Agenda packet — Monterey City Council, September 1, 2026

Council Chamber
580 Pacific St.

Monterey, California

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

PUBLIC COMMENT PROCEDURES AND TIME LIMITS:

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

1. Up to three minutes per speaker.

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

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

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

September 1, 2026 4:00 PM
2 Call to Order
AFTERNOON SESSION: 4:00 p.m.

Presentations (Afternoon)

1. Recognize September 2026 as Hispanic Heritage Month (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Pledge of Allegiance
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. August 18, 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. Authorize an Increase in FY27 Grant Revenue, Appropriate Funds in the Amount of $216,988.38, and Award a Construction Contract in the Amount of $335,804.19 to InCharge Energy, Inc., for the EV Charger Project at the City Corporation Yard (Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15303, Class 3; and Section 15304, Class 4 (f))

4. Authorize the Finance Director to Appropriate $374,525.11 from the Measure P/S Fund to the Cass and El Dorado Street Curb Ramp and Road Rehabilitation Project and Award a Construction Contract in the Amount of $1,610,351.00 to Mission Constructors Inc. for the Cass and El Dorado Street Curb Ramp and Road Rehabilitation Project (Exempt from CEQA, Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1)

5. Adopt a Resolution Supporting the Pilot Rail Service Connecting Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area for the Summer 2028 Olympics (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

6. Authorize Agreement with Dell, Inc. for Microsoft Office 365 Government Software Services and Licensing Purchase in an Amount Not to Exceed $583,832 (Not a Project Under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

7. Authorize the Fire Chief to Execute Annual Cooperator Assistance by Hire Agreements with the CAL FIRE San Benito-Monterey Unit (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) September 1, 2026 4:00 PM
3 End of Consent Agenda
Afternoon Session Items
Public Appearance (Afternoon)
Public Appearance items are on non-routine issues that might stimulate public interest and comments.

8. 1st Reading Amending Monterey City Code Section 35-70(b), the Expenditure Plan for the Street Infrastructure Rehabilitation Transactions and Use Tax (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

9. Provide Direction to Staff on the Creation of a Pilot Sidewalk Repair Program Utilizing Measure S Funds (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

10. Receive an Update on the Status of the Updated Climate Action Plan (CAP) and Direct Staff to Proceed with a Non-CEQA-Qualified CAP to Maintain Climate Goals and Fiscal Resilience (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Council Comments
Councilmembers may ask a question for clarification, make a brief announcement, or make a brief report on their activities. In addition, Councilmember or the City Council may provide a referral to staff or other resources for factual information. (Government Code section 54954.2(a)(3).)
City Manager Reports
The City Manager may make a brief report on their activities or a brief announcement. They may also ask for clarification or direction regarding scheduling of Council meetings and study sessions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

CITY OF MONTEREY 24-HOUR SUGGESTION HOTLINES: (831) 646-3799 or [email protected] Upcoming city meetings are listed at monterey.gov/agendas For more information, call (831) 646-3935 Council
Agenda Report
№12/25
FROM: Dante Hall, City Manager
Prepared By: Hayley Goodwein, Administrative Assistant
SUBJECT: Recognize September 2026 as Hispanic Heritage Month (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council recognize September 2026 as
Hispanic Heritage Month.

VALUE DRIVERS:

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The City of Monterey recognizes and celebrates
Hispanic Heritage Month in honor of the culture,
accomplishments, and contributions of the Hispanic and
Latino community in Monterey and across the United
States. The City proudly supports the continued
advancement of equality for Hispanic and Latino
individuals and their families.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE
ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

None.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

Agenda Report Highlights
• The Council will recognize
September 2026 as Hispanic
Heritage Month, a nationally
recognized heritage month.
• First recognized in 1968 as Hispanic
Heritage Week, it was expanded to
a 30-day period in 1988.
• The Monterey Peninsula has had
residents of Hispanic and Latin
heritage since the early 1600s.
• An estimated 67 million people in
the United States identify as either
Hispanic or Latino and in California,
citizen who are Hispanic- or Latinoidentifying make up 41% of the state’s population.

Date: 9/1/2026
Item No.: 1.

Council Regular Meeting, 9/1/2026, Item No. 1., Item Page 1, Packet Page 4 №11/25
Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

City Council could choose to not recognize September 2026 as Hispanic Heritage Month; however, that is not recommended.

DISCUSSION:

Hispanic Heritage Month is a celebration of the histories, cultures, and contributions of those who identify with the Hispanic and Latino communities. An estimated 67 million people in the United States identify as either Hispanic or Latino. In California, citizens who are Hispanic- or Latino-identifying make up almost 40% of the state’s population. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, one in 5 people identify as Hispanic or Latino.

The City of Monterey has a long history with Spanish settlements. In December of 1602, Sebastian Vizcaino named the bay “Monte Rey Bay”, in honor of the Viceroy of New Spain. In the 1770s, an expedition led by Captain Gaspar be Portola and joined by Father Junipero Serra established the Royal Presidio and Mission San Carlos de Borromeo de Monterey, which were Monterey’s first buildings. In 1776, Spain named Monterey as the capital of Baja (lower) and Alta (upper) California.

First recognized in 1968 as Hispanic Heritage Week, it was expanded to a 30-day period in 1988. The theme of 2025 Hispanic Heritage Month is Collective Heritage: Honoring the Past, Inspiring the Future, as designated by the National Council of Hispanic Employment Program Managers.

The City of Monterey and the larger area of Monterey County are shaped by the contributions of the Hispanic/Latino community. The City of Monterey is proud to recognize and celebrate Hispanic History Month. In the face of great adversity, the Hispanic/Latino community have made and continue to make a positive, indelible mark on the history of Monterey and the United States. The City also acknowledges that while progress has been made, there is work left to be done.

DH/hg
Attachments: 1. Proclamation
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 9/1/2026, Item No. 1., Item Page 2, Packet Page 5 ATTACHMENT 1
Proclamation declaring
September 2026
Hispanic Heritage Month
WHEREAS, Hispanic Heritage Month is a celebration of the histories, cultures, and contributions of Americans whose ancestors came from Spain, Mexico, the Caribbean, and Central and South America; and,
WHEREAS, the official dates of Hispanic Heritage Month are from September 15 to October 15 to encompass the dates of independence for certain countries. September 15 is the anniversary of independence of Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua. Mexico celebrates its independence on September 16 and Chile celebrates theirs on September 18; and, WHEREAS, the event was started as ‘Hispanic Heritage Week’ in 1968 under President Lyndon B.

Johnson and was extended to a month in 1988 by President Ronald Reagan; and, WHEREAS, an estimated 67 million people in the United States identify as either Hispanic or Latino. In California, citizen who are Hispanic- or Latino-identifying make up 41% of the state’s population.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, one in 5 people identify as Hispanic or Latino; and, WHEREAS, the City of Monterey has a long history with Spanish settlements. In December of 1602, Sebastian Vizcaino named the bay “Monte Rey Bay”, in honor of the Viceroy of New Spain. In the 1770s, an expedition led by Captain Gaspar be Portola and joined by Father Junipero Serra established the Royal Presidio and Mission San Carlos de Borromeo de Monterey, which were Monterey’s first buildings. In 1776, Spain named Monterey as the capital of Baja (lower) and Alta (upper) California; and, WHEREAS, the City of Monterey and the larger area of Monterey County are shaped by the contributions of the Hispanic/Latino community; and,
WHEREAS, the theme of 2026 Hispanic Heritage Month is Unidos, Somos Mas – Together, We Are More, as designated by the National Council of Hispanic Employment Program Managers; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED THAT I, Tyller Williamson, Mayor of the City of Monterey, on behalf of the City Council and citizens, hereby proclaim the month of September 2026 as Hispanic Heritage Month.

Dated: September 2026 _______________________
Tyller Williamson, Mayor
Council Regular Meeting, 9/1/2026, Item No. 1., Item Page 3, Packet Page 6

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.

Date: 9/1/2026
Item No.: 2.

Council Regular Meeting, 9/1/2026, Item No. 2., Item Page 1, Packet Page 7 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
Council Regular Meeting, 9/1/2026, Item No. 2., Item Page 2, Packet Page 8 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 Council Regular Meeting, 9/1/2026, Item No. 2., Item Page 3, Packet Page 9 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.

Council Regular Meeting, 9/1/2026, Item No. 2., Item Page 4, Packet Page 10 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
Council Regular Meeting, 9/1/2026, Item No. 2., Item Page 5, Packet Page 11 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 Council Regular Meeting, 9/1/2026, Item No. 2., Item Page 6, Packet Page 12 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.

Council Regular Meeting, 9/1/2026, Item No. 2., Item Page 7, Packet Page 13 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
Council Regular Meeting, 9/1/2026, Item No. 2., Item Page 8, Packet Page 14 Council
Agenda Report
№12/25
FROM: Andrea Renny, P.E., PTOE, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Reginald Paulding, P.E., Senior Engineer
SUBJECT: Authorize an Increase in FY27 Grant Revenue, Appropriate Funds in the Amount of $216,988.38, and Award a Construction Contract in the Amount of $335,804.19 to InCharge Energy, Inc., for the EV Charger Project at the City Corporation Yard (Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15303, Class 3; and Section 15304, Class 4 (f))
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt the attached resolution:

1. Authorizing the Finance Director, or their
designee, to increase FY27 Grant Revenue
(101-900-9110-3884) in the amount of $183,500
and appropriate $216,988.38 to the Capital
Projects Fund, Fleet Electrification Project
(CIP2515);

2. Approving the plans and specifications for the
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;

3. Reject all non-responsive bids;

4. Accepting all responsive, responsible bids;

5. Awarding a Construction Contract for the Total
Bid to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder,
InCharge Energy, Inc., in the amount of
$335,804.19;

6. Authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to
execute the contract upon the receipt of the
information required by the Project plans and
specifications; and
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.

Protect and preserve our natural environment by
Agenda Report Highlights
• The City Council is asked to
approve a $335,804.19 construction
contract to InCharge Energy, Inc. for
the EV Charger Project at the City
Corporation Yard.
• This project would support the
electrification of the city vehicle fleet
by installing three dual Level 2
chargers and one dual Level 3 fast
charger.
• The construction costs for this
installation would be fully funded by
grants provided by the Monterey
Bay Air Resources District and
Central Coast Community Energy.
• Pacific Gas and Electric Company
would also provide an estimated
$350,000 in support to cover
electrical service upgrades at the
yard.
• These equipment upgrades would
help mitigate greenhouse gas
emissions and align with
transportation mitigation measures
outlined in the draft Climate Action
Plan.

Date: 9/1/2026
Item No.: 3.

Council Regular Meeting, 9/1/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 1, Packet Page 15 №12/25
addressing climate change through ecologically responsible and pragmatic solutions.

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;” Protecting Our Environment – “Continue efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG);” Fiscal Stewardship – “Prioritize funding models and sources for facility rehabilitation, repair, and replacement” and “Identify and seek grant funding opportunities for City services and infrastructure, including parks, recreation, library, museums, public safety, fire prevention, and planning.” This action is in accordance with Chapter 28-Purchasing of the City Code, which requires Public Works project contract awards exceeding $150,000 to be approved by City Council.

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

On May 13, 2025, the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Projects included in the Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan are Consistent with the General Plan, Area Plans, Master Plans, Coastal Plans, Traffic Calming Plans, and Move Monterey Multimodal Plan.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

On June 2, 2026, six (6) bids were received, five (5) bids were deemed responsive and responsible. Oscar’s Electrical Service, Inc. did not submit a bid bond in accordance with City requirements. The lowest responsive and responsible bidder came in above the Engineer’s estimate of $261,126.00. Equipment procurement costs are consistent with the Engineer’s estimate. The significant difference between the Engineer’s estimate and the lowest bid is labor driven in staff numbers and staff hours. The bids were opened by the Finance Director’s designee as follows:

Bidder Total Bid
InCharge Energy, Inc. $335,804.19
Monterey Peninsula Engineering $343,900.00
Renewable Solar, Inc. $370,278.87
Bear Electrical Solutions, LLC $414,450.00
GA Technical Services, Inc. $475,511.00
Oscar’s Electrical Services, Inc Non-Responsive
Engineer’s Estimate $261,126.00
Basis of award for this project is based on the Total Bid.

Council Regular Meeting, 9/1/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 2, Packet Page 16 №12/25
Estimated Construction Cost:

Total Bid $335,804.19
Construction Contingency (14.20%) $47,684.19
Total Construction Cost (This Authorization) $383,488.38 Construction Management (City Staff & Indirect Cost) $33,500.00 Total Estimated Cost to Complete the Project $416,988.38 Available Funding Sources:

Reimbursement Grant from 3CE $183,500.00
Matching from General Fund for Labor 33,488.38
Fleet Electrification Project (CIP2515) $200,000.00
Total Available $416,988.38
The Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD) has previously granted the City of Monterey $200,000 in funding in support of the City’s fleet electrification project (Reso 25-010). The City is also eligible for up to $183,500 in reimbursable funding from Central Coast Community Energy (3CE) for a total of $383,500 in grant funding (Attachment 3). This means that all construction costs are fully funded by the two grants. However, staff time is not eligible for grant reimbursement. The City will utilize already budgeted staff time for construction management, estimated to be $33,500.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Article 19, Section 15303, Class 3; and Section 15304, Class 4 (f). The project would involve the installation of new electric vehicle charging stations and associated power conditioning equipment, which would also require trenching for electrical conduits. Installation of new EV charging stations is exempt under Article 19, Section 15303, Class 3 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures as this exemption includes the installation of small new equipment such as EV charging stations. Minor trenching for the project is exempt under Class 4 (f) - Minor Alterations to Land as the project involves minor trenching and backfilling where the surface is restored. Furthermore, the project does not qualify for any of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions found at CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2.

Exception a - Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located -a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply in all instances, except where the project may have an impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies. The EV chargers would be installed in an urbanized area on a lot with existing improvements, specifically the City's corporation yard that includes storage buildings and parking lot.

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 Council Regular Meeting, 9/1/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 3, Packet Page 17 №12/25
significant. There would be no cumulative impact because the project involves minor improvements to an existing corporation yard.

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 due to the limited scope and distinct locations of the improvement.

Exception d - Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The project would be located approximately ½ mile from a State Scenic Highway, Highway 68; therefore, would not be visible from this scenic highway.

Exception e - Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. No impact to sites included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government code would occur.

Exception f - Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of historic resources. There are no historic buildings located on the property, only storage buildings for the City's corporation yard.

The project is not located in a sensitive archeological area as shown on the General Plan Environmental Impact Report Figure 8; therefore, there would be no impacts to historic or archeological resources.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

Council could choose not to award the construction contract for this Project; however, this is not recommended since it would not support the City’s goal of electrifying the vehicle fleet and reducing the City’s environmental impact. Additionally, the $383,500 in grant funding may not be available in the future.

DISCUSSION:

The City of Monterey has taken significant steps to mitigate the effects of climate change, including procuring 100% renewable energy for City operations, working to convert its fleet to hybrid and electric vehicles, increasing solid waste diversion programs and retrofitting City buildings to be more energy efficient. The City currently has nine (9) registerable EVs in its fleet which could utilize the chargers that will be installed as part of this project. The City has plans to purchase two (2) more EVs in the near future to replace internal combustion engine vehicles.

The City also adopted its first Climate Action Plan (CAP) in 2016 which calculated an inventory of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the City along with establishing targets and recommendations for GHG emissions reduction. This was the City’s first attempt to officially quantify the highest GHG emission sources in the City, establish reduction targets and develop mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate GHG impacts.

In 2025, the City began preparation for a new Climate Action Plan in compliance with the recent General Plan Update mitigation measures, as well as SB 32 and AB 1279 which set emission Council Regular Meeting, 9/1/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 4, Packet Page 18 №12/25
targets to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2045. Although the draft CAP has not yet been adopted, based on the greenhouse gas inventory completed as part of the report, transportation emissions are the largest contributor to City GHG emissions with a total of 190,001 MTCO2e (metric tons of CO2 equivalent). This represents over half (54.3%) of GHG emission sources, with building electricity use (16.2%) and building natural gas use (21.8%) completing the top three GHG emission sources.

To mitigate the impact of these GHG emissions, the draft CAP developed several transportation specific mitigation measures, the largest of which is to increase zero emission vehicle (ZEV) adoption to 20% for passenger vehicles and 20% for commercial vehicles by the year 2030, with 100% adoption for all vehicles by the year 2045. Achieving this goal will involve several actions, including updating the City Code, implementing programs to assist residents and businesses to adopt ZEV use, and the installation of new public/private electric vehicle charging stations, 90 of which would need to be installed by the year 2030.

Although critical, the transition to electrically powered vehicles often entails significant up front cost. Fortunately, there are agencies that recognize this challenge to local governments and have developed grant programs to assist with the planning, construction and procurement of vehicles and equipment necessary to electrify the transportation sector.

The City of Monterey requested and received approval for funding from MBARD for support with electric vehicle purchase and charging station installation (Reso 25-010). Additionally, the City has received a notice of qualifications from 3CE indicating that the City is eligible for funds to install electric chargers. 3CE also fully funded the preparation of the EV charger project plans at no cost to the City.

These two funding sources will allow the City to complete the installation of three (3) dual Level 2 and one (1) dual Level 3 (fast) EV chargers with minimal funding required from City to account for staff time. The amount of funding required for staff time on this project is estimated at approximately $33,500. The General Fund will use matching funds currently allocated in the FY 2026-27 budget.

Additionally, PG&E is supporting the EV Charger project by covering the design, project management, and equipment costs for upgrading electrical service to the Ryan Ranch Corp Yard. This cost is estimated at $350,000.

AR/rp
Attachments: 1. Resolution

2. Bid Evaluation Tab

3. Central Coast Community Energy (3CE) Charge Your Fleet Program – Notice of Qualifications dated July 24, 2026
e: InCharge Energy, 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, 9/1/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 5, Packet Page 19 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№011/24
AUTHORIZING AN INCREASE IN FY27 GRANT REVENUE, APPROPRIATING FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $216,988.38 AND AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $335,804.19 TO INCHARGE ENERGY, INC. FOR THE EV CHARGER PROJECT AT THE CITY CORPORATION YARD ***CIP***
WHEREAS, on the 2nd day of June, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. the City of Monterey Finance Director’s designee received six (6) electronic bids through the City’s e-Procurement Portal, OpenGov Procurement, for the EV Charger Project at the City Corporation Yard (“Project”); WHEREAS, InCharge Energy, Inc., Monterey Peninsula Engineering, Renewable Solar, Inc., Bear Electrical Solutions, LLC, and GA Technical Services, Inc. submitted responsive, responsible bids for the Project;
WHEREAS, Oscar’s Electrical Services, Inc. did not submit a bid bond in accordance with City requirements, and their bid was deemed non-responsive; WHEREAS, the basis of award for the project was the Total Base Bid; WHEREAS, InCharge Energy, Inc. submitted the lowest responsive, and responsible bid in the amount of $335,804.19;
WHEREAS, Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD) granted the City $200,000 in funding in February 2025 (Resolution No. 25-010 C.S.);
WHEREAS, the City is eligible for up to $183,500 in reimbursement funding through Central Coast Community Energy (3CE);
WHEREAS, an estimated $33,500 for this project will be funded through staff time budgeted within the general fund, and there is sufficient funding available to award the contract and complete the project; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Article 19, Section 15303, Class 3; and Section 15304, Class 4 (f). The project would involve the installation of new electric vehicle charging stations and associated power conditioning equipment, which would also require trenching for electrical conduits. Installation of new EV charging stations is exempt under Article 19, Section 15303, Class 3 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures as this exemption includes the installation of small new equipment such as EV charging stations. Minor trenching for the project is exempt under Class 4 (f) - Minor Alterations to Land as the project involves minor trenching and backfilling where the surface is restored. Furthermore, the project does not qualify for any of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions found at CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2.

Exception a - Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located -a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment Council Regular Meeting, 9/1/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 6, Packet Page 20 may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply in all instances, except where the project may have an impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies. The EV chargers would be installed in an urbanized area on a lot with existing improvements, specifically the City's corporation yard that includes storage buildings and parking lot.

Exception b - Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. There would be no cumulative impact because the project involves minor improvements to an existing corporation yard.

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. Authorizes the Finance Director, or their designee, to increase FY27 Grant Revenue (101-900-9110-3834) in the amount of $183,500 and appropriate $216,988.38 to the Capital Projects Fund, Fleet Electrification Project (CIP2515); Council Regular Meeting, 9/1/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 7, Packet Page 21

2. Approves the plans and specifications for the 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;

3. Rejects all non-responsive bids;

4. Accepts all responsive, responsible bids;

5. Awards a Construction Contract for the Total Bid to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, InCharge Energy, Inc., in the amount of $335,804.19;

6. Authorizes the City Manager, or his designee, to execute the contract upon the receipt of the information required by the Project plans and specifications; and

7. Authorizing utilizing $33,500 in staff time already budgeted for the FY 2026-27 budget for timely completion of the Project
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, 9/1/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 8, Packet Page 22 City of Monterey
Public Works
Andrea Renny, Public Works Director
580 Pacific Street, Monterey, CA 93940

EVALUATION TABULATION
GEN No. TBD
EV CHARGER PROJECT AT THE CITY CORPORATION YARD (CIP2515) RESPONSE DEADLINE: June 2, 2026 at 2:00 pm
Report Generated: Tuesday, August 11, 2026

SELECTED VENDOR TOTALS
Vendor Total
InCharge Energy $335,804.19
Monterey Peninsula
Engineering
$343,900.00
Renewable Solar, Inc. $370,278.87
Bear Electrical Solutions,
LLC
$414,450.00
GA Technical Services, Inc. $475,511.00
TABLE 1
Bear Electrical Solutions,
LLC
GA Technical Services, Inc. InCharge Energy Monterey Peninsula Engineering
Renewable Solar, Inc.

Selected Line
Item
Description Quantity Unit of
Measure
Unit Cost Total Unit Cost Total Unit Cost Total Unit Cost Total Unit Cost Total X 1 Mobilization
and
Demobilization
1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $19,107.00 $19,107.00 $3,750.00 $3,750.00 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $31,992.96 $31,992.96 X 2 Storm Water
Compliance
1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $10,088.00 $10,088.00 $6,905.25 $6,905.25 $4,100.00 $4,100.00 $6,263.70 $6,263.70 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/1/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 9, Packet Page 23

EVALUATION TABULATION
GEN No. TBD
EV CHARGER PROJECT AT THE CITY CORPORATION YARD (CIP2515)

EVALUATION TABULATION
General Solicitation - EV CHARGER PROJECT AT THE CITY CORPORATION YARD (CIP2515)

Page 2 ends

Bear Electrical Solutions,
LLC
GA Technical Services, Inc. InCharge Energy Monterey Peninsula Engineering
Renewable Solar, Inc.

Selected Line
Item
Description Quantity Unit of
Measure
Unit Cost Total Unit Cost Total Unit Cost Total Unit Cost Total Unit Cost Total X 3 Traffic Control 1 LS $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $7,252.00 $7,252.00 $6,742.50 $6,742.50 $1,600.00 $1,600.00 $3,307.80 $3,307.80 X 4 Procure 3 dual
level 2 EV
Chargers
(Autel
MaxiCharger)
3 EA $7,750.00 $23,250.00 $8,538.00 $25,614.00 $8,364.40 $25,093.20 $10,000.00 $30,000.00 $7,332.32 $21,996.96 X 5 Procure 1 dual
level 3 EV
Charger (BTC)
1 LS $80,000.00 $80,000.00 $105,078.00 $105,078.00 $69,650.00 $69,650.00 $87,000.00 $87,000.00 $75,883.50 $75,883.50 X 6 Installation of
the 3 dual
level 2 and 1
dual level 3 EV
Chargers
1 LS $55,550.00 $55,550.00 $16,244.00 $16,244.00 $5,112.75 $5,112.75 $18,000.00 $18,000.00 $30,279.29 $30,279.29 X 7 Trenching,
Disposal, &
Site
Restoration
1 LS $33,500.00 $33,500.00 $39,703.00 $39,703.00 $74,483.00 $74,483.00 $28,000.00 $28,000.00 $22,574.68 $22,574.68 X 8 Installation of
conduits,
wiring,
electrical
connections
1 LS $33,350.00 $33,350.00 $85,937.00 $85,937.00 $66,212.85 $66,212.85 $23,500.00 $23,500.00 $52,216.06 $52,216.06 X 9 Testing &
Training to
demonstrate
that the
chargers are
fully
operational.
1 LS $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $13,091.00 $13,091.00 $3,465.00 $3,465.00 $1,700.00 $1,700.00 $13,790.20 $13,790.20 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/1/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 10, Packet Page 24

EVALUATION TABULATION
GEN No. TBD
EV CHARGER PROJECT AT THE CITY CORPORATION YARD (CIP2515)

EVALUATION TABULATION
General Solicitation - EV CHARGER PROJECT AT THE CITY CORPORATION YARD (CIP2515)

Page 3 ends

Bear Electrical Solutions,
LLC
GA Technical Services, Inc. InCharge Energy Monterey Peninsula Engineering
Renewable Solar, Inc.

Selected Line
Item
Description Quantity Unit of
Measure
Unit Cost Total Unit Cost Total Unit Cost Total Unit Cost Total Unit Cost Total X 10 Procurement
of electrical
equipment
1 LS $87,900.00 $87,900.00 $98,642.00 $98,642.00 $67,674.89 $67,674.89 $85,000.00 $85,000.00 $65,015.62 $65,015.62 X 11 Installation of
electrical
equipment
1 LS $80,250.00 $80,250.00 $49,124.00 $49,124.00 $2,214.75 $2,214.75 $34,000.00 $34,000.00 $43,162.62 $43,162.62 X 12 Record
Drawings
1 LS $650.00 $650.00 $5,631.00 $5,631.00 $4,500.00 $4,500.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $3,795.48 $3,795.48 Total $414,450.00 $475,511.00 $335,804.19 $343,900.00 $370,278.87 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/1/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 11, Packet Page 25 July 24, 2026
City of Monterey
23-27 Ryan Ranch Rd.

Monterey, CA 93940
Re: Charge Your Fleet Program – Notice of Qualifications Dear Ted Terrasas,
This Notice of Qualification (NOQ) is issued to confirm the alignment of your Charge Your Fleet Program application with the preliminary requirements of Central Coast Community Energy (3CE). Upon final installation of your electric chargers, the City of Monterey will be eligible for funds, subject to the verification of compliance with the program’s terms and conditions. Please note that this notice does not reserve any funds and serves solely as an acknowledgment of qualification. This project is eligible for $183,500 from 3CE.

Terms and conditions of this NOQ are as follows:

1. Rebate must be for eligible EV charging equipment purchase and installation. The EV charging project in which the City of Monterey has stated intent to proceed with is eligible.

2. Upon completion of the project, the City of Monterey must provide 3CE with the following documents:
a. Final, paid invoice for the equipment and installation b. Description of applied stackable funds, if applicable c. Images of the equipment at the site

3. The City of Monterey must be enrolled in 3CE electric generation service upon completion of the project and remain enrolled for a minimum of 24 months following project completion.

4. 3CE reserves the right to consider factors other than those specified above and to request additional information from the City of Monterey.

5. 3CE reserves the right to cancel or revoke the Program at any time. This document is NOT a reservation of funds and does not guarantee that funds will be available at the time of project competition.

ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 9/1/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 12, Packet Page 26

6. 3CE does not issue tax documents for any rebate or incentive and 3CE cannot offer tax advice of any kind. It is the responsibility of the City of Monterey to contact a tax professional regarding the taxability of the rebate or incentive.

7. The City of Monterey agrees to additional terms & conditions not listed here but included in 3CE’s application.

If you have any questions, please contact 3CE Energy Programs staff at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Central Coast Community Energy
ATTACHMENT 3
Council Regular Meeting, 9/1/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 13, Packet Page 27 Council
Agenda Report
№12/25
FROM: Andrea Renny, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Shaun Wright, Associate Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: Authorize the Finance Director to Appropriate $374,525.11 from the Measure P/S Fund to the Cass and El Dorado Street Curb Ramp and Road Rehabilitation Project and Award a Construction Contract in the Amount of $1,610,351.00 to Mission Constructors, Inc. for the Cass and El Dorado Street Curb Ramp and Road Rehabilitation Project (Exempt from CEQA, Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt the attached resolution:

1. Authorizing the Finance Director, or their
designee, to appropriate $374,525.11 from the
Measure P/S Fund to the Capital Projects
Fund, Cass and El Dorado Street Curb Ramp
and Road Rehabilitation Project (CIP2604),
(“Project”);

2. Approving the plans and specifications for the
Cass and El Dorado Street Curb Ramp and
Road Rehabilitation Project (“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;

3. Rejecting all non-responsive bids;

4. Accepting all responsive, responsible bids;

5. Awarding a Construction Contract for the Total
Bid to the lowest responsive, responsible
bidder, Mission Constructors, Inc. in the
amount of $1,610,351.00;

6. Authorizing the City Manager, or his designee,
to execute the contract upon the receipt of the
information required by the Project plans and
specifications; and

7. Authorizing staff to expend up to an additional
15% for unforeseen construction contingencies
for timely completion of the Project.

Agenda Report Highlights
• The proposed resolution would
authorize appropriating additional
funds from the Measure P/S Fund to
fully finance the Cass and El Dorado
Street project.
• The City Council would award a
construction contract to Mission
Constructors, Inc. for submitting the
lowest responsive bid of over $1.6M.
• Staff would receive authorization to
expend up to an additional fifteen
percent of the contract amount for
unforeseen construction
contingencies.
• The planned work would rehabilitate
the local roadway network and
upgrade pedestrian facilities to
maintain infrastructure and comply
with accessibility requirements.
• Construction is anticipated to begin in
the spring of 2027 and would require
significant traffic control measures
over an expected ten-week period.

Date: 9/1/2026
Item No.: 4.

Council Regular Meeting, 9/1/2026, Item No. 4., Item Page 1, Packet Page 28 №12/25
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:

This action is consistent with the City Council’s Value Drivers and Strategic Priorities of Quality of Life – “Recognize that public safety is a priority to ensure that our City is safe and welcoming to all, contributing to our economic vitality as a destination City;” Fiscal Stewardship – “Prioritize funding models and sources for facility rehabilitation, repair, and replacement” and “Identify and seek grant funding opportunities for City services and infrastructure, including parks, recreation, library, museums, public safety, fire prevention, and planning.” This action is in accordance with Chapter 28-Purchasing of the City Code, which requires Public Works project contract awards exceeding $150,000 to be approved by City Council.

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

On March 10, 2025, the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Projects included in the Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan are Consistent with the General Plan, Area Plans, Master Plans, Coastal Plans, Traffic Calming Plans, and Move Monterey Multimodal Plan.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

On August 4, 2026, ten (10) bids were received, but seven (7) bids were deemed responsive and responsible. The apparent low bidder was deemed responsive and responsible. The lowest responsive bid came in under the Engineer’s estimate of $2,161,345.00. The bids were opened by the Finance Director’s designee as follows:

Bidder Total Bid
Mission Constructors, Inc.

Mission
Constructors Inc.

Engineering
$1,610,351.00
McKim Corporation $1,714,366.80
Granite Rock Company $1,961,830.00
Monterey Peninsula Engineering $1,998,684.00
The Don Chapin Company $2,089,244.00
Granite Construction Company $2,100,890.00
Anderson Pacific Engineering Construction, Inc. $2,335,996.00 Council Regular Meeting, 9/1/2026, Item No. 4., Item Page 2, Packet Page 29 №12/25
JMS Cement Contractors Inc. Non-Responsive
ASG Builders Non-Responsive
Zara Construction, Inc. Non-Responsive
Engineer’s Estimate $2,161,345.00
Basis of award for this project is based on the Total Bid.

Estimated Construction Cost:

Total Bid $ 1,610,351.00
Construction Contingency (15%) $ 241,552.00
Construction Management (City Staff & Indirect Cost) $ 100,000.00 Total Estimated Cost to Complete the Project $ 1,951,903.00 Available Funding Sources:

Cass and El Dorado Street Curb Ramp and Road Rehabilitation Project $1,577,377.89 (CIP2604)
Measure P/S Fund Approx. $25.6M
This project has an available balance of $1,577,377.89 as of August 5, 2026. The Cass and El Dorado Street Curb Ramp and Road Rehabilitation Project (CIP2604) is funded with SB 1 funds; the account has insufficient funds to award but the work is eligible for Measure P/S funding. The Measure P/S Fund has approximately $25.6M net fund balance available as of July 29, 2026. Staff recommends an appropriation of $374,525.11 from the Measure P/S Fund to the CIP2604 project account to fully fund the total estimated cost to complete the Project.

Following this transfer, the total project account balance will be $1,951,903 and sufficient funding will be available for the construction, plus 15% for contingencies, and construction management.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines [Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1 (c)] because the project consists of improvements and maintenance of public rights-of-way, including the demolition and construction of concrete curb, gutter, cross gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps and driveways, storm drainage, signage and striping, hot mix asphalt pavement, and seal coat.

Furthermore, the project does not qualify for any of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions found at CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2.

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

Council Regular Meeting, 9/1/2026, Item No. 4., Item Page 3, Packet Page 30 №12/25
Exception b - Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. There would be no cumulative impact because the project involves improvements to the existing public right-of-way.

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 not impact historic resources as project improvements would only occur in the public rights-of-way. The project is located in a sensitive archeological area as shown on the General Plan Environmental Impact Report; however, the project includes an archeological monitor. In the unanticipated discovery of resources, the City’s protocol would be followed. Therefore, there would be no impacts to historic or archeological resources.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

Council could choose not to award the construction contract for this Project; however, this is not recommended since the proposed project implements maintenance and accessibility improvements that are required to maintain existing infrastructure and to bring curb ramps into compliance with ADA requirements.

DISCUSSION:

The “Cass and El Dorado Street Curb Ramp and Road Rehabilitation Project” will rehabilitate the roadway network and upgrade pedestrian facilities along Cass Street and El Dorado Street.

The work generally includes cold planing and hot mix asphalt paving, base repairs, curb ramp and sidewalk reconstruction, curb and gutter, storm drainage improvements, striping, signage, and traffic control.

On May 20, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 25-047, identifying the Cass and El Dorado Street Curb Ramp and Road Rehabilitation as the project to be funded by Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, through Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) revenues.

Council Regular Meeting, 9/1/2026, Item No. 4., Item Page 4, Packet Page 31 №12/25
The project plans and specifications were developed by City staff and consultants. The project was extensively advertised for construction bids through the City’s e-Procurement Portal, OpenGov Procurement, and plans are available for public review in the Office of the City Engineer (580 Pacific St., Room 7). On August 4, 2026, the City received ten (10) bids, seven (7) of which were deemed responsive and responsible. Three (3) bids, submitted by ASG Builders, JMS Cement Contractors, Inc., and Zara Construction, Inc, were determined to be non-responsive as their bid bonds were not fully notarized as required. The lowest responsive, responsible bid was submitted by Mission Constructors, Inc. in the amount of $1,610,351.00.

Staff are comfortable with the ability of the Contractor to perform the work successfully.

Construction is anticipated to begin in the spring of 2027 and is expected to be complete in approximately 10 weeks. Residents and travelers in the project area should expect significant traffic control during construction, which will likely include half-street closures with flagging as well as full intersection closures with detours. The City will maintain driveway access for residences to the maximum extent feasible throughout construction.

This project is funded by Measure P/S, a 1% sales tax approved by voters in 2014 and continued in 2018 for fixing streets, sidewalks and storm drain systems. Since its adoption, the local district tax has been effective towards improving the City’s average Pavement Condition Index (PCI) from 54 to 79 over the last decade. Measure P/S funds are a dedicated and reliable resource for fixing and maintaining the City’s streets, sidewalks, and storm drains. Without this dedicated funding stream, the City would not be able to maintain its streets to the same level of service.

AR/sw
Attachments: 1. Resolution

2. Bid Evaluation Tab
e: Mission Constructors, 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, 9/1/2026, Item No. 4., Item Page 5, Packet Page 32 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№011/24
AUTHORIZING THE FINANCE DIRECTOR TO APPROPRIATE $374,525.11 FROM THE

MEASURE P/S FUND TO THE CASS AND EL DORADO STREET CURB RAMP AND ROAD

REHABILITATION PROJECT AND AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,610,351.00 TO MISSION CONSTRUCTORS, INC. FOR THE CASS AND EL

DORADO STREET CURB RAMP AND ROAD REHABILITATION PROJECT WHEREAS, on the 4TH day of August 2026, at 2:00 p.m. the City of Monterey Finance Director’s designee received ten (10) electronic bids through the City’s e-Procurement Portal, OpenGov Procurement but seven (7) were deemed responsive and responsible, for the Cass and El Dorado Street Curb Ramp and Road Rehabilitation Project (“Project”); WHEREAS, Mission Constructors, Inc., McKim Corporation, Granite Rock Company, Monterey Peninsula Engineering, The Don Chapin Company, Granite Construction Company, and Anderson Pacific Engineering Construction, Inc. submitted responsive, responsible bids for the Project;
WHEREAS, ASG Builders, JMS Cement Contractors, Inc., and Zara Construction, Inc., were determined to be non-responsive as their bid bonds were not fully notarized as required; WHEREAS, the basis of award for the project was the Total Base Bid; WHEREAS, Mission Constructors, Inc. submitted the lowest responsive, and responsible bid in the amount of $1,610,351.00;
WHEREAS, CIP2604 has an available balance of $1,577,377.89 as of August 5, 2026, and sufficient additional funds are available in the Measure P/S Fund, which has approximately $25.6M net fund balance available as of July 29, 2026, to fully fund the Project through a supplemental appropriation; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines [Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1 (c)] because the project consists of improvements and maintenance of public rights-of-way, including the demolition and construction of concrete curb, gutter, cross gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps and driveways, storm drainage, signage and striping, hot mix asphalt pavement, and seal coat. Furthermore, the project does not qualify for any of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions found at CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2
Exception a - Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located - a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply in all instances, except where the project may have an impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies. Exception a – Location – does not apply to projects which are exempt under Class 1.

Council Regular Meeting, 9/1/2026, Item No. 4., Item Page 6, Packet Page 33 Exception b - Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. There would be no cumulative impact because the project involves improvements to the existing public right-of-way.

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

1. Authorizes the Finance Director, or their designee, to appropriate $374,525.11 from the Measure P/S Fund to the Capital Projects Fund, Cass and El Dorado Street Curb Ramp and Road Rehabilitation Project (CIP2604), (“Project”);

2. Approves the plans and specifications for the Cass and El Dorado Street Curb Ramp and Road Rehabilitation 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;

3. Rejects all non-responsive bids;
Council Regular Meeting, 9/1/2026, Item No. 4., Item Page 7, Packet Page 34

4. Accepts all responsive, responsible bids;

5. Awards a Construction Contract for the Total Bid to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, Mission Constructors, Inc. in the amount of $1,610,351.00;

6. Authorizes the City Manager, or his designee, to execute the contract upon the receipt of the information required by the Project plans and specifications; and

7. Authorizes staff to expend up to an additional 15% for unforeseen construction contingencies for timely completion of the Project.

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, 9/1/2026, Item No. 4., Item Page 8, Packet Page 35 City of Monterey
Finance Department
Rafaela King, Finance Director
580 Pacific Street, Monterey, CA 93940

EVALUATION TABULATION
General Solicitation - CASS AND EL DORADO STREET CURB RAMP AND ROAD REHABILITATION (CIP2604C)

Page 1 ends

EVALUATION TABULATION
GEN No. TBD

CASS AND EL DORADO STREET CURB RAMP AND ROAD REHABILITATION (CIP2604C)
RESPONSE DEADLINE: August 4, 2026 at 2:00 pm
Tuesday, August 4, 2026

SELECTED VENDOR TOTALS
Vendor Total
Mission Constructors Inc. $1,610,351.00
McKim Corporation $1,714,366.80
Granite Rock Company $1,961,830.00
Monterey Peninsula
Engineering
$1,998,684.00
The Don Chapin Company $2,089,244.00
Granite Construction
Company
$2,100,890.00
JMS Cement Contractors
Inc.
$2,154,730.00
Anderson Pacific
Engineering Construction,
Inc.
$2,335,996.00
ASG Builders $2,842,787.00
Zara Construction, Inc. $3,047,680.00

BID SCHEDULE
Vendor Total
Mission Constructors Inc. $1,610,351.00
Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/1/2026, Item No. 4., Item Page 9, Packet Page 36

EVALUATION TABULATION
GEN No. TBD
CASS AND EL DORADO STREET CURB RAMP AND ROAD REHABILITATION (CIP2604C)

Page 2 ends

Vendor Total
McKim Corporation $1,714,366.80
Granite Rock Company $1,961,830.00
Monterey Peninsula
Engineering
$1,998,684.00
The Don Chapin Company $2,089,244.00
Granite Construction
Company
$2,100,890.00
JMS Cement Contractors
Inc.
$2,154,730.00
Anderson Pacific
Engineering Construction,
Inc.
$2,335,996.00
ASG Builders $2,842,787.00
Zara Construction, Inc. $3,047,680.00
Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/1/2026, Item No. 4., Item Page 10, Packet Page 37 Council
Agenda Report
№12/25
FROM: Andrea Renny, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Marissa Garcia, Engineering Assistant II
SUBJECT: Adopt a Resolution Supporting the Pilot Rail Service Connecting Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area for the Summer 2028 Olympics (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt a Resolution supporting the Pilot Rail Service connecting Los Angeles and the San
Francisco Bay Area for the Summer 2028 Olympics.

VALUE DRIVERS:

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The Pilot Rail Service Connecting Los Angeles and the
San Francisco Bay Area for the Summer 2028 Olympics
proposed by the Coast Rail Coordinating Council
(CRCC) would support regional efforts to improve
transportation safety and access for people of all modes and abilities. The Pilot Rail Service is aligned with the City’s Climate Action Plan goal of reducing greenhouse
gas emissions and the MOVE Monterey Multimodal Plan
Travel Demand Management Strategy.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE
ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no fiscal implications with the City Council authorizing the Mayor to sign this Resolution of Support.

Agenda Report Highlights
• The proposed resolution would
declare city support for a pilot rail
service connecting Los Angeles and
the San Francisco Bay Area during
the 2028 Olympics.
• The Coast Rail Coordinating Council
would seek up to $15M in state or
federal funding to implement this
temporary train service.
• This pilot service would provide a
travel alternative that reduces
highway congestion and supports
local greenhouse gas reduction
goals.
• A proposed timetable stop in
Salinas would grant Monterey
residents convenient rail access to
the Olympic events, as well as
visitors to the Olympics access to
Monterey.
• Authorizing the mayor to sign this
resolution of support would present
no fiscal implications for the city.

Date: 9/1/2026
Item No.: 5.

Council Regular Meeting, 9/1/2026, Item No. 5., Item Page 1, Packet Page 38 №12/25
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 adopt this resolution of support.

DISCUSSION:

The City of Monterey is a member jurisdiction of the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC), which coordinates through the Coast Rail Coordinating Council (CRCC), and its Central Coast transportation planning agency partners to advocate for rail improvements along the Central Coast Rail Corridor.

The CRCC is a coalition of five (5) regional planning agencies on the Central Coast, the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG), Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG), Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission (SCCRTC), Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC), and Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC). Its mission is “to support and advance transformative passenger and freight rail growth on the Central Coast by collaborating on expanded services and increased frequencies.” In addition to the five member agencies, the CRCC frequently collaborates with other stakeholders and partner agencies that regularly participate in recurring monthly meetings.

The CRCC has been advocating for improved rail service on the Central Coast rail corridor for more than 30 years.

In total, the CRCC will be seeking state or federal funds of approximately $2 million to $15 million to fund a short-term pilot train service overlapping with the 2028 Olympics in Los Angeles. The pilot service could preview future regular Central Coast passenger rail service between Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area. This temporary service offers an alternative to statewide travel for those seeking to experience the unrivaled scenery and culture of Coastal California while also lessening traffic congestion on highways and around Southern California's airports. It would improve statewide accessibility to globally renowned events during the Olympic Games and boost economic growth throughout the state. For instance, at least one event is expected to take place in the San Jose area which would be difficult to attend as a tourist without additional passenger rail connections. A proposed stop in Salinas is included in the timetable, providing rail access to the 2028 Olympics for Monterey residents.

Council Regular Meeting, 9/1/2026, Item No. 5., Item Page 2, Packet Page 39 №12/25
The Office of State Senator John Laird is currently working with CRCC staff on a $2 million state senator’s request for funding. There will also be additional opportunities to secure funding such as state or federal bills with a nexus to the 2028 Olympics Games. For instance, the CRCC most recently submited an earmark request to Congressman Salud Carbajal for $10 million through the BUILD America 250 Act to support the pilot service in 2028. The CRCC continues to monitor any potential opportunities.

As the facilitating agency of the CRCC, SLOCOG will be leading the development of a conceptual service operations plan under a short-term sole source contract with HDR, Inc. The plan will provide an overview of two feasible service concepts, schedules, equipment and crew needs, and implementation challenges. More information and updates regarding the plan can be found on the CRCC website here: https://www.slocog.org/programs/publictransportation/rail/coast-rail-coordinating-council-crcc AR/mg
Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution

2. 2028 Olympics Fact Sheet
e: Christina Watson, Transportation Agency for Monterey County Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 9/1/2026, Item No. 5., Item Page 3, Packet Page 40 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

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

SUPPORTING THE PILOT RAIL SERVICE CONNECTING LOS ANGELES AND THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA FOR THE SUMMER 2028 OLYMPICS WHEREAS, the City of Monterey is a member jurisdiction of the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC), which coordinates through the Coast Rail Coordinating Council, and its Central Coast transportation planning agency partners to advocate for rail improvements along the Central Coast Rail Corridor;
WHEREAS, TAMC has been leading the planning, funding, and implementation of passenger rail service extensions to Monterey County in coordination with federal, state, and regional partner agencies in the Central Coast Rail Corridor, which is a regional priority for enhancing mobility and economic benefits for Monterey County communities and visitors; WHEREAS, the 2028 Olympics Games will be hosted in Los Angeles, and official venues will be in other large metropolitan areas such as San José and San Diego; WHEREAS, the 2028 Olympics Games will attract millions of domestic and international tourists that would choose to take rail or air service between southern and northern California; WHEREAS, there is a gap in state-supported passenger rail service between San Luis Obispo and San Jose on the Pacific Coast Route connecting Southern and Northern California with no state-supported trains that connect Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area; WHEREAS, existing rail infrastructure could support an additional passenger train frequency if train equipment and rail crews can be provided; WHEREAS, the Coast Rail Coordinating Council is now identifying the funding need to support planning, capital, and operations of a passenger rail pilot service during the Olympics; WHEREAS, a passenger rail pilot service for the 2028 Olympic Games would leverage interest in transportation for this international event and serve to complement implementation of ongoing, regular passenger rail service to Monterey County; WHEREAS, State-supported intercity passenger rail operations, including new passenger rail services now operating between Los Angeles and San Luis Obispo, and San Luis Obispo to San Diego on the Pacific Surfliner trains are only funded through June 2027 and should be continued to allow for a pilot Central Coast passenger rail service through the Summer 2028 Olympics; 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 Council Regular Meeting, 9/1/2026, Item No. 5., Item Page 4, Packet Page 41 activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project.

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

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

1. Supports fully funding Annual Business Plans for the Capitol Corridor and Los AngelesSan Luis Obispo-San Diego (LOSSAN) Corridor intercity passenger rail services to maintain operations funding needed to sustain pre-COVID passenger service levels and allow for planned expansion of State-supported intercity passenger rail service in the Central Coast Rail Corridor; and

2. Supports efforts by the Coast Rail Coordinating Council to provide passenger rail pilot service between Los Angeles-San Luis Obispo-San Franciso Bay Area during the 2028 Olympics Games.

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, 9/1/2026, Item No. 5., Item Page 5, Packet Page 42 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/1/2026, Item No. 5., Item Page 6, Packet Page 43 Attachment 2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/1/2026, Item No. 5., Item Page 7, Packet Page 44 Council
Agenda Report
№11/25
FROM: Nat Rojanasathira, Assistant City Manager
Prepared By: Angie Blake, Chief Information Officer
SUBJECT: Authorize Agreement with Dell, Inc. for Microsoft Office 365 Government Software Services and Licensing Purchase in an Amount not to Exceed $583,832 (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt a resolution to authorize the City Manager, or designee, to enter into a contract with Dell, Inc. to purchase Microsoft Office 365 Government
Software Services and Licensing.

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.

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The choice of Dell, Inc. as the solution vendor is
consistent with our existing practice of providing
responsive, quality, and cost-effective information
technology solutions that enable City departments to be successful in achieving their respective missions.

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

This purchase has been appropriated as part of the
City’s FY 2025/26 Operating Budget.

Monterey City Code section 28-15(c)(3) allows for an
exemption from formal bidding requirements in cases
where the contract or purchase is capable of being
performed through purchasing contracts negotiated by
Agenda Report Highlights
• The proposed resolution would
authorize a contract with Dell, Inc. to
purchase Microsoft Office 365
Government software services and
licensing.
• This procurement would utilize a
cooperative purchasing agreement
negotiated by the County of
Riverside to ensure competitive
pricing.
• The total cost over the three-year
term would not exceed $583,832 to
accommodate current usage and
potential future staffing adjustments.
• Renewing the existing Microsoft
environment would avoid the
complex and costly migration
required to transition city operations
to an alternative platform.
• Staff selected Dell because the
company offered the lowest markup
among evaluated authorized
government resellers while
providing identical products and
support.

Date: 9/1/2026
Item No.: 6.

Council Regular Meeting, 9/1/2026, Item No. 6., Item Page 1, Packet Page 45 №11/25
another governmental agency that utilized acceptable bidding procedures (“piggyback” agreements). This acquisition will be purchased from Dell, Inc.by utilizing the County of Riverside agreement #808445 Microsoft Master Volume Licensing Agreement. The Finance Director, or their designee, approved the piggyback request on August 25, 2026.

The fiscal impact of this purchase is $185,343.48 per year for Microsoft cloud service licenses to be paid annually over the three-year term, totaling $556,030.44 These totals do not include any new purchases that may be made during the term of the agreement to meet future need for additional licenses. Due to changing staffing needs of the City during the term of the Agreement, the City may purchase additional licenses at the rates specified in the County of Riverside agreement in a total amount not to exceed $194,610.65 per year for a total cost not to exceed $583,832.00. Funding for the first year of purchase is available in the Information Services Contractual Services fund account [710-030-0340-0000-4220].

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:

Replacing the City's existing Microsoft 365 environment with an alternate solution is not recommended. Transitioning to another platform would require a complex and costly migration of email, documents, user accounts, and integrated systems, along with extensive staff retraining and potential disruption to City operations. Because the current Microsoft environment continues to meet the City's operational, security, and business requirements, renewal of the Microsoft Enterprise Government Agreement represents the most cost-effective, least disruptive, and lowest-risk option.

The City Council could direct staff to choose an alternative licensing supplier or utilize an alternative purchasing contract.

DISCUSSION:

Since 2021, the City has utilized the Microsoft Enterprise Government Agreement as its standard licensing vehicle for Microsoft 365 and related enterprise software. Microsoft 365 is the City's enterprise productivity and collaboration platform, providing email, calendaring, Office applications, Teams, SharePoint, OneDrive, identity and access management, and security.

These services are used by nearly every City employee and are deeply integrated with the City's business operations, records management, remote work capabilities, and numerous thirdparty business applications.

Council Regular Meeting, 9/1/2026, Item No. 6., Item Page 2, Packet Page 46 №11/25
Microsoft's licensing costs have increased approximately 36% since the 2021 renewal. To minimize the impact on the City budget, staff conducted a comprehensive audit of licensing usage, eliminated unnecessary licenses, and optimized license quantities based on actual business needs. Microsoft Enterprise Agreements require a three-year commitment and provide ongoing access to software updates, security enhancements, technical support, and licensing necessary to maintain the City's technology environment. The proposed renewal will provide Microsoft licensing to approximately 590 employees, contractors, interns, volunteers, service accounts, and temporary overlaps for employee transitions.

The Microsoft Enterprise Government Agreement is being procured through the County of Riverside cooperative purchasing agreement (Contract No. 808445), which is available through several authorized Microsoft government resellers. Staff evaluated pricing from the authorized resellers and determined that Dell, Inc. offers the lowest markup while providing the same Microsoft products, licensing terms, and support services as the other authorized resellers.

The proposed agreement reflects Microsoft's licensing price increases and a reasonable contingency over the three-year term to accommodate future staffing and licensing adjustments.

Renewal of the agreement ensures licensing compliance, continued access to essential technology services, predictable pricing, and a secure, reliable platform that supports virtually every municipal function.

NR/ab
Attachments: 1. Resolution
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 9/1/2026, Item No. 6., Item Page 3, Packet Page 47 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№011/24
AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT WITH DELL, INC. FOR MICROSOFT OFFICE 365

GOVERNMENT SOFTWARE SERVICES AND LICENSING PURCHASE IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $583,832
WHEREAS, Microsoft Office 365 software and services are used by nearly every employee and is the City's enterprise productivity and collaboration platform, providing email, calendaring, Office applications, Teams, SharePoint, OneDrive, identity and access management, and security;
WHEREAS, the agreement is a not-to-exceed amount of $583,832, for three years of Microsoft licensing and services for approximately 590 employees, contractors, interns, volunteers, service accounts, and temporary overlap for employee transitions; WHEREAS, funding will be expended from the Information Services Division Contractual Services fund account [710-030-0340-0000-4220];
WHEREAS, Monterey City Code section 28-14(b) allows for an exemption from formal bidding requirements in cases where the contract or purchase is capable of being performed through purchasing contracts negotiated by another governmental agency that utilized acceptable bidding procedures (“piggyback” agreements). This acquisition will be purchased from Dell, Inc. by utilizing the County of Riverside agreement #808445 Microsoft Master Volume Licensing Agreement. The Finance Director, or their designee, approved the piggyback request on August 25, 2026; and
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project.

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

Council Regular Meeting, 9/1/2026, Item No. 6., Item Page 4, Packet Page 48

1. Authorizes the City Manager, or designee, to enter into a contract with Dell, Inc. for Microsoft Office 365 government software services and licensing for a not to exceed amount of $583,832.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this _____ day of _______, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 9/1/2026, Item No. 6., Item Page 5, Packet Page 49 Council
Agenda Report
№12/25
FROM: Patrick Moore, Fire Chief
Prepared By: Cheryl Kouretas, Senior Administrative Analyst SUBJECT: Authorize the Fire Chief to Execute Annual Cooperator Assistance by Hire Agreements with the CAL FIRE San Benito-Monterey Unit (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council authorize the Fire Chief to execute annual Cooperator Assistance by Hire agreements with
the CAL FIRE San Benito-Monterey Unit.

VALUE DRIVERS:

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

It is within the Council’s purview to authorize the Fire Chief to execute Cooperator Assistance by Hire
agreements with the CAL FIRE San Benito-Monterey
Unit.

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

There is no cost to execute a Cooperator Assistance by Hire agreement. When Fire Department personnel are deployed under the agreement, eligible costs will be reimbursed by CAL FIRE in accordance with the California Fire Assistance Agreement (CFAA). The City is reimbursed for the cost of service plus an administration fee. The current administration fee is

16.02% and is adjusted annually.

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 Agenda Report Highlights
• The City Council would authorize
the Fire Chief to execute annual
agreements with the CAL FIRE San
Benito-Monterey Unit.
• Approval of the agreement would
allow the local fire department to
provide personnel and apparatus for
regional emergency operations.
• The agreement would establish a
formal structure for ordering,
deploying, and documenting
requested resources.
• The City would receive
reimbursement for eligible service
costs along with an administrative
fee for its deployments.

Date: 9/1/2026
Item No.: 7.

Council Regular Meeting, 9/1/2026, Item No. 7., Item Page 1, Packet Page 50 №12/25
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 could choose not to authorize the Fire Chief to execute annual Cooperator Assistance by Hire agreements, but this is not recommended as it will result in a loss of potential revenue.

DISCUSSION:

Approval of the Cooperator Assistance by Hire Agreement allows the City of Monterey Fire Department to participate in CAL FIRE’s regional emergency response system and provide personnel and apparatus when requested to support wildland fire incidents and other eligible emergency operations. The agreement formalizes the process by which Monterey may be requested to provide resources through CAL FIRE’s San Benito-Monterey Unit and establishes the requirements for ordering, deployment, documentation, and reimbursement of those resources. This agreement supports CAL FIRE’s operations, which recognizes that coordinated response between CAL FIRE and local government fire agencies is an effective means of protecting life and property throughout the region. The CAL FIRE San Benito-Monterey Unit covers Monterey and San Benito Counties.

The agreement provides a defined reimbursement structure for eligible personnel, apparatus, support equipment, meals, and other approved expenses. Reimbursement rates are tied to the California Fire Assistance Agreement (CFAA) and are adjusted as those rates change. The agreement also provides for an administrative rate to be added to approved reimbursements.

Participation in the agreement provides significant operational and financial benefits to the City.

It allows the Monterey Fire Department to contribute resources to regional emergencies when requested, while establishing a clear process to ensure eligible costs associated with those deployments are recovered.

Overall, the agreement strengthens regional wildfire response capabilities, promotes coordinated use of local and state resources, supports firefighter and public safety, and protects the City's financial interests when Monterey resources are deployed outside the City's jurisdiction.

PM/ck
Attachments: 1. Resolution
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 9/1/2026, Item No. 7., Item Page 2, Packet Page 51 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

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

AUTHORIZING THE FIRE CHIEF TO EXECUTE ANNUAL COOPERATOR ASSISTANCE BY

HIRE AGREEMENTS WITH THE CAL FIRE SAN BENITO-MONTEREY UNIT WHEREAS, the City of Monterey and the CAL FIRE San Benito-Monterey Unit have a long-standing history of cooperating to provide effective emergency response throughout Monterey and San Benito counties;
WHEREAS, the Cooperator Assistance by Hire agreement establishes the terms and conditions under which the City may provide emergency resources to CAL FIRE upon request; WHEREAS, participation in the program allows the City to recover eligible costs incurred including an administration fee, thereby providing additional revenue to the City; and WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. 2 Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby authorizes the Fire Chief to execute annual Cooperator Assistance by Hire agreements with the CAL FIRE San Benito-Monterey Unit.

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:

Council Regular Meeting, 9/1/2026, Item No. 7., Item Page 3, Packet Page 52 ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 9/1/2026, Item No. 7., Item Page 4, Packet Page 53 Council
Agenda Report
№11/25
FROM: Andrea Renny, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: 1
st Reading Amending Monterey City Code Section 35-70(b), the Expenditure Plan for the Street Infrastructure Rehabilitation Transactions and Use Tax (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council pass a 1st reading of the ordinance to amend Monterey City Code Section 35-70(b), the
expenditure plan for the Street Infrastructure
Rehabilitation Transactions and Use Tax, to allocate
more funding to repair sidewalks
VALUE DRIVERS:

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Expenditure plans are required to be adopted for a
special tax pursuant Revenue & Taxation Code section
7285.91(b). The expenditure plan may be amended
without modifying the purposes for which the voters
approved of the use of the funds.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE
ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There recommended action will update how Measure S
revenue is allocated among the categories of projects
approved by the voters in 2014.

Agenda Report Highlights
• The City Council would consider
passing a first reading of an
ordinance to amend the expenditure
plan for the Street Infrastructure
Rehabilitation Transactions and Use
Tax.

• The proposed amendment would
reallocate special tax revenues to
reflect the progress of infrastructure
projects completed since 2014 while
directing more funding toward
sidewalk repairs.
• This update would adjust the
minimum percentage allocations for
streets, ADA accessibility,
sidewalks, and storm drains without
altering the original voter-approved
purposes of the funds.
• Updating the expenditure plan
would accurately guide the
allocation of remaining funds
through the current tax expiration
date of March 2027 regardless of
future voter extensions.

Date: 9/1/2026
Item No.: 8.

Council Regular Meeting, 9/1/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 1, Packet Page 54 №11/24
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 street infrastructure rehabilitation projects that may be funded using sales tax revenue received from the referenced special transactions and use tax resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council could choose not to amend the expenditure plan or choose to allocate the special sales tax revenue among the voter approved uses differently.

DISCUSSION:

At the November 4, 2014 election, the voters of the City of Monterey overwhelmingly approved the Street Infrastructure Rehabilitation Transactions and Use Tax (Measure P) with 74.34% of Monterey residents voting in favor of the measure. In November 2018, voters in the City of Monterey overwhelmingly approved an extension of the tax (Measure S), with 82% of residents voting in favor of extending the measure through March 31, 2027.

The voter approved tax is a “special tax” with legal restrictions as to its use. The special tax includes an expenditure plan, which governs how the funds raised by the sales tax can be spent. The funds collected are placed in a designated fund and can only be spent on the rehabilitation, repair, and improvement of the City of Monterey’s streets, sidewalks, and storm drains, and Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) improvements (for example, curb ramps).

The tax may not be used for any other purpose.

The existing expenditure plan was developed in 2014 with an estimated revenue of $8,000,000 per year. The plan allocates approximately 54% of the tax revenue to streets, 31.5% to disabled access and safety improvements, 6.25% to sidewalks, and 8.25% to the storm drain system. The expenditure plan has not been updated since its enactment in 2014.

As of June 2026, the City has used the special tax funds to: repair 1,012 street segments (blocks), and an additional 90 street segments are currently under construction or out to bid; made $7,419,410.68 in sidewalk repairs; and made $5,869,554.75 in repairs and upgrades to storm drain pipes natural channels, gutters, swales, inlets, manholes, and pump stations.

This amendment to the expenditure plan will not change the voter approved use of the funds.

Rather, the amendment is intended to reflect the progress that has been made on the infrastructure projects since 2014 and the work left to be done.

Council Regular Meeting, 9/1/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 2, Packet Page 55 №11/24
Proposed Revision
The proposed ordinance revision does not change the uses of the funds. The proposed revisions change how the funds are allocated to voter approved projects. New text is shown in bold and deleted text in strikethrough.

City Code section 35-70(b)
b. The expenditure plan required by Revenue and Taxation Code section 7285.91 for the revenue of tax approved by this ordinance is set forth below. and is based on an estimated $8 million in annual revenue expected to be received from the tax

INFRASTRUCTURE ASSET
TYPE

IMPROVEMENTS COSTS

ESTIMATED

PERCENTAGE OF

HOW FUNDS WILL

BE ALLOCATED

TO ASSET TYPES

OVER THE TERM

OF THE TAX

MEASURE
Streets Improve & Repair the overall
condition of streets
$17,200,000
Minimum of 35%
Senior & Disabled Access and
Safety Improvements (“ADA”)
Build curb ramps and safety
improvement upgrades to 57
signaled intersections to
assist senior citizens,
disabled persons, and
visually impaired persons
$10,080,000
Minimum of 20%
Sidewalks Improve & Repair over 17
miles of sidewalks
$2,000,000
Minimum of 7%
Storm Drain System Rehabilitate pipes; Remove
silt from retention pools;
Rehabilitate catch basins,
headwalls
$2,720,000
Minimum of 7%
Remaining revenue shall be allocated among any of the above purposes.

Total: $32 Million
Annual expenditures may vary based on infrastructure condition, public safety, project readiness, construction costs, emergency needs, availability of matching funds, and other relevant factors. The minimum allocations established in this Expenditure Plan shall be for the duration of the tax measure rather than in each individual fiscal year. All tax proceeds shall remain restricted to the purposes identified in this Expenditure Plan.

The expenditure plan may be amended from time to time by a vote of the City Council, so long Council Regular Meeting, 9/1/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 3, Packet Page 56 №11/24
as the funds are used for the purposes approved by the electors in approving the tax described herein.

Conclusion
The existing tax will be collected through March 31, 2027. Regardless of whether the tax is extended by the voters at the November 2026 election, staff recommend updating the expenditure plan to reflect all the work that has already been done, and to allocate remaining funds to reflect the work that still needs to be done, as reflected in the above recommended percentage allocations.

AR/
Attachments: 1. Ordinance
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 9/1/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 4, Packet Page 57 ORDINANCE NO. ____ C.S.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№09/24
AMENDING MONTEREY CITY CODE SECTION 35-70(b), THE EXPENDITURE PLAN FOR

THE STREET INFRASTRUCTURE REHABILITATION TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY DOES ORDAIN, as follows:

SECTION 1:

WHEREAS, to address Monterey’s essential infrastructure needs including the repair of deteriorating streets, sidewalks, and storm drains, the City of Monterey deemed it necessary and essential to submit the question of a special one cent per dollar transactions and use (“sales”) tax for essential infrastructure needs to qualified voters within the city at an election held on November 4, 2014;
WHEREAS, at the November 4, 2014 election, the voters of the City of Monterey overwhelmingly approved the Street Infrastructure Rehabilitation Transactions and Use Tax (Measure P), with 74.34% of Monterey residents voting in favor of the measure; WHEREAS, at the November 2018 election, the voters of the City of Monterey overwhelmingly approved an extension of the Street Infrastructure Rehabilitation Transaction and Use Tax (Measure S), with 82% of Monterey residents voting in favor extending the tax through March 31, 2027.

WHEREAS, as of June 2026, with funding from the Street Infrastructure Rehabilitation tax, the City has: repaired 1,012 street segments (blocks), and an additional 90 street segments are currently under construction or out to bid; made $7,419,410.68 in sidewalk repairs; and made $5,869,554.75 in repairs and upgrades to storm drain pipes natural channels, gutters, swales, inlets, manholes, and pump stations;
WHEREAS, the expenditure plan was developed with an estimated revenue of $8,000,000 per year. The expenditure plan allocates approximately 54% of the tax revenue to streets, 31.5% to disabled access and safety improvements, 6.25% to sidewalks, and 8.25% to the storm drain system. The expenditure plan has not been updated since its enactment in 2014;
WHEREAS, as authorized by the voters with the approval of Section 35-70(b), the Expenditure Plan adopted pursuant Revenue & Taxation Code section 7285.91(b), may be amended without modifying the purposes for which the voters approved of the use of the funds.

This amendment to the expenditure plan will not change the voter approved use of the funds.

The amendment is intended to reflect the progress that has been made on the infrastructure projects since 2014 and the work left to be done;
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no Council Regular Meeting, 9/1/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 5, Packet Page 58 possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project.

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

SECTION 3: Monterey City Code, Chapter 35, Article 7, Section 35-70(b) is hereby amended to read as follows:
b. The expenditure plan required by Revenue and Taxation Code section 7285.91(c) for the revenue of tax approved by this ordinance is set forth below.

INFRASTRUCTURE ASSET
TYPE

IMPROVEMENTS ESTIMATED

PERCENTAGE OF

HOW FUNDS WILL

BE ALLOCATED

TO ASSET TYPES

FOR THE TERM

OF THE SPECIAL

TAX MEASURE
Streets Improve & Repair the overall
condition of streets Minimum of 35%
Senior & Disabled Access and
Safety Improvements (“ADA”)
Build curb ramps and safety
improvement upgrades to
signaled intersections to
assist senior citizens,
disabled persons, and
visually impaired persons Minimum of 20%
Sidewalks Improve & Repair sidewalks
Minimum of 7%
Storm Drain System Rehabilitate pipes; Remove
silt from retention pools;
Rehabilitate catch basins,
headwalls Minimum of 7%
Remaining revenue shall be allocated among any of the above purposes.

Annual expenditures may vary based on infrastructure condition, public safety, project readiness, construction costs, emergency needs, availability of matching funds, and other relevant factors. The minimum allocations established in this Expenditure Plan shall be for the duration of the tax measure rather than in each individual fiscal year. All tax proceeds shall remain restricted to the purposes identified in this Expenditure Plan.

Council Regular Meeting, 9/1/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 6, Packet Page 59 The expenditure plan may be amended from time to time by a vote of the City Council, so long as the funds are used for the purposes approved by the electors in approving the tax described herein.

SECTION 4: SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the ordinance and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this _____ day of _______, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 9/1/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 7, Packet Page 60 Council
Agenda Report
№12/25
FROM: Andrea Renny, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Provide Direction to Staff on the Creation of a Pilot Sidewalk Repair Program Utilizing Measure S Funds (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council provide direction to staff on the creation of a pilot sidewalk repair program utilizing
Measure S funds.

VALUE DRIVERS:

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

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

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

This action is consistent with past practice to provide guidance and direction to staff regarding Council
Priorities.

The City’s current sidewalk repair policy stems from a
State law that was enacted in 1935. Specifically,
California Streets and Highways Code section 5600 et seq. provides that the responsibility for maintenance of sidewalks rests on the abutting property owner, regardless of who created the sidewalk defects.

Agenda Report Highlights
• The City Council would provide
direction on creating a three-year
pilot sidewalk repair program
utilizing Measure S funds.
• Staff proposed two alternatives that
include a fully funded minor repair
program or a combination of minor
repairs with a cost-sharing structure
for major repairs.
• Neither of these proposed
alternatives would alter the existing
city code that holds private property
owners legally responsible for
adjacent sidewalk maintenance.
• Providing direction to staff would
present no direct fiscal implications,
though utilizing Measure S funds
would impact future budgets once a
program is approved.
• Establishing this pilot program
would expand assistance to
residents while ensuring the
initiative remains financially
manageable within the City's current
funding obligations.

Date: 9/1/2026
Item No.: 9.

Council Regular Meeting, 9/1/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 1, Packet Page 61 №12/25
The City of Monterey first enacted Ordinance 989 in 1955 pursuant to the Streets and Highways Code to help offset the cost of repair to and maintenance of worn out, damaged, or defective sidewalks.

In 1993, the City adopted Ordinance 3127 to include private property owner liability for injuries to the public due to unsafe sidewalk conditions. Sidewalk liability ordinances “provide [ ] an additional level of responsibility for the maintenance of safe sidewalks on the owners whose property is adjacent to and abuts the sidewalks”… Property owners “…are often in the best position to quickly identify and address potentially dangerous conditions that might occur on the sidewalks as opposed to [the city].” (Gonzales v. City of San Jose (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 1127.)
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no direct fiscal implications associated with providing direction to staff on the creation of a pilot sidewalk repair program utilizing Measure S funds. However, once a pilot program is brought back to Council for approval, there will be financial implications due to the use of Measure S funds for this program. The implications will be outlined in a future item brought to Council.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council could choose not to provide direction to staff to create a pilot sidewalk repair program utilizing Measure S funds. In this case, property owners would remain fully responsible for the cost of sidewalk repairs adjacent to their property under the existing City Code, except where the damage is attributable to a city tree or another existing city responsibility.

Staff is proposing two alternatives for this pilot program for Council consideration and direction.

The alternatives are summarized below:
• Minor Repair Program Only – The City funds eligible minor sidewalk repairs, such as slicing or grinding, while major repairs remain the responsibility of the adjacent property owner under the existing process
Council Regular Meeting, 9/1/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 2, Packet Page 62 №12/25
• Minor Repairs Plus Shared Cost for Major Repairs – The City funds eligible minor repairs and also shares the cost of major sidewalk repairs with the property owner, such as a 50/50 cost-sharing program
Neither of these alternatives would change the existing responsibility of adjacent private property owners for sidewalk maintenance and repair, nor would they amend the applicable provisions of the Monterey City Code.

DISCUSSION:

Since the inception of Measures P and S, the City has invested more than $7.5 million in sidewalk repairs, including repairs adjacent to public facilities and repairs associated with City trees. The City has completed 7 phases of sidewalk projects. Additionally, the City has completed approximately 4,059 spot repairs by slicing or grouting defects.

Establishing a new pilot sidewalk assistance program would expand the benefit of Measure S funding to eligible sidewalk conditions adjacent to private property. Staff evaluated several approaches for providing sidewalk repair assistance to residents using Measure S funding. The alternatives range from a limited minor repair program focused on slicing and grinding to costsharing for larger repairs. Both alternatives maintain the existing property owner responsibility established in the Monterey City Code and would operate within available Measure S funding.

Staff proposes this pilot program for three years, and then be considered for an extension, modification or sunset. The primary differences between the two alternatives are the level of assistance provided, the number of properties that could be served, and the amount of Measure S funding that would remain available for other street, Americans with Disabilities (ADA), and storm drain priorities.

Alternative 1 – Minor Repair Program
This alternative would create a pilot program that utilizes Measure S funds to correct eligible minor sidewalk defects adjacent to private property through slicing, grinding, or similar costeffective treatments. This is a similar program to the City of Alameda; where a sidewalk defect can be corrected through concrete cutting, the City of Alameda performs and pays for the cutting, while larger repairs continue to be addressed under the City's existing sidewalk responsibility requirements.

This alternative allows Measure S funds to address a relatively large number of minor defects at a lower cost while maintaining the existing responsibility framework for major repairs.

Types of Minor Repair Methods:
• Horizontal saw cutting or slicing of raised sidewalk edges. • Grinding of minor vertical offsets.
• Minor surface corrections where the sidewalk panel remains structurally sound. • Localized repairs that can be completed without full removal and replacement of the sidewalk panel.
• Other comparable minor treatments determined by Public Works to be technically appropriate and cost effective.

Council Regular Meeting, 9/1/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 3, Packet Page 63 №12/25
Minor repairs would generally be limited to conditions that can be safely corrected through slicing, grinding or another minor treatment, up to approximately two inches, depending on the condition, thickness, slope and structural integrity of the sidewalk and adjacent curb and gutter.

Minor Repair Pilot Program Elements:
• City funds 100% of eligible slicing, grinding, and other minor repairs through Measure S funds.
• Generally applies to defects that can be safely corrected without removal and replacement of the sidewalk panel.
• Major repairs remain the responsibility of the adjacent property owner under the existing City process.
• Work is prioritized based on existing known defects, resident requests, pedestrian activity, proximity to schools, parks, transit, and community facilities.

Alternative 2 – Minor Repairs Plus Shared Cost for Major Repairs This alternative would create a pilot program that utilizes Measure S funds to correct eligible minor sidewalk defects and introduces a cost sharing mechanism for major repairs adjacent to private property. This is a similar program to the City of San Rafael, which operates a 50/50 sidewalk replacement cost-sharing program. The City of San Rafael currently contributes 50% of eligible sidewalk replacement costs, up to a maximum City contribution of $2,000 per property, while property owners retain responsibility for maintaining adjacent sidewalks.

This alternative provides assistance to residents facing more expensive sidewalk repairs while retaining a shared financial responsibility and allowing Measure S funding to serve more properties than a fully City-funded program.

Minor Repair Plus Shared Cost Pilot Program Elements:
• City funds 100% of eligible slicing, grinding, and other minor repairs through Measure S funds. Repairs would be prioritized using the same pedestrian, safety, geographic, and community-facility criteria established for the minor repair program. • Major repairs requiring removal and replacement of sidewalk panels would be eligible for a City/property-owner cost share.
• A potential structure would be a 50% City / 50% property-owner share of eligible construction costs.
• The City contribution would be limited to 50% of eligible costs, subject to a maximum City contribution established by Council and available annual program funding. • Funding would be subject to annual Measure S appropriations and available program resources.

Local Agency Comparison
Staff reviewed sidewalk repair practices in nearby jurisdictions to provide additional context for the proposed alternatives. The review shows that local agencies use a range of approaches, from full property-owner responsibility to City-funded minor repairs and cost-sharing programs. • The City of Pacific Grove generally places responsibility for maintaining and repairing sidewalks on the abutting property owner. Property owners are required to obtain the Council Regular Meeting, 9/1/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 4, Packet Page 64 №12/25
appropriate encroachment permit and complete repairs in accordance with City standards.
• The City of Marina also places responsibility for sidewalk maintenance and repair on the adjacent property owner. Marina identifies specific repair criteria and requires property owners to obtain the appropriate permits and complete necessary repairs. While Marina has reduced and/or eliminated certain administrative costs associated with sidewalk repairs, the underlying repair cost generally remains the responsibility of the property owner.
• The City of Seaside has an inspection program that sends notices to adjacent property owners for repairs.
• The City of Salinas operates a 50/50 Sidewalk Repair Program in which the City contributes 50% of eligible sidewalk, curb, or gutter repair costs, up to a maximum City contribution of $2,500. Program funding is initially distributed among the City's Council districts, with unused funding later made available citywide.

The proposed City of Monterey alternatives fall within this same range of approaches.

Conclusion
Both alternatives would be implemented within available Measure S funding and consistent with the Measure S expenditure plan, including the minimum expenditure commitment for sidewalk improvements over the eight-year term of the existing Measure S. Funding would be subject to available Measure S funding as well as assessing the repairs necessary to streets, storm drains, and Senior and Disabled Access and Safety Improvements. If Measure S is renewed, this program will remain consistent with the expenditure plan; if Measure S is not renewed, the pilot program would have to be limited to a capped amount to be determined, still consistent with the expenditure plan, or it may not be able to be funded at all.

Staff did not recommend an alternative which proposes that the City funds all minor and major sidewalk repairs at this time. This option would have the greatest financial commitment. With the current Measure S scheduled to sunset in March 2027, committing to full City funding of major sidewalk repairs citywide could quickly reduce the remaining fund balance and limit resources available for existing and planned ADA, street, storm drain, and other sidewalk priorities.

The City of Vacaville’s experience, where a full-cost sidewalk assistance program (for lowincome property owners only) was suspended after available funding was exhausted, also illustrates the difficulty of sustaining this type of program when demand exceeds available resources. Given the remaining Measure S obligations and limited term, staff recommends a more targeted and financially sustainable level of sidewalk assistance.

The City could provide minor repair assistance only or combine minor repairs with a cost sharing program for major repairs. Alternatively, Council could take no action and maintain the existing process, under which there is no sidewalk assistance program and property owners remain responsible for the full cost of repairs adjacent to their property, except where the condition is caused by a City tree or otherwise falls within an existing City responsibility.

Participation in any assistance program would be subject to available funding and established program priorities. Establishment of the program would not guarantee repair of every eligible location or require the City to complete repairs within a specified timeframe.

Neither of these alternatives would change the existing responsibility of adjacent private property owners for sidewalk maintenance and repair under Monterey City Code Sections 32-24 and 32-25, nor would they amend those provisions. The programs would instead establish the Council Regular Meeting, 9/1/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 5, Packet Page 65 №12/25
circumstances under which the City elects to use Measure S funds to provide repair or financial assistance.

A sustainable pilot program should provide a benefit to residents without creating a long-term obligation that Measure S cannot support. Staff recommends consideration of alternative 1 or alternative 2; both alternatives provide the most balanced path forward. Alternative 1 is the alternative that could provide the biggest cost benefit ratio and faster deployment. Staff recommends this pilot program be re-evaluated in three years to best align with Measure S fund availability. Both options expand assistance to residents while keeping the program financially manageable, allowing the City to address a greater number of locations, and preserving Measure S funding for other critical infrastructure needs as well.

Staff looks forward to Council’s discussion and direction and can bring a proposal for adoption at the Council meeting on September 15, 2026.
e: Measure P/S Oversight Committee
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, 9/1/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 6, Packet Page 66 Council
Agenda Report
№12/25
FROM: Kimberly Cole, AICP, Community Development Director Prepared By: Levi Hill, AICP, Planning Manager and
Ted Terrasas, REHS, Sustainability Manager
SUBJECT: Receive an Update on the Status of the Updated Climate Action Plan (CAP) and Direct Staff to Proceed with a Non-CEQA-Qualified CAP to Maintain Climate Goals and Fiscal Resilience (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the Council:

1. Receive an update on the City’s Climate Action
Plan (CAP); and

2. Direct staff to proceed with a Non-California
Environmental Quality Act-Qualified CAP to
Maintain Climate Goals and Fiscal Resilience.

Staff's recommendation reflects the City's commitment
to climate action while recognizing that a CEQAqualified CAP would create implementation obligations that the City is unlikely to have the financial capacity to fund, given the City’s $11.7M fiscal deficit.

The City's consultant estimates that implementation of
the draft CEQA-qualified CAP measures would require
approximately $3.1 million in City expenditures, and as much as $5 million, using a conservative mid-range
estimate, with the bulk of those expenditures occurring before 2030. Although grant funding may be available
for some measures, no such funding has been identified
or secured, and the availability, amount, and timing of potential grant funding are uncertain.

VALUE DRIVERS:

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

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

Agenda Report Highlights
• The City is updating its Climate
Action Plan to meet new state
greenhouse gas emission reduction
goals and carbon neutrality
mandates.
• Staff has completed updated
emissions inventories and reduction
strategies while tracking metrics and
the public draft review remain in
progress.
• Implementing a California
Environmental Quality Act qualified
plan would streamline discretionary
development reviews but would
require an estimated $3M to $5M in
expenditures before 2030.
• Shifting to a standard non-qualified
plan would still advance
environmental goals without legally
committing the City to these
substantial financial obligations.
• Staff recommends the City continue
with development of a CAP but that
it not be CEQA-qualified given the
City’s $11.7M budget deficit.

Date: 9/1/2026
Item No.: 10.

Council Regular Meeting, 9/1/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 1, Packet Page 67 №12/25
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The City of Monterey completed a CAP in 2016 and substantial progress has been made on reducing the City’s greenhouse gas production. In the proposed updated CAP, the City will target updated emissions goals set by the State through Senate Bill 32, requiring 40 percent greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction below 1990 levels by 2030 and Assembly Bill 1279, requiring carbon neutrality by 2045. Adoption of a Non-CEQA-Qualified CAP would still allow the City to continue establishing climate action, greenhouse gas reduction, and resilience goals and to pursue implementation opportunities as funding becomes available, without creating the same time-sensitive financial obligations associated with a CEQA-qualified CAP.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The City is currently facing an estimated $11.7 million budget deficit and has already relied upon one-time strategies, position freezes, and program reductions to balance its budget. Given the City's current fiscal condition and ongoing structural budget challenges, staff considers it improbable that the City will be able to identify sufficient ongoing funding to support the $3 million to $5 million in direct implementation obligations of a CEQA-qualified CAP without adversely affecting other City priorities such as police, fire, parks, recreation, library, and other City services.

The Monterey 2031 General Plan update included mitigation measures requiring that the CAP meet the requirements of a CEQA qualified CAP. While the CEQA-qualified CAP was an ambitious goal, the City’s fiscal realities do not allow for the City to commit to such extensive requirements in such a short time frame. Preparation and implementation of a CEQA Qualified CAP will require significant capital expenditures through 2030 as discussed further in this report, including the hiring of additional full-time staff and investments in infrastructure. Staff is recommending that the City prepare a CAP but it not be CEQA qualified so that implementation timeframes are extended giving the City additional opportunities to obtain grant funds.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council could choose to proceed with a CEQA-qualified CAP. However, that is not recommended in this fiscal environment and the City’s multimillion dollar fiscal deficit. Staff's recommendation is not a recommendation to reduce the City's commitment to climate action. It is a recommendation that the City not undertake the additional financial commitment associated with CEQA qualification, a voluntary standard, when the City does not have a reasonably foreseeable funding source to support the resulting obligations.

Council Regular Meeting, 9/1/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 2, Packet Page 68 №12/25
Because General Fund resources are limited and already committed to essential services and other Citywide priorities, including police, fire, parks, library, recreation, and other municipal services, this alternative would require the City Council to identify corresponding funding reductions, new revenues, or other offsets.

In addition, staff does not recommend using General Fund reserves to fund these obligations.

Reserves are intended to preserve the City's ability to respond to emergencies, economic downturns, significant revenue disruptions, and other unforeseen circumstances. Using reserves to fund a multi-year programmatic commitment would reduce the City's financial resilience.

DISCUSSION:

Background
The City of Monterey developed a Climate Action Plan (CAP) in 2016 to define the City’s approach to a global environmental challenge. The 2016 CAP consisted of a 2005 GHG emissions inventory, a 2012 GHG emissions inventory, and existing and planned GHG emissions reduction strategies for both the community (geographic) and government (municipal) operations.

As a result of new GHG forecasts and targets issued by the State, and mitigation requirements from the Monterey 2031 General Plan update, the City initiated a comprehensive update to the CAP in 2025. The update includes new GHG emissions reduction strategies that build on previous successes and enhanced community engagement to support Monterey in achieving the community’s identified climate goals.

CAP Update –Progress and Status

1. Updated Emissions Inventory (2023) – COMPLETED

2. Updated GHG emissions forecast to 2045 and back-cast to 1990 – COMPLETED

3. Updated GHG emissions reduction targets– COMPLETED

4. Development of strategies, measures, and implementation actions – COMPLETED

5. Develop tracking metrics to monitor progress – IN PROGRESS

6. Prepare Draft CAP for public review– IN PROGRESS
Draft GHG Emissions Measures and Actions
As part of the development of the updated CAP, several implementation measures and actions have been developed to address the emissions reductions targets identified in the forecast and target report. Feedback received from the community through an in-person community workshop and a subsequent community survey was included in the development of the implementation measures.

Based on the updated Emissions Inventory, implementation measures will likely target the following sectors:
• Building Energy, including electrification
Council Regular Meeting, 9/1/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 3, Packet Page 69 №12/25
• Transportation, including zero emissions vehicles (ZEVs) • Solid Waste, including organics diversion
• Carbon Sequestration, including land management.

These sectors were identified as primary contributors to City emissions and, therefore, the measures and actions in these areas will be the most effective towards meeting the reduction goals.

CEQA Qualification: Benefits Do Not Justify the City's Financial Commitment In accordance with the Monterey 2031 EIR, City staff has been working to develop a CEQA qualified document, in accordance with the General Plan EIR mitigation measures. The primary advantage to preparing a CEQA qualified CAP is to provide a streamlined review process for new discretionary development projects in the City. However, as reflected in the Cost Assessment (Attachment 1), the required actions to implement a CEQA Qualified CAP fall primarily to the City to carry out and will bear significant costs which the City cannot afford However, the City's climate action goals and the CEQA qualification of the CAP are two separate considerations. The City can still maintain a comprehensive climate action strategy, establish greenhouse gas reduction and resilience goals, track progress, pursue grants, and implement appropriate measures without making the CAP CEQA-qualified.

The principal benefit of CEQA qualification identified through the CAP process is the ability to use the CAP to streamline environmental review for certain future discretionary development projects. This benefit may provide value to future development applicants and the City; however, it is an incremental benefit of CEQA qualification and is not necessary to continue the City's broader climate action efforts.

The attached Cost Assessment provides a summary of the implementation measures and actions the City must commit to along with the estimated costs associated. While this is a basic evaluation of implementation costs, it provides an indication of required funding levels.

Of the fourteen draft greenhouse gas reduction measures, four are projected to have a low cost ($1-$50,000), nine are projected to have a moderate cost ($50,000 - $500,000) and one is expected to have a high cost ($500,000) to the City. A conservative mid-range estimate of these costs would total approximately $3.1 million with the bulk of the expenditures being made prior to 2030. Staff estimates these costs could exceed $5 million. The Consultant estimates that at least two (2) additional full-time staff members would need to be hired by the City in order to manage and implement these efforts. Although grant funding may be available to assist in funding a portion of the measures, the availability of those funding sources is unknown.

The tradeoff is significant. A CEQA-qualified CAP would convert planned implementation measures into time-sensitive requirements. The current report notes that failure to achieve the established measures could undermine or eliminate the City's ability to use the CAP to streamline permitting. The associated cost assessment estimates $3M to $5M in City implementation costs, with the majority of expenditures occurring within the next four years.

Council Regular Meeting, 9/1/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 4, Packet Page 70 №12/25
Staff Recommendation Continues Advancing Climate Action The City is facing an estimated $11.7 million budget deficit and significant uncertainty regarding its ability to fund existing and future City services. There is currently no identified funding source sufficient to support the estimated CEQA-qualified CAP implementation costs.

If the City were to proceed with a CEQA-qualified CAP, staff would therefore need to identify an alternative funding source. In the absence of dedicated external funding, the General Fund would be the most likely source of funding for at least a portion of the City's obligations. Those General Fund dollars are limited and must compete with other Citywide priorities, including police, fire, parks, library, recreation, infrastructure, and other essential municipal services.

The updated CAP is not required to be CEQA Qualified and a standard non-qualified CAP would continue to further emissions reduction goals without committing the City to the level of expenditures reflected in the Cost Assessment. While the City’s General Plan EIR currently commits the City to preparing a CEQA qualified CAP, an Addendum to the EIR could be adopted.

In conclusion, Staff is recommending that the City prepare and maintain a non-CEQA-qualified CAP rather than proceed with a CEQA-qualified CAP. This approach allows the City to continue advancing climate action and resilience goals without committing the City to implementation obligations that, given the City's current budget deficit and lack of an identified funding source, are unlikely to be financially achievable.

TJT/LH
Attachments: 1. GHG Reduction Measures Cost Range Assessment 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, 9/1/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 5, Packet Page 71 City of Monterey
GHG Reduction Measures
Cost Range Assessment
www.rinconcons ultants.com

M E M O R A N D U M
Date: May 18, 2026
To: City of Monterey, Ted Terrasas
Cc: Kimberly Cole, Rocio Madrigal Bristow, Levi Hill
Via: Email: [email protected]
From: Rincon Consultants
Erica Linard, Joanna Thelen, Erik Feldman
Subject: Monterey GHG Reduction Measures Cost Range Assessment The City of Monterey (the City) is developing a Climate Action Plan (CAP) Update that establishes a roadmap to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in line with the State’s goals. Making progress on Monterey’s 2030 and 2045 GHG reduction targets will require strategic investments by the both the City and the community in infrastructure, technology systems, and policies and programs. To help prioritize these investments, Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) has prepared this assessment that estimates the cost tiers (i.e., no-cost/cost savings, low cost, moderate cost, or high cost) associated with the implementation of the Administrative Draft CAP GHG reduction measures.

Climate action plans exhibit variability in implementation costs depending on the measures identified, their level of specificity, and the accompanying funding and financing strategies. For example, costs may vary from capital-intensive investments, like the installation of bike infrastructure, to less capitalintensive but more city staff-intensive investments, such as conducting outreach and educational campaigns. The intent of this assessment is to summarize these variable considerations to provide a clearer understanding of the potential costs, and the primary variables that drive cost, for each GHG reduction measure and help the City prioritize measure implementation.

This memorandum assigns cost tiers to each GHG reduction measure. These tiers, ranging from no cost/cost savings to high cost, reflect financial investment and staff time requirements estimated based on Rincon’s professional experience. While this assessment does not provide detailed cost estimates for each action or identify specific funding sources, it offers a practical framework to assess the relative level of effort needed for each measure. Developing precise cost estimates or funding strategies would require further analysis and time expenditure that falls outside the scope of this project. With this framework, the City can prioritize high-impact measures while aligning with available resources and long-term climate goals.

Benefits of the CAP Update
While the GHG reduction measures will require City and community costs to implement, adopting and implementing the CAP Update will provide significant financial and social benefits that warrant consideration. First, the CAP Update will serve as the primary implementation strategy of the Monterey 2031 General Plan to establish a long-term GHG emission reduction strategy and comply with the 2031 General Plan Environmental Impact Report’s Mitigation Measure GHG-1 to adopt and implement

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 9/1/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 6, Packet Page 72 City of Monterey
GHG Reduction Measures
Cost Assessment
2 an updated, CEQA qualified CAP.1,2 When adopted, the CAP Update will align with the State’s GHG reduction goals and funding strategies to position Monterey to compete for grant funding. Second, the CAP Update focuses on proactive, long-term investments to encourage the City and community to invest now and save a lot more later. For example, adding conduit and panel capacity for electric vehicle (EV) chargers during new construction increases upfront costs by only a few hundred dollars; however, retrofitting EV infrastructure after construction can cost ten times more. With the growing adoption of EVs, delaying this investment could place a much heavier financial burden on the community in the future. Likewise, while retrofitting existing buildings to replace gas appliances with electric alternatives increases upfront costs, it provides long-term energy bill savings and reduces the risk of leaving community members who can least afford it with significantly higher gas utility bills needed to support aging infrastructure and stranded assets as the rest of the region electrifies. 3 Additionally, investing in adaptation strategies such as tree planting and installing microgrids require initial investments today to prepare Monterey to face more extreme storm events, wildfires, and rising energy demands, all of which would require expensive emergency responses or infrastructure upgrades. The World Resources Institute estimates a benefit-cost ratio between 2:1 and 10:1 for such investments, meaning that for every dollar spent on resilience, we could see $2 to $10 in benefits.4 These financial and social benefits of the CAP Update, along with the additional co-benefits to public health and the direct impact on reducing GHG emissions, make the benefits of the CAP Update outweigh the implementation costs outlined in this memorandum.

Cost Tier Considerations
This document considers several types of cost when assessing each GHG reduction measure. Cost tiers for each measure are evaluated separately for the City and the community, as the nature and magnitude of implementation costs can differ depending on the entity’s perspective. The assessment also considers upfront and lifecycle costs. Upfront costs include the costs associated with purchasing and installing an item, including any City staff time spent on related activities like procurement, planning, or ordinance development. Lifecycle costs refer to the ongoing expenses or cost savings generated from operating, maintaining, and disposing of that item, and can also include City staff time spent on enforcement, monitoring, and compliance over the item’s lifespan.

Cost Savings
Many GHG reduction measures would not only reduce emissions but also generate long-term cost savings and positive return-on-investment (ROI) (i.e. net cost savings compared to the initial investment cost) for both the City and the community over the life of the CAP Update. While some measures require additional upfront investments, they often lead to operational efficiencies, lower energy consumption, and avoided future costs. For example, increasing the adoption of passenger and 1 City of Monterey. Monterey 2031 General Plan Update: Environmental Impact Report (2024). Accessed May 8 2026 at: https://cdnsm5- hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_10826046/File/Our%20City/Departments/Community%20Development/Planning/General%20Pl an%202040%20Update/GP2040%20Final%20EIR%20Upload%20compressed.pdf. 2 A qualified CAP is a qualified GHG reduction strategy under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 3 Greenlining Institute and Energy Efficiency for All. Equitable Building Electrification: A Framework for Powering Resilient Communities.

Accessed May 2026 at: https://greenlining.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Greenlining_EquitableElectrification_Report_2019_WEB.pdf. 4 World Resources Institute (2019). Global Leaders Call for Urgent Action on Climate Adaptation; Commission Finds Adaptation Can Deliver $7.1 Trillion in Benefits. Accessed May 2026 at: https://www.wri.org/news/release-global-leaders-call-urgent-action-climate-adaptationcommission-finds-adaptation-can

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 9/1/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 7, Packet Page 73 City of Monterey
GHG Reduction Measures
Cost Assessment
3 municipal fleet EVs offers substantial savings through reduced fuel and maintenance expenses compared to gasoline-powered vehicles.5 Additionally, the City, residents, and businesses can further benefit from off-peak EV charging, driving down energy costs over time.6 These operational and maintenance cost savings offset the higher upfront costs to purchase a EV compared to a conventional internal combustion engine upon replacement.

Further cost savings can be achieved through strategic implementation, such as replacing equipment with an electric alternative at the end of the existing equipment’s useful life. While this approach is generally encouraged through voluntary replacements in the CAP Update, this method is explicitly promoted in measures addressing replacement of natural gas building appliances with electric alternatives and zero-emission off-road equipment. Leveraging time-of-replacement strategies not only reduces waste and avoids additional manufacturing emissions, but also allows for cost savings. For example, while the total upfronts costs of a heat pump water heater are higher than that of a gas one, the incremental costs, or differential costs, are only slightly higher when comparing the two. These incremental costs can then be offset to produce incremental cost savings (i.e., making a heat pump water heater installation cheaper than a gas water heater installation) using available federal, State, and regional incentives. Currently, federal programs such as the High Efficiency Electric Home Rebate (HEEHRA)7 and the Homeowner Managing Energy Savings (HOMES) Rebate, State programs like Clean California, and regional rebates from Central Coast Community Energy (3CE) offer significant funding to support the installation of electric and heat pump appliances in Monterey, helping residents transition away from gas appliances.8 These cost-saving opportunities are supported by current market trends. In California, the market share for heat pump space heaters has grown from five percent in 2009 to 55 percent in 2023, while heat pump water heaters increased from six percent to 16 percent over the same period.
9,10 By prioritizing such time-of-replacement measures, Monterey could position itself for sustainable growth, aligning financial savings with environmental resilience.

Cost Assessment Tiers
The assumptions associated with the four different cost tiers are presented in Table 1. 5 Petek, G. Legislative Analysist Office (2023). Assessing California’s Climate Policies—Implications for State Transportation Funding and Programs. Accessed October 2024 at: https://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2023/4821/ZEV-Impacts-on-Transportation-121323.pdf. 6 Stewart, S. National Bureau of Economic Research (2024). Shifting Electric Vehicle Owners to Off-Peak Charging. Accessed October 2024 at: https://www.nber.org/digest/202401/shifting-electric-vehicle-owners-peak-charging. 7 As of February 24, 2026, HEEHRA rebates for single-family home retrofits have been fully reserved in California, though the California Energy Commission notes that additional budget may become available at a future date. https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-andtopics/programs/inflation-reduction-act-residential-energy-rebate-programs 8 Central Coast Community Energy (3CE). Electrify You Home Program. Accessed May 2026 at: https://3cenergy.org/rebates/electrify-yourhome/. 9 California Energy Commission (2023). Top Global Building Appliance Manufacturers and Distributors Commit to Help California Achieve Six Million Heat Pump Goal. Accessed May 2026 at: https://www.energy.ca.gov/news/2023-10/top-global-building-appliancemanufacturers-and-distributors-commithelp#:~:text=The%202022%20Energy%20Code%20established%20heat%20pumps%20as,and%2016%20percent%20for%20heat%20pu mp%20water%20heaters.
10 Opinion Dynamics (2022). California Heat Pump Residential Market Characterization and Baseline Study. Accessed May 2026 at:
https://pda.energydataweb.com/#!/documents/2625/view.

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 9/1/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 8, Packet Page 74 City of Monterey
GHG Reduction Measures
Cost Assessment
4 Table 1 Measure Cost Tiers, Ranges, and Assumptions
Cost Tier Cost and Staff Time City Cost Assumptions Community Cost Assumptions No Cost/
Cost
Savings
City Costs:
• $0 or cost savings
• 0 hours – negligible City
staff time needed.

Community Costs:
• $0 or cost savings
Operational changes that do not
include upfront costs or lifecycle
costs, and/or may result in cost
savings, such as:
• Partnering with local
community-based
organizations to promote new
initiatives.

Changes that do not include upfront
costs or lifecycle costs, and/or may
result in cost savings, such as:
• Switching transportation modes
from single occupancy vehicles
to active transportation.
• Electrifying new single-family
and multi-family building
construction.

Low City Costs:
• $1 – $50,000
• 0-250 hours – a
maximum of 250 hours
of existing City staff time
needed per year.1
Community Costs:
• $1 – $1,000
Low upfront costs, and only require
staff and/or consultant time to
implement, such as:
• Preparing and adopting policy
updates.
• Conducting community
outreach.

Low upfront costs compared to
existing alternatives, such as:
• Switching from a fossil fuelbased electricity option to a 100 percent renewable electricity
option.

Moderate City Costs:
• $50,000 -- $500,000
• 250+ hours – more than
250 hours of an existing
City staff person’s time
per year; including
needing to hire new fulltime City staff (~2,000
hours per year).1
Community Costs:
• $1,000 – $5,000
Moderate upfront costs to the City
and require moderate capital costs
and/or consultant time along with
staff time, such as:
• Preparing feasibility studies.
• Implementing incentive and
compliance programs.
•
Moderate upfront costs that are not
comparable to existing costs nor are
they offset over lifetime, such as:
• Introducing new fees.
• Paying upfront costs that are
partially offset by rebate
opportunities.

High City Costs:
• $500,000+
Community Costs:
• $5,000+
High upfront costs and require
substantial investments in
infrastructure and technology
system upgrades, such as:
• Building bike lanes.
• Installing energy storage
systems.
• Expanding EV charging
networks.

High upfront costs that are not
comparable to existing cost nor are
offset over lifetime, such as:
• Purchasing a new electric
vehicle prior to existing vehicle
replacement.

Notes:

1. Staff time estimated by dividing the cost range values by an assumed average $100 per hour City staff hourly rate.

In addition to cost tiers, this assessment summarizes the level of estimated GHG reductions anticipated for each measure. By establishing GHG reduction tiers, the assessment allows for a straight-forward inference of the cost efficiency for each measure. Table 2 below presents the GHG reduction impact tiers defined for this assessment.

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 9/1/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 9, Packet Page 75 City of Monterey
GHG Reduction Measures
Cost Assessment
5 Table 2 Measure GHG Impact Tiers
GHG Tier
GHG Reduction Range
(MT CO2e)
Description
Supportive — Measure does not result in direct quantifiable GHG reductions, but supports the GHG reductions achieved by other measures.

Low 0 – 1,000 Measure is estimated to result in relatively low GHG reductions across the 2030 and 2045 target years.

Moderate 1,000 – 10,000 Measure is estimated to result in modest GHG reductions across the 2030 and 2045 target years.

High 10,000 – 100,000 Measure is estimated to result in substantial GHG reductions across the 2030 and 2045 target years.

Very High 100,000+ Measure is estimated to result in extensive GHG reductions across the 2030 and 2045 target years.

Cost Tier Matrix
Table 3 presents the cost assessment tier and range determination for the City and community. The table includes each measure currently included in the CAP Update, identification of the associated cost from a city and community perspective, indication of potential ROI, and the magnitude of GHG reductions estimated for each measure.

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 9/1/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 10, Packet Page 76 City of Monterey
GHG Reduction Measures
Cost Range Assessment
www.rinconcons ultants.com
Table 3 CAP Update GHG Emissions Reduction Measures and Cost Ranges Measure
ID Measure Text
City
Cost
Community
Cost
Financial
ROI Cost Summary
Potential GHG
Emission
Reduction (MT
CO2e)
Strategy: Building Energy
BE-1 Achieve a 95% community enrollment
in carbon-free and renewable energy
sources by 2030.

Low Low — City: staff time for promotional engagement development and coordination with 3CE.

Community: minor utility rate increased from enrollment transition.

High
BE-2 Develop a Citywide Existing Building
Decarbonization Program.

Moderate No Cost — City: staff or consultant time for development of enforceable mechanisms and electrification programs in
partnership with third-parties.

Community: no direct costs to community.

Supportive
BE-3 Decarbonize residential buildings by
1% by 2030 and 72% by 2045.

Moderate Moderate  City: staff or consultant time for assessing current conditions, conducting targeted outreach programs, and
pursuing community funding.

Community: upfront cost of appliance installations, with opportunity to achieve long-term cost savings.

High
BE-4 Decarbonize nonresidential buildings
by 1% by 2030 and 63% by 2045.

Moderate Moderate  City: staff or consultant time for assessing current conditions, conducting targeted outreach programs, and
pursuing community funding.

Community: upfront cost of appliance installations, with opportunity to achieve long-term cost savings.

High
BE-5 Increase microgrids and energy
storage across the City to enhance
local electrical reliability, grid capacity,
and facilitate City decarbonization.

Moderate Moderate/
High
 City: staff or consultant time for feasibility study, pursuing community grant funding, and developing policy changes.

Community: infrastructure cost of microgrid energy
generation technology, with potential for long-term energy savings. Level of cost differs for residential vs commercial property installation.

Supportive
Strategy: Transportation

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 9/1/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 11, Packet Page 77 City of Monterey
GHG Reduction Measures
Cost Assessment
7 Measure
ID Measure Text
City
Cost
Community
Cost
Financial
ROI Cost Summary
Potential GHG
Emission
Reduction (MT
CO2e)
T-1 Implement programs to increase
active transportation mode share to

2.5% by 2030 and to 10% by 2045.

High Low  City: infrastructure capital cost to implement Move Monterey Plan and staff time implement reach code,
outreach programs, and pursue funding.

Community: active transportation equipment purchases
with financial assistance with potential cost-savings from reduced fuel use, and infrastructure costs for businesses aligning with Move Monterey Plan and policy updates.

Moderate
T-2 Implement programs that increase
public transportation mode share to
2% by 2030 and to 3% by 2045.

Moderate Low/
Moderate
— City: staff time to coordinate with third-parties and implement promotional programs, as well as provide infill incentives.

Community: low costs for residents to ride transit, with potential cost savings from implementation of transit
subsidies offered businesses (potential incurred business cost).

Moderate
T-3 Increase ZEV adoption rates to 20%
for passenger vehicles and 20% for
commercial vehicles
by 2030, and achieve 100% for all
vehicles by 2045.

Moderate Moderate  City: staff or consultant time to complete inventory analysis, develop and enforce reach code, and pursue
community financing options.

Community: infrastructure installations of EV chargers and purchase of ZEVs, with consideration of incentive offsets and long-term fuel cost savings.

Very High
T-4 Develop programs and policies to
discourage driving single passenger
vehicles and to support the
bicycle/pedestrian and public transit
mode share targets of Measures T-1
and T-2.

Low Low/
Moderate
(business)
— City: staff time to coordinate with businesses, develop policy changes for parking pricing, and outreach programs.

Community: minor cost impact to residents for parking
policy changes, and potential TDM policy implementation and active transportation infrastructure costs for
businesses.

Supportive
T-5 Electrify or otherwise decarbonize
21% of off-road equipment by 2030
and 54% by 2045.

Moderate Low  City: staff time to develop and enforce SORE ordinance, as well as work with MBARD to pursue grants for community
incentives.

Community: cost of replacing offroad equipment upon
burnout, with consideration of potential rebates and
Moderate

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 9/1/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 12, Packet Page 78 City of Monterey
GHG Reduction Measures
Cost Assessment
8 Measure
ID Measure Text
City
Cost
Community
Cost
Financial
ROI Cost Summary
Potential GHG
Emission
Reduction (MT
CO2e)
incentives and potential long term cost savings from
reduced fuel use.

Strategy: Solid Waste
SW-1 Invest in efforts to
achieve and maintain SB 1383
requirements to reduce organic waste
sent to landfills by 75% compared
with 2014 levels by 2030.

Low Low — City: staff time to continue waste diversion outreach efforts and pursue grant funding.

Community: potential rate increases from waste haulers.

Moderate
SW-2 Develop and maintain an SB 1383
procurement program to meet the
requirements of 0.08 tons recovered
organic waste per person by 2030
and exceed the requirement by 25%
by 2045.

Moderate —  City: staff or consultant time to complete feasibility study, implement procurement strategy, pursue funding, and
conduct community engagement.

Community: potential cost savings from free or low-cost compost.

Moderate
Strategy: Water and Wastewater
WW-1 Continue to implement water
conservation, climate-smart, and
water recycling projects to reduce per
capita potable water consumption by
10% by 2030.

Low Low  City: staff time to continue working with partner organizations and implementing water efficiency
strategies.

Community: minor cost from purchasing water efficiency
appliances with consideration of incentives and potential long-term cost savings on utility bills.

Low
Strategy: Carbon Sequestration
CS-1 Increase carbon sequestration by
developing a Citywide tree planting
program, supported by local nurseries
and utilizing native and climate smart
species to plant 350 new trees by
2030.

Moderate Low — City: staff or consultant time to conduct feasibility study, expand tree protection ordinance, and pursue grant
funding for tree planting.

Community: tree planting and maintenance costs for
property owners.

Low

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 9/1/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 13, Packet Page 79 City of Monterey
GHG Reduction Measures
Cost Range Assessment
www.rinconcons ultants.com
Table 4 provides a visual matrix displaying the relative cost efficiency, or GHG emissions reduced per dollar spent, of each measure in relation its estimated GHG reduction impact in the CAP Update. The intersection of Cost Tier and GHG Tier is based on anticipated costs to the city, as established in Table 3 above. As supportive measures do not result in direct GHG reduction impacts, but instead assist other measures in achieving reduction, the cost efficiencies of this tier type are challenging to assess on their own and are therefore excluded from Table 4 below.

Table 4 CAP Update GHG Emissions Reduction Measures Cost Efficiency Matrix Limitations
This assessment was developed based on Rincon’s professional experience. Rincon is not liable for any outcomes related to changes or errors in the information provided. The assessment is meant to be used for internal purposes for understanding the general cost associated with the specific measures referenced above. Rincon is not liable for outcomes related to future implementation of the City’s measures or future alterations or modifications encountered during measure implementation over time. Actualized cost will depend on the implementation approach, as well as the technologies and incentives leveraged to achieve the intended outcomes of each measure.

GHG Tier
Low Moderate High Very High City Cost Tier
No Cost
Low
WW-1 SW-1 BE-1
Moderate
CS-1
T-2
T-5
SW-2
BE-3
BE-4
T-3
High
T-1

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 9/1/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 14, Packet Page 80

Monterey City CouncilSeptember 1, 2026

Monterey City Council
September 1, 2026