MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
CITY OF MONTEREY
Tuesday, August 18, 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, Fire Chief, Parks and Recreation Director, Police Chief, Public Works Director, City Clerk, Property Manager, Principal Planner, Deputy Public Works Director/City Engineer, Engineering Assistant, Planning Manager, Parking Superintendent, Management Analyst (City Manager's Office), Recreation Manager, Associate Planner, Chief Information Officer, General Services Superintendent, Sports Center Manager, Associate Civil Engineer, Firefighter
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
General Public Comments
Public comment on non-agendized matters was solicited but not received.
Consent Agenda
Public comment on the Consent Items was solicited but not received.
On a motion by Councilmember Rasch, seconded by Councilmember Smith, and carried by the following vote, the City Council approved the Consent Agenda except Item 3:
AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
Consent: Approval of Minutes
1. August 4, 2026 Regular Meeting (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Approved
Consent: Ordinances
2. 2nd 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))
Action: Adopted Ordinance No. 3722 C.S.
City Council Minutes August 18, 2026
2 Consent: Resolutions
3. Amend Resolution 98-168 ("Traffic Resolution") to Add Stop Control on Pinehill Way at Skyline Drive, Add Stop Control on Upper Ragsdale Drive and Lower Ragsdale Drive at Wilson Road, Remove Stop Control on Ragsdale Drive at Lower Ragsdale Drive and Add Yield Control on Ragsdale Drive at Lower Ragsdale Drive ***CIP*** (Exempt from CEQA, Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1)
Action: Pulled from consent; Adopted Resolution No. 26-110 C.S.
Engineering Assistant II Garcia gave a verbal staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions. Public comment was solicited but not received.
On a motion by Councilmember Rasch, seconded by Councilmember Smith, and carried by the following vote, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 26-110 C.S.:
AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
4. Authorize Peregrine Technologies Purchase and Approve a Three-Year Service Agreement, with Options for Annual Renewals, in an Amount Not to Exceed $208,005 for the Initial Term; Authorize the Appropriation of $208,005 and Future Annual Appropriations from Opioid Settlement Funds to Implement Authorized Remediation Activities and Expenditures (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 26-111 C.S.
5. Amend Resolution 26-092 to Include a New Project, the Cemetery Pavement Preservation Project, in the Capital Improvement Program, Appropriate Funds, and Award a Construction Contract in the Amount of $222,606 to Monterey Peninsula Engineering for the Project (Exempt from CEQA, Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 26-112 C.S.
6. Approve a Concession Agreement for the Monterey Sports Center Cafe with RS Management Group, Inc. with Conditions (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 26-113 C.S.
7. Authorize an Agreement with SyTech Solutions for Enterprise Records Digitization and Electronic Records Management Services in an Amount Not to Exceed $290,000 (Not a Project Under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 26-114 C.S.
8. Authorize an Agreement with Turbo Data Systems, Inc. for Parking Citation Processing and Permit Management Services in an Amount Not to Exceed $600,000 During the Five Year Term (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 26-115 C.S.
End of Consent Agenda
Afternoon Session Items
City Council Minutes August 18, 2026
3 Public Hearing (Afternoon)
9. 5 Lower Ragsdale Drive: Deny Appeal and Uphold Decision of Planning Commission to Deny One Roof Sign; Applicant Stephen Lyon; Owner Salinas Valley Memorial Healthcare System; Industrial, Administration, and Research District (I-R-150-D2-ES); Employment General Plan Land Use Designation (Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1)
Action: Held public hearing; Adopted Resolution No. 26-116 C.S. denying the appeal
Members of the Council disclosed that they had had no ex parte communications; Mayor Williamson said that he had been contacted by Salinas Valley Memorial Health staff, but had declined to discuss the matter with them.
Senior Associate Planner Buggert gave the staff presentation, outlining the appeal and the Planning Commission's findings as included in the staff report, and recommending that the Council deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission.
Brad McCoy and Tiffany DiTullio, both of Salinas Valley Memorial Healthcare System (SVMH), gave the appellant presentation. As background, they explained that Salinas Valley Health is a nonprofit healthcare system serving Monterey and Santa Cruz counties, with a significant presence in the Ryan Ranch area of Monterey. They explained that a recent health needs assessment regarding Monterey County indicated that the number one issue facing the community was access to health care. They said that SVMH invests in community health, partners with local organizations, and support community initiatives, and that appropriate signage at Ryan Ranch would reinforce that community presence. They noted that SVMH conducts advertising in connection with the Monterey County Airport to ensure that visitors know where they can access healthcare when they visit they area. They said that they had requested a waiver of the sign code to allow for rooftop signage at the Ryan Ranch location which they said would allow for visibility that would help residents, visitors, and travelers easily identify and access health care. They asserted that appropriate exterior rooftop signage would provide an opportunity to engage and inform people who may not otherwise know that these health care services were available.
Providing context for the size of the proposed signage, they explained that it may sound large at around 3,000 square feet, but that it would be on a 64,000 square foot building. They said that they didn't believe that the signage ordinance contemplated this sort of sign. Due to the flat top of the roof and parapet walls of the building, they explained that the proposed sign would only be visible from the air, and that the code would only allow for a 50 square foot sign that would be less visible from the air. They explained that the airport authority had been supportive of the sign concept. They said that there was precedent for allowing larger signs when they serve the greater public good. They respectfully asked the Council to approve the waiver for rooftop signage to help SVMH better connect their services with the community.
Senior Associate Planner Buggert answered Councilmembers' questions with input also provided by Planning Manager Hill. On question from the Council, it was confirmed that the proposed sign would only be visible from high up, such as from the air or from a high mountaintop. It was explained that the maximum sign area was usually calculated based on the linear building frontage, and that for the zone district in question, the rule was one half square foot of signage for each linear foot of building frontage. It was explained that the SVMH property in question had approximately 1,030 feet of total building frontage, so using the formula, the total maximum signage allowed would be 515 square feet, which could be divided among various types of signs (such as roof, wall, or freestanding), but no individual sign was allowed to exceed 50 square feet.
It was clarified that there were two existing, previously permitted and approved signs at the beginning of the driveway that served to identify the property, and that the total allowed signage City Council Minutes August 18, 2026
4 was reduced by the square footage of the existing signs. Regarding exceptions to the sign size limitations, it was explained that the limits could waived when the Architectural Review Committee or Planning Commission could find that the larger sign would better achieve the purposes or the objectives of the sign ordinance, such as for purposes of identifying a building from street frontage. It was noted that in this case the Planning Commission had found that no matter how large the sign was, it would not achieve the purposes of identifying the building from street frontage because it was not visible from the street.
Public comment on the matter was solicited but not received.
Ms. DiTullio made a closing statement, saying that a reasonable interpretation of the guideline for size was that it was specific for when the sign would be visible from the street, and that in this case the differentiator was that the proposed sign, being a rooftop sign, would not be visible from the street. She asked that the Council take this into consideration when evaluating SVMH's request.
The Council discussed the matter. It was expressed that the sign seemed to be more about advertising than identification. It was stated that extra awareness of SVMH's healthcare offerings would not be found from the air but rather suggested alternative promotional methods, such as social media or signage visible from the ground. It was stressed that the City should not encourage rooftop signs and did not want to set a precedent by making an exception. It was stated that the Planning Commission had properly weighed the considerations and content of the sign code and properly applied it. It was suggested that a smaller sign with SVMH's brand logo instead of its full name might be able to be incorporated and redesigned for a smaller proposal. It was stressed that it was important to maintain fair and equitable standards and to consistently apply the City's regulations.
On a motion by Councilmember Rasch, seconded by Councilmember Barber, and carried by the following vote, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 26-116 C.S.:
AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
10. Amend the Del Monte Center SC Plan and Approve Applications ARP-26-0068 and ART26-0107 for Changes to Landscaping, Outdoor Amenities, and Lighting (Exempt from CEQA Requirements per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1 and Section 15304, Class 4) Action: Held public hearing; Adopted Resolution No. 26-117 C.S.
Principal Planner Roveri gave the staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions.
Public comment was solicited but not received. Mike Meyers of Lifescapes International and Justin Hodge-Lininger of Federal Realty Investment Trust presented the applicant presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions.
The Council discussed the matter. It was stated that the plan looked good, that it would be great to get rid of the concrete and bring it back to a more natural habitat, and that the plant choices seemed appropriate. Concern was expressed about what artificial turf products would be used, specifically regarding styrene butadiene ("SB") rubber which it was stated was of concern for groundwater and the Marine Sanctuary. It was proposed to use cork products instead. It was requested to keep these ideas in mind, stressing that the property was unique in that it was surrounded by open spaces. It was requested that the landscape design use products that would not be toxic to aquifers and the Marine Sanctuary, and keep it as natural as possible.
City Council Minutes August 18, 2026
5 On question from the Council, Principal Planner Roveri confirmed that the conditions allowed for minor modifications to be approved at the staff level, so the products of concern could be easily exchanged for a more environmentally friendly material.
On a motion by Councilmember Barber, seconded by Councilmember Smith, and carried by the following vote, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 26-117 C.S.:
AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
Mayor Williamson left the Chamber from 5:07 p.m. to 5:09 p.m.
Public Appearance (Afternoon)
11. Receive Presentation on Upcoming Winter Storm Ready Town Hall (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Received presentation
Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira gave a verbal staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions. Public comment was received from Lee Whitney of Community Emergency Response Volunteers of the Monterey Peninsula (CERV), and Esther Malkin, who both spoke about the need for readiness and expressed enthusiasm about the town hall.
The Council briefly discussed the matter, thanking Monterey's Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) and CERV. It was noted that CERV as a nonprofit foundation could help raise money for emergency response readiness. The need was stressed to continue building awareness and preparedness through CERT training, and community planning and education.
Adjourn to Closed Session
Public comment on the closed session was solicited but not received. The Council adjourned to closed session at 5:26 p.m.
Closed Session (Afternoon)
12. Public Employee Performance Evaluation (City Attorney) Pursuant to Government Code section 54957(b)(1) (Not a Project Under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061
Action: No reportable action taken
13. Conference with Labor Negotiator Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 Unrepresented Employees: City Attorney
Agency Negotiator: Shelline Bennett, Esq. (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: No reportable action taken
14. Public Employee Performance Evaluation (City Manager) Pursuant to Government Code section 54957(b)(1) (Not a Project Under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: No reportable action taken
15. Closed Session Conference with Real Property Negotiators Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8
Property: 6 Fisherman's Wharf, Suite C
Agency Negotiators: Kimberly Cole and Janna Aldrete
City Council Minutes August 18, 2026
6 Negotiating Parties: Salvatore Tedesco (Salvatore Tedesco, Inc.) Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment for Assignment of Lease and Lease Extension
(Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: On a unanimous roll call vote, confidential direction given to property negotiators
The Council recessed at 6:59 p.m. and reconvened at 7:01 p.m.
EVENING SESSION AGENDA
Pledge of Allegiance
Councilmember Garcia led the Pledge.
General Public Comments, Continued
Based on the number of people interested in speaking, Mayor Williamson limited the time for public comment to two minutes per person. Public comment on non-agendized matters was received from: Linda Cotta, Ian Santa Cruz of Presidio of Monterey Firefighters Local F-166, Phil Bezouska of Monterey Firefighters Association Local 3707, Jing Wu, Gabriel Kramer, Nina Beety, and James B. Johnson of International Association of Fire Fighters.
Announcements from Closed Session
Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira reported out from the closed session as indicated in the actions recorded for closed session items 12, 13, 14, and 15, above.
Evening Session Items
Public Appearance (Evening)
16. Receive Presentation on the Roadmap to Resilience: Six Concurrent Navigation Points to Strengthen the City of Monterey’s Financial Future (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Received presentation
City Manager Hall gave the staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions, with additional input provided by General Services Superintendent Dwight.
Public comment was received from: Vicki Nohrden, who stressed the importance of revenue and said that residents are tax-conscious and concerned; Gabriel Kramer, who expressed concern about the closed bathroom facility near the skate park, and suggested consideration of congestion pricing and vacancy, parking, and admission taxes to increase revenue; Chris Dwight of Monterey's Management Employees' Association (MEA), who spoke in support of the plan, stressed that paying employees within 5% of median was challenging in the face of expectations of top tier performance and career professionals, and noted that MEA's membership represented a larger percentage of the frozen positions; Tom Reeves, who asked a question about cost recovery and said that revitalization was needed in the downtown; Esther Malkin, who commended the City staff's work and service levels despite financial challenges, said it was important to share the facts to discourage misinformation, and asked to prioritize the North Fremont area in vitalizing efforts; and Nina Beety, who said Monterey should receive a higher City Council Minutes August 18, 2026
7 proportion of property taxes, and that residents should support tax measures to ensure the City has sufficient funding not to sell its properties.
On question from the Council, City Manager Hall addressed cost recovery, stating that 100% cost recovery was the goal where possible, but that community wellness operational functions such as recreational offerings and facilities, are rarely self-supporting. He said that trying to achieve full cost recovery would take the City out of the market for things like running the Monterey Sports Center, which he said was a factor that should be kept in consideration when adjusting fees.
The Council discussed the matter. It was noted that non-profit organizations such as Montage Health, the Monterey Bay Aquarium, and military installations all owned a lot of property in the City of Monterey and employed a lot of people but did not pay property tax. It was suggested to look at business licensing as applied to non-profit organizations. It was suggested that advocacy around changes to Proposition 13 could help address property tax-related revenue challenges. In response to questions from the community, it was stressed that Car Week supported the City in various ways financially but not through sales tax on the car auctions. Interest was expressed in looking further into the potential for a vacancy tax, parking tax, admissions tax, or congestion pricing. Interest was expressed in learning more about efficiencies and how they would relate to the variety of programming available and the impacts on programming that proposed efficiencies may have.
Regarding paying employees within 5% of median of comparable agencies, it was proposed to consider bringing this percentage higher to remain competitive in recruitment and retention, as a long-term investment to ensure efficiency and knowledgeable talent.
Regarding revitalization efforts, it was stressed that revitalizing the downtown and North Fremont areas, as well as all business corridors, would be important for commerce as well as creating community. It was proposed to consider making Alvarado Street pedestrian-only. It was suggested that eventually, special districts should be formed to fund revitalization projects for district improvements to the downtown and North Fremont areas.
Regarding outreach to residents, it was stressed that City Manager Hall's report should be shared broadly with residents. It was urged to find ways to reach out to underrepresented groups and make sure that diverse voices were being heard. It was stressed that it was important to determine what were majority opinions for residents. It was suggested that social media could be further utilized. It was expressed that the community should receive education about Measure S. It was suggested that the staff create a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document that would explain to residents many of the above-discussed matters.
It was stressed that solving the structural deficit would need to be a community effort, and members of the public were asked to educate themselves on the facts and to suggest efficiencies in addition to sharing which programs they did not want to see cut.
Requests from Councilmembers to Agendize New Matters
17. Mayor Williamson's Request to Agendize a Discussion Regarding Proposed Council Support for Proposition 37 – California Middle-Class Homeownership and Family Home Construction Act of 2026 (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: No action taken
Mayor Williamson asked that no action be taken on this item. Public comment was solicited but not received.
City Council Minutes August 18, 2026
8 Council Comments
None made.
City Manager Reports
None made.
Adjournment
The Council adjourned at 8:34 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted, Approved,
Clementine Bonner Klein Tyller Williamson
City Clerk Mayor