Welcome to our special council meeting today, Wednesday, July twenty third, twenty twenty five.

Go ahead and call the meeting to order and pass it to Clementine for roll call and to share announcements at the public.

Councilmember Barber, present.

Councilmember Garcia.

Here.

Councilmember Rash here.

Councilmember Smith.

Present.

And Mayor Williamson.

Here.

And public comment and participation information is provided on our meetings agenda, which is online at monterey.gov/slash agendas.

In-person attendees, please keep your electronic devices and phones muted to prevent audio interference.

And thank you for participating in your city government.

Thank you, Clementine.

With that, I will pass it to Dr.

Barber to kick us off with the Pledge of Allegiance.

Ready?

Yeah.

I have a question.

To the Republic.

It's just advanced.

Under God.

And indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

All right.

Thank you, Dr.

Barber.

With that, we'll go to our public appearance item number one on the agenda is to amend and resubmit to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, the draft fiscal year 2529 consolidated plan and draft fiscal year 2526 annual action plan for the community development block grant program to comply with federal executive orders and authorize the city manager to make administrative changes requested by HUD.

With that, I'll pass it to Hans for staff presentation.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Again, uh you you uh read it absolutely correct.

We are under the gun to comply with federal executive orders, and that is uh the uh the intent of this agenda report and our uh housing manager um Anastasia Wyatt will present to you a brief staff report.

Good evening, mayor and council.

I'm here to present, thank you.

On May 6th, you uh approved our action plan, annual action plan and consolidated plan for HUD.

And uh we received notice back from HUD on Friday.

We have six days to uh make these amendments and provide them back to HUD by tomorrow.

So um HUD is requesting that we remove any uh DEI equity um statements from our plan, which includes data that we are taking out, and that is presented to you today, and we um this all of the changes in the plan meet.

We also needed to make assurance statements that meet the executive orders required by this administration, and we have also um within the plan not changed any of the important funding recommendations that were approved.

It's these administrative changes.

That concludes my report.

No questions.

We'll go ahead and open up for public comment.

So for those that are maybe unfamiliar, I'm just gonna share with you how public comment works.

We identify those that want to speak during public comment at the beginning of the public comment period.

We identify the folks that want to speak during public comment at the beginning of the public comment period.

Once those folks are identified, we close it off and only those folks get to speak.

So at this point, I'll check with folks on Zoom.

You can navigate your way over to the raise hand function.

Anybody in the chamber wish to speak on this item?

All right, seeing none, we'll go ahead and do a countdown for folks on Zoom to five, four, three, two, one.

And there's one on Zoom, so we'll go ahead and take that public commentary, give them their three minutes.

Go ahead.

Good afternoon.

Just a short point.

It's kind of ironic that we just made a big deal about acknowledging the indigenous um settlers and the you know, because of what was going on with the new um 100% affordable housing that we're building, and now we have to put up with this um basically steps back, uh, a century with this DEI thing because of the current administration.

Hopefully, um it will be reversed soon, but it is pretty embarrassing.

Thanks.

Okay, thank you, Esther.

With that, we'll go ahead and close public comment, bring it back to the council for motion and deliberation.

I'll make a motion.

Is it when moved?

Let's wait for a second.

Yes.

Is there a move and second in Dr.

Barber, please?

Yes, so uh, of course, we want to be in compliance with um federal government, but I do want to um echo the sentiments of what uh what our public speaker just said um that it's sad to see when we talk about uh non-discrimination, and we're doing exactly that by this motion.

And so I'm hoping that we can be able to see and understand that when we talk about equity and when we talk about diversity, we're talking about fairness.

And so when people take that and and try to manipulate it, I think it's unfortunate.

So I hope that this is something that we are able to look into ourselves to see what needs to happen as far as moving forward so that we can be in unity and not the vision.

Well said.

anybody else?

Okay, with that, go ahead and call for the question.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion passes unanimously.

With that, we'll move on to item number two to receive.

Thank you, staff, for your work on that.

I know that that was a quick turnaround and um appreciate your work.

Receive so number two is to receive updates and provide guidance on matters relating to boards, commissions, and committees.

The first part is for governance policy changes that will provide for a mayor, vice mayor, subcommittee to interview and nominate applicants.

The second part is to process for dissolving the architectural review committee, third is potential combination of the historic preservation commission with the museum and cultural arts commission, and four is potential term limits for members of boards, commissions, and committees.

With that, I'll pass it to Hans for staff presentation.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Uh, this is um an item that uh we present to you in hopes we uh receive more feedback about them, and then uh at a very near future meeting, we will bring it forward for a vote.

So um, with that, I hand it over to our city clerk who is the mastermind of all those proposals.

Thank you, Hollins.

Um, so as you read in the staff report, we have four different things to discuss.

The first is the um update to the governance policy, and for background on June 17th, the council voted unanimously in favor of forming a standing subcommittee that would conduct the um interviews and nominations for applicants to the city's boards, commissions, and committees.

Um, so we've presented the draft policy for your preview and for any comment, um, and that is in the packet.

And I'll just go through the um the changes are it includes the subcommittee that will conduct the interviews and noticed public meetings, all may attend.

Anyone from the community uh may attend and comment.

Um, it expressly provides that interviewees may attend remotely, and it includes um nominating residents to outside agency positions, such as the TMC bike and pedestrian committee, that currently we don't really have a solid um setup for how to do those recommendations.

Um, what stays the same in the policy is everything else.

So the outreach methods, the reappointment requirements, the factors in how to evaluate applicants and make the appointments, and the fact that the council is the one that makes the appointments.

And so we also have plans for implementation beyond the council policy, which are I would like to schedule the first subcommittee meeting to develop any desired standards, such as any interview questions that you want to standardize or the length of time for each interview, and then also the city clerk procedures will be developed for supporting the subcommittee, including um the council had specified they wanted there to be scheduling flexibility of at least two dates for interviews for applicants in case the first date doesn't work for their schedule.

And next is the process for dissolving the architectural review committee in June.

Um the council voted in favor of combining the ARC into the planning commission.

And so staff is currently working on writing an ordinance that would dissolve the ARC and transfer its duties and powers to the planning commission.

And for something like that that involves the zoning ordinance, planning commission review is required.

So a tentative earliest possible schedule with the proviso that we may need to push it by a meeting or two, would be for the planning commission to hear it in August, then council having its first and second readings during September.

And um, and as if the schedule happened that way, then 30 days later in August, sorry, in October 16th, the ordinance would go into effect and the ARC would be dissolved.

And also uh for your information, currently there are three seats on the planning commission to be filled.

Um, one is an unscheduled vacancy that's been vacant since March when Commissioner Fletcher resigned.

Two are regular terms that just um would have ended on June 30th, but our code does provide that members serve until they're reappointed or replaced.

So we've been holding off on that until the subcommittee is active.

And any Monterey resident may apply and be considered for seats on the planning commission.

Third, the update for the potential combination of the Historic preservation Commission with the Museums and Cultural Arts Commission.

The other priorities from the council were higher on our list.

Um the council did ask us to bring this back eventually, but we're not ready to do that yet.

And we we will at a future date.

And then lastly, in the special meeting in January, the council workshop, it was mentioned the potential to provide term limits for board and commission and committee members.

And so staff is wondering whether the council has a majority interest in that, and if so, if you would provide us guidance and direction.

And so in summary, um, we'll be bringing the governance policy back to you in August.

Um the ordinance dissolving ARC will be coming to the council as early as September, possibly October or later, depending on how that goes.

And then HPC and MCAC combination is on hold, and we're asking for feedback on the term limits.

Awesome.

Thank you for the presentation.

You're welcome.

I know there's a lot of work going on in the background to get this all that happens.

Appreciate your efforts there.

Right, Council, any questions at this point?

Please I'm not thinking to get today with my mic, Dr.

Barber.

Yeah, so I know last time when we talked about the process of dissolving the ARC into planning, I had questions and I I still don't have the answers.

Um and that is we were I was asking about the Melarus and and we were talking about some of the other ones, even with the historical um HPC and the MCAC.

But specifically, I was trying to find out about the Melarus and how that would um actually transfer um how that looks.

And I know you guys want to bring back the ordinance that will show us more, but I have questions of how that would look and making sure that it's seamless and that everything is is taken care of.

Because in some cases, I don't know whether it actually um collaborates well.

So I'm just trying to see how that would look is my question.

Um for the mellow roos, or is it possible we're talking about the Mills Act?

Or yeah, the Mill Mills Act, right?

Yes, the MILS Act, I'm sorry.

Okay.

Um, would you be able to uh my understanding is the Mills Act review is through the HPC?

Is that right?

Okay, so that's through the Historic Preservation Commission, so that wouldn't impact the um.

So that's why I say I'm talking about all of them because I had questions when we were talking about um combining all of these, we were combining talking about the ARC and the planning, and we were talking about the HBC and the MCAC.

So one of the questions I know I had asked back then was dealing with that, and I was just trying to figure out how that would look.

Well, I so if I'm understanding the question correctly, then it's about the potential combination of the historic preservation commission with the so we're not ready to, we haven't um prepared um recommendations or background information on that combination yet.

That's one that would be coming forward at a future date.

And the same thing with the ARC and planning.

That's you don't have any specifics on that yet as well.

So the specifics that I have on that, and please jump in if if I need any update or correction is that um right now the plan is the ordinance would sort of um dissolve the ARC and say that now the planning commission is the ARC and transfer the duties and powers to the planning commission.

So it's still all the same things that the ARC does, it would now be the planning commission doing them as the ARC.

So I guess my question and my my head since last time was because some of the things that the ARC does and some of the things the planning does isn't necessarily gonna be the same type of uh qualifications that you may look for or the different commissioners that may come forward.

So I was trying to see how we were gonna to attempt an approach to to marry that as far as when we look for qualification, because with the ARC is going to be very specific in the skill set and with planning, it may not be.

So I'm just trying to see how that would actually work.

Could I just add a follow-up to that if I may, Dr.

Barber?

Um, what I recall from that conversation was the idea of maybe um having a suggestion or preference towards two of the planning commission seats being architects, not that it would be a requirement, but that would be the preference to try to help make sure that we have that representation on the planning commission to help fulfill that um background and experience needed to make those decisions.

So yeah, we can we can bake that into the ordinance and um additionally, I think this is gonna be a multi-step process because initially I think the priority is to just dissolve the ARC and get um the planning commission up and running in place of the ARC.

We also plan to streamline some of those duties um at a staff level.

Um a lot of that is state mandated and um requires ministerial approval at the staff level, but those updates are gonna take some time, as well as updating all the specific plans, and then finally our charter does reference the ARC.

And so at some point we will probably propose a charter amendment just to correct the language.

Okay.

So it sounds like it's like you said, it's a two-step process of making sure that this kind of transfers correctly, right?

Okay, and then with the other piece being baked in to have some of those qualifications on the planning commission would be helpful.

Okay, okay, thank you.

Any other questions?

Please, that's my ration.

Okay.

Um agenda, it mentions that with the subcommittee for nominations, they'll be duly noticed meetings that may be attended and commented upon by all.

This might be more of a question for um Chrissy.

What about a third uh non-standing member, third council person goes and listens and wants to comment?

And actually, I've had that question about going to other committee meetings.

Sometimes I go to Planning Commission, and I haven't said anything since I've been elected.

I did before, but would you just instruct on that?

Sometimes I go to um the sports the recreation committee meeting.

Right.

So it's a little different when a standing committee consists of less than a quorum of the city council.

So there's different rules that apply to that than would apply to a council member's attendance at a planning commission, for example.

So at a standing committee meeting like the one that's been approved by the council to interview candidates for filling positions on our boards and commissions, the entire council can show up, but cannot um participate or comment in any way.

You can only attend as an observer.

The public, however, can attend and comment.

Um so that's the distinction there.

At other meetings, you can comment on the item of business that is um being discussed.

And if um a quorum of the city council is there, that's okay because it's an open and public meeting, but um you're not to discuss city council business at that meeting.

Could I ask a follow-up question to that?

What if it's something that's in front of the planning commission or the ARC currently that comes to the council in our semi-quasi-judicial capacity?

So yes.

Yeah, that's even yet another layer of rules.

And in that instance, I would recommend against any sort of participation because we don't want to give um any appearance of um predetermination or bias or um sentiment one way or another, because if it ends up being appealed at the city council level, you need to have an open mind and um and that would be the rationale behind that recommendation.

And that's specifically what you mean.

If it might be appealed and we've shown our hand, right, yep.

Makes sense, right?

Um I follow up.

Why with the standing committee?

I mean, what what's the legal logic to having the third or fourth or fifth council people not able to comment?

I mean, you've noticed it, you've, you know, I'm just trying to wonder why.

Uh, because then it would be a council meeting and it's not noticed as a council meeting, and then the council, if the quorums are participating, then that could be a brown act violation.

If there's a desire to have three or more members involved in this process, then I would recommend that the city council just um don't you don't need a standing committee, the council can just do the interviews.

What's that?

Um, so you wouldn't have the if if there's a quorum at least that wants to be involved in this process and speak and ask questions and participate, then I would suggest not having a standing committee because you wouldn't be allowed to do that, and instead the applicants could just come before the city council, uh-huh, which we considered and did not choose.

Correct.

Right, right.

Okay, I think I've got it.

Thanks, Chrissy.

Council member Smith.

Yeah, I want to go back to the ARC collapse and the planning commission.

And I want to make sure I heard you right, as you were saying, ARC acting planning commissioners would be acting in ARC.

And I think you're talking about concept that there are certain things that ARC is doing that we need to continue doing.

But in title, we're talking about having a planning commission and collapsing ARC in its entirety, and any responsibilities that ARC currently does or needs to do would transfer to the planning commission.

Correct.

Okay.

Uh so I just wanted to understand and make sure that you know what I what I know to be uh the case, um, and how many members do we currently have of the ARC?

Well, it's a seven seat committee, but there are a couple of vacancies.

Um, I didn't uh bring that information.

I think we currently have four or five members on that committee.

Okay, okay.

Um, and I understand we have seven seven bodies on the planning, and two vacancies and and or one vacancy and then two that are up for reappointments.

Yes.

Um and one of whom I know does not plan to reapply.

Okay.

And do we currently have any architects, engineers, and I'm trying to get a sense for the question we may go back to is should we require, and that would be certainly the council choice to direct.

Do we need to have an architect be on the planning commission?

So it's a staff question.

Is it essential we have an architect on planning, or do you feel that we would have experience on the current planning commission that would have enough experience that would close that gap?

So um we actually have uh an architect currently on the planning commission.

Um Dan Fletcher resigned, he was an architect, um, and then Terry Latasa is a local architect.

I would recommend that the ultimate composition of the planning commission include one to two architects.

Um a major um you know, part of their workload is to review construction plans.

And they tend to review the most complicated plans.

They're going to be looking at cut and fill diagrams and um and even though we explain that and engineers explain that, it's oftentimes very comforting.

I as I watch them debate, where the, you know, an architect or a second architect on the commission can say, yes, that's right, but like maybe they have a third way to explain it.

So it's not required, but I would recommend it.

Okay.

That's the only questions I have right now.

Um I know one of the things.

Oh, sorry, Council McGarcy, did you have any questions?

No, yeah, I'll ask a couple questions.

Um, do we know if ever in the history of the city there have been terms for these uh boards and commissions?

So there's always been terms.

Um what's happened, at least during my career here, is as the person has reapplied and their term is expired.

Most often than not, they've been reappointed.

Sorry, yeah, I meant term limits.

Term limits, yeah.

Uh go ahead.

I'm not aware of any.

Um, I I didn't specifically research that.

Okay.

I can if you want.

Okay.

No, I was just curious if you had that information.

Um, and in thinking about moving forward, has there been any thought in terms of what would be the the length of of the term that would be more appropriate in terms of maybe like a specific cadence, right?

Uh I think that would come from the council if that's so this came up from the council's discussion.

It wasn't a staff recommendation, and so um we would be asking for that kind of guidance from you.

Right.

Uh I was just curious if there might be um is some kind of cadence that um, I guess is um what am I trying to say that that works best for staff, right?

In terms of um continuity, right, of the work that's being done, or I don't know, anything that it might be relating to something that I I'm not thinking about, right?

Is there like a are you saying this in a way like to make sure that there are folks that have served on it for some time and it doesn't come to a point where everybody's replaced all at once?

Yeah, yeah, something like that as well, right?

What happened with NCIP where we we all hit the same end date, so everybody had to reapply, and then there was this huge load on the mayor, and that I think that's yeah, yeah.

Well, then the reason we currently we have a cadence.

I think you're talking about the terms, right?

And the terms we currently have are all not at once, and they're they're at staggered.

So they're they're four-year terms and they're staggered.

Exactly.

Yeah, thank you for that.

And and there is a cadence.

So I'm wondering in in terms of limits, right?

Is there a specific time frame that maybe staff and you may have not thought about this already?

I'm just posing the question.

And if it's something that we still have to think about, that's fine.

I would think if if the benefit is if the benefit you're concerned about losing is the long-term experience, then um, then I can't think that there would be a recommended term limit from that perspective.

I guess I'll just say on as you're aware of, um, major policy documents require a considerable amount of time to prepare, like the housing element, the general plan updates, and we're talking at a minimum two to three years when we start to finish that project.

So if we get new commissioners midway through, just as I'm sure you may be experienced at the council, there might be a learning curve.

Um, so that's that's the only cadence issue I can think of.

Is it's nice to have continuity on a particular policy issue as we work through it.

Yeah, uh Mayor, can I yeah?

Sorry, let me just make sure are you yeah, and we're not debating at this point, so if you have questions, but then we can come back to this.

No, I just I just wanted to um to make sure we understood on the cadence, your word, but the cycling, um, and they're all four year terms on the planning commission.

And they're staggered, staggered.

And so after this year, when is the next time for appointment?

When is the next one's next June?

So we all the terms are ending on June 30th, depend of but the but the year varies, and so we have folks each year whose terms are ending.

Okay, so basically every year there are some members of the planning commission that are reaching the time to be reappointed.

Should be.

And I would just clarify one thing too.

It's not uncommon for folks to not finish their term out, and so then there's interviews that are done right, mid-minute session, yeah, mid-cycle, which is you know, obviously things change that people move, or they just they're tired of it.

Absolutely.

Yeah, yeah, right.

So there's kind of an opportunity for appointments that come pretty frequently.

So, thank you.

Um, going back to the planning commission ARC um combining line of effort.

Um one of the concerns that I I recall having with staff on this was um some of the things that are in front of the ARC, get appealed to the planning commission.

And so how are we addressing that piece in this in-term phase?

Well, so once the replacement goes forward, all appeals will come to the city council.

And there's no issue with that as far as us approving this today or or to the next set of processes with the planning commission in the in the council.

Um correct, and it won't be implemented until all those ordinance changes are made, but um appeals will go from the planning commission to the city council instead of from ARC to planning commission to city council.

Okay.

Perfect.

All right, thank you for that.

All right.

With that, we'll go ahead and open up for public comment.

So for folks on Zoom, you can use the raise hand function.

In the meantime, I will check with folks in the chamber.

Anybody in the chamber, if you wish to speak on this item, just ask if you can stand up to the left of the podium.

If you prefer to remain seated, if you could just identify yourself by raising your hand.

So two, four, six.

Anybody else?

All right.

So we'll cut it off to the six in the chamber and we'll check with folks on Zoom to five, four, three, two, one.

We have three on Zoom.

Mike, are you wanting to speak on this one?

Okay, so we have seven in the chamber.

I'm just going to edit that and we'll go ahead and cut it off there.

So let's go ahead and start it in the chamber, please.

Kurt Tipton, I'm the downtown rep for NID.

And I want to start by first shouting out to Sarah and the staff at Scholze Center.

I just taught a class for seniors there for the smart driver, but full.

But the way that staff interacts with the seniors, we should be proud.

So just that.

As far as term limits, in reality, you already have term limits.

I saw Mayor Clyde term limit somebody.

You mayor, also not in necessarily the word, but term limited.

So during the interview process, you have that ability to term limit somebody.

And in the case of the NCIP, there are neighborhoods where it may be very difficult to get somebody else from that neighborhood to serve.

So again, you need to be very careful with the term limits.

And I believe you already have that in place with the new process.

So thank you.

Um Mr.

Mayor and uh City Council.

Um, I think the concept of term limits is a good concept.

I think the reality of it is something different.

And and I'm against term limits.

I think the potential for losing good and needed people is a real issue.

Uh so anyway, I'm against that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, my name's Amy.

Hello, mayor and council.

I just have a suggestion.

It's so frustrating when you're coming down Franklin Street and there's a red light and a green light and a red light and a green light.

I was just wondering, is there any way you could make it so that all light, all four lights are green?

I apologize.

Um, that's not the subject of this item on the agenda, unfortunately.

So we can't take public comment on that.

Oh, but you can come to the next council meeting um during the general public comment period.

I thought in the weekly it said it was just a general.

Yeah, no, this is a special council meeting.

You can also you could also write in to us and we can and take in your feedback that way as well.

Perfect.

Thank you so much.

And I apologize for that.

No worries.

Good afternoon, Mayor Williamson and council members.

I'm hopeful that moving forward, if the council needs more time to address city issues and concerns, that a permanent extra meeting will be noted on the agenda calendar instead of a special meeting with only 24-hour notice.

The items on today's agenda agenda are of interest to the public.

And without being scheduled for a regular meeting, today's meeting could easily go unnoticed and reduce public input.

This action could be perceived by the public as the desired effect.

I would also like to address staff direction on the potential to establish term limits for the board, commission, and committee members.

By creating term limits, this removes experienced people from positions that they themselves had to learn.

Replacing someone solely based on a term limit does not elevate the board's ability to make wise and considerate decisions.

It is not always easy to find qualified people who are familiar with Monterey City codes and process.

Expertise and understanding of issues are an acquired asset, and removal of more experienced board members can lead to an increased reliance on city staff for information and direction.

I am not suggesting lifetime appointments, but it seems that applicants should be able to apply at the end of whatever term, and then if no other qualified applicant applies for that position, why should that person be required to vacate their position?

This leads to a loss in leadership, knowledge, and professionalism within each board and increases the role of city staff in the decision-making process.

It seems that a decision based on an applicant's qualification, not tenure, could be determined during the interview process by the standing subcommittee prior to any appointment.

I encourage the council to reject term limits on boards, commissions, and committees and honor the knowledge and commitment of all those who have served.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mayor, City Council members, uh Pat Benza, Monterey Vista.

I don't feel strongly about term limits, one way or the other, until uh you mentioned today that how many vacancies are currently on these commissions.

And if we have these vacancies, uh, I think we should be excited to take uh the people who are already there and who have committed uh to the job and um keep and keep using them.

It's important to have continuity and experience.

It's also important to have variety and new thoughts and new people, but not at the expense of getting rid of somebody just because of the term limit.

Thank you.

Hello, council and mayor.

My name is Nancy Soule, and I'm on the board of the Old Town Neighborhood Association.

When adopting new procedures for committees, please consider that the neighborhood community improvement program differs from all the other commissions, as a stated purpose when set up was to represent the needs of different neighborhoods as opposed to the other commissions that represent the city at large.

I know it is a stated goal to involve more residents, and I appreciate the city policy to solid it to solicit online applications for the vacant positions on boards and commissions.

When set up, the intent of the NCIP program was for the representative and alternate from each residential neighborhood to determine what the needs of the neighborhood and to what extent project citywide have support within their neighborhood.

Although the current proposal is for the mayor and vice mayor to conduct interviews in public and recommended appointments and then recommend appointments, this one committee needs to differ have different criteria in the selection process.

I propose that the NCIP applications include questions and answers that would be published online for the public.

This gives applicants time to reflect on their neighborhood involvement and the neighborhood information about the applicant in order to weigh in on.

This was especially important in the last appointment process as three of the candidates were unknown to the neighborhood.

They had not and still have not been in touch at meetings or events to get involved, even with the contact information for the neighborhood on the city website.

I suggest you include in the NCIP application the following questions with responses posted online for the public to see.

One, how do you plan to work with your neighborhood to hear the residents' concerns and priorities and to give feedback from the city in CIP meetings?

Two, have you ever been involved in your neighborhood?

Three, are you aware that the majority of the committee's work is condensed between February and June annually as project citywide are analyzed, discussed, cost estimated, and voted on.

Does this work with your student work and personal schedule?

Four, have you attended an NCIP meeting?

I think the residents and the council have the same objective, that of an involved citizenry working together with the neighborhoods.

Let's make it happen.

Mr.

Mayor, Council.

First of all, KISS, keep it simple, silly.

You're already establishing a sorting process when you're going to be doing the interviews.

The other part of it is some of these positions are knowledge based.

When you go into the planning commission or MCIP, you have it to pick up pretty quickly what you need in order to operate.

And that includes for the planning commission going through all the general and specific plans to learn what they are, because you're going to get it in the face if you don't.

So it is acquired knowledge.

And if you're sorting out these people, the people with it with some knowledge.

I suggest to you that we're already having problems getting us sufficient people to apply for positions.

We're seeing at this, we're now because of the cost of living, people do not have the time to put to these tasks that you're asking them to accomplish.

So my suggestion is keep it simple.

Thank you.

All right, with that, we'll go to our callers on Zoom.

First, I'm calling on Esther.

Hello, everybody.

Um, I don't see a problem here with the term limits being put in place, as long as there's a caveat in there that if there are no other applicants to be considered, that the people who are already there can stay.

So I don't I don't understand.

I mean, unless that concept hasn't been discussed as part of the policy going forward, I think that's a solution to all these, you know, concerns.

I will say that I think that they're important to have term limits because if you're only going to have the mayor and the vice mayor deciding, we've seen in with the past administrations that when certain people are on the council are on the same page, we could end up with a similar situation of having people on a committee or a commission for a decade, uh, like what we've had in the past.

So I would say, you know, as long as the term limits don't disqualify somebody from being able to continue serving, if nobody else that is qualified comes to the table.

Um, I don't see any problem with with term limits.

I would also suggest to anybody who's interested in getting on a commission that they buddy up with the person the people that are on there now and understand what it's about and how it functions.

In my neighborhood association, we essentially um have board members be on the board for at least one term before they can move into a presidential position.

And that shows number one interest, number two, um, gives them a preview of what to expect.

And I don't I don't imagine that somebody who wants to apply for a board position that has no idea what it does or has no interest wouldn't take the time to educate themselves on it before applying for it.

So I I do think that term limits are a good idea just because I don't want to see what's happened in the past with um cronyism and other types of things that went on from um allowing limited council members to decide uh how long somebody can stay on board, even if we had good qualified candidates that that apply.

So I don't see why with that caveat that if nobody applies that someone can stay on, that that should be a problem.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Tom.

Thank you.

Uh I'll start by expressing my support for option B since nobody else has spoken to that.

So uh I'll go on to the term limits issue.

Uh, I think that uh Kurt Tippin said it.

Great.

I completely agree with Kurt's comments that you already do possess the ability to limit somebody's term, assuming that there's another candidate for that position.

So I don't know that you really do need the term limits, but if you if you do decide to go down the path of term limits, I agree with what Esther's saying, which is that the incumbent should be able to apply for that position along with all the other people.

You may get some other candidates other than the incumbent, but the other candidates may not be desirable at all.

You know, just I won't use any names or examples, but just imagine that you got three people.

One is the incumbent, and two others are people who are just obviously not qualified.

I mean, why wouldn't you want to give yourself the ability to re-elect the incumbent term limits aside?

Let them serve another term.

So those are my thoughts.

Thank you very much.

And our last speaker is a telephone caller with the last three digits 902.

Good afternoon.

This is Nina Beattie.

First of all, I also want to echo the previous comments that the 24-hour notice to a special meeting is completely inadequate.

It doesn't appear that there's any urgent issue on this agenda.

And it's important for the public to have adequate notice to read all the materials and prepare for these meetings.

Secondly, I, as I've said in the past, I oppose the planning commission and ARC combination.

The apparent justification is the streamlining essentially ramroding projects through that's coming from Sacramento mandates.

And those sacramental actions are stripping local jurisdictions and authority for city projects.

That serves politics and special interest, but it doesn't serve Monterey.

It doesn't serve the other communities in California.

I am aware I see from staff the different presentations that staff expresses support and concurrence to giving up Monterey's authority.

And I don't see any protective actions to preserve local authority, including legal action to protect this community.

Ministerial approvement for land use projects does not serve Monterey, and that's obvious.

Neither does combining the planning commission and ARC.

And that appears to be done simply because staff is saying there's going to be ministerial approvals from now on out.

I don't um, this is a very, very disturbing direction of Monterey.

As I said in the past, my father served on both ARC and the Planning Commission.

And I saw through those meetings all the different issues that were that he was confronting and the commissions were confronting.

And the the dance, the very delicate issues involved with appearance uh and uh uh making sure that codes were enforced and all those things, but Monterey looks like it does or has looked like it does simply because there was careful planning involved.

And lastly, I'm disturbed to hear that new some new NCIP members are not um being in contact with their neighborhood associations or with their neighbors.

Um, these um that's the primary reason for the NCIP committee is to have input from the neighborhoods from the people there, not one lone wolf who's speaking for themselves.

Um so I think that that needs to be addressed.

Thank you.

With that, we'll go ahead and close public comment, open it up to the council for motion and deliberation.

Let me just start off by addressing um there was two public commenters that identified the last minute agenda being posted.

And I would share that I think this may be the only time since I've been on the council, and if it has happened other times, it's very, very rare that the agenda is posted this late.

The count the city staff are incredibly good at getting the agenda out in advance.

In fact, as of late, they've been getting the regular council meetings agenda out the Thursday before as opposed to Friday.

So I want to give kudos to staff for their work there.

The reason why this one was delayed was because of this last minute thing that came down from the Trump administration on Friday, and staff had to work um back and forth on getting that report ready so that we could get the agenda posted.

So we leveraged our flexibility in the 24-hour requirement for special meetings.

Um so I just wanted to be able to explain that.

There is no intentionality around the agenda being posted this late, and for whatever it's worth, we apologize for the late notification there.

Um as far as the agenda item, um, there are four items and and for ease of kind of going through this and not jumping all over the place.

I suggest that we go one by one.

So let's look at item number one, which is governance policy changes that will provide for mayor, vice mayor, subcommittee to interview and nominate applicants.

We can discuss it.

We can entertain a motion.

So there's been a motion.

Is there a second?

It's been moved and seconded any of the discussion on this one.

Just a question.

Please.

So as we um it's a it's approving the guidance of what we've already acted on by a previous council meeting.

So really there's no change on this topic from what we talked about already.

Do we need a move in or seeing a nod?

Is there consensus?

So that was a question I have is why why are we why are we taking a vote if we already voted?

Okay, so I got acknowledgement from a city attorney that consensus is fine.

So everybody's on the same pages.

All right.

Number two, process and dissolving of architecture review committee.

Uh I have a comment.

Please.

I think it's a good thing.

And I know that there's some um angst in the public, um, but I think that we've heard from a variety of folks that are doing the job.

We've heard from staff, and I've viewed many meetings in the past and seen everything from their work, their process, their voting, things that come to us on appeal.

So I very I'm very confident that this is the time to make this decision because um it's not just consolidating, but it's actually what government wants to look for, in my view, is not a duplication and any opportunity we have to streamline the process where the public is not forced to have to go to multiple layers for action.

I think is a good thing.

So I I'm in favor of it.

Uh, but we're gonna talk about the nuances of that um and the board components on the next next items.

But uh I'm I'm in favor of the consolidation.

Is that a motion?

Yeah, I'll make a motion that we act on the staff reports, uh bullet point uh two, and uh she gave us an update, and I would make the motion that we um move forward to dissolve the architectural review committee and consolidate that under the planning commission.

So it's been motioned.

Is there a second?

Right, so move and seconded.

Any comments on the motion?

Yes, just a quick comment.

I just look forward to seeing the specifics of it.

Those were the pieces that I have questions about how it transferred.

So no problem.

We would just want to see how that would transfer.

Any other comments?

All right, all those in favor, aye.

Any opposed?

Motion passes unanimously.

Um, number three, doesn't seem like there's much, but I want to give an opportunity for the council to weigh in any additional thoughts as it relates to HPC and um MCAC.

Basically, same thing there, wanting to see how that comes together because of the historical portion um uh of it being merged into the museum and cultural arts parts is wanna see how that goes, but I will go ahead and make a motion.

I don't think we need a motion on this.

I need a motion.

I think we'll come back to it.

Oh, thank you.

Did you have anything uh no?

I was just gonna say I'm still curious about um hearing from staff in terms of how they explore what needs to shift, if it's even possible.

And I think that um definitely more in the technical standpoint.

Mills act is is part of that, statutory requirements, the skills abilities, and is it gonna work?

So, still a lot of questions.

Any comments on this slide?

Um, yeah, I I concur with my colleagues' comments um on this one.

Um I would just encourage staff to be creative around finding solutions.

I think one of the things I brought up last time was even considering some of the other boards, commissions, and committees to take on some of the duties and not just thinking about the combining of the two.

Um so um yeah, that's my comment.

I do have one question on this.

Do we have a sense of when this will be able to come back to council?

Uh honestly, I don't have a sense, so I know I I apologize.

Um, the the the you're talking about the HPC right now, just the only reason why I ask is because if I think one of the ideas was some of the functions going to the library board, and if that were to happen, it would require an um a ballot initiative.

And so I just wanted to make sure that if we were moving in that direction, that we could do it in time to put it on the ballot, yeah.

I think it's this analysis.

We're rethinking it a little bit more based on council's feedback as well as some internal discussions about maybe the best way is to continue both of those committees and maybe reduce frequency of meetings, other ways to maintain efficiency, but perhaps the merger may or may not be the best approach.

We'll bring it back, but uh there's no urgency on this item.

Okay, okay.

With that, we will move to the fourth item.

The fun one, potential term limits for boards, commissions, and committee members.

So go ahead and open up to the council, please.

Um, yeah, I can do a full court press, but I don't know if we're leaning that way or another, so I don't know where the other council members are.

But I'll just state my perspective is I think we already have um the term limits, it's built into the system.

Everyone gets four years and then they're reappointed if they want to stay, but there's a process with uh a review of the ad hoc committee that reports to the full council.

Uh, and so if it's not working out and we see a conflict with that person, um, there's no guarantee that they're going to be reappointed.

So I I feel comfortable in the process of not having term limits because we already have term limits.

I want to point out that the governance policy that we have approved previously and reiterated tonight is an ad hoc meeting that's a standing committee for interviews for the process of selection working with staff and the city clerk, and that's the mayor and the vice mayor, and then they make the recommendations to the full council, and it so it comes to the remaining three on the council.

So the five council folks are hearing the recommendation, and there's another layer where the full council votes, whether it's a new person, whether it's a reappointment.

So it's not that some callers have said selections by just the ad hoc, that's not true.

The ad hoc is making a recommendation to the council, and the council is making the selection of the individuals that have applied.

So it's an important distinction.

So I heard that I think a couple of times last time and this time.

So it's not a few council members making an appointment, it's the full council.

Um so the term limits I I've spoke to, and I think that uh if the person on a board, and I'll just say uh uh the planning commission um has done four years and it's getting back to the staff that it's not working out or their attendance is in question.

Um we have the ability to watch all the planning commission meetings.

We can see the performance.

We can speak through the city manager to obtain the information from staff about a performance issue that might have been identified by a member of any board and commission.

And so that's that's how the council this way I see is the council's connection to ensuring that we have competence, skills, and abilities that are being demonstrated on that board and commission.

And if the the performance is not where it needs to be, we have a way to deal with that.

And I think that that's happened in the past.

And I was here when we had um three members that were not reappointed, and so there is a process for the full council to take a vote and to not automatically have an individual reappointed, and also if it's not working out in midterm, uh the council can take action and cancel that council or that council that commission members um attendance based or cancel their participation based on some cause, attendance, performance.

Um, so it isn't that the council is without choices there.

So I don't think that we need term limits.

I think what we can cover what we need to do is to oversee the functioning of all the boards and commissions, and we can watch out for performance and we can reappoint those qualified and those that are not qualified and not doing a job.

Uh, we're looking out to the community and interviewing others, and we'll make a different appointment.

Thank you.

Who would like to go next?

Please, Councilman Garcia.

So I'm gonna take a slightly different take here.

Um I think that um we do need term limits for the following reasons.

Um I think this is not about removing people, but rather uh creating that space and opportunity for folks in the community who have maybe just imagined uh being active in their community.

Um, this would be an opportunity.

So um this would create the ongoing um space right for for folks to participate, uh, removing the uh discretion from any of us or future councils, right, to to determine who's who's done and who's not.

It'll be baked into the system.

Um, and then again, it it continues that opportunity for folks um to be able to participate um in their community.

Um, and I I hear uh quite a bit uh about um the need to retain knowledge and and a certain expertise and that kind of thing, which I I think is great.

And yes, we should try to protect that and nurture that.

Um, but I think we've all been there where we join boards, commissions, groups, neighborhood groups, whatever that is.

We we go in not necessarily knowing what we we're gonna be expecting.

Um, and we shouldn't close the opportunity for folks who want to be active in their community just because they don't have uh a very specific knowledge that some might think is required to participate in in any of these boards and commissions.

So that's the opportunity for folks who have uh participated in boards and commissions to step up as mentors and provide that guidance, uh, even if it's from the public, right?

From from the public perspective, um, to try to support these new members in trying to bring them up to speed with with the knowledge that's needed um to be productive in those uh in those groups.

Um I heard uh about vacancies, there are vacancies now.

This is not an issue relating to term uh limits.

Uh I think it's more of an issue with engagement, and that's something that we have to continue working on, not only in in the context of boards and commissions, but just in general, how do we engage uh more closely and and more uh with more intention uh our residents um to be more involved in in the decision making process that impacts their neighborhoods.

Um and one last thing uh in terms of the vacancies as well.

Um I think there's an opportunity here with the city academy starting up.

Um, that could potentially be uh a place to recruit for boards and commissions moving forward.

That's where you can identify folks who are really interested in um participating in in community uh groups and and trying to gauge that interest there and also start building that enthusiasm for when the time comes to apply for boards and commissions.

So I I would support term limits for these reasons.

Okay.

Who would like to go next?

Okay.

Um I just want to make a comment first on the notice and the special meetings because it it was of concern with the um rainbow art crosswalk.

We had two days' notice and then the ordinance, we only had 24 hours notice.

So the community was concerned about that process.

I was concerned about that process.

So I I hear what they're saying, and I think we should take care.

Um we had been talking about adding on a third regular meeting that that had been mentioned, and maybe we need to do that.

But if we're gonna use the special meetings for things that appear to the public to be more routine, um we we really should struggle to give them, even though it's not legally required, uh, they we really should ask the staff to stretch and do the agenda in the 72 hours that a normal regular meeting would have provided them.

So I I think we need to be cognizant of of what we're hearing from the public, both at that meeting and this meeting.

The perception is out there that it's not enough time.

And I think we need to respond to that.

On term limits, I agree with the majority of the public that's speaking up.

I think we have a form of term limits in the every four-year review, and whether they get renominated.

I do agree with Mr.

Brassfield to try to keep things simple when we can.

So there's limitations on the on the public contributing their time.

So I'm concerned about that.

And I think the city has the most choice if we don't limit it.

And that's what I want.

I want the city, I want the council to have the most options that we can have so we could get the best volunteers.

These are volunteer positions, these are these are not paid positions, so that some have a stipend.

So um I would be voting against term limits.

Thank you.

Okay, Dr.

Barber.

Um, well, I mean, I think there's there is pros and cons on both sides, but I do see that the new academy, I that's one of the notes I actually have written down.

Uh the council member Garcia talked about, is a new and and uh um a very uh active way to be able to engage for all of the boards and and um commissions, not just one, because you get to learn about all the departments, you get to not learn about your city, and then you can really engage their interests um there.

But I think it needs to be a combination between retaining the knowledge, right?

The institutional knowledge that goes with it, along with getting innovative and new ideas.

I think the mixture is very helpful.

Um, I feel that uh I understand that applicants after four years can reapply if they wish.

Um, but it's my understanding that we are not putting their names up.

They would have to apply, is that correct?

Okay.

So it's it's up to them if they reapply is my understanding.

But then I guess if you're looking at a point of where a person has been on it for let's say eight to ten years, basically looking at a decade.

I would think by that time or even prior to, um, there would be some other people that would want to be able to come and contribute and to give to their city as well.

So I I can see some some positiveness in having structure as opposed to having something that's a little less structure.

So I I would be in favor.

Um so a couple of things, um, I think about the experience of when it was just myself as mayor um interviewing folks, and my sense was that part of the pushback of me replacing individuals, and this was through the public comment that was given, um, was replacing for some of the arguments that were made today, replacing folks that have been there for a long time, they have this institutional knowledge.

Why are we changing it?

Um, and I think this kind of gets to the very essence of what drove me to try to bring this forward, um, because similarly to those same exact arguments that we've heard from the public and from some of our colleagues here on the council.

Um, spoke against the idea of us moving forward with term limits for the council.

Um, and I would just point out that 80% of Monterey residents voted in favor of term limits for the council.

Um, I recognize that it's a little bit of a different beast, but I want to do this.

I'm gonna read the primary argument um for measure X, the term limits measure, and I'm gonna change the language so it fits for boards, commissions, committee members as opposed to the council.

So term limits are a crucial step in enhancing our democratic process and ensuring a vibrant representative government by allowing our boards, commissions, and committee members to serve maximum of 12 years, we empower our community to embrace fresh perspectives and new ideas, fostering innovation and progress.

Choices, choice is that at the heart of democracy.

Implementing term limits opens the door for diverse voices to enter leadership positions, creating opportunities for individuals from different backgrounds and experiences to contribute to our city's future.

When we restrict the tenure of our boards, commissions, and committee members, we break the cycle of entrenched power and encourage a dynamic landscape where all citizens can aspire to lead.

Furthermore, term limits can enhance accountability.

When officials know they have a finite time to serve, they are more likely to focus on the needs of their constituents rather than prioritizing their own reappointment.

This shift can lead more, can lead to more effective governance as leaders are motivated to act in the best interest of the community without the looming shadow of their reappointment.

In this election, voting for the 12-year term limit is not just a vote for change.

Actually, it wouldn't be this election in this vote.

Um, it would not be uh a vote just uh for change, it is a vote for more inclusive and engaged democracy.

By supporting this measure, we are championing the idea that every citizen deserves a voice in our government and that our city's leadership should reflect the diverse and dynamics that dynamicism of its people.

Um so I just I had pulled that up.

I thought it was very relevant for the topic.

I want to speak to a few more points that I heard reflected in the public comments today.

Um the part of the concern that I have um is it's a lot easier to keep people on that have already been doing it than change it.

And that was kind of the point that I reflected on towards the beginning of my my public comment.

There, it's like you're swimming upstream, um, and there's value in that.

So let's give that its due credit, um, the experience.

That doesn't negate or belittle anybody else's views or experience um in the city.

And um, to say that there's not enough applicants.

I mean, I've been doing this for the last three years now, and in the interviews that I've participated in, we the fair, fair majority of um positions that have had vacancies um or reappointments had a good sizable group of people apply for them.

So the argument that there's not enough people applying is just not credible.

Um in regards to finding people, I think to be serving the position.

Um I think Esther pointed out in her comments, it's like how if if we're concerned around longevity and that kind of transition, how do we as a community work together to help support the next generation or the next group of folks coming in, as opposed to thinking that we have all the knowledge, let's just keep it here and then wait until that person decides to leave, then we have that vacancy and we're dealing with that problem then.

This I think creates a greater opportunity for us to work together as a community and help uplift folks and create more of a community.

Um to say that I kind of spoke to this a second ago, but to say that the knowledge that exists with those folks that have been longer term serving individuals is um more important than other views and perspectives, I think is unfair.

I think we we're a city of 30,000 people, 30,000 people.

I think that there's plenty of intelligent and smart people that can step up and serving these roles and do a fine job.

Uh there was also this concern around um folks not meeting the bill.

Um, and I would just suggest that if we need to, we can maybe create some additional criteria as it relates to appointing people to certain boards, commissions, and committees, and it happens even after we do the selection.

And this happened last year.

We the council appointed somebody, it wasn't working out, and so we work towards getting that person removed.

And we can do that even in the middle of somebody's term.

The council can make that decision.

So if it's not working, whether we did it with term limits or not, we could work towards removing somebody.

Yes, and then I would just offer, let's not reinvent the wheel.

We can just marry the policy that was implemented for the council.

So my suggestion would be looking at 12-year term limits, and similarly, similarly to what we did for the council, if nobody else applies, then that person that was currently serving in the position or had been serving in that position can continue serving in that role.

So with that, that will be my motion is to um direct staff to come back with the uh I don't know if actually we need it to come back.

Do we need it to come back?

Um yeah, it would require ordinance amendments okay.

So it'll come back.

Okay, so um direct staff to um bring an ordinance amendment back that would um establish 12-year term limits um with the condition that it would allow a incumbent to continue serving upon no other applicants.

That's my motion.

I think so.

Do we need a motion or can be I think we understand that I answered?

No, it needs a motion, it needs a motion because we're gonna have different opinions.

Yeah, let's do the motion.

Uh under discussion.

Uh, I need a second, or all right, please.

Okay.

So you read the uh argument in favor for measure X, which was in 2024.

Who was the author of that?

I was okay.

So I think it's important for you to say that that was what you wrote then, sure, and is what you wrote now.

Yeah, I have no quorum for that instead of it being like some phantom writer, it was you.

So I want to make it I'm glad I'm proud to have written that.

Okay, so um so it looks like there's probably gonna be a majority and vote for term limits and the motion is 12 years.

And I acknowledge that I think everybody that spoke today spoke against term limits for the reasons that were pretty specific and also the things that I spoke about, which was we already have a process, we we already have term limits.

Uh instituting a term limit here, it seems like it's so unnecessary because we have an internal process already.

Every four years, somebody is uh appointed.

And if they reapply, then we have an opportunity to say thank you, but thank you for your service, but no, and then we select somebody else.

So I don't know what the I don't know what it accomplishes by saying 12 years, and I don't know how 12 years is an arbitrary number that makes the rest of this majority of the council feel good about it.

I do agree that term limits at the state level is a good thing.

Uh, but at a council level where we have the ability to manage this process every four years when the council makes their selections, it just seems kind of nonsensical.

And I just don't understand uh the rush.

And I don't know if it's coming from uh political ideology that some of the members of this council bring.

Um, I don't understand why the answers that I get from the three that are saying yes, that they want to do that.

They sort of just talk right over the system as if we have a problem.

We haven't identified a problem, we haven't got anyone on any of our boards and commissioners where we are without a process to change that.

The ad hoc will take it on, the full council will accept the recommendations or make a change the recommendations, and the council majority will prevail, whether we have performance issues or whether we want to have somebody go because they're performing very well.

Maybe they're an architect and they're outstanding.

I think what we're going to be faced with at year 12, we're going to be saying, Oh, it's so sad that that high functioning person has to move aside.

It's illogical to me, doesn't make sense to me, and we're ignoring fine statements that we receive tonight from this audience and from the public.

I disagree.

Okay, please.

So I I can appreciate everything you said.

Um, but I also understand that out of 36,000 people, these are not just the only people that I'm hearing from.

I can't speak for anybody else.

So just because they're not here tonight, or you don't hear them on the phone on the zoom, doesn't mean that they don't have a voice too.

So it's not about having a problem, but it's also about streamlining and looking at policies prior to before they become any type of issue.

So for me, it makes sense to have something that's already in place, a structure that's in place, and we are hearing and listening.

That's why we're talking about if somebody doesn't show up that the incumbent can still be able to apply.

So, um, unfortunately, you don't agree with me, and that's okay.

Uh, but that's kind of where I'm coming from.

I still feel that I'm listening to other people that don't have time to come and don't have time to get on and do this.

So, yes, thank you.

Any other comments on this side?

Not that I haven't said.

Yep.

Yeah, I mean, my response is um disappointing because it sounds like your additional comments.

Don't provide much of a counter argument and adding to the debates.

Um, I can't.

If you look, please come to the chair.

I'm all about having a healthy debate conversation.

But in everything that you just said, we already provided a response to your comment around political ideology is ridiculous.

The only thing I'm going to say is that this is about creating space for new voices and diversity on the city and helping to create community by hopefully some of those folks that might have served 12-year term experience, creating that space, helping to um mentor and guide other folks in the community.

So I've already said everything I had to say.

It's just disappointing that you're not really adding much flavor to the debate at this point.

Well, so it's back to me.

You're acknowledging me that I can speak now.

You can absolutely speak now.

Um, so it's unusual that someone would be so judgmental about that you're saying my argument doesn't have any logical response to what you said.

So you have your opinion, I have my opinion.

So I would request that you at least show some decorum and allow diversity among the council where we can disagree.

My arguments don't have to make sense to you.

If you don't buy it, you usually don't.

I understand that.

But I was elected to represent a district, and people have called me and spoke to me on this topic as well.

So it's not that I'm making up my logical presentation.

I have input from a lot of people, I don't see the basis for changing it, because we haven't heard one single note of evidence that says we have a problem that we need to fix it.

And you talk about diversity of applicants, I'm all for that.

We will have lots of applicants, and the ad hoc committee will have an opportunity to interview all those applicants, and they will come back to this council and we will make a fair judgment and make those selections based heavily on the ad hoc work.

So we're all about looking for quality and competence and opening the doors for new people.

I've never said no to that.

So it sort of sounds like you believe with your judgment that I'm closed doored, closed-minded, and then I'm not about bringing in new people.

And nothing could be further from the truth.

My lens looks at competence, abilities, skills, and the ability to govern while seated on a board and a commission.

Not trying to make change just for change's sake, because I believe that there's something better out there.

We get to interview all the time, and you can always make those choices to upgrade a board member.

And I disagree with you.

That's all.

Okay.

But please don't judge me and criticize my logical presentation.

It's mine.

You have your own.

We just disagree.

Are you all set?

I'm all said.

Okay.

Let me just clarify.

I respect your position and point of view, along with anybody else that disagrees with the direction that I feel like we should go in this.

So I just want to clarify that the only point that I was making was the points that you made after the motion was made.

Was somewhat of a reiteration of the points that you had made earlier, but didn't counter the arguments that were in opposition to your position.

So it doesn't help provide for me to say anything else.

Like I can't really say anything else to your argument because you were reiterating things that were kind of already said, which is the only point that I was making.

So I apologize if it felt like I was attacking your view, but that's not the case at all.

Um I'll take that as you didn't intend to, but that's the way I took it.

Absolutely.

I did not intend that.

Um with that, I will go ahead and go to the motion, go to the go to the motion because I think we want to make sure we understand the nuance of the 12 years.

And also there was something else in there about 12 years.

But if somebody wanted to reapply, yeah, maybe we could have somebody read that back.

Sure.

What I have is that you would direct staff to come back with um the legislation for 12-year term limits for the boards, committees, and commissions.

Uh with the um exception that if nobody else provide um applies after someone is termed out, then the incumbent could continue to serve.

And I'm assuming that would be for one more term.

Okay, so discussion.

What happens if the ad hoc has someone who is up for reappointment and nobody else has applied?

Would you be faced with saying, well, they really aren't competent, but I'm gonna appoint them anyway, just because it's a vacancy.

How do we provide that we might just go with a vacancy and re-advertise?

And so, what what's the provision where we could do that?

I don't think anything prevents us from not making a selection and readvertising.

Yeah, it's not it's not it's not something the way I interpret it, I'll say that it's not something that okay.

Then we just go with the default, if you will.

We still have that opportunity to be able to say, okay, no, we're not gonna go with either.

We'll just keep it vaguing until we find we want that's my interpretation.

Okay, and I would just say in humor, not trying to criticize, but that's kind of the logical reason why it sort of fits with what I was saying.

We always have the choice to make sure that we appoint the people that are before us or move on, and having an arbitrary term limits doesn't guarantee that it's not gonna, it's still within our control.

But I don't have anything else.

I have nothing else to add to it either.

So with that, we'll go ahead and call the question.

All those in favor, aye.

Any opposed, no, motion passes three, two.

With that, we'll go to item number three on the agenda, which is to authorize the mayor to sign a letter and submit public comment on the California Public Utilities Commission to reconsider the long-term water demand forecasts and the proposed decision for application 211024.

Um the reason why this item was put on today's agenda is because the CPUC was going to be meeting tomorrow.

Um that meeting has been postponed until August 14th.

So we don't have to necessarily consider this today.

We can push it back and allow more time for public feedback and input.

Just wanted to kind of get a sense from the council about how you all feel about that.

I'd like to see it first, okay.

Alright, so I'll go ahead and make a motion to continue this um to August 5th meeting.

Yes.

Okay, sir, second.

Second, right?

Mode and seconded, we'll open it for public comment.

Anyone on Zoom, you can navigate to the uh raise hand function.

Um anybody in the chamber wishes to speak on this item.

All right, seeing none, we'll do a countdown for folks on Zoom to five, four, three, two, one.

And there's one person on Zoom.

Let's go ahead and take that caller.

Hi, this is a telephone caller with the last three digits eight seven four.

You can unmute by dialing star six on your telephone and go ahead, please.

Hello, Mr.

Mayor.

Can you hear me?

Can hear you.

Hi, this is Daniel Ros.

I'd like to talk on this issue.

Or um actually about the issue of um having a surprise meeting, a special meeting.

And um, once again, I respect your authority, your your word.

It's very important to us.

You represent a very beautiful community, and sometimes the opinion of the other members, um, will tend to have their opinion um kind of interfere with your authorities, and with the water issue coming up, it's nice to know that it is continuing continuing to be looked at and developed.

And I hope that you um stay strong with your ability to function in one of the most beautiful communities in the world.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for your public comment.

With that, we'll go ahead and close public comment, bring it back to the council.

Any other discussion on this item?

All right, we'll uh roll call.

Uh all those in favor, aye, any opposed motion passes unanimously.

With that, we will go to um closed session public comment on closed session agenda items.

We have two items.

The first is uh close session number four public employee performance evaluation pursuant to government code section five four nine five seven B1, city manager, and the second is closed session item number five, which is conference of legal counsel existing litigation pursuant to government code section five four nine five six TAC 9D1.

Anybody in the chamber?

Uh sorry, anybody on Zoom, you can use a raise hand function.

Anybody in the chamber?

Seeing that there's nobody else here except for staff.

We're gonna do a countdown for folks on Zoom to five, four, three, two, one.

And we have one person on Zoom.

Let's go ahead and take that caller.

I believe that this is BD.

You can unmute and you can go ahead.

Yes, this is Nina Beattie.

I have a comment on item number four regarding the city manager.

Uh the city manager closed CAE principal this year without public process or council approval.

You and the public were not informed about it.

Last year, neither the staff report nor the agent agenda description disclosed a street street closure.

You voted on a consent agenda item for ADA ramps and adding and deleting stop signs.

The city manager is also pushing massive densification of Monterey residential neighborhoods, exceeding even SB9 for unit per lot mandates.

SB9 destroys the environment, trees, vegetation, neighborhoods, character and appearance, and jeopardizes public safety, including the ability to evacuate areas of Monterey as well as in the other cities throughout the state.

A lawsuit by five Southern California cities thankfully has put this in limbo, with the judge ruling that S B nine is unconstitutional.

It's applied to charter cities.

Yet last month, when staff presented their hyper-dense initiative to the planning commission, staff failed to inform the planning commission about the lawsuit in the judge's ruling and misrepresented the current situation.

There's nothing the city can do.

The city does have options, including possible participation in the lawsuit by the other cities, but the city manager's administration is pushing this destructive densification.

The city manager also has selected timber industry contractor Dudek, purportedly for fire mitigation plans.

Dudek has a conflict of interest.

The company it works for kills trees and vegetation for wood pellet production.

And Dudek advocates the same techniques without ecological input that is destroying Monterey's forest habitat, abusing trees, killing wildlife, and worsening fire danger by increasing wind.

In addition, this administration has killed many of the public streets outside of this plan and allowed the Naval Postgraduate School to destroy the historic Monterey Forest on Del Mani Boulevard without protest.

The administration has mislabeled agenda items with incomplete or vague agenda descriptions that obscure measures.

The combining of birds and commissions is one example.

It has also miscategorized public hearings as public appearance items, which avoids legal notice.

In May, the city manager recommended consultants that have legal problems and a record of error-filled work, including Rincon, that I've amply listed errors and misrepresentations.

This administration has fought efforts to strengthen the wireless ordinance.

It's interesting to see the work product that Gail Care produced for the city of Carmel and contrast that with what she produced for the city of Monterey.

That will go ahead and close public comment on the closed session agenda items and go ahead and adjourn to closed session.

Thank you.