4 Property Tax ................................................................................................................14

1.1.2.5 Business License Tax ................................................................................................15

1.1.3 Economic Development Financing Tools.........................................................................16

2. Guiding Vision and Economic Development Goals........................................................................19

3. SWOT Analysis......................................................................................................................................21

3.1 Strengths .........................................................................................................................................21

3.2 Weaknesses....................................................................................................................................22

3.3 Opportunities..................................................................................................................................23

3.4 Threats .............................................................................................................................................23

4. Stakeholder Engagement....................................................................................................................25

5. Economic Development Strategies ..................................................................................................27

6. Implementation Schedule..................................................................................................................35

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 8, Packet Page 75 City of Monterey
DRAFT 2025 Economic Development Strategy

Page 3 ends

1. Introduction
At its goal-setting workshop on January 29, 2025, the Monterey City Council identified “Fiscal Stewardship: Economic Development” among one of the most important priority areas, tied for fifth place. Economic Development was also seen as a prime opportunity by the majority of councilmembers during a brainstorming exercise.
“Economic Development” may mean different things for our City Council. This draft “Economic Development Strategy” attempts to provide a preliminary framework. It is meant to be a starting point for many future conversations with residents, businesses and City Council.

The draft contains the following building blocks:
• A newly added and defined vision and goal for economic development in the City. • A review of selected economic and employment data, and a preliminary analysis of the City’s economic development Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT).
• Opportunities for additional stakeholder engagement.
• Preliminary economic development strategies.
• An economic development implementation roadmap.

A Draft 2025 Economic Development Strategy (EDS) is a first step towards encapsulating feedback received from Councilmembers and the community. Additional engagement and feedback from the City Council, business community, industry leaders, and residents are planned. The heartbeat of Monterey’s economy is our hospitality industry. Tourism remains and will continue to be the top economic driver for our community’s wealth and quality of life.

The City’s partnerships with hospitality partners such as the Monterey County Hospitality Association (MCHA) and destination marketing organization See Monterey remain strong. Our City has supported economic development efforts in the hospitality industry such as supporting destination marketing, collaboration with businesses, and investments in the Monterey Conference Center and Monterey hotels.

Today we have an opportunity to implement a long-term economic development strategy that supports residents and tourists alike. This strategy should strive to ensure the high quality of life Monterey residents expect while providing a vibrant and thriving experience that will keep visitors coming back to our community for years to come.

In Monterey County competition in the hospitality industry has never been fiercer. There are a total of 2,039 hotel rooms planned or under construction in the cities of Marina, Pacific Grove, Sand City, Salinas, and Seaside. In Pacific Grove and Sand City, construction is underway on the 101-room Kimpton Hotel and the 215-room Courtyard by Marriott and Residence Inn by Marriott, respectively. With the planned Grand Hyatt in Seaside, American Tin Cannery Hotel in Pacific Grove, and the AC Hotels and Element Hotel by Westin in Marina and others, there are an additional 1,723 rooms in the pipeline. These communities have also made significant

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 9, Packet Page 76 City of Monterey
DRAFT 2025 Economic Development Strategy

Page 4 ends

improvements to sidewalks, streetlights, and other infrastructure to attract visitors and locals to shopping centers and business districts in their jurisdictions.

The City of Monterey cannot take its position as a regional leader in tourism and hospitality for granted. Residents understand that tourism plays an important role in the local economy.

According to See Monterey’s 2024 Resident Sentiment Survey, a significant majority of City of Monterey residents (72%) see tourism as important to Monterey County. Countywide, 66% of residents say that tourism has a positive impact, while 47% say it has a positive impact on their community, and only 37% say it has a positive impact on their families. Tourism contributes significantly to the City of Monterey’s operating budget. Some residents may not see the way tourism revenues support many amenities and services the City provides, such as public parks, Monterey Sports Center, and more. Surveyed residents who expressed a negative view of tourism perceive the main challenges to be its contribution to traffic congestion, a decrease in affordable housing, stress on infrastructure particularly during the summer, and the overall environmental impact. Significant long-term investments in infrastructure and replacing or rehabilitating City-owned assets and streetscape improvements in business districts such as Old Monterey, Lighthouse Avenue, Cannery Row and North Fremont are needed to maintain a positive experience for residents and visitors. Other survey respondents recognized that visitor dollars positively impact the community by supporting local businesses, leading to job creation, and supporting local amenities that residents enjoy. There are vast opportunities in Monterey to enhance the quality of life, visibility, sense of place, accessibility, and walkability of Old Monterey, Lighthouse Avenue, Old Fisherman’s Wharf, and other business areas in Monterey. One of the biggest challenges is coordination among business owners, property owners, business associations, and other partners, as well as identifying and implementing sustainable mechanisms to fund these improvements. An Economic Development Strategy will lay the groundwork for that very purpose.

This paper will be refined and updated by engaging additional stakeholders such as residents, business owners, major employers, property owners, business associations, and industry groups. There will also likely be a need to allocate additional staffing resources to implement the City’s economic development efforts. The City may choose to complete the Economic Development Strategy and gather feedback from stakeholders and business interests before determining how to staff an Economic Development Office. The final EDS would include a detailed implementation strategy on how to achieve the City’s economic development goals, whether that be with full-time staff, consultants, or a combination of the two.

1.1 Economic Context
The City of Monterey is a vibrant coastal community known for its rich history, natural beauty, and diverse economy. The City appeals to all types of businesses striving to have the name “Monterey” in their address or business names. While the City enjoys a strong tourism base, there is ongoing competition for tourism regionally and nationally. There are opportunities to remain competitive and address key challenges such as the high cost of living and limited affordable housing. Monterey has the know-how and the common sense understanding of how

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 10, Packet Page 77 City of Monterey
DRAFT 2025 Economic Development Strategy

Page 5 ends

to successfully collaborate with hospitality. Economic success and prosperity go hand in hand with good economic policies and investments.

Monterey relies on tourism and hospitality as key drivers of local revenue including Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT), sales tax, and parking revenues. TOT and sales tax revenues fund essential services like police services, fire and emergency services, parks and recreation, Monterey Public Library, Monterey Sports Center, trails, and other core services many residents rely on. Parking revenues reimburse the General Fund for services delivered for parking operations as well as fund the summer trolley services provided by Monterey-Salinas Transit.

The devasting economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the need for fiscal stewardship, as tourism-related revenue losses led to significant budget cuts and layoffs and losses in the amount of $32M in18 months. In 2020, the California State Auditor listed Monterey among the top 11 cities in California most financially devastated by pandemicrelated revenue loss1 . According to the U.S. Census Bureau, hospitality and food service employs 4,813 jobs in the City of Monterey.

Other primary economic drivers include the military/federal, education, and healthcare sectors.
2 The U.S. Army Garrison Presidio of Monterey (POM), the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center (DLIFLC), Naval Support Activity Monterey (NSAM), the Naval Postgraduate School (NPS) and Fleet Numerical Meteorology and Oceanography Center (FNMOC), form a major economic sector within Monterey’s city limits3. Naval Support Activity Monterey, home to NPS and FNMOC employs 2,125 active-duty service members and 1,901 civilians. DLIFLC houses 2,568 active-duty instructors and students, and 2,180 civilians. The United States Coast Guard employs 40 service members.4
Educational institutions supporting the City’s economy include Monterey Peninsula College (which employs around 500 faculty and staff), the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey, Monterey Peninsula Unified School District (which employs around 1,115 faculty and staff), and California State University Monterey Bay’s Ryan Ranch Center, as well as DLIFLC and NPS which are also part of the military sector.5 The region’s healthcare industry is anchored in the City of Monterey. In addition to the Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula on Holman Highway, Montage Health has 1 https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/california-state-auditor-finds-anaheim-monterey-and-southlake-tahoe-among-cities-losing-significant-revenue-due-to-covid-19-301176342.html 2 U.S. Census Bureau Center for Economic Studies, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, OnTheMap webtool 2022 Estimate, https://onthemap.ces.census.gov/ 3 Matrix Design Group and Monterey Bay Defense Alliance, “Monterey County Military Economic Impact Report,” published November 12, 2024,
https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/6ac5f61d39dc4035a2dae674e3e20c34. 4 Matrix Design Group, March 2025.
5 National Center for Education Statistics, “Monterey Peninsula Unified District Directory Information (2023- 2024 School Year),” accessed March 17, 2025,
https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/districtsearch/district_detail.asp?Search=2&ID2=0625530

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 11, Packet Page 78 City of Monterey
DRAFT 2025 Economic Development Strategy

Page 6 ends

expanded their presence in Ryan Ranch, including the Ohana Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health and other facilities. Their presence on the Monterey Peninsula includes 475 medical staff and 2,609 employees, most of whom work in the City of Monterey. 6 This Draft EDS outlines strategies to bolster the City’s economic resilience, foster innovation, identify opportunities, and strengthen collaboration with business associations and partners, all while enhancing the City’s unique character and quality of life. A balanced, data-driven economic development strategy will focus on business retention and attraction to ensure longterm fiscal health and stability.

1.1.1 Employment
The City of Monterey is the major economic hub for employment in the region. Most notably, a significant part of the City’s employment comes from the federal government. In calendar year 2024, NSAM and DLIFLC employ approximately 8,814 full-time active duty and civilian workers.

They also employ 143,872 Temporary Duty Personnel Days, or roughly 394 full-time equivalents (Temporary Duty Personnel Days are equal to the number of Temporary Duty Personnels times the average length of stay).7
According to the most recent U.S. Census Bureau data (2022), there are 24,944 individuals employed in the City of Monterey in non-military industries. Most of these individuals, 21,865 workers, commute from outside the City, while 3,079 of them live and work within the City’s boundaries. Approximately 8,050 City residents commute to nearby areas for work (Figure 1).8 6 Montage Health, “About Fact Sheet,” accessed March 17, 2025, https://www.montagehealth.org/app/files/public/aefd5925-7c0f-4203-a662-e49149500a20/about/aboutfact-sheet.pdf. 7 Matrix Defense Center, March 2025.
8 U.S. Census Bureau Center for Economic Studies, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, OnTheMap Webtool 2022 Estimate, https://onthemap.ces.census.gov/

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 12, Packet Page 79 City of Monterey
DRAFT 2025 Economic Development Strategy

Page 7 ends

Figure 1. City of Monterey inflow and outflow employment in 2022. Source: U.S. Census Bureau Center for Economic Studies, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, OnTheMap Webtool.

The City of Monterey non-military employment offerings span a variety of sectors, most notably in services relating to hospitality, healthcare, and social work. Of all employment sectors, healthcare and social assistance comprise the largest employment category in the City, at

26.6% of all employees. This category is followed by accommodation and food services (hospitality) at 20.4%. Other notable employment sectors in the City include professional, scientific, technical services, public administration, and management of companies and enterprises.9
Figure 2. Employment in Monterey City, California. Source: U.S. Census Bureau Center for Economic Studies, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, OnTheMap webtool 2022 Estimate.
9 U.S. Census Bureau Center for Economic Studies, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, OnTheMap Webtool 2022 Estimate, https://onthemap.ces.census.gov/

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 13, Packet Page 80 City of Monterey
DRAFT 2025 Economic Development Strategy

Page 8 ends

1.1.2 City Revenue Sources
Monterey’s fiscal health is dependent on revenue from tourism. Approximately 30% of the City’s General Fund Revenue is from Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT), also known as hotel tax, and 15.4% of General Fund revenues are from sales tax in FY 2023-24 (Figure 3). 10 In the following section we will describe the City’s main revenue sources as depicted below:

Figure 3. City of Monterey Amended Budget for FY 2023-24, General Fund by Source (General Fund and Facility Maintenance Fund).

1.1.2.1 Transient Occupancy Tax (Hotel Tax)
The City of Monterey is heavily reliant on revenues hotels and motels, most notably from Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT). In 2021, Monterey’s TOT rate was adjusted to its current rate of 12%, consistent with nearby jurisdictions:
10 City of Monterey, General Funds, https://stories.opengov.com/cityofmontereyca/bfd0f2e9-dabc-4403- 92e1-33676d6ecc3e/published/hUk-2PrhP?currentPageId=66399ad22bab31350ce12afc.

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 14, Packet Page 81 City of Monterey
DRAFT 2025 Economic Development Strategy

Page 9 ends

Figure 4. Transit Occupancy Taxes (TOT or hotel tax) by jurisdiction.

In Fiscal Year (FY) 2023-2024, the City received $35,264,893 from TOT, of which 16% is allocated per Monterey City Charter towards the Neighborhood & Community Improvement Program (NCIP), resulting in a remainder of $30,306,295 of the total TOT in the General Fund. 11 These revenues made up 30% of the City’s General Fund in FY 23-24, illustrating a strong reliance on hotel taxes for the City’s Operating Budget (Figure 3).

Figure 5. Transit Occupancy Tax (TOT or Hotel Tax) revenues in FY 2023-24 by area. 11 City of Monterey, ”City of Monterey Visitor Accommodation Facilities Revenue June 2024 Reporting Period,” https://files.monterey.gov/Document%20Center/Finance/OtherReports/TOT/TOT-Jun2024.pdf.

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 15, Packet Page 82 City of Monterey
DRAFT 2025 Economic Development Strategy

Page 10 ends

Figure 6. Transit Occupancy Tax (TOT or Hotel Tax) revenues in FY 2023-24 by area.

The statement, “a rising tide lifts all boats” often applies to the economic health of the region. “A ship in harbor is safe, but that is not what ships are built for” states another fact, which is the need to continuously invest, expand, replace, and/or enhance existing service levels and attractions. Staying put or staying safe in the harbor is not an option.

The City currently has 4,713 hotel rooms with 40 new hotel rooms proposed with the Avid Hotel by IHG Project on North Fremont Street. New hotels in the county mean more opportunities for visitors to enjoy the region, but compression and competition are becoming factors across the region. While the City may benefit from visitors staying in newer hotels in Marina, Pacific Grove, and Sand City, it also means that those visitors are not contributing to critical TOT revenues in the City of Monterey. The competition from newer hotels and the increase in regional hotel room supply may affect demand in the City, particularly in the upscale and upper midscale hotel categories.

The graph below illustrates that the number of hotels rooms in Monterey have not grown significantly over time. Yet, neighboring cities are projecting a significant increase in their number of rooms projected in the future, including Seaside (+718 rooms), Salinas (+393 rooms), Sand City (+342 rooms), Marina (+200 rooms), and Pacific Grove (+225 rooms), while the City of Monterey is projecting an increase of only 40 rooms. The City’s voter initiative does not allow for new hotels, however, there is an opportunity for older hotels to be renovated or modernized. Additionally, new hotel inventory in the greater tri-county area has added new never before experienced pressures on our local hospitality industry. Many visitors attending events such as the AT&T Pebble Beach Pro-Am and Car Week stay in Santa Cruz, Watsonville, Gilroy, and Morgan Hill, which are less than one hour from the peninsula and offer more affordable rates and more modern accommodations. Santa Cruz has a new luxury beachfront hotel and spa opening in 2025 and also features meeting space for nearly 1,000 attendees. In

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 16, Packet Page 83 City of Monterey
DRAFT 2025 Economic Development Strategy

Page 11 ends

San Luis Obispo County, the cities of San Luis Obispo and Pismo Beach are considering building their own conference centers that would compete with the Monterey Conference Center. These are the new realities and challenges which the City can turn into opportunities to rebuild, rehabilitate, and reinvent. A strong economic development strategy is one important ingredient for success.

Figure 7. Hotel rooms in the Monterey County Tourism Improvement District (MCTID) by jurisdiction over time. Data source: See Monterey.

1.1.2.2 Sales Tax
The second highest source of revenue in the City’s General Fund is Sales Tax. 12 Combined, TOT
and sales tax account for 45.5% of the City’s General Fund revenues (Figure 3). Interestingly, 62% of sales tax is paid by non-residents, which emphasizes the City’s reliance on funding from non-residents to pay for City services.

Restaurants and hotels are the primary contributors to the City’s sales tax revenues. Sales tax generated from hotels includes taxes on hotel restaurants and catering. This category is followed by general consumer goods, county and state pools (sales tax generated from online sales or sales that are distributed to the County and then dispersed to cities), and business and industry.
12 City of Monterey, General Funds, https://stories.opengov.com/cityofmontereyca/bfd0f2e9-dabc-4403- 92e1-33676d6ecc3e/published/hUk-2PrhP?currentPageId=66399ad22bab31350ce12afc.

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 17, Packet Page 84 City of Monterey
DRAFT 2025 Economic Development Strategy

Page 12 ends

Figure 8. FY 2023-24 Sales tax revenues by industry groups.

Figure 9. FY 2023-24 Sales tax revenues by industry groups.

Geographic Area Number of
businesses
Revenues (FY 2023-2024) % of Total Sales Tax
Revenues
Del Monte Center 80 $1,487,282.00 18.50%
Cannery Row 200 $1,443,662.00 18.00%
Fisherman’s
Wharf
34 $392,879.00 4.90%
New Monterey 147 $634,508.00 7.90%
North Fremont 53 $478,149.00 5.90%
Old Town/
Downtown
403 $1,713,838.00 21.30%
Other 920 $1,889,442.00 23.50%
Totals for all
outlets
1,880 $8,039,760.00 100.00%
Table 1. City of Monterey Sales Tax Revenues by Geographic Area. FY 2023-2024.

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 18, Packet Page 85 City of Monterey
DRAFT 2025 Economic Development Strategy

Page 13 ends

Figure 10. Sales tax revenues by location as a percentage of total sales tax revenues.

Source: City of Monterey, Finance Department.

Figure 11. City of Monterey Sales Tax Revenues by Geographic Area. FY 2023-2024.

Source: City of Monterey, Finance Department.

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 19, Packet Page 86 City of Monterey
DRAFT 2025 Economic Development Strategy

Page 14 ends

1.1.2.3 Measure S Sales Tax
For FY 2023-24, the City of Monterey received $11,849,946 in Measure S local district tax revenue.

Measure S is a continuation of Measure P, a one percent (one cent per dollar) local district tax (sales and use tax). Measure P was approved by 74% of voters in 2014 and Measure S was approved by 82% of voters in 2018. The scope of Measures S includes street, sidewalk, and storm drain repairs, as well as improving access and safety for senior citizens, disabled residents, and others. Measure S is currently scheduled to sunset on March 31, 2027 unless extended by voters. Without Measure S funds, the City’s General Fund would be required to cover these expenses, resulting in less funding for other services such as police, fire, recreation, library, and other City services.

Unlike many cities in California, in the City of Monterey, majority of sales tax is paid by nonresidents. This is also true for Measure S tax, of which 62% is paid by non-residents either living in adjacent communities or visiting the City.

1.1.2.4 Property Tax
The City of Monterey receives six cents of every dollar collected in property tax. A commercial or residential property owner paying property taxes in the City receives more services than the amount they pay in property taxes. Considering the current median price of a home in Monterey at $1.3M and a tax rate of roughly 1.11%, the City receives $865.80 in property tax from a typical homeowner.

Monterey collects annually approximately $15.7M in property taxes.

Typically, property tax revenue is the largest source of General Fund revenue for cities in California. For the City of Monterey, property tax ranks as the fourth largest source of revenue, behind TOT and sales tax, further highlighting the City’s dependence on tourism and the importance of investing in economic development.

It should be noted that many properties in the City are exempt from paying property taxes. This includes all non-profit organizations, military installations, educational and religious institutions, governmental agencies, and non-profit medical facilities. These tax-exempt properties are still valuable parts of our community that drive economic growth.

As stated above, in California, including Monterey County, an average of six (6) cents of every dollar of property tax revenues are remitted to cities. The graphic below from the County of Monterey’s Treasurer-Tax Collector shows that on average, schools receive 61 cents of every dollar of property tax revenue, followed by the County of Monterey at 15 cents per dollar, and special districts with nine (9) cents per dollar.

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 20, Packet Page 87 City of Monterey
DRAFT 2025 Economic Development Strategy

Page 15 ends

Figure 12. Source: County of Monterey.

1.1.2.5 Business License Tax
The City of Monterey is home to a strong presence of small enterprises that contribute to its unique local economy and vibrant community. In FY 2024-25, 2,682 businesses were registered with the City of Monterey. The City’s business license tax revenue makes up 3.8% of the general fund revenues, totaling $3,870,000 in FY 2023-24 (see Figure 3).

The retail sector comprises the largest number of independent businesses in the City.

Furthermore, many of the City’s registered businesses are small, professional service providers in consulting, photography, and event planning. Healthcare services, lifestyle and personal care services, and engineering and construction also represent a significant part of the workforce in the City of Monterey.

Figure 13. Number of businesses registered with the City of Monterey 2024-2025.

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 21, Packet Page 88 City of Monterey
DRAFT 2025 Economic Development Strategy

Page 16 ends

1.1.3 Economic Development Financing Tools
Newer mechanisms exist in California that can help facilitate the financing of infrastructure, economic development, and housing efforts:
• Capturing value by charging for higher density zoning to pay for public infrastructure and amenities.

Historically, cities have used Redevelopment Agencies to capture values from zoning right changes (“upzoning” to allow for more density). Recently, many cities have traded in approving additional density in exchange for public infrastructure such as parks, streetlights, and other amenities. The City of Monterey, as part of the State-approved Housing Element, has already “upzoned” areas to increase density in certain areas but has an opportunity to explore additional zoning density and development agreements to create taxable value.
• Utilize tax increment financing to fund infrastructure investments.

Post-redevelopment, some new tax increment financing tools have emerged in California. Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts (EIFDs) are one of those tools, which utilize property tax increment revenues generated within a specific geographic area. Community Revitalization and Investment Authorities (CRIAs), which have a greater emphasis on affordable housing with low- and moderate-income set-aside requirements, are also becoming more common in California. Climate Resilience District (CRDs) are tools that help fund sustainable infrastructure, green spaces, and renewable energy solutions to mitigate climate risks such as flooding, heat waves, and sea level rise. EIFDs, CRIAs, and CRDs are potential tools that could help fund economic development efforts in key geographic areas, including Alvarado Street, Calle Principal, North Fremont Street, and Lighthouse Avenue. • Federally funded programs.

Although limited and often restrictive, there may be state and federal funding available for infrastructure needs. The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) offers tax credits and rebates for individuals and tax-exempt financing for projects to support private sector investment. The bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act provides funding for transportation infrastructure (roads, bridges, public transportation, climate resiliency, brownfields cleanup, and electric vehicle infrastructure). It is noteworthy that federal funding is currently volatile and uncertain, as several federal grants have been nixed. • State funded programs.

State funding is available utilizing $10B generated through Proposition 4 (Parks, Environment, Energy, and Water Bond of 2024) and other State funds. The Infill Infrastructure Grants and Catalyst Program offers $1 million to $30 million awards for

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 22, Packet Page 89 City of Monterey
DRAFT 2025 Economic Development Strategy

Page 17 ends

affordable housing, housing infrastructure, and transportation. The Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) Program offers $1 million to $7.5 million grants for infill projects, and gap funding for infrastructure for affordable residential and mixed-use projects. The Multifamily Housing Program (MHP). These state funding opportunities should be further explored.

Other, more traditional methods of financing economic development infrastructure include:
• Local sales tax measures
The City of Monterey already has two sales tax measures in place: Measure G, which is a ½-cent per dollar sales tax measure approved by voters in March 2020. Measure G funds general services such as police, fire, 9-1-1 emergency response; traffic management; library; senior/youth recreation programs; beach, park, forestry, and trail maintenance; housing programs, and other unrestricted general fund expenditures.

Measure G expires in 2029. There are no General Fund dollars available from Measure G or other sources to fund economic development efforts without compromising existing City services. Measure S, which is described earlier, is to fix streets, sidewalks, and storm drains and install ADA ramps and signals at intersections. Measure S is scheduled to sunset on March 31, 2027, unless extended. • Capital Improvement Programs
Many cities utilize their Capital Improvement Programs (CIPs) to plan for and fund infrastructure improvements in business districts. However, the City of Monterey allocates less funding for its Capital Improvement Program (CIP) as a percentage of the General Fund budget than every other city in the region. The City of Monterey invests just over 2% of general funds to CIP while other cities range from 13% to 25%. The dollars the City invests in its CIP have historically focused on aging infrastructure and facilities, which already have a major funding gap. It is estimated that $96 million in funding is needed within the one-to-five-year time frame and $191 million through years six to 20. The total amount estimated to repair existing infrastructure within the next twenty years is $287 million. These are for existing infrastructure needs and do not include additional improvements or amenities in business districts. • General Obligation Bond Measures
Some cities utilize bond measures, which require 2/3rds approval from voters, to fund projects or initiatives that may include economic development infrastructure. • Business Improvement Districts
In commercial areas, Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) often fund the building and maintenance of streetscape improvements and economic development efforts.

North Fremont, for example, has an existing Business Improvement District. Alvarado Street and Calle Principal each have their own Maintenance Districts. The rate of the BIDs is determined by property owners in a designated geographical area and is an

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 23, Packet Page 90 City of Monterey
DRAFT 2025 Economic Development Strategy

Page 18 ends

additional assessment on property tax.
• Tourism Improvement Districts
Since 2006, the City of Monterey has been part of the Monterey County Tourism Improvement District (MCTID) which is an assessment on lodging properties that are passed on to guests who stay in hotels. The MCTID funds tourism promotion, marketing, group business development, and other destination marketing led by See Monterey. MCTID generates over $8.8 million annually. In some Tourism Improvement Districts, such as Napa Valley Tourism Improvement District, 25% of their TID budget is retained by individual cities and the County of Napa for destination-specific tourism improvement activities such as streetscape enhancements, special event programming and promotion, local tourism shuttle programs, trails, signage, and other infrastructure that enhances the visitor experience.

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 24, Packet Page 91 City of Monterey
DRAFT 2025 Economic Development Strategy

Page 19 ends

2. Guiding Vision and Economic Development Goals
Existing Economic Development Goals - The City of Monterey’s General Plan identifies the following economic development goals, which were established in 2003:

Goal a. Maintain and encourage a strong economic base which will provide tax income for City services, jobs for Monterey residents, and services for residents and visitors.

Encourage civic and business decisions which provide taxes to support City services to residents and which provide employment opportunities to residents.

Goal b. Expand the economy of Monterey by building on existing strengths and emphasizing the natural and historic features of the City.

Goal c. Continue Monterey’s role as the business and employment center of the Monterey Peninsula.

Goal d. Encourage housing, including mixed use housing to meet the needs of business (see Housing Element).

Goal e. Continue to provide exceptional public safety to assure that visitors and residents are not discouraged from visiting or shopping in Monterey.

The City Council should consider these goals as the Economic Development Strategy is updated and refined to keep up with national, state, and regional trends.

Proposed Economic Development Vision: Monterey will maintain its outstanding quality of life for residents by strengthening the community’s economic and fiscal vitality embracing its historic charm, protecting the coastal environment, supporting affordable housing for the community’s workforce, and fostering sustainable tourism through innovation and partnerships.

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 25, Packet Page 92 City of Monterey
DRAFT 2025 Economic Development Strategy

Page 20 ends

Proposed Economic Development Goals:

1. Remaining Competitive in the Hospitality Marketplace through Quality of Place:

Foster the modernization and increased appeal of outdated amenities and assets, including hotels, retail areas, and business districts.

2. Sustainable Redevelopment: Prioritize redevelopment and adaptive reuse of underutilized properties to meet
modern economic needs and identify solutions to
support those efforts.

3. Business Retention, Attraction, and Promotion
through Collaborative Partnerships:

Strengthen coordination with business
associations, commercial real estate brokers,
business districts, industry associations, and
destination marketing organizations.

4. Economic Diversification: Continue to focus
on and retain the region’s existing economic
strengths in the fields of hospitality, military,
education, and healthcare, while exploring new growth
industries, particularly regarding high-wage jobs that support these sectors.

5. Affordable Workforce Housing Solutions: Develop strategies to address the current lack of workforce housing affordability that hinders the attraction and retention of talent in all industries.

As the City’s budget allows, adequate staffing and resources will need to support short-andlong-term economic development needs, to support these goals.

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 26, Packet Page 93 City of Monterey
DRAFT 2025 Economic Development Strategy

Page 21 ends

3. SWOT Analysis
In the following SWOT Analysis, Strengths and Weaknesses are positive and negative internal factors and Opportunities and Threats are positive and negative external factors often beyond the City of Monterey’s control. Typically, Economic Development Strategies focus on promoting strengths, addressing weaknesses, preparing for opportunities, and mitigating threats. The following analysis was completed by staff and would be modified following feedback from community stakeholders. The list below is in no particular order.

3.1 Strengths
• Monterey is a premier tourism destination with global recognition. • High quality of life including access to Monterey Bay, Pacific Ocean, coastal trails, parks, and high-quality amenities
• Strong sense of history, as the capital of Alta California under Spanish and Mexican flags and heritage sites such as Cannery Row, Old Monterey, Monterey State Historic Park, Colton Hall, Pacific Biological Laboratories, and Presidio of Monterey • Community support to maintain Monterey’s small city character • Mayor and Councilmember support and active participation with business associations • Coastal community with Cannery Row, the Monterey Bay Aquarium, Fisherman’s Wharf, Monterey Harbor, beaches, trails, and direct access to the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary
• Diversity of visitor and business lodging types including luxury hotels, mid-range and affordable hotels, inns, and motor lodges, as well as Veterans Park Campground • Monterey Conference Center and business-serving facilities • Diverse military presence and partnerships with institutions such as Naval Postgraduate School, Naval Support Activity Monterey, Defense Language Institute, Presidio of Monterey, and Coast Guard Station Monterey
• Educational institutions including the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey, Monterey Peninsula College, and nearby California State University Monterey Bay
• Summer trolley service between Downtown, Old Fisherman’s Wharf, and Cannery Row • Access to and from national and global cities from the nearby Monterey Regional Airport, with service through San Francisco, Los Angeles, Phoenix, Denver, San Diego, Seattle, Las Vegas, and Dallas/Fort Worth.
• Plentiful parking in the Downtown West and East Garages • Walkability of Old Monterey, Lighthouse Avenue, and Cannery Row • Responsiveness of public safety including the Police and Fire departments • Emergency management and preparedness
• Multiple business districts and areas including Fisherman’s Wharf, Old Monterey, Lighthouse Avenue, Cannery Row, North Fremont, Munras Avenue, and Del Monte Center
• Ryan Ranch Business Park

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 27, Packet Page 94 City of Monterey
DRAFT 2025 Economic Development Strategy

Page 22 ends

• Major events such as the Monterey Jazz Festival and Car Week, and large events in the area hosted at Laguna Seca Raceway and Pebble Beach
• Proximity to major educational and research institutions. • Positive working relationships with the Monterey Bay Aquarium, See Monterey, Monterey Peninsula Chamber of Commerce, North Fremont Business Association, Old Monterey Business Association, Fisherman’s Wharf Association, Cannery Row Business Association, Lighthouse Avenue/New Monterey Business Association, and Monterey County Hospitality Association
• History of financial investments and regional leadership in destination marketing through See Monterey
• Ongoing support, funding, and operation of the Monterey Conference Center • Partnerships with community organizations and agencies such as the Monterey County Fairgrounds, Monterey Museum of Art, California State Parks, Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, Old Monterey Foundation and Monterey History and Art Association. • Depth of knowledge and history of collaboration in the City’s Planning Office.

3.2 Weaknesses
• High cost of living and availability of affordable workforce housing • Limited funding for infrastructure improvements to support facade improvements and business district amenities, Fisherman’s Wharf updates and Municipal Wharf No. 2 repairs
• Lack of any property tax revenue or Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOTs) from major institutions such as the Monterey Bay Aquarium, Middlebury Institute of International Studies, Monterey Peninsula College, Monterey County Fairgrounds, Naval Postgraduate School, and Montage Health facilities, to cover City services and infrastructure provided to these institutions
• Aging hotel stock and amenities such as shopping centers, retailers, and restaurants • Aging infrastructure, including sidewalks, landscaping, signage, streetlights, and street banners in business districts and corridors such as Lighthouse Avenue, Old Monterey (including Alvarado Street and Calle Principal), North Fremont Street, Tenth Street, Del Monte Avenue, Wave Street, Foam Street, Munras Avenue, and Fremont Street. • Merchandising and business storefronts, and retail types that may not attract browsing or discovery shopping
• Businesses that may not maintain their facades, including temporary or faded signs, unattractive window displays, and unappealing sidewalk merchandising • Physical appearance of some business storefronts
• Overreliance on tourism and hospitality sectors
• Limited availability of land for new development
• Limited promotional and marketing efforts in some business districts and areas • Commercial real estate challenges, with retail vacancies on Alvarado Street, Lighthouse Avenue, and other areas, and office space vacancies in Ryan Ranch, Downtown, and Garden Road

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 28, Packet Page 95 City of Monterey
DRAFT 2025 Economic Development Strategy

Page 23 ends

• Significant out-commute and low daytime population base • Retail leakage across various categories
• Limited financial resources for a robust economic development office and staffing

3.3 Opportunities
• Funding of infrastructure improvements such as new streetlights and amenities, as well as other improvements utilizing Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts (EIFD) • Increased visibility of business districts and facade improvements, storefront improvements through collaborative opportunities with business associations • Evaluate parking policies on Lighthouse Avenue and Old Monterey to encourage and foster parking space turnover for business customers
• Utilization of facade improvement grants to support local business • Stronger placemaking in business districts, such as design themes, street banners, and other amenities
• Evaluate parking requirements in focus areas to support upzoning where alternative parking options may be available
• Affordable housing and mixed-use opportunities where available, including on Cityowned land, non-profit, and government-owned land. • Coordination with major institutions for Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILOTs) to support services and infrastructure near their assets
• Identify opportunities to leverage the popularity of the Old Monterey Farmers’ Market and Marketplace
• Incorporate public art and the Path of History expansion and heritage tourism into placemaking and tourism promotion
• Evaluation of Alvarado Street streetscape, street closures, and special event utilization • Partnerships and strategy on the use of Custom House Plaza • Identify long-term plan and funding gaps for Municipal Wharf No. 2 and economic realities of the commercial fishing industry in Monterey • Potential to attract high-wage industries such as marine sciences, agricultural technology, and defense
• Redevelopment and adaptive reuse of underutilized properties through upzoning and other methods
• Continued collaboration with business associations and regional partners such as the Monterey Peninsula Chamber of Commerce and Central Coast Small Business Development Center

3.4 Threats
• Competition from neighboring cities for newer lodging stock, especially in the upscale and upper midscale categories, as well as other regional shopping centers • Restaurant competition from neighboring communities, which have dedicated and localized tax revenue streams for promotion

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 29, Packet Page 96 City of Monterey
DRAFT 2025 Economic Development Strategy

Page 24 ends

• Continued and future sales tax leakage from fuel/service stations, new and used car sales, and retail
• Ongoing purchase of private land by nonprofit organizations, which reduces property tax revenue to the City
• Competition from other destinations on the Central Coast who are considering establishing conference center facilities
• Economic uncertainty and its impacts on the local tourism industry, including leisure travel, overnight stays, restaurants, and business travel • Impact of Internet and big box stores on retail sales • Rising costs of infrastructure and public services
• Sea level rise, coastal erosion, and storm surge impacts on coastal areas including Municipal Wharf 2, Old Fisherman’s Wharf, and Cannery Row, as well as residential areas
• Regulatory environment (e.g., California Coastal Commission, which limits outdoor seating)
• High cost of doing business on the Monterey Peninsula due to housing and costs for services

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 30, Packet Page 97 City of Monterey
DRAFT 2025 Economic Development Strategy

Page 25 ends

4. Stakeholder Engagement
The following is a partial list of stakeholders who would be engaged with as the City’s Economic Development Strategy is refined:

Commercial and Business Stakeholders
• Monterey County Hospitality Association
• See Monterey (Monterey County Convention & Visitors Bureau) • Monterey Peninsula Chamber of Commerce
• Fishermans’ Wharf Association
• Old Monterey Business Association
• New Monterey Business Association
• Cannery Row Business Association
• North Fremont Business Association
• Monterey County Association of Realtors
• Cannery Row Company
• Federal Realty Investment Trust / Del Monte Center
Neighborhood Associations with Business Districts nearby:
• Del Monte Grove/Laguna Grande Neighborhood Association • Casanova Oak Knoll Neighborhood Association
• Villa Del Monte Neighborhood Association
• Del Monte Beach Neighborhood Association
• Oak Grove Neighborhood Association
• Downtown Neighborhood Association
• Monterey Vista Neighborhood Association
• Old Town Neighborhood Association
• New Monterey Neighborhood Association
Community and Industry Partners
• Monterey Bay Defense Alliance
• U.S. Army Garrison Presidio of Monterey
• Defense Language Institute
• Naval Support Activity Monterey
• Naval Postgraduate School
• U.S. Coast Guard Station Monterey
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
• Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey • Monterey Peninsula College

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 31, Packet Page 98 City of Monterey
DRAFT 2025 Economic Development Strategy

Page 26 ends

• Monterey County Fairgrounds
• Monterey Bay Aquarium
• California State Parks
• California State University Monterey Bay
• Montage Health
• Monterey Bay Fisheries Trust

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 32, Packet Page 99 City of Monterey
DRAFT 2025 Economic Development Strategy

Page 27 ends

5. Economic Development Strategies
Goal 1: Remaining Competitive in the Hospitality Marketplace through Quality of Place:

Foster the modernization and appeal of aging amenities and assets, including hotels, retail areas, and business districts, including North Fremont, Munras Avenue, Old Monterey, Lighthouse Avenue, Cannery Row, Fisherman’s’ Wharf, and Tenth Street.

Strategy / Tactic Complexity Responsibility Support
Incentivize Hotel and Lodging
Modernization
Tax incentives such as TOT-based loans for
hotels undergoing major renovations Medium City and Hotels ----- Develop and promote updated design
guidelines to support modern aesthetics Medium City and Hotels ----- Enhance Retail and Business Districts Complexity Responsibility Support Update facade improvements and
storefront maintenance including signage,
window displays, and merchandising
Low
Businesses,
Property
Owners
Business
Assoc.

Offer facade improvement grants as
funding allows Low City
Business
Assoc.

Identify and implement stable funding
streams for placemaking, infrastructure
revitalization and maintenance, including
Business Improvement Districts (BIDs),
Enhanced Infrastructure Finance Districts
(EIFDs), or other tools
High Property
Owners
City,
Business
Assoc.

Enhance cleanliness of downtown
sidewalks and facilities, and other
business districts
Low
City and
Property
Owners
Business
Assoc.

Analyze and implement parking policies
(including 2012 Parking Study) and
technology that support customer turnover
and access to businesses
Medium City, Business
Owners
Property
Owners,
Business
Assoc.

Improve public transit, bike lanes and
racks, electric vehicle infrastructure, and
walkability
Medium City and MST Business
Owners
Fund and implement placemaking and
investments in pedestrian-friendly
High City Property
Owners,

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 33, Packet Page 100 City of Monterey
DRAFT 2025 Economic Development Strategy

Page 28 ends

infrastructure such as wayfinding and
upgraded lighting, incorporating historical
markers (e.g., Path of History) and public
art, including other recommendations in
Specific Plans
Business
Owners
Leverage Branding, Marketing, and Special
Events
Complexity Responsibility Support
Collaborate and coordinate between
business associations and See Monterey
for destination storytelling and promotion
of business districts highlighting what each
business district has to offer
Low
Business
Owners,
Business
Assoc., See
Monterey
City,
Chamber
of
Commerce
Coordinate public art, pop-up markets,
community, and sidewalk events
Low
Business
Assoc.,
Business
Owners
City
Develop a special event and signature
event strategy, identifying which special
events support street closures in business
districts
Low
Business
Assoc.,
Business
Owners
City
Explore additional funding mechanisms for
the promotion of restaurants in Monterey,
such as the Carmel Restaurant
Improvement District (CRID)
High Business
Owners City
Review Citywide wayfinding plan and
collaborate with Caltrans to maximize
signage and wayfinding to key business
districts and destinations in Monterey
Low City and
Caltrans
Business
Assoc.

Gather feedback on fostering a pedestrianfriendly Alvarado Street and options for street closures
High
City, Business
Assoc.,
Business
Owners
Property
Owners

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 34, Packet Page 101 City of Monterey
DRAFT 2025 Economic Development Strategy

Page 29 ends

Goal 2: Sustainable Redevelopment: Prioritize redevelopment and adaptive reuse of underutilized properties to meet modern economic needs and identify funding solutions.

Strategy / Tactic Complexity Responsibility Support
Prioritize Underutilized Properties for
Redevelopment
Review vacant or underutilized
properties identified in Specific Plans
and other documents to identify
potential redevelopment sites
High
City and
Property
Owners
Business
Assoc. and
Business
Owners
Designate specific districts (e.g., North
Fremont Street, Downtown) for targeted
efforts
Medium
City and
Property
Owners
Business
Assoc. and
Business
Owners
Incentivize Redevelopment and Reuse Complexity Responsibility Support Identify and implement funding tools for
redevelopment, including EIFDs,
Community Revitalization and
Investment Authorities (CRIAs), Tax
Increment Financing (TIF) and other
mechanisms
High
City and
Property
Owners
Business
Assoc. and
Business
Owners
Continue to streamline permitting and
entitlement processes for adaptive
reuse projects, including modern offices
and R&D space
Medium City
Property
Owners
Support Mixed-Use and Innovation Complexity Responsibility Support Continue to support policies that
convert office buildings into workforce or
affordable housing such as on Garden
Road
Medium
City and
Property
Owners
-----
Activate temporary uses of vacant
space, such as pop-up shops, art
installations, and event spaces
Low
Property
Owners and
Business
Owners
City

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 35, Packet Page 102 City of Monterey
DRAFT 2025 Economic Development Strategy

Page 30 ends

Goal 3: Business Retention, Attraction, and Promotion Through Collaborative Partnerships: Strengthen coordination with business associations, commercial real estate brokers, business districts, industry associations, and destination marketing organizations.

Strategy / Tactic Complexity Responsibility Support
Establish a Business Retention and
Attraction Program
Develop a business visitation program
that meets with local businesses
individually
Low
City and
Business
Assoc.

Business
Owners
Conduct business retention and
attraction surveys and track business
concerns
Low
City and
Business
Assoc.

Business
Owners
Provide technical assistance and
workshops on business operations,
finance, and marketing through the
Central Coast SBDC
Low
SBDC,
Chamber of
Commerce,
Business
Assoc.

City and
Business
Owners
Continue to track sales tax and business
license data
Low City Business
Assoc.

Attend trade shows to promote Monterey
as a business and retail destination Medium
City and
Commercial
Brokers
Business
Assoc. and
Business
Owners
Track and map business vacancies and
proactively work with commercial
brokers and property owners
Medium
City and
Commercial
Brokers
Business
Assoc. and
Business
Owners
Strengthen Collaborative Partnerships
and Business Promotion
Complexity Responsibility Support
Continue to partner and collaborate
regularly with the Monterey Peninsula
Chamber of Commerce, Small Business
Development Center (SBDC)
Low
City, Chamber
of Commerce,
and SBDC
Business
Owners,
Business
Assoc.

Continue to regularly participate in and
support Business Association meetings
and events and coordinate efforts
identified in the Economic Development
Low
City and
Business
Associations
Business
Owners

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 36, Packet Page 103 City of Monterey
DRAFT 2025 Economic Development Strategy

Page 31 ends

Strategy, including joint marketing
campaigns
Continue to regularly participate in and
support industry groups such as the
Monterey County Hospitality Association,
Monterey Bay Defense Alliance, and
engagement with healthcare, education,
and military sectors
Low City Industry Groups
Host business forums and industryspecific conferences and networking events targeted to technology,
healthcare, and defense industries
Medium MCBC City
Continue to support funding See
Monterey, the region’s Destination
Marketing Organization (DMO), and
ensure that Monterey’s assets and
business districts continue to be
promoted through the DMO
Low City and See
Monterey
Business
Assoc.

Continue to engage with Federal Realty /
Del Monte Center and Cannery Row
Company
Low
City, Federal
Realty, and
Cannery Row
Company
Business
Assoc.

Launch a “Shop Monterey” campaign
focused on benefits of shopping in the
community and what Monterey has to
offer
Medium
City, Business
Assoc., See
Monterey
Business
Owners
Support Workforce Development and
Talent Attraction Complexity Responsibility Support
Align industry workforce needs with
educational institutions such as MPC,
MIIS, CSUMB, and MPUSD to create
internship opportunities,
apprenticeships, and work-study
pipelines for hospitality, government,
healthcare, language learning, and
marine science industries
Medium
SBDC and
Chamber of
Commerce
Business
Owners, City

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 37, Packet Page 104 City of Monterey
DRAFT 2025 Economic Development Strategy

Page 32 ends

Continue Investment in the Monterey
Conference Center
Complexity Responsibility Support
Continue partnership with See Monterey
on sales and marketing efforts for the
Monterey Conference Center
Low City and See
Monterey Hotels
Continue to fund the repair and
replacement of equipment and amenities
in the Conference Center to ensure its
competitiveness
Low City and See
Monterey -----
Continue to coordinate event bookings
and sales of the meeting space with
nearby hotels
Low
City, Hotels,
and See
Monterey
-----
Activate temporary uses of vacant space,
such as pop-up shops, art installations,
and event spaces
Low
Property
Owners and
Business
Owners
City

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 38, Packet Page 105 City of Monterey
DRAFT 2025 Economic Development Strategy

Page 33 ends

Goal 4: Economic Diversification: Continue to focus on and retain the region’s existing economic strengths in the fields of hospitality, military, education, and healthcare, while exploring new growth industries, particularly with regard to high-wage jobs that support these sectors.

Strategy / Tactic Complexity Responsibility Support
Attract Technology and Innovation
Companies
Establish and promote Ryan Ranch or
other areas as an innovation district
focused on areas such as defense
technology, marine sciences,
cybersecurity, agtech and AI
High
City and
Property
Owners
Chamber of
Commerce,
Monterey Bay
Economic
Partnership
Support incubator space for emerging
industries Medium
City and
Property
Owners
Chamber of
Commerce
Continue to support partnerships between
military and defense sectors that allow for
dual-use technology in defense,
cybersecurity, and innovation, and efforts
such as the Naval Innovation Center (NIC)
Medium
City and
Military
Partners
Monterey Bay
Defense
Alliance
Promote Monterey for veteran
entrepreneurs
Low
City and
Veterans
Service Orgs.

Chamber of
Commerce
Expand the Blue Economy and innovation
in marine sciences, aquaculture, and
marine research through partnerships with
MBARI and the Monterey Bay Aquarium
High
City and
Marine
Science
Partners
Chamber of
Commerce
Work with Montage Health and local
healthcare institutions to attract medical
research and biotech companies
Medium
City and
Healthcare
Partners
Chamber of
Commerce

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 39, Packet Page 106 City of Monterey
DRAFT 2025 Economic Development Strategy

Page 34 ends

Goal 5: Affordable Workforce Housing Solutions: Develop strategies to address the current lack of workforce housing affordability that hinders the attraction and retention of talent in all industries. While the City’s Housing Element focuses on a variety of affordable housing strategies, the strategies below focus on workforce housing.

Strategy / Tactic Complexity Responsibility Support
Continue Implementation of the City’s
Affordable Housing Priorities
Continue to implement the City’s Housing
Element and efforts to support affordable
housing in Monterey
High
City and
Property
Owners
Chamber of
Commerce
Foster Employer-Led Housing Initiatives Complexity Responsibility Support Encourage employers (healthcare,
education, and hospitality) to consider
employer-led housing initiatives such as
master leasing, employer-funded housing
stipends, or housing cooperatives.

High
City and
Industry
Partners
Chamber of
Commerce
Work with Monterey Peninsula College and
Middlebury Institute to identify options for
on-campus housing to support students
High MPC and City
Continue to streamline permitting and
entitlement processes for adaptive reuse
projects, including modern offices and R&D
space
Medium City Property
Owners

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 40, Packet Page 107 City of Monterey
DRAFT 2025 Economic Development Strategy

Page 35 ends

6. Implementation Schedule
March 2025:
• Introduce the Draft 2025 Economic Development Strategy to the City Council and gather initial feedback from the City Council at its March 26, 2025 Study Session Spring /Summer 2025:
• Conduct focus group and town hall meetings with business associations and industry partners to gather information and feedback for the final Economic Development Strategy
• Engage with an economic development firm to refine specific financing strategies such as tax increment financing
Fall 2025:
• Present final Economic Development Strategy to City Council for adoption, which would include a detailed implementation schedule, Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), and staffing model

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 8/4/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 41, Packet Page 108

Monterey City CouncilAugust 4, 2026

Monterey City Council
August 4, 2026