How do we give us a h do we give us a hug Everybody, welcome to our afternoon session of our council meeting today.

It is Tuesday, August fifth, twenty twenty-five.

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

Councilmember Barber, President Councilmember Garcia.

Here.gov slash agendas.

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

And thank you for participating in your city government.

We will open it up for anybody that, we'll go ahead and go to speak for public comments.

So these are for non-agendized matters for this items that are not on today's agenda.

Once those folks are identified, we'll go ahead and close it off, and then only those folks will be able to speak.

So once the closed period happens, nobody else will be able to add themselves to the public comment period.

So I'm gonna go ahead and check on Zoom first, and I'll do a countdown.

Oh, well, before I do the countdown, navigate your way to the raise hand function, and then I'll check in the chamber in the meantime.

Anybody in the chamber wishes to speak on this item if you wouldn't mind standing to the left of the podium or identify yourself by raising your hand.

I don't see anybody sitting that has their hand raised.

So am I missing anybody?

Okay.

All right.

So we'll go ahead and close it off in the chamber and then I'll do a countdown for folks on Zoom to five, four, three, two, one.

We have two on Zoom.

We're gonna leave it to two minutes.

So please go ahead and start in the chamber, please.

Thank you very much.

My name's John Tilly.

First off, let me thank Hans for your service to the city.

You've been tremendous and very helpful.

Thank you very much.

Um, I speak on behalf of the Monterey Commercial Property Owners Association and also the uh coalition of Penissa Businesses in regard to your proposed letter to the CPU C.

This is very it's an it's that's an agendized item.

This is for general public comments for items that are not on today's video.

Do you like for me to wait?

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Thanks again, Hans.

Please.

Uh hi, mayor council uh staff.

My name is Anthony Mitchell.

Uh, I am a trade professional, and we are a uh certified registered department of energy energy services company.

Uh that we represent a program that's funded directly from the public utility commission for government and K 12 entities.

Uh the firm's name is Echo Green Solutions.

Um basically we have access to funds that the city pays into every time the city pays your electric bill.

About eight to ten percent of that fund goes into an account that's controlled by the public utility commission.

Uh the program's been around for well, we've been doing this since 2007, so it's been around for quite a while.

Um, we've met with your staff well over a year ago, uh, met with the engineering as well.

Everybody was really interested.

There was a program change, the year changed, and so we're back just to discuss and request an information session with the city and members of the council.

Uh basically, what we're looking to do is help the city offset the rate increase costs and lower your carbon footprint and lower your electrical usage throughout multiple bills actually.

Your entire portfolio if you're open to it, parks, recreation, um, city offices, fire, and PD.

Uh, we've already done this work for Monterey One.

We're working right now with the County of Monterey doing this exact same work.

Uh, also to Royal Oaks and the City of Marina have already been completed.

What we do is we do energy assessments throughout the city using these funds to pay for all the work that we identify as of January 1st of this year.

All your fluorescent lights throughout the city were banned and outlined.

Uh outlawed.

Uh, you can't buy them, and even if you have them, you can't legally install them.

So the program that we represent will pay to upgrade all that content to LED.

They'll also look at all your lift stations, your motors, your pumps, your air conditioning, your ball field lights, anything that the city has that has an energy footprint.

There's no money out of pocket to the city, there's no budget impact to the city.

It's all funded through this fund that you're already paying into on a monthly basis every time you pay your bill.

So the only time you can get those funds back is to utilize this through this type of a program.

The program itself is RFP'd through a uh very rigorous RFP process.

The government K-312 program was selected, it's called GK-12.

We are the contractor, contractor builder for that program.

And so we're here just to ask for information gathering with the city to talk about it.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

I know you've been already in communication with staff, but if you wouldn't mind maybe connecting with Nat over here, our assistant city manager, make sure you guys get connected to have that conversation.

Thank you.

Okay.

Are we ready?

Okay.

My name is Mira Nissim.

I'm a local resident.

I grew up here in Monterey County, and I'm here with my three children, raising them in the valley where I grew up, and trying the best that I can to survive in this economy.

Uh, my husband and I are permitted street vendors.

We work down in Monterey at the wharf between the parking and the wharf itself.

I just wanted to come again, to speak to some issues.

One is to follow up with uh my comments in March.

I spoke to Nat and the sheriff, uh, the local Monterey police came down and we talked about the safety of the bike path.

I haven't heard any updates on that, but I am still very concerned.

There are accidents happening monthly, if not weekly or bi weekly, including this weekend.

Someone was hit really hard by an e-bike.

Um, I haven't seen any markings, I haven't seen any signage yet.

If uh we really want to address health and safety down by the wharf area, that is the place to start.

Um also just to share with you the sinking feeling that I had on Thursday to see that this ordinance was being put on the consent agenda.

And I don't know if you're going to pull it from consent, but I did request that the sidewalk ordinance be pulled from consent tonight.

It is definitely a controversial issue.

And I don't feel that you have comments on that.

I just ask you for the to be saved for that, and it will be pulled.

Okay, I I request that you pull it from the consent.

It'll be pulled.

Thank you very much.

I I've been really, you know, making comments.

I come here in person, I send them in.

We are hardworking citizens.

We're doing the best that we can.

Yep.

I I just want to make sure you'll have another opportunity to come up and speak on that item specifically.

So if you have anything else, by all means, feel free to finish your time.

Okay, thank you very much.

So, yes, I appreciate being heard and that being acknowledged, and I will speak more after.

Thank you so much.

Um, I want to rebut some of the things that they said.

So you're okay.

Sorry, real quick.

So once you get up to the mic, you can start your public comments and then the timer will start and you'll have your two minutes.

Okay.

Why don't you coordinate with staff so you can get that set up?

And in the meantime, we can take the next public speaker.

It's not a lot angle.

It's not my right for that.

Okay.

Okay.

We can take while you're getting that set up with staff, we can take the next public speaker.

Okay, this is being called from consent.

Yeah.

So if it's on the agenda, then it's not the opportunity to talk about it.

Anything on the consent, uh, there will be an opportunity for public comment and the public can request items to be pulled.

Yep.

Yep.

Why don't we start with um folk?

Oh, are we good to go, Nat?

Yeah, all right.

Okay.

Um so is your comment have to do with the ordinance?

Nope.

It has to do with misleading um presentations that have been made to the city council.

I'm here to inform the city council that last week the mayor and the city council were lied to, defrauded.

And this is really uh just an incredible thing because you are our voted representative.

So when somebody comes in here and makes false and fraudulent claims, it's really disturbing because you're defrauding every voter who voted for you.

And so I'll call your attention to this photograph.

And this gnaw right here where I'm putting my finger, did that right?

Oh, yeah.

Okay.

Um thank you.

So if you look right there, it looks like I don't know, it looks like that pole is sitting right in the middle of the bike path.

And you might think it looks like it's in the bike path, or you might not.

But if somebody were to give you um a state an untrue statement of how you're supposed to look at this photo, if they were to say um, quote, as you can see, the causeway from now to the wharf is oh, well, no, okay.

You can see the vendor structure and the person, the vendor's structure and the person standing in the rec trail and obstructing the rec trail.

Okay, so now I apologize.

I apologize.

Your comments, your comments are related to the item that's on the agenda.

So they're related to Tony Lombardo lying.

No, we're just talking about Tony Lombardo lying to the council.

And this is the rebuttal that I wasn't allowed to have.

Please let me let me finish.

Yeah.

All right.

Government code provides that members of the public may address the council on any item that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the council.

Okay.

Please proceed if you have comments under the jurisdiction of the council as it relates to general public comments for items that are on the agenda.

So I'm but I just want you to follow the process like everybody else has to, please.

Okay.

Are these for comments that are not to do with the ordinance?

Okay.

Are we trying to are we trying to screen share?

Yeah.

Okay.

Uh this photo was shown last week, the city council, and it's saying that um bikes and pedestrians are on my path.

When in fact, if you see on the ground, it says it's a mixed use bike path.

So I just feel that like that needs to be shown.

And then here it shows it's a mixed use bike path.

So there is no crowding of the bike path.

Supposedly, this is what the bike pack actually looks like.

And so that's an actual real photo.

It's a real photo of how there's access to the same thing.

I'm I'm gonna say listen, you guys are you're you're taking a stretch too far.

It's not within the purview of general public comments.

We you're gonna have your time to talk on this topic, but it's not in front of us right now.

So if you don't have general public comments for items that are not on today's agenda, then I'm just gonna ask you to please wait until that item is pulled from the consent, and then you'll be able to speak on that item.

My last statement is that um I was standing in line to speak, and Tony Lombardo was sitting right next to me.

And I said, Sony, you can go in front of me.

And he said, No, it's your turn.

And then we had another vendor stand up, and he got where he was getting behind Tony Lombardo.

And he was not allowed.

They said, You go first, and Tony Lombardo was designated to be the last speaker, and then we were not able to rebut any of his photos.

Okay, we're all okay.

All right, I'm saying that's a process.

Okay, I'm I'm gonna start reading my I'm gonna start reading my script again.

If you don't okay, thank you.

All right, let's go to the public commenters on Zoom, please.

Calling out our first one, which is a telephone caller with the last three digits three one two.

And you will need to dial star six to unmute.

Go ahead, please.

Uh yes, uh goodie, good afternoon, uh honorable council members and Mr.

Mayor.

My name is Margaret Ann Coppernall.

Your CPUC letter uh is critical to our existential water.

The CPU C letter is on the agenda.

So I'm gonna make this announcement one more time for folks.

If it's on today's agenda, please wait to speak for public comment once that agenda item is heard.

Right now, we're asking for general public comments for items that are not on today's agenda.

Okay, well, they asked me to speak.

That's why I came on.

I'm sorry, I don't know when it's on the agenda.

I can't see it.

Yeah, just stand by for a little bit here, and we'll pull that item to so that you can speak to that.

Okay, next comment, please.

All right, this next one is another telephone caller with the last three digits 874.

Hello, good day, mayor.

Good day to the city council.

And um, this is again Dan Mormon Derez.

Um just a comment on um the last time I made a comment about disabled parking.

I guess uh it wasn't clearly recognized.

I didn't mean the entire city of Monterey, I meant the area um of the harbor parking lot in that area.

It was um, it's it's well known that there's very few disabled parking spaces, and uh for the amount of space available in parking, um, there's very low number of disabled parking in that general area, and it probably should be expanded um to allow for more disabled because every single time um the parking lot's even half full.

There are no disabled parking spaces available in that general area, and the next closest street is um more than 200 yards away.

Maybe to maybe um um two and a half football fields is the next public parking space, and and in the comment I made before, um, the parking um supervisor was stating that there's parking spaces available almost everywhere throughout the city, but in that general area of the harbor parking, um, there's very limited parking for disabled.

Um thank you for your public comment.

If you wouldn't mind uh following up by sending an email to suggest that monray.org, and that way if staff has any additional questions to get some information for you, they can do some follow-up.

Yes, and also since I'm public comment uh a little bit more.

You commented on um before I finished.

Um I have a little bit of an issue.

I don't know if it's more private than public, because um before I had an issue with the city um assistant manager and the assistant manager, I think is being put in charge of um um management for anger and um adjusting issues with um disciplinary uh disciplinary actions through people that work for the city and um I feel it's a little bit of a conflict of interest interest since um that person that's in charge of um that part is actually um a person I have unresolved issues with because I got it might be the same exact person, but I know it's from the um manager's office where I got yelled at and um I asked the city manager Hans to um get back to me on the signature's been done, and also knowing that every single person that's um working in the offices are supposed to after um two years have sensitivity training, and there's been several council members that have acted on professional and um even in the planning department where um issues of unprofessional um attitudes just to note to the mayor um uh the staff called the sensitivity training because it's supposed to take place every two years.

Thank you.

Do we have another is there another comment?

Are we all set?

Oh, sorry, I apologize.

I thought that there was more there.

Um okay, it's back to me.

Um okay, with that we'll go ahead and close general public comment and we will go to consent.

There's been a request to pull items three and seven.

Um, does anybody in the council wish to pull anything else or have remarks?

No.

Um, I'm sorry, I'm sure this is a new process that we're following here.

Yeah, is there any other items requested to be pulled from the community?

Only item, I'm only aware about item number three, which is the sidewalk vending ordinance and number seven, which is the NCIP funding.

Okay, and then with that, I will open it up to the public to see if there's any additional items that are requested to be pulled.

Um, and I'll check on Zoom first for folks to use the raise hand function while you're navigating your way there.

I'll check in the chamber.

Anybody in the chamber wish to pull anything else from the consent agenda?

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

There's nobody on Zoom, bring it back to the council for motion and deliberation.

Not everybody at once.

I'll make a motion the way of proof.

There we go.

I got a movement and second with the exception of three and seven.

Any other discussion on this item?

All right, all those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed, motion passes unanimously.

With that, we will move to item three, second reading of the sidewalk vending ordinance update.

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

Yes, uh, thanks.

Thank you, Mr.

Maya.

Do you like to have a presentation or do you want to just jump into the uh taking public comment?

Could we have a one-minute recap of what the item is, not at length here, just to kind of give a quick overview for context.

Alivian Hill will present.

Okay, perfect.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

Thank you, Hans.

Uh sure.

One minute version.

Uh, as you recall from our last meeting, we uh introduced the first reading of the sidewalk vending ordinance, which uh primarily included operational and locational requirements for our vendors.

Um, particularly focusing on the wharf area, the waterfront area.

Uh we uh as was approved in the first reading, was set back requirements from the recreation trail from the 12-foot walking path uh between the harbor master's office and the uh uh head of wharf one, and then also set back requirements from vendor to vendor.

Uh so that was the primary uh changes proposed.

Uh specifically the actual operational changes had to do with the uh size allocated to each individual vendor, which was four by eight, 32 square foot area, and then also some display limitations for the display of goods between 28 inches and 60 inches from the ground.

And let's see if there's anything else we're getting here.

And then yes, of course, um, as proposed, the uh ordinance would allow vendors to occupy the designated and marked vendor spaces at a first come, first served basis.

However, the ordinance also authorizes staff to create a lottery or registration system in the event that capacity becomes an issue.

Um, and I think that's pretty much the high point.

So I'm happy to answer any questions though.

Yeah.

Thank you, Levi.

That was a wonderful one-minute presentation.

With that, we will, oh, council.

Any questions from the council?

All right, we're gonna open it up for public comment for folks on Zoom.

Please use the raise hand function.

Um, if anybody in the chamber wishes to speak on this item, I ask that you stand up to the left of the podium or identify yourself by raising your hand.

So I see one person still sitting that's has their hand raised.

Anybody else still sitting that wants to speak on this item?

Two, four, six, seven in the chamber.

We're gonna go ahead and cut it off to those folks, and then I'll check on Zoom.

We'll do a countdown to five, four, three, two, one.

We have one person on Zoom.

We're gonna go ahead and limit to two minutes.

Please go ahead.

Okay.

Again, my name is Mira Nissim.

Grew up out here raising my three children out here doing the best that my husband and I can to survive working within the regulations that the city has proposed.

Um, I do appreciate the aspect of looking into health and safety.

All of us vendors agree that that is something that is in all of our best interest.

We're also very eager to find out what reparations will be done for the wharf itself, as we understand that has critical uh structure difficulty.

I'd also like to say that I really feel like it's a bully tactic to see Mr.

Lombardo and Mr.

Shay uh here at each meeting, especially last time when you referred to them as the opposition.

I just I really I wasn't able to come in person.

I made a comment and I watched and I my heart sank.

Like I was thinking that this was for public safety, but it looks like their sides we have the people that are fighting for their jobs, and then people that were constantly recommending to go and eat at their restaurants.

I mean, I grew up going to your restaurant.

I have excellent fond memories of going to the fisherman's grotto as a child, as an adolescent.

When I was in uh high school, I continue to recommend these restaurants at the Wharf.

We are not in competition, none of us are selling food.

Um, and also this the regulations that have been proposed.

We were, you know, I spoke to Miss Davy privately, and also um I was part of a team of us that came together and uh and came together and made some revisions.

We didn't hear anything once we gave our revisions, and none of them are reflected in this second ordinance um draft.

We asked for a reasonable space, like 10 by 10 foot that we can actually make a living.

We ask for, you know, five to 10 feet between us, which is more than 88 regulations.

We ask for like reasonable revisions, and I asked the bike path be marked because that is the real safety issue here.

So those are my comments.

Thank you.

Okay, so you can see what looks like um a booth being put into the bike path, and it combined with Mr.

Lombardo's comment.

Quote, you can see the vendor's structure and the person standing in the rec trail is obstructing the rec trail.

But when you look actually at this, that is not the footing of the booth.

That is about three feet off the ground.

And so it is absolutely false.

This is a false picture taken at a funny angle to make it look like this is in the bike path when in fact it's set back from the bike path.

We were treated to another photo and we were given some more phony testimony.

Quote, as you can see, the causeway from now to the wharf is completely obstructed.

There's no way to get to the railing or the harbor.

There's no way to go through without obstructing the bike path.

End quote.

This is a manipulative picture taking a tight shot at a weird angle to make it look like there's no pathway there, when in fact, this is what the pathway looks like from a normal angle.

And you can even see the monument right there.

There's a 16-foot pathway.

So the phony pictures accompanied with the phony testimony was compelling.

I'll give you that.

And also, Mr.

Lombardo said that one of big problems is that vendors use umbrellas that are not anchored to anything.

And I would remind the council that the ordinance mandates that we must have only an umbrella for shade, and it must not be anchored to anything.

And that is the city code.

And so we're following the rules in having.

So I don't see how we can be found guilty of following the city code as it's written.

Also, councilman Smith said last week, he insisted that the vendors were trespassing into state property.

And he was countered by the planning department who said, Well, perhaps, well, it appears that way because they didn't want to say the truth.

Is that that is the actual map?

That's your time.

And the vendors haven't read that for the state.

Thank you.

We were not trespassing.

We're getting two minutes.

We got three minutes, but Tony Lombardo spoke last week.

Everybody's getting two minutes.

I know, but last week we got three minutes, and we've never been given three winnings.

But you're using Lombardo was here.

You're using three minutes.

So section 12 of the proposed ordinance, eight by four size dimension, is purposefully crafted to drive sidewalk vendors out of business.

None of the existing permit holders can do enough business with such strict restraints, and it has no supportive health or safety data to back it up.

Additionally, we have section 15 says we have to be 10 feet away.

ADA says we have to be four feet away from each other.

Again, no objective health and safety data.

You can't use conjecture.

Remember, Tony and Bardo said, oh, it's not a question of if it's a question of when.

That's called conjecture.

See, if you actually have a police report that says something happened, that's called data.

That's the difference between conjecture.

He knows the difference because he's a hired gun.

See, he knows law.

You can't say if you have to say it did happen.

Okay, now amendment 21 says we have to be 25 feet off the center line of the rec trail, which is far beyond class one bike trail requirements for a safe shoulder.

Permanent above ground structures already violate that requirement.

So again, this is just arbitrary regulations designed to harm the sidewalk vendors with no health and safety data.

You can't pass this proposal.

You don't have any data.

You were fed false info, fed false photographs.

You can't do that.

You gotta like rule of law, rule of law.

The state passed SB 946 to protect sidewalk vendors from economic animus.

Wendy Brickman, Chris Shea, Tony Lombardo.

This is not objective health and safety.

These people are prejudiced.

You can go back to August 6th last year, and they were at the very first meeting when they were coming after us with economic animus because they didn't know to change their dialogue.

Hello, my name's Brian.

I'm a caricature artist.

I worked at Fisherman's Wharf since like 2012.

My old boss Baila, a lot of you knew her as Gypsy.

She used to rent out to the Fisherman's Wharf for years until 2018, when they were just asking for too much money from her, and she just couldn't keep up anymore.

So the business had to split up.

So I started vending in 2020, along with everyone else back here.

And I've got to say, everybody who I talk to there loves us.

They love what we add to Monterey.

They love all of the like handmade art that we sell to them.

So it's really self-destructive that you guys are trying to limit us.

You're really just shooting yourself in the foot with this.

Like we've been here for years.

We've never done anything wrong.

We're a huge part of the community.

Everyone loves us.

And without us, the people aren't going to have as many reasons to come down to Monterey and spend their money.

They're probably just going to go to San Jose or San Francisco or somewhere else with a cooler wharf with more artists.

So you cannot let this happen.

You can't, you can't let us go.

You can't let us go like that.

Um yeah, I don't have too much more to say.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So it's me.

Mayor, Council members.

My name is Marina.

Uh sadly, today we live in a society where rich people oppressed the poor, trying to take away everything they can from them, and they don't even feel sad about it.

From the very beginning, when the law for street vendors came into effect, business owners from the wharf fought against it.

Although at that time we only had four vendors and a few tables.

And it clearly shows that the safety issue that we face today is an excuse.

At the meetings, there were rendering words like it is not if an accident will happen, it is about when an accident will happen.

Are we going to stop people from driving a car or flying an airplane because it is when an accident will happen?

Really?

The Wharf and the Wharf Association live by the words, do as I say, but don't do as we do.

The last event, as the picture shows, the Wellfest totally blocked everything all the way to the bike lane.

And yeah, they'll talk to us about safe, but yet themselves don't do the safety issue right there.

The Wharf Association hired a photographer lurking around in our area and uh in our area to find fault with the vendors to make the case.

Well, I rest my case, because as you can see on this picture, there is enough space between the vendors so that people can walk around safety.

While the city, while the uh SB 946 allows cities to impose restrictions based on safety, health, and welfare, the law prohibits, let me say that again, prohibits restrictions based on subjective uh uh concerns like community animosity or economic competition.

The statement last meeting that the opposition is still here being respectful and still is nice, but it is illegal.

Thank you.

My name is Liz Grahalva.

I'm a street bender down at the wharf.

I sell hats.

I've attended the last two city council meetings regarding the proposed ordinance changes.

I don't want to say respectfully but plainly, it's been painfully clear that the street vendors are being used as scapegoats for border or broader health and safety concerns at the wharf.

We've heard it suggested that we're only drawn to the wharf because of the crowds.

Yet in the same breath, we're being blamed for the congestion.

However, we are simultaneously benefiting from the foot traffic and being accused of endangering pedestrians by supposedly creating it.

The contradiction is frustrating.

More importantly, it is unfair.

The real safety hazard has been ignored.

There are two blind corners at the eastbound lanes of the bike and pedestrian path by the custom house and the Monterey Museum that constantly put people at risk.

Just this past weekend, I was to witnessed a pedestrian get struck by an electric bike, which are illegal on the bike path in one of those very spots.

It was dangerous and completely preventable.

We have resources that could be helping the Monterey Police Department's bicycle patrol unit is meant to provide high visibility policing in areas just like the wharf.

Where are they?

Instead of better enforcement or visibility, we're being handed ordinances, changing changes that feel like a red herring meant to distract from the city's lack of real action.

And as for emergency vehicle access, the mayor has now twice asked if the 15-foot vendor setback from the bike path is necessary to make room for emergency vehicles.

But even with those setbacks, there's a 20-foot clearance in the nearest areas, and the fire checks are only about 10 feet wide.

So the this issue is being exaggerated.

Honestly, it's starting to feel like there's a real issue.

The real issue is prejudice against street vendors coupled with a conflict of interest between the council and the worst brick and mortar business.

That became evident to me at the last meeting.

Thank you.

Sorry, real quick, I just wanted to check in.

I don't believe you were standing up when we called.

He raised his hand like I did.

Yeah, but I I did a double check and I said anybody else because I only see the one hand, and I didn't get clarification from anybody else.

So unfortunately, just keeping fair.

You're gonna be the last speaker in the chamber, and then we'll go to Zoom.

And I apologize for that.

I'm speaking today because this decision affects real lives.

I'm vendor, a father to be, and somebody and someone trying to do the right thing.

Reducing our space to eight by four feet isn't just a minor policy change.

It's the difference between paying rent or not, between eating or going hungry, between building a life and being pushed out.

Vending is how I survive, it's how I provide for my family.

My child is doing December, and every dollar I make between now and then is going towards diapers, formula and safe place to raise her.

What you're proposing doesn't help safety.

That's just a cover for something else.

We had no issues with police, no issues with fire department or ambulance.

There are no records of anyone being hurt or blocked on or between our booths.

What you have is a handful of business owners who don't want competition, and you're letting them dictate policy, and that is a clear conflict of interest.

Under SB 946, it is clearly stated that competing businesses may not have any say or influence in determining the validity of safety concern or any proposed change that affects vendors.

Yet that's exactly what's happening here at the Wharf Association, made up of business owners who compete with us, is influencing your decision.

That's illegal.

And it cannot stand.

SB 946 was put into place to protect vendors from this kind of discrimination.

You all swore to uphold the law.

This decision is this decision.

If you go through with it, will be challenged.

It's unjust, it's illegal and morally wrong.

Taking us from up to eight tables to one table, that is an extreme change and unfair, and it's just gonna crash our business, and you guys know that willingly.

Please reach down in your heart and take this to the table again, and let us let us figure out something different than eight by four.

It's just can't take me down.

I want to put a while.

Thank you.

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

This is our telephone caller with the last three digits, eight, seven, four.

You can unmute by dialing star six and then go ahead.

Hello again, Mayor.

This is Daniel Anders, once again.

And um, a few comments.

Um, one is um, we have never really had a chance to kind of ask questions to the um to Levi, such as how many square feet are we talking about currently is the space, and what is it redeem being reduced down to?

I believe it's a like an 85% reduction, which is very unfair for a business such as me that's been there for seven years to reduce down in that amount of size being especially a single table for my safety because on my table there could be 10,000 worth of silver, and now having that amount of silver from my backside and not having a uh um a safe space behind me or beside me, and really easy for someone to walk up and um find the value of the table and just have people step up and walk away because my security will be limited, and also um um for the disability part of it, the many, many disability people come to that area and they find joy and spending time at the tables.

A part of what they can do is kind of limited to just looking and walking around and enjoying the day out there.

Um see.

Oh, the emergency lane for the um it was brought up before by I think Ed brought it up.

Um about he had mentioned they need 17 feet of clearance for the um emergency vehicles when in fact at the entrance gate to the emergency lane, it's only 11 and a half feet wide, less wide for the gate opening to the trail to the street, then um then limitations of what's required.

No, mentioning 17 feet is required when it's like something's not adding up, even the amount of square footage being reduced down in size.

Um it's it's kind of unfair that such a it's a pretty decent area, and to reduce it by so much is really unfair.

It's SB 40 uh 946 um discrimination and it's violating my 14th amendment rights.

Thank you for your comments.

That was the last speaker, Mr.

Mayor.

There was one hand that had gone up right after you cut it off.

Okay, awesome.

Thank you, Clementine.

Um I'm going to close public comment, bring it back to the council.

Um, just wanted to maybe offer staff an opportunity to jump in, answer any questions that may have come up.

I heard that last one uh there around the previous space requirements versus the new requirements.

Um I don't have exact dimensions of what the existing space is out there because it's not been um measured, but um, but based on what's gonna be allowed, it's gonna be uh roughly 13 spaces of about 32 square feet each.

I can do that quick math.

You want an exact square footage of that.

That'll be about uh roughly 416 square feet for the 13 vendors.

Okay.

All righty.

Um thank you.

Uh so listen, I reflecting on my comments from last time and um and and since then.

Um I'm gonna support the recommendation to move forward with uh with the staff proposal.

Um it's unfortunate that I it's it's disappointing to see how we got here and um the fact that there wasn't a greater opportunity to collaborate and find common ground.

Um and I particularly appreciate the stories that are being shared in regards to the livelihoods of the sidewalk vendors.

Um, this isn't um uh what was the word that was used?

Um this isn't being prejudiced.

This isn't um attacking any group.

Um, as I shared last time, I've walked by that area and I've seen huge crowds and had trouble walking by.

And it depends on when you take a picture.

I mean, we looked at pictures of all types, and sometimes it's not as crowded as others, so this isn't a time to provide additional public comment.

So please don't say anything, or I'm gonna ask, I'm gonna ask you to leave.

There's no additional time for public comment on this item.

I was just gonna say no, there's no point, there's not an opportunity.

This is not an opportunity.

So I listen, I I understand this conversation is hard.

Let's see how this rolls out and let's evaluate it.

Um, I I know the council to be open to continue to to looking at this um as this is implemented.

Um, there was an additional comment that was made around it was alluded to me in one of the public commenters, and then it was also alluded to Councilmember Smith, which Councilmember Smith did make the comment, but it wasn't my understanding, it wasn't about trespassing, it was more about just making sure that we had enough space for emergency vehicles to respond to an emergency encroachment.

So, so that's what it was about.

Um, so for all those reasons, I'm gonna go ahead and make a motion to approve staff recommendation.

Thank you.

Any other discussion on the council?

Uh yeah, I want to make some closing uh closing comments and support.

If you can try to keep them brief though, I will move on to the I want to say that the process uh points out the problem when we have not had clarity and we've had ambiguity in the area as the vendors have eked out and done well and built their businesses, and I'm sensitive to that.

But the purpose of me making a decision to support the motion tonight is I'm guided by the safety, the ability to navigate uh in a very, very busy area.

We need the markings, we need specific locations for the vendors.

And as much as the city staff and this council has tried to figure it out, we have limited space, and if we were to go to larger vendor space has been asked, we would then be forced to reduce the number of vendors.

So this is a balance and compromise for the landscape that we have to work with.

So I support it because not because I'm influenced by any outside.

I have driven there, I've walked there, I've spent lots of time there.

It's in my district.

I read emails, I talk to lots of people, and I've heard all the testimony from lots and lots of individuals.

But I land on the point of my reasoning is that we cannot any longer leave it up to ambiguity and lacking clarity.

We need to have the resolution, and this ordinance provides uh the answer to the safety and does accommodate uh about 13 vendors that will still be able to remain.

Um Mayor, that's all I have.

Okay, anybody else?

Okay, all those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion passes unanimously.

With that, we'll move on to item number seven, close and defund for neighborhood and community improvement program projects, approved funding to cut off projects from the approved FY 2425 NCIP project list and authorize the finance director to appropriate funding.

Um, I think on this one, I I know that we have some public commenters.

I don't think we need a background presentation.

So let's go ahead and just open it up to public comment so that we can get an opportunity to hear from those that have comments on this one that have requested to be pulled.

So I'm gonna go ahead and check for folks on Zoom.

You can use the raise hand function.

In the meantime, I'll check in the chamber.

Anybody in the chamber wish to speak on this item?

All right, I'm not seeing.

Oh, sorry.

No, to be honest, the sun is glistening right behind you.

So you kind of just blended it.

You wear the wrong color shirt, Tom.

I'm so sorry, Tom.

All right.

So we just have the one speaker on this item in the chamber.

So I'll do a countdown for folks on Zoom to five, four, three, two, one.

And we have nobody on Zoom.

So please, Tom, all yours.

I'm Mr.

Killjoy.

Um, I'm here to talk about Fire Station 12.

Uh just prior to this meeting, I learned that the deck in question that I was bringing up is no longer part of the mix.

So that's gone.

And the reason I was primarily bringing up the deck was because of the ballooning budget for this project, which, and I'm talking about just Fire Station 12.

It's gone from 1,050,000 to now 1,950,000.

So 90% increase practically speaking in just that one part of this overall project, which is 12 and 13.

So this brings me back to what I said early on in the NIP process, which is that I wasn't opposed to this project myself.

I like the fire department.

I want them to have a good place to work out of and live in.

So I supported it.

But what I what I'm concerned about is that if we're going to plow now almost 2 million dollars into this facility, we should take a very serious look at the seismic strength of this building.

And I don't mean just I heard from staff, I heard from the consultant.

They said they looked at the 1951 plan.

So this building is 74 years old.

That's older than me.

That's old.

Wow.

And so there, yeah, I know.

I don't even know if they're sizing the codes back then.

So my point is spend the money.

The deck isn't on it.

So that was probably 50,000 right there.

Go back to the NIP, suggest to them that they approve an expansion of the scope to include a rigorous uh seismic analysis done by a registered structural engineer, signed and stamped by that registered structural engineer that will inform us all as to whether or not this building is strong enough or not.

They're going to be ripping the place apart.

They're getting the kitchen, they're taking up the concrete and the engine bay, they're doing all sorts of work.

If the structural engineer comes back and says, you know what, it's not so bad.

You could put some plywood on these walls here and there and bolt these walls down.

Now's the time to know that before you go and get all the plans together, not afterwards.

And then somebody gets the brilliant idea.

Like, wow, we could have spent another uh $50,000 on putting plywood and bolts in, and then that building would have been up to modern day standards.

This is a place that you want to have functioning after a big earthquake.

We want to protect our firefighters, we want to protect the fire station so that it can respond to the emergencies that will come after an earthquake.

So I just think it's so fundamental that I just want to emphasize that point.

And so I'm asking you to please ask the NIP committee to consider it the addition of a seismic evaluation to this project.

Thank you.

Thank you, Tom.

All right.

With that, we'll go ahead and close public comment.

And um, I'll pass it back to staff for some the questions and just to throw some out that I'm hearing um thoughts in regards to the seismic study and um uh the need to do that, um, maybe describing a little bit more why there's the increase um and is there anything else beyond the scope of what's already included in the study that our consultant did that we might want to consider while we're already doing all this work with the fire station.

That was a lot.

But but Mr.

Mayor, thank you.

We we have answers for all those, and and seismic upgrades come in all shapes or forms, and so our um city engineer uh Andrew Istaling uh will provide you with a brief overview and hopefully address all the questions you just uh you just mentioned, including the question about um why the cost overrun and we also have in the audience uh the uh the project manager from um uh Osonio Construction who helps us, and we also have uh the fire team here as well.

Um I can share with you that part of the cost overrun is part of the increased scope that the NCIP approved uh that includes uh also improvements in the kitchen and in other areas that that we feel are necessary to provide, uh like Tom says um a good place for the firefighters to live and work out of.

And um, so while we initially scoped the pro the project when we saw how far the money goes, and every one of you know how different how expensive things are nowadays, um, we felt still compelled to pull through with items that increase uh also the uh living comfort of uh a firefighter who uh runs a ship there of 56 hours.

So with all of that, uh I I ask uh Andrew to um explain a little bit and go also into the details of seismic upgrades.

Well, I could only remember two seismic upgrades.

Uh I think we have about eight or nine buildings seismically upgrade since ninety ninety five.

So I want to 1990.

So I wanted to um uh correct uh I spoke to one or two consumer and said I could remember two upgrades only, but there were a few more, including the library, the Schultz Center, um, but none of the fire station.

So with that, uh, thank you, Hans.

I'll start with your first question.

I might have asked you repeat some of the questions.

Yeah, no worries as we go along.

But initially, the original scope and budget uh that the NCIP recommended that you ultimately approved, uh, was based off the information we had at the time.

And the information we had at the time came out of facility condition assessments, which was really just a high level identifying walking the building, the immediate needs of the project.

That scope has been refined since then.

We've hired Osonio, a project manager, construction manager to help us run with the project.

They've hired their own structural engineer, geotechnical engineer, architect, start preparing plans and specs for the individual components of the project.

We've met with the building official to understand what kind of permitting requirements we're gonna have, what other sort of mandatory upgrades are gonna get triggered when we do these improvements.

Uh, we've met with the fire uh fire department staff to get their feedback and identify their needs.

So as we've been working through this project, uh obviously we've kind of experienced some scope creep.

We have identified more stuff we visited the site.

Um sorry, sorry could I just clarify?

When you say scope creep, you're saying that you're realizing there's greater cost associated with what the scope of the project was, not that we're adding things to the project.

Well, it's more involved, and there has been stuff like uh structural components.

So uh the garage floor, the deck that's cracked and broken.

And as we've been developing the plans with the improvement plans, we've said, well, that's a big ticket item that we're gonna need to do while we're here.

So uh our structural engineers working with a geotechnical engineer, figure out what the problem is with the slab, they're gonna have to remove it, recompact with engineer filled the soil, backfill it, uh uh, compact it and then replace the slab.

So, you know, as we walk it, we identify these other needs, they're getting added to the project because they're they're mandatory improvements that we have to do.

Um, so that was one big ticket item that, you know, as we've been refining the project plans and specs that we had to include in this work order.

So that and that was identified in the staff report to council as well.

Uh and so part of those slab improvements, those are structural components.

I know seismics been brought up a lot as a concern.

These improvements uh aren't going to decrease the capacity or the structural capacity of the building.

They're not going to increase the load.

So these are all considered voluntary improvements that don't trigger additional levels of seismic.

Um the building is old.

Uh we've had a few different engineers and structural engineers walk it and look at it.

And based on their feedback, they haven't done an in-depth analysis of uh the seismic conditions.

Is that you know at a high level, there's no imminent risk that this building's gonna fall over tomorrow.

There's a big earthquake, you know, there's probably going to be damage, but based on just their walk through their visual assessment, the reviewing of the aspuls, there's no immediate immediate imminent danger that the building is really at seismic risk.

We could do different levels of seismic analysis, obviously, that's just a visual walkthrough and kind of a high level understanding of the building.

We could go really in depth and do kind of destructive testing in the building to do, you know, uh further degrees of seismic analysis.

What's been recommended?

If we do want to start taking a closer look, it's called a tier two seismic analysis.

It's roughly $15,000.

That would do a little bit more of an in-depth review of seismic, come back with recommendations.

Obviously, there's probably going to be more scope creep that would come out of it.

But if seismic was a real big concern, council could direct staff as part of this um this project to uh pull the trigger on that tier two evaluation to do a seismic review.

And that would give us a little bit more in-depth and confidence of the building structural capacity under seismic loads.

Could you describe more why it sounds like it's maybe not recommended or not suggested suggested go to that direction?

Maybe that we're open to it, but sure.

Why why we haven't looked at that in the first place?

The uh the initial recommendations that kind of came out of the facility condition assessment and talking with the fire department staff and building official, these were all kind of the immediate needs that were identified in uh other than the wall and the slab, there wasn't any other structural components that were identified as immediate needs.

And as I mentioned, these are voluntary uh improvements.

So these don't increase the load on the building.

They they don't diminish the structural capacity.

So it doesn't trigger greater levels of of structural review or seismic capacity.

What we're doing only strengthens the building and doesn't reduce the loads.

Uh so there wasn't any recommendations that came out of the uh assessments we've done so far.

But hearing some of the concerns we asked our consultant, well, what are our options?

And you know, obviously there's a spectrum of different levels of review and assessments we can do.

Um, and some of the feedback we got is well, tier two.

If you really want to check the box, does uh a deeper dive on the structural assessment and would probably produce some recommendations for seismic improvements, but it would give you a little bit more confidence moving forward that we've at least looked at it.

Okay, and then the thank you for those.

And then the last part the last question was is there anything else associated with the fire station that would be helpful for the council in the city to consider while we're there already doing these other items that we might as well knock these other pieces out as well.

So yeah, there's there's probably always other things we could do.

We're trying to stay within a reasonable budget uh and kind of only proceed with the immediate needs that have been recommended and have come out of those interviews with fire department staff and the building official and the assessments.

I'm I'm sure there's more we could do if that was the direction that council wanted to provide.

Uh, I think right now we were trying to really do only the essential immediate needs improvements.

Um if we want to do other things, I mean, we could add scope, that would just be at the direction of the council.

Okay.

I'm I'm gonna have uh, since I'm already going with my questions, I'm gonna finish my questions not related to the fire station, um, and then I'll pass it around to the council.

Um, regarding the Mar Vista project, why are we saying that the city is unable to complete the design phase of the project due to the lack of support from adjacent property owners and residents along Mar Vista Drive?

I kind of vaguely remember from NCIP meetings that occurred earlier this year, that yes, that's a concern, but that there's still scope for the council to consider, not that it kills the project.

So I just kind of wanted to get an understanding of of that.

Okay, good evening, everyone.

Um, so with Mar Vista, um, so if my memory is correct, we have completed the design probably to a 90% or so.

So where we are right now, we've gone out and spoken to several property owners at the various intersections like Via Gaiuba, Toda Vista, Soledad, and Soledad.

And across the board, in order to install these improvements, one or more of the residents would lose parking in front of their home.

Um, and we consistently heard that they're all they want to maintain their parking for various reasons.

Um, some people are concerned that pulling out into Mar Vista is dangerous because of the speeds coming down the hill, ironically.

So they park in front of their house on the street and they feel it's safer to pull out from um the side.

Uh others said that it would they're they're concerned it would impact the value of their property.

Um, so unfortunately we have been completely unable to get any resident to agree to let us move forward with this project.

And as uh NCIP works, you have to have um consent buy-in from the property owner to move forward.

So we we've done all we can do.

Um, and we've even asked the um NCIP reps in that neighborhood to reach out, which they have also done.

Um, and yeah, we have not been able to get anyone to allow us to move forward with this project.

Okay, and this is just it's more of a process question that I'm trying to understand.

So it's not necessarily specific to this item, but nothing precludes the council from deciding to move forward with the project if we want to, right?

Because it's correct, it's public property.

Correct.

Yes, yes, yes, absolutely.

Council could direct us to implement the plans and move forward over the objections of the residents, but through the NCIP program for anything like a stop light, I'm sorry, not a stop, a street light in front of someone's house or a radar speed sign in front of someone's house.

We seek a hundred percent.

I mean, so any one individual could veto any project in the NCIP.

Okay, okay.

And that doesn't necessarily preclude the NCIP for recommending the project move forward to the council, but I think we were talking about this a little bit after one of the NCIP meetings.

And so I'm just trying to maybe we can talk about this more offline.

I don't want to take up too much time now, but I think do we just need to refine this process?

Because I think we need to allow the NCIP to give a recommendation to the council, and it should be contingent with an asterisk or however it looks to say, you know, there's concern from um neighbors, adjacent property owners.

Um, so leave it to the council to make that decision.

100%.

And if I might just say one other thing, we have a number of these projects, and and kind of just just to give you all like some kind of background on why this is here.

Um, what I'm personally trying to do is move more projects through the system, right?

We I get to just and today is Tuesday this week alone.

I've personally received four complaints about four different projects and why they haven't been done yet.

Um we have 73 projects, 19.8 million dollars in the NCIP program.

I cannot get them all done, and I can't spend unlimited hours on projects, right?

I have personally gone and knocked on three people's doors in Mar Vista, right?

Personally, ask them, hey, we want to do this, it'll make the neighborhood safer, it's gonna work, and they say no, okay, but you know, and then I have other people that say, Well, traffic is too fast on Mar Vista, we have to do something.

So we're in this constant battle, you know, neighbor to neighbor, and you know, without help, this this program only gets more bogged down.

100%.

Um, and my my question was more general.

Um, and I completely get it.

I I'm I'm with you 100%.

I I understand the limitations um of staff resources at the moment, and I appreciate all the efforts that that you make there.

I'm just gonna ask my next question.

Uh the Casanova have 500 block sidewalk project.

Um, would the soda with the sidewalk be on city property, which is what I'm assuming or private property, because in the staff report it alludes to um the adjacent property owners' concern about their plans to develop the property in the future, but I'm I'm I'm confused.

It would be the first question, mayor.

Yes, it would be on city property, city right away.

However, this property is an entire city block.

They could put in houses or any other building and require or, you know, a driveway um entrance across.

So I I mean, from my under I I don't want to speak for them, but from what I have heard from the property owner is they don't know what they're gonna do with the property.

They don't want to box themselves in, I guess, so to speak, on like, well, if we put in a sidewalk and there's no curb cut, then I guess it would be on them to install the curb cut and driveway and and they feel like why would I agree to that?

It goes back to any one person can prevent any project in NCIP, 100% buy-in.

Okay, and I think we have to find a way of changing the conversation a little bit.

Like it shouldn't be one person can kill a project.

It can be that that concern gets raised to the council or the NCIP.

So I don't know how we need to figure that out, but I just want to help clarify that because I know that there's a lot of concern around people even wanting to submit a project when we can't even it almost gets killed before the council even has a chance to consider it, and it might be a really good project that's of public benefit.

So I just hopefully we can circle with staff on this one.

I'm gonna pass the mic to the rest of the council.

Thank you for answering those questions.

Please, Dr.

Barber.

Oh, thank you.

Um, yeah, I think he I think the mayor is kind of alluding to some of the questions that I was going to ask is this the money didn't transferred to what undergrounding um parts of that.

And then my question is that we're talking about the 100% buy-in, then what happens when the one person says no to that and that money gets moved around and it's almost like nothing's being done is being almost stalemate.

So I'm just kind of curious as to how that works and is that correct.

Okay, so I'll answer um the question about moving funds to the undergrounding projects.

So yes, we have uh two similar projects in the NCIP portfolio right now.

So one of those is uh item number four in the agenda packet, which was Mar Vista conduit installation.

So what we're staff is recommending is that the funds from Mar Vista um conduit installation be moved and consolidated with the um larger $2 million undergrounding project that council approved uh and last cycle.

So we're we're uh in this effort, I'm trying to consolidate the number of projects, but the funds will be still there for undergrounding uh purposes.

And then the answer to the second question about where does the money go?

So currently, right now there's an NCIP fund, fund 216, and fund 216 is where once a project is closed out, whether we finish it and there's still money left, or in this case where we close out a project because for whatever reason we can't complete it, that money would go back into the 216 fund and it's available for other projects.

So it would be available for contingency, or it could be available to fund um a closeout project, for example.

Okay.

So when you you talk about the the challenge of having what 73 different projects and having what nine uh 19 of them that you're working on.

So I'm currently working on as a staff, so parks and rec has a large number, for example, and and there's the fire station projects and hilltop, and and those that I'm personally not working on.

But as a staff, we're working on roughly 43 of the 73 projects.

Okay, so but then actually seeing what's being completed is the question.

Completion is a struggle for deaf for different reasons, right?

So I in my time here, we can I from average, we can complete roughly one project per month.

So we complete a project per month on average.

Some months we complete two, but we didn't complete one the previous month or the next month.

So in a year, it's roughly 12.

Um, but in the last cycle in 2025, council approved 33.

So I mean, the portfolio it just grows.

Right.

So the question is um, as the portfolio is growing and the challenges there, and I understand, you know, trying to be able to balance that out, that's the key.

But then when we're moving this money to to somewhere else and defunding one project to another because one person or two say no, then I think that policy has to be looked at because then that can stop a lot of things being completed too.

Just I think something that with the mayor was alluding to.

So I think that's a question as well.

And that's something that it's part of the NCIP uh policy, is that correct?

Yes, it is.

It's in the NCIP policy manual, which I think dates back to 2021 or so, I believe it was most recently updated in 21.

And it has all of these items laid out, like so the different requirements for a project and who can approve a project and and uh what can stop a project and so on.

Yes, it that's laid out in uh in the 2021 policy.

Okay, those are just all things in the back of my mind.

I'm just thinking about as far as trying to balance out projects because you I mean it doesn't make sense to approve a thousand projects and nothing gets done.

You know, my thing is how do we balance that out so we actually can get something done where it's side where it's where it's um attainable, uh but also making sure that we're when we're moving funds and defunding a project to put into another project that that same thing doesn't happen to that project and it gets defunded.

Does that make sense what I'm saying?

Yeah, absolutely.

Um so and I and I we'll probably get to talk about more during the joint meeting, but um my vision right for the program is to bring these projects to council right that's what I want to do right I want to bring the projects that we have issues with that have reached a situation so like these three here the top three one um so right the Marvist the Pasanova Avenue um and via paraizo via prizo I mean is is just we can't do it because there's not enough space but right the other two are because one or more persons are they don't support the project um so and I have more I mean so I'll be back and um so the question is well what do we want to do with those projects and we spend we spent we spend we spend a lot of time on all the projects but we spend an inordinate amount of time on these projects right the ones that are difficult and you can't get buy in right I mean like councilmember Garcia knows that that radar speed sign on Casanova Avenue took like what 20 months 20 months to get buy in right talk to five six different property owners we had to put a double sided one on because there was zero buy in on the other side of the street like no one was interested in it they were like don't even yeah stop talking to me so I mean that's the kind of thing we deal with I mean it should take I mean it should take five days to do something like that.

I mean it's it's it's easy.

Sure.

But it's it's not easy.

Or I totally understand your uh frustration and hopefully we'll get more into that conversation during the joint uh council um one last question um dealing with the fire um in the fire uh house um they were talking about the tier two and once that happened if if that were to happen if tier two a psychic uh what were to happen spending 15 thousand dollars what kind of uh uh repairs or issues could come out of that and what kind of range of costs is that they added to the project or the scope that's a good question and you know we actually we have our structural engineer with us today I'm gonna actually radio call a friend for help and have him talk a little bit about what could come out of the tier two assessment.

So my name is Matt France um if we did the tier two seismic evaluation would just be more informed about what any potential seismic deficiencies there are in the building um we could then incorporate that into the larger scope of work that's being proposed at the building so uh that could be there's already some voluntary seismic strengthening work that is incorporated into the scope um tying the concrete walls to the floors at every level which is the biggest risk in the building um we're also in filling some existing windows turning them into shear walls if we did the tier two we would basically looking be looking at the entire seismic system in the building seeing if there's any other deficiencies um that can be mitigated um that would be summarized in the report and then we could take a look at that and see which of those we could incorporate that into the project um and it's hard to know what those would be without doing the valuation but there could be things like adding a different adding additional lines of shear wall on certain lines there could be some localized foundation strengthening uh there could be plywood overlay on existing on existing roof existing floor parapet bracing things like that um central addition of a steel frame around the opening of the apparatus space um things like that okay so basically that would change the scope um if I'm understanding that correctly it would change the scope and it definitely would increase the budget it would likely increase the budget and the scope so it would not change the scope it would it likely would change it so and it would I know so it would definitely increase the budget of course but it would change the scope as well.

Most likely yeah okay thank you.

Can I ask you follow up sure so I think the number we're talking about allocating now is do I have it right 1.9 million right if it if it were your 1.9 million what would you do on that firehouse um some of the work that we're already doing um like I said so the north wall of the firehouse is a full height concrete wall um and so the bit biggest risk in an earthquake is that concrete wall pulls away from the floors and and roof structure that it's supported so we are already tying that wall into the structure um so we would do that um i would take a look at each wall line and see if there is sufficient strength to support it um i would take a look at the foundations and in certain locations and see if we can um tie that in better um the work that is already included in the apparatus based slab i would go forward with that the slab is settling and it doesn't have has a deficient connection um to the surrounding walls and so we are going to be strengthening that connection um so i'd move forward with that um i would look into potentially strengthening the wall line along the front of the firehouse as well and um forgive me i don't know but um a senio would do the design we do you also do the building so are we talking about working with with you as a as a the the whole kitten caboodle sure so i'm just i'm a structural engineer so i just do the structural design okay so we would put together construction documents that define the scope of construction work that goes to another company for construction yes correct okay so is our prime consultant who's really doing the project management uh matt is is our structural engineer was zfa uh who's doing our structural engineering it requires a team of specialists we have another sub that's a geotech we have architectural uh uh consultants on board soon is our sub who's really wrangling all the different disciplines together okay and helping us manage this project and we have a lot of different professions that are looking so the exact question is do you as the design expert to whom to whom we're turning think we should do the tier two struct seismic evaluation or not i mean we have 1.9 million dollars so do it you know yeah we tell building owners that if you're gonna be doing a lot of work on a building it's always good to understand as much as you can about the building and and integrate um seismic strengthening into a construction project where it makes sense so if we did the tier two evaluation we would have a greater understanding of any potential deficiencies on the what's the safest thing for our firefighters not the loaded question meet police officer guys of that uh that's good we we're we're we're here to take expert opinions on what's the best use of the 1.9 million we're very dependent on on on you folks when i would i would offer it we don't want to necessarily restrict ourselves to 1.9 if that's gonna be the safest thing to protect our firefighters at this point um okay any other questions please um i don't think i have any questions i just i'm ready for comments yeah put a public do you have a question yeah please uh one question just um in in terms of uh closing out projects okay it's staff maybe reggie um describe as priorities priorities change what would be the process to revive a project i'm sorry but by revive do you mean it's it's it's currently on the list and it uh not getting it's not active or it's closed out whatever that is okay right so a closed out project would have to get a new um ncip nomination come back to the committee and go through the entire process which has happened which has happened we have some of those right now 2025 or six i guess we have several returning projects.

Okay.

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

Thank you uh staff and consultants for answering those questions.

For folks on we took uh statements public comments of course yeah, we had uh we sure did.

Wow, that was so long ago.

But he disappeared in the wall.

You wanted to make a comment.

I apologize.

I'll pass it back to you, uh Councilmember Smith.

That's right.

You got the apples so we're we're doing fine um I I'm in favor of um of taking the staff recommendation, but with the new information that the cost of uh $15,000 for and I want to get the term, it's the tier two uh assessment for seismic makes sense.

Now the risk is that we spend the 15,000, then we identify additional items, and then we're into a change order with our contractor, and and I get that, but to not actually have that choice by not doing it doesn't seem like it's very diligent for only 15,000.

If we were talking about $500,000, that'd be a whole different story.

But $15,000 seems like it's something that we should do so that we can come alongside of the um structural engineer and and the rest of the team to be able to identify uh and then make all those collections and certainly about safety.

Folks sleep in the building, they respond 24-7.

Um, you know, and I'm just reminded back in the time of the emphasis of when this innovation of pre and early warnings of um seismic activity, having a garage door activate and open and automatically open that early to allow the fire apparatus to be able to pull out so the fire station doesn't fall down on you.

We've come a long way.

So that that's great in invention and engineering, but I think the best engineering we can have is that we make sure that we have uncovered the places that we need to.

And it's like a doctor, you know, before you do surgery, you do an MRI.

Uh, and I fired a doctor because he didn't want to do an MRI.

We've had those experiences of gee, we wish we would have asked.

The ask is 15,000.

I support that.

And I'm ready to make a motion if, and I don't want to close off anybody else.

I'll make a motion to uh modify the staff recommendation slightly to add that we ask staff to proceed with their staff recommendation, uh as it's outlined uh one through seven.

There are items here that I don't need to read, but recommendations one through seven and add the expenditure for two a tier two uh seismic estimates to be included in this recommendation.

I'll second it's been moved and seconded.

Any discussion on the motion, um I'm I'm just gonna add some uh additional thoughts.

I kind of lean on um the council representative for the district for these various projects to get a sense of your feelings and and particularly um Gene and Gino, the ones that I asked questions on specifically.

I just wonder what your thoughts are around how necessary this project might be for your communities.

Um I think particularly for a sidewalk.

To me, that sounds somewhat of a safety issue that has public benefit, public interest that I wonder if we can have staff give a deeper presentation on.

But I I kind of leave it to you all to kind of give me your thoughts on those projects.

Yeah, no, thank you for uh raising that.

And that was uh where my head was going um when asking the question what would be the process to revive a project, and and um and I ask that because I know that there is interest to uh build the sidewalk.

I just uh I guess I I don't know to what extent there is an interest to build that sidewalk.

That's one part of it.

Um interest from from surrounding residents, I should say.

Um there are um growing conversations around um speeding along that segment of Casanova.

And and I wonder if maybe um looking at at this specific segment, there could be either this as a revived project or or uh a new project, where that is also taken into consideration.

So building a sidewalk and including some kind of measure to reduce speed along that that segment.

So this is something I think that I'd want to bring back to residents along Casanova who are experiencing this day in, day out, and see what their take is on that.

But thank you for raising the point.

On the Mar Vista one, this was in existence when I started with NCIP, which is a long time ago.

So some of the problem is it takes so long to do the projects.

And um I'm really attracted to the discussion we can have with the joint committees where we get away, we we drop the concept that we have to have a hundred percent consensus and that we empower NCIP to do the right thing by the general public.

Projects get nominated because somebody um supports them.

The nomination project should bring in somewhere, you know, 25 to 50 percent of support from the neighbors and or or more, you know, just as an example, and then the committee looks at it carefully and and decides what's the safest thing for the community, makes their recommendation for us.

I I do agree that if we're if we truly are waiting on a hundred 100% consensus, we're doing it wrong.

Yeah, yeah.

I'm I'm willing to let it go.

Um, and and I think uh Councilman Garcia, you you're alluding to maybe more of what the next steps look like for these projects, which is maybe there could be a conversation with folks in the community, and if they want to resubmit it, um, to go ahead and do so, particularly with your project uh as far as potentially expanding the scope of that.

Um yeah, I'll just leave it there.

So yeah, I was gonna make a comment on that, Gino, the 500 uh block of Casanova is an interesting site because we do know that the property owner is moving forward with plans and we don't specifically know what all those plans are gonna be.

But gee, wouldn't it be a shame if we moved ahead and there's a sidewalk that's put in there and then next year all of a sudden there's bulldozers and they're taking it out because they have to do you know, easements and connections and you know, property development.

So there's a timing for a major project like that.

Yeah, uh, but I wouldn't want to rule it out forever.

It's like, well, you know, if we could, you know, get back to the neighborhood association and that too on Marvista to see is there's still an interest that it comes back.

So it comes back to us every year.

If these projects come back to us again next year, I think this council is asking for are they really um I would say at least a 51% in favor of in the neighborhood in that association.

I think this council needs to know that.

Right.

Yeah, no, and and one of the thoughts that I had goes to that point uh in terms of it being a whole development, right?

Um, I think potentially there could also be an opportunity to have that developer create the sidewalk which then doesn't fall in the city to build it, right?

Which can happen and it has been done, but back to your point, right?

We don't know exactly what those plans are, what's the timeline that can be?

Right, yeah, timelines are everything.

And I just want to call back to once upon a time before I was even on the council, Gene was a member of the association, and there was a sidewalk project on Pacific Street, and she visited.

And at first take it was like, Well, I'm not so sure because I can park three cars there, but at any rate, the information that comes from a home visit from a representative that's that's advocating for that.

And thank you, Reggie.

I know it's complicated.

That is probably where the rubber meets the road, when the education happens with the neighbors that are interested and trying to get them to weigh in.

And after I heard you, it was like, yeah, let's get started because it's gonna improve the street.

Um, so the outreach and education piece is the biggest challenge to execute these projects.

But I think if on those two particular projects, I don't want to say it's done and closed forever.

I want to say to the neighborhood associations of Marvus and Casanova, if this is still something that's really valid at the right time, we should see it again.

And we should hear from everybody that supports it again.

So it's it's not completely done.

Yeah, that's the message I I want to send.

I want to encourage folks to resubmit projects if if it's uh appropriate and that's the interest, and I think doing a deeper dive into how we want to move forward.

With that, I'm gonna go ahead and call the question.

So the motion is to approve staff recommendation, but to include the tier two $15,000 seismic study.

All in favor, aye, any opposed?

Motion passed unanimously.

It is 5 30.

This is when we normally end the afternoon session, but we do have some additional public appearance items.

We're going to continue going for about the next 45 minutes to try to get through these three items because I know that there's some folks here that want to talk about these things just to get a sense and and I might ask to move things around just to be respectful of people's time.

Number nine is the climate action plan, number 10 is the letter to the CPUC.

Um how many folks are here for the climate action plan?

If you're on Zoom, can you use your Zoom hand?

There's one person on two people on Zoom.

There's two people, and how many people are here for the CPUC letter?

Okay.

Yeah, one, two, three.

And on Zoom, how many are there?

Okay, so I'm gonna ask.

Can we take the CPUC letter first so that we can let some of these the larger group go?

I apologize for the climate folks that are here, but that's gonna I have a lot of questions there as well.

So let's if you're okay with it, council, let's go ahead and consider the CPU C letter.

So we'll jump to public appearance item number 10.

Authorize the mayor to sign a letter and submit public comment to the California Public Utilities Commission to reconsider the long-term water demand forecast and the proposed decision for application 21-11-024.

Um, so essentially the CPUC, just to do a really quick recap, is considering um uh their phase two of water uh supply and demand numbers.

Um, in June, um, when the lap the second to last biggest move occurred for this, um, they were essentially willing to take almost full scope of of um of thank you of uh Calam's proposal, um which was pretty close to 14,000 acre feet um for demand.

Um I think that that's ridiculous, and everybody else that's party to the proceedings um also agrees that that number is too high.

Um, and so uh I drafted uh a letter and and in fact I already submitted it to the CPUC because I was assuming that in the proceedings that occurred that was supposed to happen last month, um, which then got postponed to August 14th, I believe is now the new date.

They needed the letter in um by the Friday before.

We were going to consider this if the council remembers at the at that special council meeting, but we pushed it to this meeting given the fact that the CPUC had decided that day that they were gonna push the meeting to August 14th.

Um, so essentially I'm uh I offer a ret uh a letter um for the council's consideration um that reflects similarly to uh Senator Laird's letter that was submitted to the CPUC, um, essentially reflecting again that the forecasted projections for our demand numbers um are too high.

Um, and so I'll I'll kind of leave it there as a general overview.

Are there any questions from the council?

So you alluded to the fact that you prior to our council meeting where we continued it, that you had already sent a letter for uh individual council.

So that's I want to clarify that.

And that that was not on city letterhead.

That yes, it is on city Letterhead, but it's not on behalf of the city, it was uh from me as mayor, okay.

Okay, so that's a another topic we should have because the governance policy, when you speak for the council, any council member, when there's a vote for that, can use the letter head to speak.

But you were offering your personal opinion.

That's not true.

And actually, we talked about this before during the governance discussion.

I brought up this conversation specifically around letterhead because before I became mayor, Clyde was signing letters on behalf of the city to the state legislature in support of certain legislation, and I had that exact same concern.

Yes, so I didn't want to.

But then my point was why can't I, as a council member, use letterhead?

And the response was that you can, but we made it clear that you can't do it on behalf of the city.

And that's that's the clarity that I'm providing.

I didn't do it on behalf of the city.

So if you wanted to write a letter to the CPU C on city letterhead, time out, you could be time out.

You're welcome to do so.

I appreciate your response, but I'm going to suggest that we have an agenda item on the governance policy.

So we should save this for that topic.

Uh I'd love to hear from the folks first.

So that was the only question.

Any other questions from the council?

Okay.

We're going to go open up to the public comment.

For folks on Zoom, you can use a raise hand function.

In the meantime, while you're navigating your way there, I'm gonna check in the chamber.

Anybody in the chamber wishes to speak on this item?

I just ask that you stand to the left of the podium or identify yourself by raising your hand.

So I see one sitting, I see only one person sitting that's raising their hand.

Anyone else?

One person.

Just the one person.

Okay.

So we have two, four, six, seven in the chamber.

And then I'm gonna do a countdown for folks on Zoom to five, four, three, two, one.

We have five on Zoom.

I'm gonna go ahead and leave it to two minutes, please.

That then's uh a Monterey Vista neighborhood.

Um, I've been active with public water now since the first measure.

And I know that the mayor has been on the Monterey One as our representative.

So I know he knows very a lot about uh the water demands and what Monterey Water is going to be giving to us um in the very near future, and we are going to have plenty of water, and it's been told to us by not only the Monterey Regional Water District, um, so many other agencies, including the PUC's own um whatever that subgroup is that I always feel so sorry for because they never get listened to.

What is it?

Public advocates office.

Yeah, the public advocacy office.

So the statistics are out there from everyone that we have plenty of water, except from Calam, who naturally is going to benefit from it.

So I appreciate the letter.

I'm thankful you're doing it, and we need to stick to our guns that we're right, and they're only into it for the profit.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

My name's John Tilly.

I'm the president of the Monterey Commercial Property Owners Association.

I'm also a member of the Coalition of Peninsula Businesses, and this is in regard to the letter that has been sent to the CPUC.

The letter, um, if it was the same, then I've seen it is uh speaking to the uh use of pure water monterey expansion to fulfill the community's need for water.

Uh states are right in the letter that I've that I've been um reading.

And I would like to speak to that uh with a letter that's also from the Monterey County Water Resource Agency.

This is dated January 15th, 2025, and this is the Monterey County Water Resource Agency who controls water urban salinas and has an extremely good idea about water use and availability of salinas.

The resource agency writes, we are concerned that jurisdictions such as Monterey of the district will make irreversible land use decisions that increase and harden water demand based upon the promise of an anticipated supply that is that is variable and subject to interruption and alternative use.

The agency has been a strong and central partner in the development of Pure Water Monterey.

Waters were made available by the agency through an agreement with Monterey One Water, and the source supplies for the Pural Water Monterey-based project.

They go on to say that the pure water monterey expansion has no such committed supply.

Rather, it is intended to operate as a PICA plan to capture temporary excess source supplies when available, typically in the winter months.

In addition to pure water monitoring expansion, having no committed sources supply, the preponderance of source supplies available to the pure water Monterey project already under the agreement are variable, prone to drought, and subject to changes in regulation.

Regarding pure water minor expansion, the agency disagrees with the characterization of this potential water supply as permanent and invariable.

Furthermore, the agency cartions jurisdictions, such as Monterey, that may receive this proposed allocation for making irreversible land use decisions based on supply perceived available.

Um, thank you very much.

Good afternoon, hello, Carol Churbajan.

I am a Monterey resident and business owner.

Um I'm here today to speak about the um Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project.

Since I have been around, actually, as when I first came here, it was horrifying to me to be rationed 50 gallons of water per person per day before low flow and nip no flow, and you have no idea what it's like when you really have to get rationed.

But the project initially and always has been a three-pronged approach to include desalination, aquifer storage and recovery, and groundwater recycling, the pure pure water Monterey.

And pure water Monterey was never meant to be the majority of it.

In years of drought, five of the last 12 years have been drought, virtually half of the water sources for pure water Monterey are urban stormwater and agricultural drainage.

And where will we get the water?

What do we do when we can't get that water in the years of drought?

I grew up with Pan American World Airways.

My father worked for him for 44 years.

He told me that Pan Am was the same kind of three, really balanced, three-pronged, three-stooled approach.

The Pacific, South America, and Europe.

And they had one to fill in the other when one didn't work, when one was falling off.

When they sold the Pacific to United Airlines in 1986, it effectively unbalanced the company to the point five years later, they were out of business.

There were other things, but that effectively destroyed the company.

If we don't continue with this three-prong balanced approach, I'm afraid we're not going to get the water that we need long term.

And in closing, I'm not.

I really value the city council and the city I live in.

And I'm not clear why the city and the city council is now getting involved in something like this.

I really feel like the experts should be dealing with it rather than us.

Thank you so much.

Good afternoon, Rick Aldinger, Monterey resident and representing Monterey County Hospitality Association today.

I am disappointed to learn that a letter has been sent on City Letterhead already on this subject before any public discourse on it.

And, you know, demand numbers are hard to pin down.

There's been a range thrown out there, depending on who you ask.

What isn't as ambiguous is supply.

And discussions regarding the peninsula's water supply and demand have largely excluded input from Salinas, the Salinas Valley, and AG.

That's a problem, as a large portion of the source water, pure water Monterey intends to use comes from runoff from these locations and from ag waste washwater.

These source waters are unreliable by nature.

It doesn't always rain, along with the fact that it's likely that the ag industry will also need access to these sources to solve their own imminent shortages and seawater intrusion, as is noted in a letter that Norm Groot, Monterey County Farm Bureau executive director, sent to the CPUC regarding the supply and demand issue.

AG believes they have the rights to this water.

They also know that they will need this water as soon as within the next two years.

Whether you believe that or not, none of us wants to find ourselves in a legal battle with AG while the peninsula continues with no water.

It is short-sighted and dangerous to put our water future in jeopardy by believing this fight won't happen.

The established Monterey Peninsula water supply project outlined a three-legged stool.

Carol talked about that.

A portfolio of water supplies that would ensure an adequate supply of water regardless of the weather.

DSAL is an integral component of that project, and regardless of any nitpicking on the demand numbers is necessary to ensure our future.

For those who say yes to Z to DSAL, but not this DSAL.

There is no other DSAL project on the horizon, even if there were starting a new project tomorrow, would not provide water we need for at least 12 to 15 years.

We need to stay out of this.

Thank you.

My name is Sylvia Xi, and thank you, mayor and the council to consider sending letters to CPUC to ask them to re-evaluate their estimate because the overestimate of our water need has serious consequence to our ability to in the future pay for the bill.

Right now, there's criticism on the fact that the pure water produced by pure water may not be sustainable in the future.

Actually, it is sustainable because if we use more water, we have more waste to recycle.

And right now, the estimate is like 50% more than what we use currently.

We use currently about 9,000 acre feet, and they are projecting close to 14,000.

I'll overestimating this really serious to the ratepayers and to your citizens.

So I urge you to really endorse the sending of the letter to CPUC to reconsider the estimate, because it's now realistic.

No matter what you say.

Right now, the uh the water produced is sufficient to lift the more uh moratorium, but we haven't requested it.

Calm could requested it because they are the party.

I don't know whether they did or not, but it will be a good thing we requested so that people can have the connection, the water connection, and they don't feel they are pinched.

We we are free, and thank you for considering sending the letters to CPUC.

I'm Alice and Glenn.

I'm a resident of Monterey, and I support a letter going to the CPU because I believe that the Cal Am's estimates are way out of line.

And I think it's also since I am a clergy, I believe it's a justice issue because it's another thing that complicates trying to get the housing that we need in this area for those who work for us and do service for us.

So I would encourage you to support what the mayor has suggested and continue to support the factual numbers and not this inflated increase that Cal Am has come up with.

Thank you.

Mr.

Mayor, Council members, Gary Curcio, I'm the Director of Government Affairs for the Monterey County Hospitality Association.

Candidly, I am more than a little bit disappointed that we have been sitting here since four o'clock this afternoon, and we just find out that the mayor already sent a letter on City Letterhead.

I don't get it.

I don't think it's right.

You know, the Coalition of Pencil Businesses mailed a packet of letters to all of the council members.

The two most important, the one was the one from the coalition signed by Jeff Davy and the one from Norm Groot of the Farm Bureau.

I hope that every council member read at least those two letters.

You're going to be hearing from agriculture when you go online to those calls.

Let's set just for a second demand aside.

The key issue moving forward is going not to be demand.

It's going to be supply.

If you understood those letters, you know that the supply that M1 is receiving now is more than a little fragile.

Sometime between now and five years from now, agriculture is going to need that water.

And I was on a call with some ag folks earlier this week, and one of the farmers said not one drop of Salinas Valley water should go to the peninsula.

We need it all for ourselves.

So I just want this council to be aware.

Make sure you know what you're voting for, because down the road, this could create a very, very serious problem.

If M1 loses a couple of sources of water, like the vegetable wash water, water in the Blanco drain, that's 40 to 50% of the source water for phase two.

So please caution to what you vote for.

All right.

With that, let's go to our colors on Zoom.

All right.

First, I'm calling on Melody.

Hello, Melanie Chrislock, Monterey resident and director of public water now.

We have been a party to this proceeding at the CPUC for over two years now.

I am very familiar with the details of this.

And I would point out that all the letters and arguments that hospitality and ag have made have been submitted to the CPUC, and the CBC did not recognize them.

They believe the demand.

They believe the supply is solid.

That's not the argument.

And I would point out one thing to um ag the blanco drain water and wreck ditch water are under contract till 2045.

You can't use those.

You did not pay for the infrastructure to bring that water into the plant.

Monterey wanted.

So, you know, you you've got these arguments going on here that I don't think most of these people even understand the actual facts.

Norm Group can yell and scream all he wants.

I don't think he gets it.

I mean, Paul Schedo did not put out 130 million dollars for a water project that he did not believe he had the supply for.

And the CPUC has agreed with that.

So supply is not the issue.

In fact, they have underestimated it a bit.

It's probably going to be more like 12,000 acre feet a year supply.

The real issue is that Calam and the CPUC are predicting that we're going to use 50% more water in the next 25 years, which requires a 50% increase in population.

Does anyone here believe that's going to happen?

No, it's ridiculous.

Ambeg's forecast was 11% population growth, and they have now said growth will slow below that.

And yet Calam is saying we're going to need 545 more percent water for less than 10% population growth.

Please do send this letter in.

Senator Monning, Senator Laird, every public agency in this in the peninsula and the CPU advocate's office have all sided with the.

Yeah, thank you.

My name is Chris Bunn.

I'm speaking on behalf of Norm Greet at Monterey County Farm Bureau as he was unable to attend this afternoon.

I'm on Norm's exec committee for the Farm Bureau Board of Directors.

I'd like to reiterate something that the Salinas Valley Ag Community has been saying for the last several years, both at M1 waterboard meetings and another venues, and that is the fact that some of the source waters that the pure water expansion depend on are interruptible.

And they're interruptable for two reasons.

First, because of the Central Coast Water Board's Ag Order 4.0, and second, because of Sigma and how that act is playing out in the Salinas Valley.

So to the first point, Ag Order 4.0 contains requirements to control nutrient pesticide and sediment surface water exiting a ranch.

And 2032 is the relevant date for that kind of enforcement.

So currently here in AG, we're looking at different methods of how to capture service water before it exits a ranch and then clean the water of the constituents.

And in the north end of the Valley, if we start capturing runoff water at the ranch level to clean it, that means we will dry up the various area sleuths and drains, including the Blanco Drain and the Rec Ditch.

We're capturing the water before it enters the drain.

You've got to understand that.

And both those ditches are source waters for pure water expansion.

And second, Sigma, we've got a 25,000 acre foot deficit in the north end of the valley, and that deficit has to be solved by 2040.

So if we're cleaning constituents in our ranch water, we are definitely going to be using that water to solve that 25,000 acre foot deficit.

So again, let me reiterate some of the pure water expansion source waters are interruptible.

And as farmers, we have no choice in this matter.

We have to solve this issue for the regional board and solve it for DWR.

Thank you for your time.

Our next speaker is Adam.

Good afternoon, good evening, mayor, council members, staff, and my compatriots in the uh audience.

Um sorry I can't join you today.

Uh I'm a little bit under the weather.

Um there's no point in talking about the letter because it's already been sent.

So, so let's just talk about the facts.

The fact is that even the Monterey One Water Board has acknowledged uh that these are not permanent water sources.

So to bank on them just strikes me as um as not following through on the commitments that we've made to really addressing the housing issue.

There is simply no way for us to come close to addressing the housing issue on recycled water alone, and to attempt it is is to risk a serious issue because those source waters are interruptible.

So you know, I support recycled water, it's a great expansion, but but to rely on that alone is is putting all our eggs in one basket that is vulnerable both to drought uh and to changes to contracts.

So that just does not seem prudent to me.

And uh I hope that you'll take that into consideration for the sake of our region's housing.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is a telephone caller with the last three digits, three, one, two.

You dial star six, you can unmute yourself.

Hello?

Can you hear me?

Yes, go ahead, please.

Okay, I love it.

I couldn't hear you because the recording was talking.

Uh Margaret Ann Coppernall again.

Good evening.

Your CPSC letter is critical, in my opinion, to our existential water supply defense.

I wholeheartedly encourage you to send it forward.

And I appreciate the one that the mayor already said because it was outstanding.

The CPUC's proposed demand estimate decision is in serious error.

If approved, it will have cataclysmic consequences.

The underlying reason for Calam's insistence on inflated demand estimates is not just corporate monopoly green and shareholder financial gain.

It is even more alarming than that.

From my perspective, Calam is licking its tops over its long-standing attempted conquest of marina coast water district's water supply and water rights for its MPWSD desalination plan.

Calam has no water rights or any realistic chance to obtain even junior appropriate right.

Because there is no surplus water in the critically overdrafted Silenus Valley Grandwater Basin, which is under Sigma mandate to restore the aquifers to healthy condition by 2040.

Calam has no track record of developing a single drop of water for any alternate water projects as was demanded by the state water board, only a track record of diminishing water supplies and obstructing to the max possible innovative recycled water project development.

So thank you for your courage and writing the letter.

We appreciate it so much.

God bless you.

And our last speaker is Landwatch.

You can go ahead, please.

Thank you.

And Laura Davis commenting on behalf of Landwatch.

A sustainable and affordable water supply directly correlates with a sustainable and affordable housing supply.

In support of these values, we ask that the city council authorize the mayor to sign and submit the letter to the CPUC.

The water demand forecasts as currently described in the proposed decision are seriously flawed.

They're based on inaccurate data and incorrect assumptions.

For example, despite population growth decreasing the projections and to anticipate large increases in water demand.

They also credit a hypothetical rebound in tourism with an increase in demand, even though the tourist industry has long since rebounded from any COVID impacts, and there's no evidence to imply that it will further increase.

To echo an earlier commenter, an overestimate has serious consequences for people's ability to pay their bills.

Serious consequences for ratepayers for the people Mayor Williamson represents.

He absolutely should be sending a letter in support of his constituents' interests.

We commend Mayor Williamson for taking the time to draft a letter asking for a reconsideration of the demand for forecasts, and we ask that the city follow staff's recommendation to authorize sending the letter.

Thank you.

Okay.

With that, we'll go ahead and close public comments.

Um, I'll make a few comments just to respond to some of the public comment, then I'll open it up to my colleagues.

Um I think first and foremost, and it was uh shared by some folks that expressed opposition to the letter.

Um, we should be basing this off of facts and should be trusting the experts to determine um where we're at with this.

And many studies have been done.

Um I don't believe that the federal government, the state government, um, local agencies would have approved a project that didn't have reliable source water for it to function.

Um to make a claim that or to give any perception that there is going to be a scenario where pure water monterey provides zero acre feet of water, um, is um at best a stretch.

Um there definitely is a conversation between the supply and the demand side.

And so when we talk about the supply, um, let's speak to the facts.

The Pure Water Monterey Base Project has been online since 2019 and has provided its contractual obligation every single year it's been online.

Even more so, it has provided an additional allocation towards our drought reserve.

So speaking of dry years, that drought reserve is tapped into to help meet up any loss in supply given a drought.

So the expansion will only help expand that.

Um, furthermore, there's a whole conversation to be had around um first rider refusal for Blanco drain, reclamation ditch.

We can have that conversation.

The opportunity for the ag industry or for farmers to develop their own recycled water plant has been available for many years now.

Have they done it?

No, because it's really expensive.

Why would they develop their own plant when we already have a plant in the region that does that for us?

Will this change in the future?

Even if they started having that conversation today around developing it's gonna take 10 or 15 years minimum for that project to come online.

The CCP agreement ends in 2045, if I remember correctly.

When that agreement ends, all of our wastewater in on the peninsula has first righteous refusal for for CSIP.

So when that agreement ends, the peninsula can decide to keep our own wastewater, and we would have more than enough water to recycle to provide water for future growth for decades to come.

So if we want to have this battle with Salinas over water, let's have the conversation.

This is about finding regional solutions.

This isn't about stealing somebody's water.

And I think that there's a lot of hypotheticals that are being put out there to try to make it sound as if something else is happening that's not happening.

There's nothing happening.

There's no project proposed.

There's been nothing presented in a public meeting anywhere.

So I think we just need to again stick to the facts and let them speak for themselves.

The expansion is going to be online in October, and that's going to provide an additional 2,750 acre feet a year.

And then in addition, we expect an additional amount to be going to the reserve, the drought reserve in the wet years.

The thing that I'm most concerned about as we have this conversation around housing, because everybody knows that's paying attention.

Housing is a big thing for me.

It's really important.

I don't want water to get in the way of us being able to develop the housing that we need for our community.

What I'm concerned about is that if we keep having this fight, we're going to muddy the waters for this conversation that needs to happen with the uh state water resources control board to lift the CDO so that we can get these barriers out of the way so that we can start developing water now or housing now, not into the future when Calham's DSOL project, if and when it gets online.

We need housing right now.

So we all need to be getting on board and on the same page around how do we move this conversation forward as quickly as possible.

John Senator John Laird, he had a closed door discussion with many key stakeholders in the community, including all the peninsula mayors and city managers.

And there was a representative from the state water resources control board there.

The rep told us, and I had a conversation with him afterwards, that they're open to looking at a project that a proposal that would lift the CDO, perhaps temporarily or making a change to it to allow more flexibility so that we can develop.

But we have to be on the same page.

They would have more years of data to make that determination, and it would allow us to prove how effective we are at developing housing.

So if there's concern around that, then we cut it off and we don't allow additional growth.

So I just putting that out there.

The bigger concern that I have on the topic of housing is increasing rates.

We see it all the time.

Sitting on M1W, five years ago now, we we did a five-year rate increase study.

We've increased the rates, maximum amount every single year of the last five years.

And we're going to be going into conversations again this year to look at increasing rates for again for the next five years.

That's just M1W.

You have your water, you have your electricity, and it may not impact maybe some of us that are a little bit more affluent, but there are folks that are struggling to afford the cost of living here as it is.

I'm not saying anything that we don't know.

The cost of housing is high, utilities are high.

And so if we're gunning, we're putting all of our eggs in the basket of saying the only solution to our water supply issues is Calam's desal project, you're shooting ourselves in the foot, and you're going to increase our rates astronomically because we're not going to be using all that water.

It's going to be extremely inefficient.

We're going to build a DSIL plant that's not going to be at full efficiency, and we're going to be bearing the burden of that.

So I'm looking out for our ratepayers.

I think I will pause there for now, getting a little bit emotional.

So I'll open it up to my colleagues, whoever wants to take it away.

Yeah, I want to I want to start.

Um I want to I want to point out that uh many of the commenters have have already indicated that they were surprised that your letter is already gone with a letter head, but tonight we're talking about a city position for this council to decide whether or not that they agree to take a city position from this council on the item.

I would offer that we should not be doing that for a variety of reasons.

We've heard from many folks that are in the business of knowing the numbers.

We're not all privy to the details, the science, the inner workings of all of it, what it takes for the numbers to be determined of whether the lower number is right or the upper number is right.

But the CUPC has already had staff recommendations for the number that is the higher number.

It was postponed by a whole lot of initiative from the political side to postpone it.

Um I understand that that's the process.

However, I don't want to have a system where only one voice advocates to the CUPC.

I'd never take away anyone's right under their first amendment to express their opinion directly to that state board.

But I disagree that this council should speak with a narrow voice where if you surveyed the community, I don't know what the numbers are going to be: 50-50, 55-45.

It's not 100% in favor of advocating one way or the other.

When it's a wedge issue, when it's dividing the community, this council needs to be careful in terms of what they advocate for, under the name of advocating for the best of what's the interest of the community.

Well, you're hearing some disparate opinions.

Some that said, you know, that number's wrong, some that are saying the water supply is not sustainable, others that are saying that MW-1 may lose some of the water for treatment.

Uh, a variety of opinions are saying that they they disagree with the numbers.

Others say they like the lower number, others say that they like the higher number.

There are people that have the data that are punching and uh figuring it out on the calculators in terms of the water demand.

But I do know in the back of my head, one caller was saying that they doubt that the population is going to change.

Well, I don't know how it can't change.

City of Monterey alone in the eighth in the in the sixth cycle for eight years, is needing to build 3,600 plus units.

So if there's two people that live in each one of those units, we're increasing the population of the city of Monterey at least by 7200.

So multiply that across all of the cities that are in the district of the water, that we could potentially have the impacts of RENA, that we could be growing all of our populations.

This really is about what's the sustainable number and when can we get off the cease and desist?

And the state water resources has long said, I'm not so sure about your story about temporary lifting, but if we're planning on executing on 3600 units, and you get a little bit to come off of the cease and desist, and they grant us a hundred here, 200 there.

Let's not even look at the RENA number right now.

Let's look at the number of pent-up demand, the general plan, ADUs, the desperate need for some businesses to expand their water supply.

We've been under this for over 45 years.

This goes back to a time when I was in high school.

So this isn't new.

This is not a new topic.

And I don't want to make this about MW 1 versus Calam.

My position is I don't think we should be expressing this advocacy because this council hasn't had the science presented to us by all parties involved.

Just like we had an engineer tonight talk to us and convince us that it's worth getting a tier two assessment.

We listened to some experts here on this topic.

We have not listened to or had testimony by enough experts to call this one way or the other.

I think we should stay out of this.

I think it's got too much consequence that goes to the C UPC, and a letter from the council that maybe is a 3-2 or 4-1, does not speak to the whole community.

And I think that this process needs to be handled at the CUPC level for those that are going to go testify, those that are going to call, and those individuals are going to write their letters.

But I'm not an advocate of a letter coming from this council that speaks as if they're speaking for the whole community because they simply we simply don't.

There are simply a divided community here that some wanted to move forward and others don't.

And we're not qualified to make this assessment.

So I'm not in favor and would not support a letter to the C UPC under the city letterhead, much less uh a vote from this council, it will likely not be unanimous.

Who would like to go next?

I think just listening to the various points from the public, we could see that there, and this is nothing new, there are a variety of uh opinions.

And um, the way that I try to look at this, listening to all the feedback.

Um I also think back about my own experience as a resident.

And um I think really the uh the first experience that I had with with Cal Am that made me think about their processes, was many years ago when we were in the drought.

Um, our residents were asked to conserve water as much as possible.

I remember that we couldn't water our lawns except for like Mondays and Wednesdays, I think, for like 15 minutes or something like that.

And um, and I remember we we uh as a city, we made an awesome impact.

We our our conservation was um way more than anticipated.

And and I think everybody was proud of that.

And then I remember a short while later, once we started, you know, getting back into normal uh weather and getting some more water, um, we all get slapped with higher rates, and that really stuck with me because I remember having conversations with uh my neighbors about this, how uh a good number of us felt betrayed.

We felt like, yeah, we put our efforts to conserve water, and because of that, um, then Calam had to make that difference because we weren't using their waters, so their revenues dropped.

So we had to make up that difference, and the way they made it up was by increasing rates, and just like that throughout the years as a resident, as uh as a um uh non expert, I just continue to feel that uh that Cal Am has time after time not expressed really the interest of its customer.

So I think um this letter sends a message um to all of us who have been impacted negatively by Calam's service.

Um, that there is an alternative, that um we do have members of our community who are advocating for a change who are advocating for something better for our residents.

And I want to acknowledge our our mayor's role in this advocacy that he continues for and has continued for years now in trying to bring the various groups together to try to figure out what's the better solution for everyone involved.

Maybe not a solution that will take care of our issues 100%, but it at least takes us in that direction.

So I'm gonna support the letter and I once again acknowledge our mayor for having that um courage and making that bold move in saying this is what we need and and this is how we're advocating for our residents and and not only our residents but folks throughout the peninsula.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Please have progression.

I'll try to keep it short.

Um I do believe that having an opinion on the water issue is an appropriate municipal interest.

Um yes, maybe it's political, but we are a political body.

So I don't have trouble with that.

I do think we need accurate numbers in the proposal that the PCUC has the accurate data, and I'm concerned that they perhaps don't.

Um when I read public water now information, admittedly, um, that there is doubling down, counting open lots as buildable, and adding to that the arena allocation numbers for the projection of need, I do agree that that appears to be a doubling because URENA is going to go on to your open land, and that shouldn't count twice.

So I'm concerned about the accuracy of the numbers, I believe we need accurate numbers.

Uh what I'm hearing from my constituents is that more are in favor of supporting the letter than are not.

Um this doesn't surprise me because 55 percent of all of our community supported measure measure J.

So that seems the split seemed appropriate, and I completely agree with um Laura Davis of Um Landwatch.

I thought she was eloquent in that it's not just a simple issue of more is better, to have more water is more secure, because it has to be affordable.

If if we are if the rates on the individuals go so high that it's not affordable, that's that's not effective in terms of a just approach to our community, and it's not gonna help with the sustainable growth that we do want.

So we want enough affordable water, we don't need an oversupply of unaffordable water.

So that question is compelling to me.

And as to the fragility, I think it's always been fragile.

You know, I remember the drought and the big one was I think in the 90s when my family couldn't flush toilets, rarely.

So um I support the mayor in sending the letter.

I do think when we get to governance, we should review the use of the letter head.

Which I think went out a little early on his individual basis, but I support as the council supporting him and sending the letter.

Please.

So I won't take a lot of time going over a lot of the points that have been talked about already.

The city always need to be involved in at least knowing and being concerned about water because it impacts housing.

Housing impact life, which impact the quality of life.

So I think we are right to be uh concerned about this.

Um I don't have to be uh proposed to be a um expert in this, but I have followed the a lot of the information and and asked about a lot of different uh things from both sides so that I can get a big picture.

And so I believe that in saying all of this and looking at the uh possibility of what is being proposed now, and what we need now when we're looking at 9,000 acre uh feet a year and then the 12,000 acre feet a year that would be proposed.

I think that we need to be able to move forward in some kind of way, and so we can't do that by just waiting and sitting.

And we see that we have needs that are coming every day.

And so I at this point will definitely be supporting the letter as well.

And at that with that, I'd like to make a motion.

Uh authorize the mayor to sign a letter and submit the CPU C.

Second, it's moved and seconded.

Any other discussion?

All right, all those in favor, aye, any opposed?

No.

Motion passes four one.

I'm gonna try to get to this next one because I know there's some folks here, and if we need to, we can try to finish close session after the evening session.

Um, okay.

Thank you for that discussion.

Um, with that, we're gonna go back to number nine, receive an update and provide direction to staff on the development of 2025 climate action plan.

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

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Uh, when we presented this item for you the very first time, uh, we promised you that there would be another check-in uh given to you by our sustainability coordinator Ted Tarossus.

And so I also want to give us uh a brief presentation um based on the time also where we are.

So with that uh Ted, please take it away.

Thank you, Hans.

Uh uh, Mr.

Mayor, members of the council.

Uh again, yeah, just providing a quick update uh on the climate action plan and largely based on the uh attachment that was included with the uh agenda report.

And as a quick update uh of where we are, just looking at our greenhouse.

We had completed a greenhouse uh gas inventory earlier this year, working with Rincone, a consultant that's helping us develop this plan, and the uh results of that greenhouse gas inventory are demonstrating as you can see um on the slide that we're the majority of our impacts are coming from transportation and building energy.

So really when we start looking at uh measures, mitigation measures and where our answers are going to come from in terms of reducing our impacts, it's gonna be in those two main areas.

Uh and just uh again looking at our our goals, and again, these are these are figures in the attachment.

This uh the first figure was figure two.

This is figure one uh in the attachment of the agenda report, and this is just indicating what our goals are.

And if you look there, our SB 13832 goal by 2035 is looking to reduce uh we're right now at about 350,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents in terms of emissions.

We're looking to cut that by about 65,000 metric tons by 2030, and then the the balance uh by 2045.

So a good amount of work uh ahead of us.

So what we did uh or whether the rubber really meets the road here is how are we going to get from where we're at to our goals?

So, really that's really the point of this and really of the climate action plan is our mitigation measures.

So, how do you mitigate our impacts to get us to the level where our goals are at?

And that's where we've spent the last couple months uh doing some outreach, uh, getting some feedback from the public, uh, having a public workshop, doing having uh surveys online, going to the farmers market, doing a lot of outreach and work with our consultant as well to get us down to uh the the uh mitigation measures specific to again transportation and um building energy.

So uh what we've come up with, or what we've kind of developed in as our main mitigation measures is uh what you'll see uh in table one in the attachment.

Uh again, predominantly focusing on building energy and transportation, and what those do is that's basically our blueprint for reduction and implementing these measures will help get us there.

So each of these measures has actions associated with it.

There'll be you know five or six actions associated with each of these, but the idea is you set an overall goal or an overall target, uh, and then you know put it into place by uh a series of actions that are supporting it.

And what we're doing now is really getting down to again, these main mitigation measures and this main framework of how we're gonna get there so that we can evaluate this entire plan for uh CEQA consistency is also as well as develop a draft climate action plan that we can develop within the next few weeks and present to the public so that we're leading to adoption ideally of a climate action plan by later this year.

But a lot of this is kind of dictated for us already, as you can see.

Our our targets are transportation and building energy.

We just wanted to present sort of the information, the feedback we've received so far from the public and put some of that information before the council to uh see if there's any questions about uh the attributes of these measures, uh the targets, the measure themselves, uh potentially any strategies we're missing or outreach you'd like us to complete before we uh close out the climate action plan.

So we wanted to give you this uh little summary here and a bit of an update to find some sort of sort of uh last minute um uh feedback and direction as we look towards uh providing a draft of the climate action plan.

Well, thank you for the presentation.

Um, uh I a little bit of a side note.

I also want to give you gratitude and your team for helping me come up with some talking points.

We're the conference, the California Resource Um reuse conference that I um spoke at earlier this week.

I got to speak to some of this stuff to folks that are actually interested in hearing about it.

So I appreciate I appreciate the work that you and your team do.

Thank you.

Thank you for being there, T.

Yeah, absolutely.

Opening up to the council.

Any questions?

No questions.

No questions.

I like your work.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ted, for the uh uh presentation.

Um this might be going on on a little bit of a tangent, but um, hoping that maybe you'll just keep it very basic.

I'm looking at the uh measures and actions um page or pages, and there's um just a graphic.

I don't know that it's labeled.

Well, I can't see.

Anyways, um, what's that?

Is that okay?

Thank you.

The glasses on.

Yeah.

Oh, yeah, there it is.

Um so there are various um, I guess it would be the uh the measures and actions uh listed.

I'm wondering if just for the public, if maybe you can put it more in in practical terms of like what what can someone do towards these measures and action?

So um, for example, 100% renewable and carbon-free electricity.

What does that mean for the average?

Right.

One of the good things there is that's it.

That's a good example, kind of to lead off with, and one of the great things we're sort of doing already is uh with uh Central Coast Community Energy, we've already made a lot of strides and kind of increasing our renewable energy portfolio.

And one of the targets there is that we get to actually 100% renewable energy as the standard by the year 2030.

So one of the things you can do is you know be a you know a member of 3CE or sign up for that service, be involved with sort of the uh the policies or the boards there, or make your comments in support of that is uh well, that's kind of one action that we'll we're already targeting and planning to hit just by the membership we've already grown.

So it's kind of an example by being a member and participating in that public process for folks that have done that, we're able to to work towards hitting that target.

So it's kind of a uh right up the top.

If you could keep it like that for the rest of the items, uh, uh electric electrify buildings, for example, right, right?

Like, what does that mean to the average person and so on and so forth?

Right.

So, like when we're looking at decarbonization, basically it's uh removing the carbon impacts from building a building.

So when you talk about where you're getting the materials from, how you're transporting them there, how much carbon you're sinking into the building by reducing by choosing better materials, different processes, uh prioritizing, say uh passive house technology.

We're not using a lot of energy for the ongoing energy use of that building.

These are all working towards decarbonizing that building, ideally too, minimizing the usage of natural gas in the building as well.

Although that's a bit contentious just in terms of what you can require, but at the end of the day, that's one of the ways you decarbonize.

You don't have to do everything, but again, these mitigation measures are all balanced.

The let the more less you do in one area, the more you have to do in another area to hit your target.

So it's fine that we don't do every single one in one area, we just pick up the slack somewhere else.

Um, but yeah, that's uh for the most part, you know, the same kind of thing.

Those are all residential buildings, non-residential construction.

That's all kind of relating to building construction, so kind of reducing that.

And then when we get down to the bottom, you'll see microgrids or energy storage to enhance local electrical reliability.

And that's something we're kind of working on uh anyway, or considering is an important issue just in terms of uh emergency impacts.

If there's fires or floods or things like that, we can, as you know, uh we get cut off here uh relatively frequently or a couple times a winter, uh, which can be dangerous.

We have the potential of being flooded or cut off from the rest of the uh the mainland uh California.

So it's important that we can be sort of self-sufficient and also running those uh micro grids on renewable energies or having electric vehicles that can plug into those things or generating solar power and maintaining that power and batteries in a more local way, so that we're not totally dependent on being connected to a grid.

Because if you cut that arm, then we're in a blackout.

So if you have smaller grids, you know, we're good to go.

Um, in terms of transportation, uh, just uh again looking at um mode share, uh increasing the amount of basically uh the use of public of transportation, getting people out of ideally using their cars by themselves, or if they are using cars using an electric vehicle or a zero emission vehicle is really a lot of what this is about is adopting a ZEV there, for example, Z EV adoption rates is zero emission vehicles, so kind of increasing those, not just for the general public, but for city staff as well.

Um, not car share programs, of course, just ways ultimately to keep single riders out of single cars, uh discourage again single passenger vehicles, uh, and then uh decarbonizing off-road equipment by certain levels by by target date.

So just you know, off uh machines that aren't typically targeted, start to target those as well, just in terms of you know, off-road bikes or ATVs or equipment that we use off-road.

Uh, the solid waste sector, the good thing there is we're already uh got two big thumbs up, I think, mayor, at the very conference you went to.

Uh, we're doing very well in the in the city here in terms of our compliance with SB 1383, uh, diverting organic waste and keeping that material out of the landfill.

Methane is a big uh emission component of decomposing organic waste, and that contributes greatly to greenhouse gases.

So by folks at home putting your uh green waste, your food waste in your green bin, diverting that all and getting us to be able to compost that and recover the gas is all contributing to minimizing that impact of the environment, as well as um, you know, our food recovery effort efforts, edible food recovery, recover it before it becomes a waste, then we would then not only do food insecure folks get food, but we don't have that emission uh to worry about when it starts breaking down and releasing methane.

Um let's see here.

So, yeah, that's again SP 1383, water and wastewater, uh, kind of maybe related to our last item per capita potable wastewater consumption by 10% by 2030, and depending on where we're at, uh, another percentage by 2045.

And again, these are uh in flux and can depend on what other metrics we send.

But again, uh that pumping and that uh the the movement of the water can also have an impact, similar to uh, you know, natural gas, or even we collect, for example, recyclables.

You think you're we're doing a good thing in diverting, but we're still using trucks that emit, unless we're using zero emission trucks, that's going to have an impact.

So, same thing with the pumping mechanisms, drilling mechanisms, movement mechanisms for water, all have um uh emissions associated with them as well.

So, minimizing that.

And then the carbon sequestration section is all about pulling carbon in.

So instead of not putting it out, the idea now is to capture it, like pull it back either by um here we have tree planting, uh, uh expanding uh restoration projects to sequester carbon.

Uh, especially there's been a lot of talk of cities working with farms to basically capture uh carbon into their farms or sink it into the soil so that it's not active in the atmosphere and kind of uh sort of increase the carbon natural carbon cycle of the earth, but it needs a little bit of help given that we're overloading the system right now.

Um, but yeah, ultimately that that last one is just about sinking carbon.

So that that's kind of the the overall look at at each section.

Um I'm gonna save mine for now and then I'm just go out to the public um because we're getting a little bit tight on time here.

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

Anybody in the chamber wishes speak on this?

I'm just asking up to the left of the podium or identify yourself by raising your hand.

Not seeing any, so I will go back to Zoom and do a countdown to five, four, three, two, one.

We have two folks on Zoom.

Let's go ahead and take our zoom callers.

Esther, you can go ahead first.

Good afternoon, everybody.

Um I'm just curious about how any of this is going to be applied to renters specifically, because we know that the majority of our rental properties are older buildings, and are is there a program that's going to incentivize the owners of those buildings in a way that they won't pass along the costs to change these buildings into this um idyllic version of what we want to see happen maybe in our lifetime to minimize the financial aspect.

I mean, we already spoke at the last item.

Uh the mayor mentioned how costs of utilities are out of control.

Um it's no, it's no um coincidence that all the business community were for CalM's D cell plant, because you know, they all have to make a bunch of profit off of the rest of us that live here and work here and try to afford living here.

And so all of this sounds great, but I would like to see some renter specific information in this big plan, because given that the city is 66% renters, I think it's disingenuous to have this high in the sky plan without getting into more detail uh that on how it's going to affect the majority of the people that live here.

Uh, it's not to say that I don't want that I don't support it.

It's just that I want to see more specifics on it, because the people who are going to be affected by this um can't afford it.

You know, renters can't afford plugins, you know, vehicles, even if they even if they're provided with a plug-in station, um, you know, we can't put solar on our units.

We can't pick our appliances if we wanted to go, you know, more energy efficient.

So every time you know this presentation comes up, I I say this, but I still have yet to see anything specific to how it's going to affect the majority of the residents in the city, which hopefully that will be eventually spoken about because I mentioned the last time I was on a statewide call, and the cost was being estimated at 45,000 per rental unit for them to be in compliance with all these target um numbers.

And that's only gonna chase away more of our workers and residents that are here.

And we we just can't wait until the last minute.

So hopefully I can see some of that in the next um presentation.

Thanks.

And our next speaker is Laura from Landwatch.

And Laura Davis commenting on behalf of Landwatch.

Landwatch continues to support the city's efforts to devise and implement more sustainable and climate friendly policies.

We've been following the process and have been engaged in discussions with the city for a number of years.

In 2021, in collaboration with Eco Data Lab, Landwatch provided a zero carbon 2045 strategy outline for the city.

We're encouraged to see that many of our suggestions are included in the goals for the 2025 updated climate action plan and in the methods for achieving those goals.

We fully support the decarbonization of new and existing buildings, VMT electrification and reduction through increased opportunities for public transit, walking and biking, and organic waste diversion and carbon sequestration.

In addition to the recommended actions in today's staff report, we again ask that the city council ensure that the VMT analysis uses an origin destination model and direct the consultants to include an evaluation of whether building more housing to address Monterey's jobs, housing imbalance would help reduce VMT and to what extent in line with the city's re-allocation and housing element.

Thank you.

All right, awesome.

With that going closed public comment, thank you for those that provided some additional input.

Open it up to the council for motion deliberation.

I'll make a motion to approve and accept the report.

So moved and seconded.

Any other comments?

I have a couple things.

I'm gonna try to get through really quickly because I know that we're tight on time.

I think it's a fair game for us to look at entertaining some of those comments offered by by landwatch.

Um also Esther's comment I think is helpful.

I know that I attended the workshop and um there was some discussion on some of the things that you put your stickers on around renters specifically and help offering assistance and tying that to some requirement where potentially you don't increase the rent based off of the public dollars that are provided.

So I know that that's embedded in there, but I think maybe having something specifically spelt out in the final draft might be helpful so that folks can focus on that.

Um I had some questions, but I'm gonna form them in statements just so I can get this out.

Um the plan speaks to um outreach to low-income and disadvantaged members in our community, and so just I'm interested in seeing more about what that plan looks like.

Um, and just to add some feedback there, it would be great if we're reaching out to organizations that specifically represent those parts of our community so that there's a somewhat of an organized effort around who we're reaching out to to be more intentional around that.

Um in the staff report, it spoke to um the work status of all the different elements and it shows what's complete, what's in draft complete and progress, and it'd be helpful to just kind of see a timeline of what the ones that aren't complete, when what the next or when the anticipated date of completion is is for those.

Um I am very interested in incorporating um a policy if the council is willing to entertain around disincentivizing natural gas and future home development.

I know that there's a lot of litigation around um banning um uh natural gas, but if we can structure a policy that significantly pushes people away from natural gas, I think that that's something that the city should incorporate.

Um community engagement already spoke to that.

Um, then there were some questions posed to the council.

So I I'm just gonna throw some of my thoughts out.

The funding at the tribute.

How was how does this goal ensure funded projects are shared equitably throughout the city?

So just kind of making sure that not all the funding is put in one part of town, how do we make sure that that's distributed appropriately?

And even if it's something that um goes through multiple neighborhoods and it has a citywide benefit, just kind of making sure that we're looking through things with that lens.

Um, the in the in the um goals, the target goals.

I think we should move up the walking and biking goal.

Um, one of the things that I think about as we're looking at this is how do we mirror or match other programs and projects that the city already has going on so that we can maximize the benefit.

And so if we can create a more walkable bikeable community, um I think that achieves many of the goals um that we're trying to achieve.

And so anyways, I would encourage us to try to think about uplifting that higher.

And I think that's it.

So there's a motion.

Oh, please, yes.

Just a quick one.

Um, Ted.

You probably know this, but I was so impressed with um the whale fest and all the lectures that came out of the local UCs, and they really hit a lot on the sequestration and the management of the oceans and the marshlands and the and the river marshlands.

So um I commend that to your observance.

It was fascinating.

Awesome.

Thank you.

Okay.

You're awesome.

Thank you.

All right.

I'm gonna call the question.

All those in favor, aye, any opposed.

Motion passes unanimously.

I know that there's some folks here that want to make some comments on the next item, but I'm gonna kindly ask for you to wait fifteen twenty minutes so we can go into closed session and maybe get an item or two done.

Um, and then we'll take this up as a first item when we get back from closed session.

So we're gonna go ahead and recess and oh, I'm sorry, I have to do public comment on closed session agenda items.

Um, yes, to the eleven and twelve.

I probably to the evening.

I forgot the twelve to the evening session.

Yeah.

Um, so closed session.

There's uh item thirteen is conference at legal council existing litigation pursuant to government code section five four nine five six text ninety one continued from July twenty third, twenty twenty five.

And then there's um fourteen, which is conference counts, legal counsel, existing litigation pursuant to government code section five four nine five six tech nine D one, Joseph Barboa versus City of Monterey.

Anybody on Zoom, you can use raise hand function.

Anybody in the chamber wish to speak on this item or either of these items.

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

Seeing none, we're gonna go ahead and recess.

We'll be back seven oh five, seven ten ish.

So appreciate everybody's patience as we have a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little do we give us a h do we give us a h do we give us a h do we give us a h do we give us a h do we give us a hug Tuesday, August 5th, 2025.

I'm gonna ask Consumer Garcia to kick us off.

You can use the flag.

Pledge allegiance to the flag.

The United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands.

One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

All right.

Continued.

This is for items that are not on today's agenda.

So if it's on the agenda, this is not the time to speak during public comment.

So anybody wishing to speak on this on uh for this item.

Um you can identify yourself now.

And just for folks' awareness, what we do is we identify the public speakers at the beginning of the public comment period.

Once those folks are identified, we close it off, and then only those speakers will be able to speak.

So I'll check on Zoom for folks on Zoom.

If you can use a raise hand function while you're navigating your way there, I'll check in the chamber.

Anybody in the chamber wish to speak for general public comment for items not on today's agenda.

Yep.

For items not on today's agenda.

You have a comment, ma'am, for example, okay.

Yep, that's on the agenda.

So we'll come back to that.

Anyone else?

All right, so we'll go ahead and close it off in the chamber and then we'll do a countdown for folks on Zoom to five, four, three, two, one.

And we have two on Zoom.

We'll go ahead and take our Zoom callers.

And I think we're going to do two minutes to keep it consistent with the afternoon session.

Okay.

Uh, first we have Esther.

Good evening, everybody.

Um, just wanted to point out um, based on the last um session.

We really need to try and get Reggie some staff.

There's no way that we should be taking on more uh project suggestions without trying to get him an intern or somebody that can help him with that workload.

It's it's feasibly impossible for one person to do everything he's being asked to do.

So um, I just wanted to bring that up and also um I just want to point out that it's interesting how some of the members on this council seem to keep forgetting that things that the previous mayor did was perfectly fine with them, but the current council gets all kinds of problems out of it, and I'll use the letter to the Calam issue that was brought up uh at the last meeting just as another an additional example to how the NCIP and commissions were appointed and whatnot.

So I just wanted to make sure that um to those that that think that they are going to be able to just keep blaming the current mayor for things that they're unhappy with now, that they should know that those of us that have been following this council know that it that it was okay previously, and there's um an interesting pattern that we see developing here.

Thank you.

And our other speaker is a telephone caller with the last three digits, nine zero two.

Go ahead, please.

Good evening.

This is Nina Beattie.

First, I want to comment about the Army plans to burn at the Ford Ord Superfund site again.

And I request that the city petition the US EPA to stop the burn and put a permanent stop to future burns there.

Fire prep is happening now at site A, which is in the northeast section of the Superfund site, near Marina East Garrison Housing, CSUMB, Salinas Valley Agriculture, and Toro Park.

Toxic smoke and ash blows everywhere during these burns, including to Monterey, and have gotten the fires have gotten out of control frequently.

On May 19th, the website uh militarypoisons.org reported on Ford Ort's burn toxicity and the history.

The smoke and ash fallout contain dioxin from the agent orange use there and furons, white phosphorus, munitions chemicals, chemical weapons, herbicides, and poison oak erichol, which is very toxic.

The smoke gets into windows and gets into buildings, contaminates yards, and makes people sick whenever they do it, including children.

Seaside marina spreckles, highway 68, they get the closest repeated exposure, but everybody's getting it.

Animals such as deer have been seen on fire, fleeing the fire, and how many animals are trapped and killed by the army's methods?

Birds, insects, reptiles, and of course all the vegetation and trees are killed.

I asked the city to take action now to stop this burn, starting with petitioning EPA and asking other cities to join you.

Secondly, AB 470 would allow ATT to eliminate copper land landlines in California and no longer be obligated to provide service to all.

Landlines are essential, providing service when wireless and void systems fail and batteries die.

They save countless lives.

Provide reliable connections to 911 and loved ones and power outages and provide exact location data when seconds count.

Extended and frequent power outages for days or even weeks are reality in California, including those caused by utilities and they're increasing.

Brief battery backup is no protection, a more extended backup is expensive, yet copper line telephone continues.

Please protect our landlines and support AP and oppose AB 470.

It's in the close general public comment, and then we'll do announcements from closed session.

Now, we'll just bring up that we didn't get through all of our closed session agenda items.

So we'll continue it until after the evening session.

On the unanimous roll call vote of Anthony Silva, VCD of Monterey Matter confidential direction was given to legal counsel on a unanimous roll call vote on the Alexu uh workers' comp claim matter, confidential direction was given to legal council.

And on the above uh on the unanimous roll call vote of Wolfman, workers' comp claim matter confidential direction was given to legal counsel.

Item CS 14 was also heard.

This was conference with legal counsel existing litigation.

Uh this is uh Joseph Barboa, the city of Monterey, and confidential direction was also given to legal counsel on a unanimous roll call vote.

Thank you, Nat.

We've continued, excuse me.

Um that just got me laughing too hard during our dinner break.

We have uh we continued two public appearance items from our afternoon session, and so we're gonna take those first before we go into our public hearing items.

So the first item is item number 11 to provide direction to staff on the executive recruitment for city manager.

Um and as we transition here, um, I know we're not saying goodbye yet.

Hans is leaving um uh in in December, um, but just wanted to give Hans gratitude for his 28 years of service to the city.

Um, there are things that I really appreciate about Hans and uh and I'll give just one example um of what that is when COVID 19 started and the and everything started shutting down.

Um, Hans rolled up his sleeves, put a plan together, um, presented to the council.

It was a three-legged stool to make sure we're taking care of our business community to make sure that we're um taking care of our renters, and to ensure that we keep the city's budget intact.

And the council unanimously supported that methodology.

Um, and not only did he propose this to the city and the council, um, but he also executed it beautifully.

So um that's just an example of um the amazing work that that we've got out of out of Hans and um you'll be missed.

So thank you for all your years of service.

Let's give up to Hans.

Okay, thank you so much, Mr.

Mayor.

I'll keep going.

No, sir.

Um, and uh Brett will present this item.

Awesome.

Thank you.

Good evening, mayor, council members.

Um, as you've just said, and we know Hans is announced as retirement effective at the end of this year, and so staff is looking for um direction on how you would like to proceed with um the next city manager.

Some options.

Some options that are uh in your report.

So one is we can use an outside of executive firm.

Another option is we could do the recruitment internally, the human resources department.

We could also um uh limit the process and conduct a promotional only recruitment, so that would be only eligible to current uh employees, or um, council could give me different directions altogether.

So those are some of the options I put forward.

Awesome.

Thank you for the presentation, Brett.

Um any questions from the council at this time?

Um, just one little question.

Could could we ask maybe Brett, it's gonna be difficult because you weren't here, but our city manager.

I think if we if we had kind of an overview of the last time we did this from a city manager's timeline, if you can walk the council through, because we've had several changes on the council, and I think that it would be helpful for this council and be helpful for me to be reminded what our last process uh included.

We made you go through the last process.

Yes, Councilmember Smith and Council.

The the recruitment in 2017 2018 was uh started uh with um uh resignation of the existing city manager and so that the city at that time uh didn't have a lot of time to uh um act.

So uh I became acting city manager and then interim city manager parallel.

The city council was uh very interested in in uh in a recruitment process, and um they uh the council members at that time asked uh the human resources director Alison Hauke to um come up with uh a proposal of uh an executive recruitment firm.

As I recall just at this very moment, uh some of the council members also recalled how somebody was recruited for for other boards and commissions they belonged to, and they remembered having positive experience with an executive recruitment firm.

So uh the HR director prepared um uh an RFP, and uh firms uh responded to the RFP, and then the uh the those uh recruiters presented to the city council, and the city council could ask the recruiter recruiters a few questions, and then um the the recruitment um uh firm that was then subsequently selected by the council during an open session, was then tasked to work with the individual council members uh to hear what do you uh expect from uh from your next city manager.

How do you see the next city manager being integrated into the city?

Parallel, the council also wanted to make sure that the uh public had a chance to weigh in, and um the recruitment firm at that time uh had um at least one or I I recall one, but at least one outreach meeting, uh where they basically invited residents to come and share with them also what um what they expect as qualities in the next city manager.

So, based on that, uh the the recruitment firm then prepares the recruitment brochure, and uh then uh the the this um and again based also on the input of the council that they basically all agree at the end this is the qualifications, this is the profile we like to see of the new city manager or the the candidates, and then they went out for recruitment by I think it was a three-week period, and uh it included um uh to submit a cover letter or resume, and I believe there might have been one or two supplemental questions.

And then uh the recruitment firm conducts uh the background interviews, which each and every candidate who has applied and selected the top five or eight that they felt was uh were worthy to invite for an interview, and then the the city council in uh closed session uh interviewed um the candidates and selected from the first round of candidates their top two or three.

I I still don't know if it was two or three, but I believe it was for sure two.

And uh and then uh the council uh came back uh to to the recruiter and said in the next round, we'd like to hear more about ABC.

And again, the the recruiter probably also coached the the council a little bit to say, hey, you might want to ask now this question, you might want to know that.

I hear you're interested in this, ask those questions, and then um there was a final round of interviews for for the top candidates and uh at at that uh after that uh uh interview, uh, then the council um stuck their head together and uh and uh appointed then the next city manager.

So the process uh took about I want to say uh five months or so, four and a half to five months.

Um it included a check-in, like I say it with the public, it included regular check-ins with the council to to provide um to have your input.

There were those one on one-on-one meetings where then they will ask who do you want to see?

What qualifications?

And then uh at the uh through throughout this whole process, the the recruiter um kept the candidates informed and also kept the uh the council informed.

This was a hands-off process by our own HR team.

They are completely uh um uh removed from that process.

The recruitment company does everything for you, and then uh once they once I believe when we had the top two candidates, I might or three candidates, I might be wrong, that there were background checks run also about okay, what what kind of social media presence do they have?

What kind of credit reports do they have, etc.?

So though there were some of those additional um verification checks for the council conducted.

And uh interestingly enough, also the all the recruitment companies have kind of the same program to a degree.

They they all uh as we say in Germany boil with the same water, and um, and it's it's uh but they they also um have uh uh and I I get to this point as well, even though not us, but they have those connections also to a lot of folks they they know might be interested in applying as well.

So there are a lot of uh networks also that they have access access to.

So that was the process, and it took uh four to five months.

Um I think in March, the council became very uh very fired up to get this done, and I was appointed August 8th or August 9th.

Was this helpful?

Yes, yeah, it's helpful for me and reminded me of a couple of things.

Um, so I think we should, you know, hear from hear from anybody else.

Absolutely.

Thank you for asking that question.

And I appreciate having that background, Hans, because I think you were the only one on the council uh when that happened.

So I think it was helpful for for all of us.

Um before before we do that, I wanted to highlight something I think is is important for the council knowing the public.

When it came down to the top candidates that was recommended, we so he the executive recruiter didn't just say, okay, here's six, and we're scheduled for this, and we showed up.

We actually participated in closed session in hearing several candidates that that were in his portfolio saying, okay, these are what I believe are your top significant candidates.

And I think we he started with like seven or eight, and then we discussed that in terms of fit and characteristics of the things that they had discovered about those candidates, and then our council collectively selected a number of candidates, and then our interview as a council was all day.

So that was a significant working day, um, as a council in close session doing the interviews, and I think all the candidates were basically, if not an hour, 50 minutes uh with each of those candidates.

So it was a significant amount of time investment in the process when it came down to face to face with the candidates and us for us to you know go where we needed to go.

And at the end of the day, Hans was the selection.

Awesome.

Thank you.

Thank you for that.

All right.

With that, we'll go ahead and open it for public comment for folks on Zoom.

You can use the raise hand function.

Anybody in the chamber wish to speak on this item?

I'm seeing two takers.

Anybody else?

You can stay seated if you want and just raise your hand.

Hold on one second, please.

Okay, I'm gonna go ahead and cut it off in the chamber to the two.

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

And we have one person at Zoom.

Please, uh Mayor.

Uh, Nelson Vega, and I didn't realize this was on the agenda, but I'd really like to see that uh the city of my uh city of Monterey reach out and um get a um professional uh recruiting company that specializes in city managers.

I think it's a really important job because we are talking about multi-multi-million dollar budgets, different uh types of tight uh funds, this fund, that fund.

It takes a really sophisticated guy that understands finance.

Finance is under is the biggest thing that you need because I don't think based on what I've seen done, and this goes back to several councils that they really function to the benefit of the public in general.

We all pat ourselves on the back that we're doing a great job, but when I drive in the streets and I see the condition of the sidewalks, the condition of this of the streets.

I mean, it's it's appalling that a city of this wealth has streets like this, and that's the number one thing that you guys do is fire protection, police protection, and and the um public works.

And um the police do a fine job, our department does a fine job, but there's not enough money being put into the city streets.

I mean, my street and my business in front of Pearl Street.

They've had a tree that's uplifted the the uh pavement, the sidewalk.

I've I've asked and have asked for years, and it's just the people's cars go by there, they hit that thing, it throws our alignment out.

You have no idea how bad the streets are, and I think you really should pay attention to them.

That's why you need a professional city manager.

Thank you.

Good evening, honorable mayor, members of the council.

Um, my name is Ross Pounds.

I'm the uh Monterey Firefighters Association president.

I just want to start by saying Hans, thank you.

We really appreciate your support and um enjoy your retirement.

But uh wanted to speak as you are presented with the options for recruitment for the city manager.

We wanted to weigh in.

Um, we've been talking about it as an executive board, and uh, we wanted to to let you all know how we feel.

Um, we respect the process, we respect the decisions you're gonna make in this process, but we feel like you also have the right candidate in the room with you right now.

Um, on behalf of the men and women of the Monterey Firefighters Association, who are your Monterey Firefighters, we believe Nat Rajana Sathira would make an excellent city manager, and uh definitely is uh um has the institutional knowledge.

We've had a very professional, very positive working relationship with Nat over the years, and and that's the real reason that we believe that he would he would make it for a seamless transition and really make a great city manager.

It is not just because he has a glorious mustache, which really helped.

But nobody we had a great working relationship with the city manager's office, and we've always enjoyed working with Nat and uh we support him if if he as he pursues this role.

Thank you for your time.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

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

Laura, you can go ahead.

Good evening, Mayor and Council members.

Um, hey, so I know there's likely going to be ample opportunity to come in and celebrate Hans before the end of the year before he retires, but nonetheless, like other folks, I'll begin in with my comments and extend gratitude to Hans for enduring his time serving the city and especially uh his time at the helm as city manager, which I know has been no easy task.

So, Hans, thank you very much.

And like many others, I wish you fair wins and following C's as you set sail four months from now.

And uh hopefully you'll have some good restful nights ahead in your future.

Okay, so on with my public comments, and this is no reflection on Hans's uh time at the helm.

I think he's done a great job, but look into the future and a lot of the challenges we face uh with Hans uh setting to retire at the end of the year.

I strongly urge the council to commit to a full and open recruitment process that includes a national search.

Uh, this isn't just a personnel decision, it's a leadership decision that will shape the city's direction for years to come.

Our city charter specifically, Section 3.4 makes it clear that the appointment should be based solely on executive and administration administrative qualifications.

It does not favor or require internal promotion.

So best practices from the International city and county management association strongly recommend national searches for key leadership roles to promote fairness and transparency and to attract the best candidates.

Cities like Santa Cruz, Salinas, and Carmel and others have all taken this path recently, and Monterey should too at this juncture.

Hiring from within without public input or competitive process risks appearing politically motivator, exclusionary and kind of incestuous, quite frankly.

We need fresh ideas and not just familiar ones.

Fresh fashions seems to be one of the key things that this mayor and other folks want to see.

So we want to continue that.

So please take this opportunity to invite broad community participation and conduct a national search that ensures we find the strongest possible leader for Monterey.

Thank you, and have a good rest of your meeting.

Oh, that's me.

Yeah, that was it.

There was a hand that went up after, but that was not so.

Okay, I'm not completely going crazy.

All right.

With that, we'll go ahead and closed public comment.

And bring it back to the council for deliberation.

Please, Dr.

Barber.

So yes, I'm not gonna go into my I love Hans Phil right now.

So I'm but but there you go, but not yet.

Um so I I really appreciate the sharing though.

I'm glad you asked the question because that helped me to kind of get an understanding of what historically has helped and it seemed to be a good um uh way to start.

Um I like, I like the uh search, the executive search firms.

I like having executive search firms involved because I think it's important to bring everybody, but I think also that it should not exclude um or discourage anybody from in by being a part of that, and so I think that's important that that be noted for me.

This is what how I feel, um, because I feel that whatever the different perspectives we end up coming up with individually as they talk to us and as they talk to the resident, and as they talk to the uh people from the union or all the different people that come in, I think after building that profile, that profile can be met whether it's nationally or whether it's here, and so I think having the search firm is important, and I like that I like the um the process of having the council having the closed session and going through that.

I think that's important.

I think uh I definitely love the outreach so that we hear from what the residents and the union people uh are saying and what they're thinking so that we can take that in consideration, and to be able to um that way I think you get a combination of not only um what we want here locally, because of living here, but you also get a national perspective of what they're seeing and what they they may want to add to uh the um the calculation.

So I I do see something very similar to what we did before, uh making sure that we have you know resident businesses and unions to be a part of that outreach conversation, but us actually being able to get the get all of the candidates from the national uh search and be able to go from there, and including, like I said, people who are locally uh here, they would not be precluded from that search, is what I think.

Who wants to go next?

Anybody else, please?

Um, I think uh I'm in agreement also.

Um I really favor the idea of using an executive search firm.

Um I received a few emails about this leading up to the meeting, and I know Nat's name keeps coming up, and that's that's great, and I'm sure, you know, he's got great qualifications, not not um anything uh about Nat.

It's uh I think just in terms of a process, right?

Um I think we owe our resident residents um uh a very um, you know, list of of options um that um will you know mirror more appropriately what our residents are looking for.

Um and yeah, uh we have excellent uh talent internally as well, and they should um put their their uh names in the hat if they're interested, um, but I'm gonna favor um the uh executive search firm for this as well.

Okay, uh let me when we whoever wants to go.

Yeah, I'll make a few comments.

Um, yeah, having gone through the process um personally years ago with two executive recruiters, uh it it personally made me a better candidate.

Uh, neither of the positions were going to work out.

One was geographically not good, and uh I made the final two and uh they didn't pick me, and that was okay.

Um, but I think having a structure by a professional recruiter that serves us, listens to us, is a strong uh strong benefit.

They are uh they're in their game, they're on their game.

This is relevant, this is what they do, and they can do it in a political way, and they can also be very inclusive.

And I like the model of an executive recruiter.

And when we I think when we get to a point where we have an RFP, these would be the kind of things that we would want to hear from the executive recruiter that they say that they would do for us, um, that they would um be very, very um able to cast a wide net, um, that they would uh seek and and draw in the appropriate candidates that are aligning with this council, this city, and the city employment structure, as well as all the city value drivers that we all share.

Uh they bring to us uh professional help and guidance, and it was very helpful the last time that we did this, uh, because the the insight of the executive recruiter, and he was a former uh city manager himself, a very successful city manager.

So he was able to usher us through the process, and it also involved um very timely, reasonable process, which included public outreach and input, city team input, members of the employee unions had access to this person.

So there was a lot of dialogue back and forth where that person allowed himself to be approached.

And there was an open session where this person stood here and took the calls from the public or took the questions from the public as an executive recruiter.

And then when the process worked forward as as we did it the last time, and as an executive recruiter would would give this council, it allows all internal candidates that are interested and qualified, not in any others that may be interested.

It's in a structured process, um, it's with transparency and above all it's with fairness.

And I believe that what we're really looking for is highly competent, highly professional, highly capable of a lot of things that the city will demand of that person, and our council will demand those things.

Um, so we we put our full trust in that person that we select, and we're long for a process of three or four months uh to get to the point where uh we'll have fantastic candidates to uh to vet and go through, and then ultimately the council will make the right decision.

And I think if we go through that kind of process, using the right executive recruiter, I think we'll get to the point where no one can ever replace Hans.

It's gonna be hard.

You know, and I say that truthfully, we're all gonna miss a lot of things that Hans does for us, and the next person will do their own thing.

And we've learned a lot from Hans, and we will be able to continue as a city and thrive.

But he will forever be in our memory of knowing that he steered the ship well.

And then we have time to party.

And maybe you can grow a mustache as well.

Okay.

Yeah.

Me too, because mine had too much gray, so it came off.

So those are my thoughts that I think an executive recruiter is the appropriate thing to do.

Okay.

Um, oh, please, yes.

So you're I thought you were only um I agree with having an executive recruiter, and I've talked to a lot of people about this, and they've shared their opinion.

And um the winning argument for me, and it was it was a tough one because we have a lot of strong internal candidates.

Uh, and I respect that.

But the winning argument for me was to take it outside the family, the Monterey family, so that we could be as um removed and professional and um undramatic as possible, my words, so that um we could be clear, linear and and not get too attached uh to the in within the process.

So that's a way of saying um sparing our staff having to take many sides or even one side.

So for that reason for keeping it streamlined and and secular, so to speak, I would favor a recruitment firm.

Okay.

Um I think that this is um um a huge opportunity.

And actually, before I go into this, I I just have to respond to some of the comments that were made during public comment.

Um, this isn't to say that the city is perfect, and frankly, the city will never be perfect, no city will ever be perfect, but I think Monterey comparatively is as close as you can get to it.

Not to say that we don't have work and and that we're getting there, but our staff currently I think is doing an excellent job as it relates to our streets, and it's thanks to the voters for passing measure P and measure S, where we have funds that are specifically dedicated to repairing every street and road in the city of Monterey, um, taking care of our sidewalks and storm drains and making the curbs ADA compliant.

So I think we're doing a great job.

And if folks have a concern or a problem area, I encourage you to contact our public works department so that they are aware of the concerns.

It's a big city, there's a lot going on, and I just encourage that open communication and dialogue.

Um, I I so I I I don't see that being the issue.

And I just wanted to be able to respond to that.

I think staff has done an amazing job in that space.

Um I just have to say this, and and I and my I'm gonna lean towards the assumption that it wasn't intended to come across this way, but the comment was made that the next guy that comes in is um just have to say it's it's sexist.

So we just have to be careful with our word choice.

And the fact is is that the person that's coming in can be male, female, non-gender binary conform, whatever, right?

And so I just want to be careful about our word choice.

I and I and I'm um I felt it myself, but I also saw some physical response from the audience as well.

So I just felt like it was important to say not a direct attack.

I just wanted to make sure that it was clear that we're not basing our decision.

If I have anything to do with it, we're not gonna base our decision off of somebody's gender.

Okay, all that being said, I appreciate hearing from my colleagues.

I'm not gonna belabor the point.

I think um it's pretty clear that we're leaning towards the direction of going out to an executive firm.

Um, as I was starting to say, I think this is a a really huge um opportunity for the city to figure out what the next phase looks like um post Hans.

And so I think we have to take this seriously.

This is a huge position.

There's a lot going on in the city of Monterey.

And I can guarantee that most people don't even can't begin to understand or know what's going on in the city manager's office on a regular basis.

So and for a city that has a budget of over 200 million dollars, it's significant.

This is this is a big deal.

So I think to be thorough, um, uh I agree with my colleagues to look at going to an expert firm.

And this isn't to say anything about our HR department.

I imagine that our HR department would do a fine job.

And I'm not saying find like fine, I'm saying find like a fine job.

But um for it's for us to hire somebody that's an expert in this area specifically, I think is is the smart the right choice.

I would just add, and I'm probably going more into my thoughts that probably should should be shared later.

Um but I don't think we should just be having that firm look at only those who are searching.

I think we need to be open, we need to be aggressive in search for folks that maybe not even looking, but that have the skill set that we're looking for, and we're willing to steal somebody from another city if we need to.

So just kind of throwing that out there.

Um, and then I agree with the list that you went through, Ed.

I would just throw in there the business community as well.

I want to make sure that we're getting their uh feedback and input and a big thing just overall for me throughout this entire process from the person that we select all the way through the recruitment process is community engagement.

So soliciting that that that feedback from the public, having them be a part of the process in some way, and then whoever that person is that's selected um to me, community engagement is at the top of that priority list.

So um, do we need a motion or is general consent?

Can I just add one and then maybe we go?

Let me just response on this real quick and then we can come back to it.

So, Mr.

Mayor, I I just want to add one one uh additional piece of information.

Um the the process that I described was that uh HR um provided the RFP and then uh selected the recruiter recruiting company to present to the city council and then the council selected.

Um there is also just for uh completeness of options.

Uh our purchasing purchasing rules allows that we can run the RFP and we uh select the company and then you work with that recruitment company directly.

So that would be also a possibility.

Uh all the recruiters um are doing the same thing to a certain degree, but again, that that's an option and um that's it.

I I will not share with you what I what I would prefer.

So I said, okay.

So I was gonna uh say about an RFP that would be put out.

I think the benefit of going out to an RFP gives us an opportunity to see uh complete presentation by competing executive recruiters, and then this council would make their choice.

And there could be a chance that we have three RFPs that come back and we don't like any of them.

And we do it, you know, we we go back and we say, okay, let's dig it a little deeper.

That has happened in the past before uh with another city that I work for.

Um the other thing I was gonna say is any executive recruiter that is worth their money and they are a professional.

He or she, who they are, they're watching tonight.

They started watching the second his announcement for retirement occurred.

So they also will do their homework on our city and our council.

So a process that we go through is also equally good for all of us to learn more about that candidate who will come to that day where we say we are very satisfied and we've vetted and we've gone all the way through, and we collectively make that decision.

That whole partnership with that executive firm is really critical to understand the moving parts and the components and our responsibility to step up our own game and answer to those questions that executive recruiter is going to ask of us in that process.

And this is important for us to recognize they are going to shop us just like we are going to shop them.

And so we we have a duty and obligation to participate in that collaborative effort.

I meant to say one last thing, which is um I understand the time constraints as well associated with it.

It would be great to get somebody ready to go ideally before Hans leave so that there's some carryover.

Um and so all that being said, the bigger you go, the longer the process takes.

So I think it's trying to find that right balance as well.

Um so it sounds like we're out of space of just trying to put out an RFP.

Let's see if we can get um some proposals to us and we'll look at those, consider them and continue the conversation from there.

Is there any other feedback that might be helpful at this time from the council?

I love how you sat back in your question though.

So I just want to be clear.

The RFP will go out, we'll get feedback, and is it the council's wish you see all that responded or like the top three?

You know, we can vet who maybe they didn't check off all the criteria.

So you get the top three, then those top three can come and present to you, and and then you make your selection.

My preference would be that we allow HR to do that because you're in that world to be able to, and there's there might be a brand new one that comes in and says we could do it for $20,000.

And they have no history and they and a website doesn't look like it they really shop what they really are.

But I think that the due diligence on our HR, that would be helpful, and then pick the top three as they are coming to us.

And then and then we see the three.

That work okay.

Yeah, top three.

Okay.

Awesome.

Thank you, Brett.

Thank you, Brett.

Is that a firework?

Sound like it.

All right, what's going on in Monterey?

So they're celebrating already.

We're not only listening, they're right outside the door.

They're watching.

All right.

Um, moving on to item number 12.

Update the governance policy to provide for a mayor, vice mayor, subcommittee to interview and nominate applicants to boards, commissions, and committees, and update the council's 2025 appointment chart.

That'll pass it to Hans for staff presentation.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Uh SB9 uh has been on the horizon for quite some time.

We work on this uh boards commissions committee.

Governance.

I'm sorry.

Yeah.

Um I was like, that's me not.

I was so excited.

Uh I'm sorry.

Yeah.

It's time I retire.

So uh governance is the next topic.

We have discussed it a few times, and I asked Clementine to introduce the topic briefly.

Yeah, I look like you're up to no good.

There we go.

I'm calling you out.

Hi, so as you recall at our um July 23rd meeting, you previewed the governance policy with the changes to the boards and commissions appointment process.

And as a reminder, it would be a subcommittee conducting the interviews with no in noticed public meetings.

Um, the only change I made in this um from the last meeting to now is that based on your comments, um, council member Rash, you were concerned about all may attend and comment.

And so I've clarified that the public may attend and comment since the council may attend but may not comment.

And um it is expressly provided that interviewees may attend remotely.

And it also includes nominating residents to outside agency positions like the TMC bike and ped committee.

The outreach methods stay the same from how the policy currently exists and the reappointment requirements, the factors in evaluating applicants um and making appointments, um, and the fact that the council makes appointments, all of that has stayed the same.

And my plan is that if you approve this change tonight, we would plan to schedule the first subcommittee meeting to develop any desired standards such as um standardized interview questions or length of time per interview, et cetera.

And we would um have internal city clerk staff procedures for supporting the subcommittee, including that schedule scheduling flexibility that you asked for for at least two dates for interviews for the applicants.

So I recommend that you adopt the resolution and also direct us to change the chart of appointments to reflect the new subcommittee.

Thank you, Clementine, for your work there and your ongoing work that's gonna be required for that.

So opening up to the council for questions, please.

Everything's looking fine, and as everyone knows, this is was my first agenda item for my term.

But I have some concern that at the first public subcommittee meeting for the subcommittee members, the plan is to provide guidance and develop any desired subcommittee guidelines and standards.

I would like those proposed guidelines and standards to come back to the whole council.

Is that anybody have a problem with that?

Um otherwise the three of us who aren't on the subcommittee actually have no voice as to the guidelines and standards, because even if we attend the first subcommittee meeting that you're planning, we aren't able to speak.

So I want to be part of that decision.

So just for sake of flow here, um, let's try to focus on questions now, go to public, and then we'll come back for deliberation.

Any other questions at this point?

Yeah, this one's sort of Clementine.

Um, what we're looking at in the produced uh update on the governance policy item 12 for the public to know.

Um letter K is the letterhead used by council members.

Was that written?

Is that the same thing that pre-existed before this?

Yes, the only section that has been modified with this new proposal is the section on board and commitment appointments.

Okay, so I want to accurately reflect this because members of the public might want to know this.

My question centers around K, which currently reads in this agenda item.

Letterhead used by council members, city council letterhead should be used for letters representing the position of the full council, except for social items such as thank you letters, which can be sent by individual members, individual council members should not use city letterhead to do advocacy work, in other words, parentheses, advance a position on legislation or write about policy.

So that's my question to clarify that this is the same as what we had last time.

Okay.

Thank you.

That's the only question I had.

Any other questions?

All right, with this we'll open it for public comment.

Folks on Zoom, you can use the raise hand function.

In the meantime, I'll check in the chamber.

Anybody in the chamber wishes speak on this item?

Not seeing any takers.

So with that, I'll close it off for the chamber.

Do a countdown for folks on Zoom to five, four, three, two, one.

And there's two callers.

So we'll go ahead and take their call.

All right.

Let's hear from Tom.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Jean, for bringing this forward, and thank you, council, for uh also bringing this forward.

I I wholeheartedly support this.

And I agree with uh council member Rish that uh I think that the standards should be brought to the city council for their review and approval since you know, this this is the kickoff of this new subcommittee, and you wanted to get off to a good start, and I think that's an appropriate thing to do.

Thank you very much.

Short and sweet.

Next are we have Lori Mazuka.

Good evening, uh council members again.

Um, I wasn't going to speak, but it uh when the letter K was brought up because the agenda was rearranged.

I didn't get to speak to this item before, but it seems like it fits here.

So I was very bothered by it when I saw the draft letter that was being gonna be sent to the CPUC.

And I thought, well, that's strange, and the mayor signed it, but I hadn't heard anything about it.

But there it was in the newspaper the same morning.

So I thought, well, this is weird.

I haven't heard a thing about it.

So on that note, um, you're updating on the governance policy.

I don't know that it sounds like it's changing.

So if it isn't changing, then that means it was really overtly breached.

But this discussion's pretty timely because of that two weeks ago on July 23rd, before the council even met, Mayor Williamson wrote signed and sent the letter to the CPUC on City of Monterey letterhead taking a position on a major and deeply controversial water issue.

And it was sent without any prior council discussion or vote.

And worse, it claimed to represent the entire city council.

So I'll repeat, it's a major policy decision and publicly communicated to state regulators on behalf of this council without your consent and before the public had any opportunity here way in.

That's not just premature, it's fundamentally a breach of public process.

That same day, the Herald published it with the letter as an official city position again before the council even met.

So not only did the letter bypass your input, it shaped public and regulatory perception without your approval.

And that's not just a procedural problem, it's a serious public trust issue.

This wasn't a routine administrative or thank you note.

It was a formal advocacy letter entered into record of high stake CPU C proceeding on Calam's proposed D cell prep project.

That's an issue with massive financial and environmental consequences for this region.

The governance policy you're voting on tonight, specifically this section K, it's crystal clear.

City letterhead is for official council positions only, not individual advocacy.

The mayor's dual role as co-chair of Monterey One Water makes this even more troubling to me and probably everybody else who cares of creating a serious appearance of conflict and misrepresentation.

If this policies to mean anything, it's got to be enforced and abided by Monterey residents, deserve transparency, collaboration, and accuracy in how their cities represented, not solo decisions made behind closed doors and mischaracterized as consensus.

Please don't just adopt the policy, stand up for it.

Thank you very much.

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

Actually, I I don't know why I forgot to ask my questions earlier.

So I'm just going to jump in and ask my questions real quick.

And it actually gets a little bit to what council member rash was saying earlier.

Um I do think that we should include some additional information.

I guess I'm forming it in a statement, but I do think we should include the additional information in the policy so that it's agreed upon and there's no room for confusion or um fears of things being done in a vacuum more or less.

So um it would be good to include some of that now.

And I wonder if we can just talk through that a little bit.

I don't know to what extent it needs a lot of work.

I mean, I know that there was um providing two times, two options for the interview.

So an initial option and then an alternate as a as a backup.

Um, one of the things that I was thinking about as well was the length of the interview.

Um, so I think we should be clear in regards to what the expectation of that length of time is.

Um, but I have been doing when I've been when I was doing them individually was 15 minutes.

Um, especially if you have a lot of interviews, it can take a long time.

And once you read the application and their resume and supporting documentation, you already kind of have a good sense, so it's just staying focused on those.

Do we want to have some bases around the questions or mean I don't know about maintaining flexibility there?

Um, so anyways, those are my initial thoughts that I leave open to the council for additional discussion on.

May I offer I think it's I agree with with council member rash that it should come back to the full council once that ad hoc subcommittee is met.

What I would like to hear from the ad hoc subcommittee is that the nature of their questions, right?

How is it?

What's the areas that they intend to go into?

Whether it's 15 minutes or 20 minutes.

I found 15 minutes by doing this previously, not quite enough time.

But I would leave that up to the ad hoc committee.

I'm more interested in probably the top three questions that the ad hoc committee would come up with.

And I think if we put this back on the agenda and they reported to the full council and examined that that would these were the questions, these are the areas that they were intending to go to in their interview that's in a couple of weeks.

Uh, and I think that's what you were talking about.

Is the ad hoc does some work, formalizes what their plan is, and then comes back to the full council and lays the plan out in front of us, and then we we talk about it.

Right.

And the goal is that the vice mayor is going to change every year.

Yeah.

So that we have a policy that, unless it has to change, be updated, is something that we follow year to year, no matter who the vice chair is.

Yeah.

Yeah.

And I you know I always think that in those kind of things, um, some structure is important.

You know, so a sense of you know the top three or four questions that the ad hoc committee uh recommends that they proceed with the candidate and and they may tweak that in terms of you know a deeper dive on planning commission versus appeals board, you know, however they decide in terms of the depth of their questions.

I think the full question, the full question should be discussed before they launch into the interviews.

Anybody else, please, Dr.

Robert?

Um, so let me give some clarification.

So you have a ad hoc committee, right, which is the mayor and the vice mayor that is formulating questions, right?

Am I following that correctly so far?

I'm getting looking at you.

You're looking at me.

Um, that is formulating guidelines and standards is in the agenda.

Okay, yeah, I'm just getting clarification because we're we're you're adding more things to it.

So I want to make sure I get clarification.

So my question is if if we're having questions that you're saying that you want the ad hoc to be able to come up with and then come back to the council and say, are these questions good?

Is that what I'm understanding?

I think that was more my statement.

I'm I'm not really I don't necessarily need to approve a wordsmith questions.

I no, it's just kind of the areas that they would be interested in going into.

And I think Jean Gene just read it.

I think that's it exactly.

If we're creating, if the subcommittee is creating guidelines and standards, yeah.

So how this the subcommittee functions, if I, as a non-subcommittee member, go and witness that first meeting.

I can't speak, right?

So I have been removed from having a voice in the process of creating standards and guidelines.

That's what I'm uncomfortable with.

I I just want to be a part of it.

Um, if you if the subcommittee wants to do the first draft, great, bring it to us and and we do a version of this and we say, yeah, that sounds great.

So for me, I don't care if it has the questions.

For me, I think there's a balance of too much and not enough, right?

And I think and I think we we I think what we had already um come up with for the reading tonight was fine for a balance of getting back into.

But I think when we start wanting to be in every part of it, it's just kind of like with the I know that the same level, but with the executive search and everything else that we were talking about, and and have an HR to handle the RFPs and that.

I think I think if you have a committee that's going to actually do the interview and it's got to come to anyway to be able to say yes or no.

I don't want, I don't feel like I need to be involved in what the questions look like because they should be all the questions should be the same anyway.

So, from an HR standpoint, you say these are the three questions you can ask.

You can ask clarifying questions in any interview.

So if you don't understand something and you need to get more clarification, you can say point of clarification and ask them something a little bit deeper.

But I think you can have three basic questions that you ask them for a board and commission, because it's the board and commissions, and I feel like it's some basic questions that you want to ask, whether it's the planning commission or whether you may have more detail of what they tell you because of the skill set in planning as to something else, but to me, it doesn't have I think we have to be careful not to start weighing heavy on getting so involved in every point of it when it comes to us anyway, right now.

I have no interest in controlling the questions.

That's not my that's not my interest.

My interest is is what's in the report.

Okay.

Guidelines and standards are going to be created for this subcommittee.

This has been near and dear to my heart.

I don't have a voice.

I can't go and opine to the first subcommittee.

That's not right.

Well, you do have a voice.

At the end, you have a voice to be able to say yes, I agree with what they're saying, or no, I don't.

That's a voice.

No, I don't.

So you're not part of the council.

I well, it hasn't, it's not coming back.

So but it comes to the council, it's again.

At the end, it had to come to the council to be able to agree.

You're saying the recommendation on the recommendation.

I think what she's saying is the process.

I think she's just one.

I think she's talking more about the process.

I think you're referring to talking more about the recommendation.

So you're you're saying you want to have a voice in the pro what the process looks like.

Is that what you're saying?

The first public subcommittee meeting for the subcommittee members to provide guidance and development of any desired subcommittee guidelines and standards.

Okay.

So two people are gonna create the guidelines and standards.

I understand that.

Right.

And I I have no, I have no participation.

So okay.

Well, let's let Councilmember Garcia go and then I'm gonna jump back in.

Okay, I think this is easy to fix.

Yeah.

This is not a big deal.

Okay, I'm just trying to get clarification.

Right.

Yeah, no, I get what you're saying.

And and I I agree, I think uh it is important to outline what these standards are gonna be, not necessarily for this council, right?

But for anyone in the future, so that there's at Lisa a baseline.

And I think in terms of the questions, actually, um, I wonder, and I think there are already questions, right?

That no?

So maybe maybe um that could be part of no, there's a there's application.

Let me clarify.

There's an application, but I don't know that there's like specific questions based off of the seat you're running for.

You just kind of check boxes and then there's like general questions.

So maybe, and I'm kind of thinking about what um council member barber was saying in terms of um like like you know, putting on the uh recruiter hat or the HR hat, right?

There's certain types of questions that I think would um we we not necessarily us, but again, future council members should have um to um kind of describe what are the appropriate types of questions because we don't know, right?

Future council members, they might decide to go off on a tangent on subjects that are not appropriate, right?

So maybe at least having an idea of what um uh an appropriate question would be for for candidates, or maybe like a list of five questions that council members could choose to use or not use, maybe that would be appropriate.

Two cents.

May I ask um Madam Clerk, you're you're putting together this guidelines and standards.

Did you have an idea of where you were going with it?

No, it was my idea was only to have that be separate from the policy because the policy is a very large policy that covers a lot of important governance topics, and any time we want to make little changes to how the subcommittee operates, I don't think that it would necessarily need for the full policy to come forward to the council.

So my thought had been since there had been feedback on the council about wanting to maybe have some standardized questions that that would be a separate living document um that the subcommittee could tweak here and there.

Um, you can direct me otherwise, but that that was my idea.

So, as I think through because I was the one that threw out the idea of interview questions.

Then the question almost comes to me.

If there are standard questions that we want answered, it's probably just better to make that part of the application process, um, so that those things that we absolutely need answered, we get those answers in their response, but I think that there is a level of flexibility that should be afforded to the subcommittee to ask those questions.

Um, so I don't know if that necessarily needs to be part of the process, but I do think that there are parts of the process that might be helpful to include here, like how many times are we gonna offer somebody so in that way it's just like publicly clear.

There's a process that's gonna go from year to year.

We're not gonna changing because there's a new person on the committee on the yeah, on the committee.

Um, but then there is a level where I do think in my assumption with the intent of the city clerk putting this on here for the subcommittee to discuss in their first meeting is because it might be like more of a scheduling thing, and like how is it gonna work between us?

And I don't think that that part needs to come back to the council.

Um, and in fact, I in my mind, I'm just trying to avoid having to make anything come back.

We clearly have a lot on our plate and trying to get through this stuff.

So I'm not trying to circumvent, I'm trying to help create efficiency.

So if there are things that we feel like are important to include, I just offer suggest the council communicate that now so that we can get that included in it, get this approved.

Gino and I can get to work on starting these interviews because some of these positions have been vacant for some time, and we can move on with our business.

So I think offering two sessions, um, and then I would suggest that we keep the interviews to 15 minutes each, especially if we're gonna come up with some questions that we're gonna add to the application to kind of get a better sense from each of the applicants.

Um, and Nancy provided us some good questions from the past.

So I appreciate that and think that that's something that we can leverage to include in the application.

Um yeah, 50 minutes is more than enough.

I I've I've you can pick up on somebody's abilities pretty quickly in a conversation and and and it's a lot.

So um that's my suggestions.

Anything else from the council while we're could I ask for some clarification?

First, you were referring to application questions now, and I want to make sure I understand.

Um are we changing the application as well?

So it's this is maybe by more of consensus as opposed to like trying to um say exactly what it has to be, but it almost gives staff some kind of flexibility, maybe just uh asking some questions.

Um, and if council, maybe we could do this.

If council has any feedback in regards to what some questions are, they can pass them staff's way and then staff can evaluate and add some to the application that makes sense.

And I've also seen in addition to Nancy's Nancy, right?

The those questions for NCIP I've seen in other cities.

Maybe they have specific questions that are for the planning commission.

You you like that direction?

Absolutely.

Yes, please.

Does that work for the council?

Um yes, and I think that she might have some examples.

Um how would she be able to share?

I'm saying she that the clerk, how would you be able to share that with the whole council?

And what would the mechanism be if a council member had a problem with that before the ad hoc sets to go to work?

And we already have a lot of applications received in the last four months, if I'm remembering the number of months correctly, um, that are using the the current application.

So I would just offer too that whatever that process is, we don't make the people go back and do it again.

Um I I think if council has my thought is if council has concerns, just give that feedback to staff and let staff figure out, make me make the ultimate decision on how they want to proceed.

So I think you wanted to make a motion here.

Well, um, I want to make sure.

So yeah, if I'd like to make a motion to accept the uh recommendation that uh back had given and then what was the part that you did, um add it?

Uh Jane, did you want to make sure within there?

That extra point that the guidelines and standards established by the subcommittee return for approval from the council.

There you go.

And I'm not talking about questions, right?

I got we should have liberty.

You should you the subcommittee can do it's not about questions.

I guess I don't see that being necessary.

I don't think I don't see where anything needs to come back to the council.

That's what my point is like if there's something that you think should be included, I'm saying voice it tonight.

So let's get this in now and then let's let the subcommittee meet.

Let's not add more to the agenda later.

So I'm just saying, let's just vote what we got going, is my thought.

Okay, so I'm gonna I'm gonna go ahead and resend my motion so that we can get cleared up first.

So, what are the other items that we want to add to it?

So I think offering two options for the interview.

Is there anything else that would be helpful to include in the uh I think we uh didn't we say uh something about questions?

I what I'm thinking is to maintain some flexibility with questions, maybe just have staff offer maybe like a handful of examples of questions that could be uh appropriate for any board and commission, and then the subcommittee decides whether or not to choose or to use those questions.

So I let me let me let me try this.

Let me just try real quick.

I feel like I'd rather council feel comfortable in what their questions are.

So when uh there's a new mayor, vice mayor, they can feel comfortable because what if the question isn't on what staff gave?

Are they expected to stick to those questions?

So I'm comfortable with allowing flexibility there, but if there are some standard questions that we feel like are appropriate, like I think just to give an example, a good question.

I've always asked this in every every one of my interviews.

Have you attended the NCIP committee meeting?

Have you attended a planning commission meeting, right?

So I think that that's like a good example of a question to ask.

Um yeah, describe your background in planning.

Describe your background in neighborhood and community improvement, you know.

But how about is there is there something with this commission that you put in for that you have a particular um high agenda item or or something that you are interested in accomplishing?

But these but these questions, and that's why I was saying I don't think we need to waste our time in the interview asking these questions.

I think they're just good to maybe add to the application so that way we get those out of the way, we get our responses to those kind of that basic information, and then we can ask some more open-ended questions in the interview so that we can hear from them and get a better sense of them and how they communicate and um are able to respond on the spot as opposed to having kind of like a somewhat idea of what's going to be asked.

So basically, we're gonna do the two options for interview, but then as far as the questions are concerned, we're just able to just give the questions to the staff, and then we can filter from there.

Can we just say that?

Yeah, so give the question if we have questions, send them to staff.

Staff has the ability to add them to the application, and then we can ask whatever questions we want.

Yeah, I think we're going around and around.

Yep.

So I'll make a motion that we um uh receive of the recommendation for the city um from the city staff, um, adding in two options for interview, and that we give all questions that we want to have um considered for this to staff, and staff will filter from there, and any questions that the council has at that point can go directly with the staff.

All right.

Oh, 15 minutes.

Um 15 minutes for um, thank you interviews.

15 minutes for interviews.

Okay, is there a second?

Second.

All right, any other discussion on the motion?

Yeah, discussion.

Um is this motion only on the adjustment, or is this closing out item 12?

It's not a motion on the agenda item, which is closing up 12.

Yeah, right.

I'm doing that.

So before we we do that, I I still want to go back to item K.

I still feel like we have this thing hanging thing.

Like, you know, we talked about the letter, and I wanted to talk about it here because it's on this agenda item.

Um what are we gonna do about this?

Because this was what we were going by for our previous governance, and it's the current pre uh governance, but a letter has been sent on the letter head.

I kind of feel like this is one of those classic examples of a drop of ink has been dropped into a quarter of milk, and you can't take that ink out.

So I would propose that we or you should something notify this C UPC and put a new record of letter without the letter head that's coming from you.

Now, tonight we voted, it's four to one, and official position letter is coming from behalf of the city council on letterhead.

I'm fine with that.

It's just what was already done in violation of measure K of the governance.

A letter should not have been sent under your signature for your personal position advocating.

So how do we take that back?

So I think for sake of process, it's not on the agenda.

And at this point, we're the discussion is focused on the motion.

So I'm fine to have the conversation.

Do you want to work with staff on getting it agendized?

We can go back and have this conversation at a future council meeting.

So we don't need to do that.

I've I've called it out.

I hear you, but my point is that I'm not going to really engage in this discussion right now because that's not what's agendized.

So we're not discussing letter K.

The item is to update the governance policy to provide for a mayor and vice mayor subcommittee to interview and nominate applicants to the boards, commissions, and committees and update the council's 2025 appointment chart.

So what you're proposing to me is that you want me to go through the governance process to agendize a conversation on K.

Whatever you want to do.

Okay.

And then this could be dismissed in 30 seconds.

I don't have anything to give you right now.

So that's what I'll do.

Okay.

I'll bring it back with a request to agendize the item to put the questions to the mayor and ask the mayor to answer as to what he plans to do with the violation of the governance act.

All right.

Any other comments on the motion?

I just wanted to clarify um also on the staff side.

Uh just for the record, I know the mayor had asked staff if we could send the letter.

We forgot about the the policy specifically regarding the letterhead.

So uh that specific request uh that with the letter being sent to the CPC, there was a check-in between uh the mayor and staff.

We made the mistake of of saying yes, it was fine.

So I wanted to make sure that was clarified.

I quickly clarified that uh and on some.

I wanted to make sure that was clear for everyone.

I I appreciate that, Nat.

I I have no intention of of putting this on uh staff.

It's not staff's responsibility, it's my responsibility as mayor.

So um I don't have anything else to provide you.

I mean, it is what it is at this point.

And could I just ask Madam Attorney?

Do you have any help for us?

Um, I have I don't know if this maybe doesn't help, but um, as far as the public comment that was actually submitted to the CPUC, it doesn't show that it's on city letterhead or or anything.

All the public comments are just typed in separate.

Um it's not like an attachment with a letter.

So um I don't know how to visually there might be a signed letter, but that's not what was sent, or that's not what is reflected in the CPUC's official docket listing the public comments for this matter.

So a question that's generated based on Nat's comment.

How many letters have been sent on city letterhead with the city with the mayor's signature?

Okay, Chrissy, I think this is getting us out of the scope of the agenda item.

I'm not saying I'm not willing to have this conversation, but I'm just wanted to make sure that we're within the scope of what we should be talking about for the I get the answer.

I okay, I'm sorry, so I wasn't answering your question properly.

Um I think it's fair game to talk about um this rule and how the rule is followed or not followed.

Okay, because that's what's before you right now.

And if you're using the CPUC as an example, I think that's okay.

Okay.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Okay.

Okay, so then I can renavigate.

He gave me the answer I needed.

Thank you.

Okay.

So you're set.

Anything else?

I'm good.

Okay.

All righty.

Anything else on this item?

All right, call the question.

All those in favor, aye.

Any opposed?

Motion passes unanimously.

With that, we will move on to item 15 for a public first public hearing item.

Adopt a planning commission recommendation and approval.

A for approve a first reading of ordinances amending chapter 33 and chapter 38 of Monterey City Code to implement the provisions of California State Senate Bill 9 and Housing Element Program IJ, allowing for ministerial approval of qualifying residential developments and lot splits.

With that, Pastor Hans for staff presentation.

SB9.

Woo!

Let's go.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

This item has been a part of our work program for a good three years, I want to say.

Thank you, Hans.

My name is Fernando Roveri, Principal Planner for the City of Monterey.

So what is SB9?

SB9 is complicated.

So today I'll give you an overview and introduce the proposed ordinances.

When you hear single family zone, what do you see?

A single home on a lot, right?

One home per lot.

But SB9, which became effective in January 2022, lets property owners transform that single family zoned lot and build up to two four up to four housing units on that lot.

That can be achieved by simply adding more units or subdividing the lot and adding more units, up to a total of four.

This law is an attempt by the state legislature to chip away at California's housing shortage by allowing for more units on single family zones.

The bill aims to simplify the process for homeowners to develop their properties by providing a ministerial approval process for qualifying applications, potentially reducing the time and cost associated with building new units.

To provide some local context, city staff has been taking in SB9 applications since 2022.

And as of now, we have only received a total of six applications.

Zero have been constructed or implemented.

Nevertheless, we are required to abide by the state law, and we are also required to implement our housing element, which the council adopted last year.

So the goal of the two ordinances in front of you today is to incorporate and be consistent with the state law and implement our housing element.

The planning commission recommended on a 3-1 vote that you approve the draft ordinances.

One ordinance would amend Chapter 38, the zoning chapter of our city code, to provide clear and precise standards for development of SB9 units.

The other ordinance would amend Chapter 33, the subdivision chapter, to provide clear and precise standards for using SB9 to split a single family lot.

Our proposed ordinances are fully consistent with the state law, but go one step further by including affordable housing incentives to implement housing element program 1J.

Program 1J commits the city to enacting regulations to comply with SB9.

The program says that to promote housing opportunities for very low-income families with children in single family neighborhoods in Monterey.

If the property owner commits to making at least one of the additional units affordable to very low-income households.

Owner commits to making at least one unit affordable, then the number of units can go up to six instead of four when the proposal includes a lot split.

And the second incentive is that zoning restrictions will be waived to allow one unit to go up to 1,000 square feet if two or more bedrooms are provided.

So as mentioned earlier, Monterey is required to abide by this state law.

And we have been since 2022.

By adopting the two ordinances in front of you today, we will also be a step closer to implementing our housing element.

That concludes my presentation.

I am available for questions, and I'm accompanied by a team of experts as well.

Thank you, Fernanda, for the presentation.

Any questions from the council?

Dr.

Barbara.

Oh, thank you for the presentation.

So just a couple questions.

Um with FD9, is there a specific measurement for the lot to qualify to be able to do the split or that for any lot?

If you subdivide a lot, the resulting lots need to be a minimum of 1200 square feet each.

Okay.

And then the other thing is what outreach was done on this, or was there any outreach to the public?

Yeah.

No, no outreach.

Well it went to the planning commission.

Oh, yes.

I mean, we did receive public comments.

Yeah, planning commission.

Former meetings.

Okay.

Did you have it?

Yeah, thank you, Fernanda.

Maybe a question more so for the city attorney.

I'd like to hear more in terms of uh we are a charter set charter city, and there were some cities that formulated uh an appeal to this.

Where is that currently as it relates to the city of Monterey?

And I think it was going from the appeals to the Supreme Court.

And what impact would it have if we twofold?

What impact would have if this did not pass at this council tonight?

And one impact will occur if this passes tonight, but then the law is forced to make a change by judicial action.

Very good question.

You're correct.

There was an action brought in 2022 by the city of Redondo Beach and four other cities that went to the superior court level, and that court found SB9 as applied to those five cities which were charter cities was unconstitutional.

There's been an appeal filed on that and um consolidated with a different appeal.

And so it is yet to be decided by an appellate court whether or not SB9 is unconstitutional as applied to charter cities.

So the Superior Court decision in that action is not binding precedent on the city of Monterey.

So we must follow current state law.

Um law develops through the court system.

So if there is an appellate decision that's published, um that let's say it says charter cities are not bound by SB9, then the city council could revisit its adopted ordinance and policies in light of the new law, because that would then be an interpretation of the law.

But for now, um the city of Monterey needs to comply with existing state law.

Could I have some follow up question to that?

Yeah, but um so let's say the city implements the policy or or the city law um today or through this process, um, and then the appellate court decides to have a binding decision that impacts what is the law that we've already implemented.

What does that do to our law?

Can we would it require the city to take action to reverse it because we've already implemented it, or is our implementation of it contingent on the state allowing it?

It would of course it's going to depend on what the ruling says.

Um so we're trying to predict the future here.

So depending on what the ruling says and whether or not it's a published decision, it would just mean the city council could make a more um informed choice of whether it wants to retain the policies that you might adopt tonight, or if you want to do something differently.

Um, so it would require us to take some type of action in order to reverse it.

Yes.

So if you adopt an ordinance, these ordinances um and they become effective, and the law subsequently changes, we would need to come back if you wanted to change our law, which would be the policy.

So it wouldn't be illegal for us to retain whatever is passed.

Um, it just means that you had options that aren't available to you today, potentially.

Understood.

So we we could in the future, once we get to that decision and we know judicial guidance, this council then could say we'll stay with what we have, even though it's within our right as a charter city to undo it, and we could as a choice come back to this council and amend this ordinance.

Correct, which would then align it with however the council chose to without having the state force us to comply.

Correct.

And there's another component too, which is it probably would trigger amendments to the housing element and HCD review and all of that again.

So that it's it just yes, but you you're stating it correctly.

So the housing element is um been passed by this council, and it's just two weeks ago we amended it, and it's now back to HCD.

When do they approve of it?

So our housing element has been approved.

Is the since October?

Yeah, left.

Um, so if this council chose to vote this down, what would the consequences be?

How long would HCD take to call us or visit to say that we're out of compliance?

With the housing element, I don't know whether they've approved it already.

They've approved it, and these ordinances are implementation tools.

So the city council's already adopted the housing element.

So that's a current statement of the city council's policy and plans for implementing that policy um include the adoption of this these ordinances that are before you tonight.

And if there's a decision not to adopt these, then the housing element, we wouldn't be in compliance with our implementation deadlines and um could affect grants, could affect approvals and the and there could be enforcement actions.

The only questions I have, I will have a comment, but no more questions.

Anyone else, please?

Um Ms.

Riveri under SB9, there are four foot side uh side setbacks, four foot back setbacks.

It doesn't address the frontage.

So with an R1, does the frontage setback remain what I understand is 15 feet?

So it would remain 15 feet as long as it doesn't preclude construction of a 800 square foot unit, right?

Right.

So if it if the front setback precludes that construction, then we would be a be required to waive it.

So there's not a not a real question, but there's concerns with the four-foot setback when our fire setbacks now from Cal fire, we now have a five-foot no vegetation, which is a different topic, I agree, but there are some in the community that go, wow, we're trying to clear out our five feet, and now we're gonna put buildings up to four feet.

I just want to make that that's more of a comment than a question.

So the most units, living units, we could see in this scenario with the incentives is six.

It's not it'll never be eight, right?

Not on not using SB9.

Right, does SB1 apply to RE zonings estates and planned communities?

And I'm thinking of Skyline Ridge, the HOA, they have an HOA.

Can you explain how we can understand how this will affect Skyline in particular in my district?

So SB9 applies to all single family zoned properties where the residential use that is allowed is single family zone homes.

If multifamily buildings are allowed, then it's not a single family zone.

So the PC skyline forest, the planned community area, there are specific blocks that are zoned for single family residential only and not multifamily.

So SB9 would apply to those.

Okay.

And SB9 applies to all RE and R1 zones because the only residential use allowed are single family homes.

That's for the properties that are zoned historic.

All right.

So the so the determining word is really single family rather than the R1, R estates, our planned community.

Okay, thank you.

That's very helpful.

If there's an urban lot split, which means the division and I'm explained to the public, not to you.

If there's an urban lot split into the two units, and separate homes are built, those resulting homes can be sold separately, one immediately and one after three years, right?

I mean, we're I'm getting to the point of the the owner has to hold on to live in at least one unit for three years.

But after three years, that owner could sell.

And can I presume that the owner could sell that subdivided second lot right away?

Um the restriction that you're referring to about the owner having to live there for three years, it doesn't say that they also have to own it, and um it just says that they have to they are signing an affidavit with their intent to live there for three years, but um I was I'm not aware of any restrictions that they can't sell it right away.

I don't know if there's oh I I see what I see what you're saying.

They don't have to remain the owner, they just have to remain the occupant.

That's what the state law says.

Okay, okay.

And under SB9, SB 450, the subdivided lots, can have two units of 1200 square feet or parcel size of 1200 square feet.

I'm confusing even myself.

That's a that's the building size.

The uh if you use SB9 to split a lot, the resulting lots have to be a minimum of 1200 square feet each.

No, so it is the lot.

Yes.

So someone with hypothetically, a 2400 square foot parcel, which is small.

I mean, the parcels in Carmel by the Sea are 4,000 and they're small.

If we had a hypothetical parcel of 2400 square feet, they theoretically could divide it into two legal parcels.

Yes, yes, as long as they meet all the other qualifying criteria, yes.

Right.

They probably couldn't take it too much farther, but right.

Okay.

Um if we approve the very low income incentive option, who oversees the um who oversees the implementation of that?

Who makes sure that it's very low affordable?

Very low income.

It would require a deed restriction and um so an affordable housing agreement between the city and the owner, and um usually the housing office um is the keeper of all of those deed restrictions okay okay so a recorded deed restriction and then the city gets involved in the oversight as with all our very low income restricted housing okay thank you um i think i understand this one but help me there's the quote limits on adjacent urban lot splits neither the applicant owner nor any person acting in concert with the applicant owner may propose a lot split adjacent to a lot previously subdivided as an SB9 urban lot split so when I think about that a developer can't go into coh cahoots and buy this big parcel and that big parcel and thereby develop even more right so if a developer owns two adjacent parcels that developer can only use as being as benign to split one of those parcels they cannot split the other one because it's adjacent.

Right and what do you uh just your opinion what do you what do you think the purpose of that restraint was um statutorily or or maybe that's a question for I think that the law is to help homeowners um so provide more units um but it's meant to be a way to help homeowners um you know grow old on their property or create generational wealth and uh at the same time provide more housing it wasn't meant as a law for investors to come in and buy a bunch of property and then subdivide and then rebuild maximum density okay thank you which is why the the three year um living requirement to live on site is was added the parallel to that in logic okay um so there are exemptions and I'm not sure I'm using the right word and I'm asking for you to teach me um environmental hazard areas are not included under SB9 or exempt from SB9 and one of them you know I'm asking and one of them are Calfire very high fire zone or very high fire zones.

So if they aren't mitigated so I have a lot of questions on that um that's most of district three that I represent as soon as you get out of the apartment area near where I live the Porta Vista Lower Soledad um the the um low some some subsidized housing some low income housing I love the neighborhood soon as you cross Mar Vista to the to the east you're in the highest fire zone and it goes all the way from Munros all the way up to 68 so it's in essence most of district three so does that mean this we are exempted or does this mean it doesn't apply and does it does it mean it would apply if there were fire mitigations, and what are fire mitigations?

Are those that we don't have vegetation for five feet?

Does it mean we don't have vegetation for 30 feet?

You hear where I'm going on this.

Yes.

So one of the site constraints that you mentioned is when a property is located in a very fire very high fired hazard area uh severity zone.

If you want to qualify for SB9 approval, you have to implement the mitigations that the city has adopted.

And the city has adopted we've consulted with our legal council, and what the city has adopted counts as fire mitigation.

And that includes fire sprinklers and fire, fire-rated walls.

And there's one more.

Oh, and class A roofs.

So those are things that the city requires and is adopted into the building, the low our local building code.

So they count as mitigation.

So as long as an application implements those things, then they can build in the high fire hazard area.

Okay.

So you said something really interesting and important.

The owner would actually apply under SB9 rules.

So right out of the gate, they're doing something different.

They're they're asking for a form of exception.

They're asking to be under SB9, which is different than all our other codes.

So that's helpful.

I'm trying, I'm trying to imagine this happening.

So you apply to subdivide an urban lot under SB9, and then the city looks at whether someone in a high fire zone has met the mitigations.

All right.

So you might not be allowed to develop under SB9.

If you don't meet all the qualifying criteria, and so you don't really have to worry that your neighbor chooses to develop under SB9 in a high severe area, because they're gonna have to meet those mitigations.

Okay, yes, and you see where I'm going with this is I don't want to be at a higher risk for over-densification in a high-risk fire zone, and worrying that my neighbor can get a legally able to do that, but you're saying the city has a plan for that out of the gate, you apply as an SB9 exception or ruling, different from our other standards.

The those local building code uh adoptions apply to any new building in Monterey.

Okay, so they any new building would be required to have fire sprinklers, fire-rated walls, and class A roofs.

Okay, so they okay, they'll be mitigated by default.

Okay, thank you.

That was that's we really helpful.

Um, I have to say um we did notice um we did publish in the newspaper, so back to the question about outreach.

We we did um, you know, publish in the newspaper, the ordinances that are before you today very closely mirror the state law, and so there's really not much we can do.

Um we have to implement the state law.

The only real difference is that the affordable housing incentives that I mentioned, and we did do a lot of public outreach during our housing elements.

Um, and I hear you, but I want to push back on that.

So, real quick, uh if you had any more questions, let's maybe open it up for um discussion after we go to public comment.

Okay, and and we I hear you, I hear you.

Um, can Gino?

He has a question?

Can we come in for I my questions are done.

I've I've we'll do a wrap up with we'll take Gino's question, then we'll go out to the public for public comment.

Thank you for Nana.

Uh just one question, just uh maybe add a little context.

Here's um in your knowledge, since as B9 became law, how many applications or requests has the city received?

Since it became law it became effective in 2022, we've received six applications.

And of those, how many have been constructed?

Zero.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

With that, thank you.

In the meantime, we'll check in with the chamber.

Anybody in the chamber wishes to speak on this item, ask that you stand up to the left of the podium, and then I'll ask for a hand raise in a second once folks line up.

Hi, my name is Shark Carter.

I've been not yet.

We have to do the online.

So all right, I'm gonna do a oh, um, anybody else still sitting that wants to speak in the chamber?

I don't see any hands.

There's no hands up that I can't see you, maybe.

Okay.

So we have the five speakers in the chamber.

So we'll go ahead and cut it off to those five speakers, and I'll do a check on Zoom.

You would count down to five, four, three, two, one.

We have seven.

So we've allocated 30 minutes for public comment on this.

So I'm gonna limit it to two minutes.

Go ahead and start in the chamber, please.

Start?

Yes.

Okay, my name is Shar Carter.

I've been here probably monthly for the last two years, about you name it, rental registry, crosswalks, and now I'm here to talk to you about changing the possibility of changing R1 to R6.

Is that correct?

The way I so this isn't a time to include, but you can just provide your public.

I'm totally against it.

And you guys have never even mentioned infrastructure, roads, sewers, fire trucks going up and down the street, the traffic.

Uh how about parking?

What are you gonna do about parking?

You know, people are gonna be on the street.

You have a sixplex next to me.

Um, you know, you have it who who's paying for all this, so I'm totally against it.

Um let me see here.

Monitoring.

Oh, okay.

Yeah, and uh it's dangerous.

Um we all live in a fire zone.

I know Gene was quite close to me.

And um, I'm totally against it.

I think it's crazy.

I don't even, I can't believe I'm even here talking about it.

Talking, I bought a house here 40 plus years ago, R1, and now you want to change.

I guess you want to change my lot so I can build six apartments.

That's the way I'm understanding, and I'm totally, totally against it.

Oh, another thing too.

I want to, I got this from the fire department, right?

He wants the fire department wants me to clear the brush, do all these wonderful things to my property.

Yet you guys, I don't think you've even considered a uh fire, so I'm totally against it, and I don't want to keep coming down here every month.

Thank you.

And I had prepared some written comments, and they were basically along the line of look at keeping as much possible local control as you can through the part about it being a charter, um, a charter city, and that this led the litigation that is currently at the stage where it was um settled for not settled but ruled against um SB9 being applied to charter.

So I do hope that if that comes back that you do reconsider it.

But then seeing where we are, and that you do have to comply at least right now with the SB9.

I have heard so many comments, and I myself have so many fears where it has many things of what Char just talked about there that parking, the not only parking, but the gridlock that we see.

I live in Old Town, Old Town is very dense already.

I am concerned with escape routes.

I'm concerned with, as she had said also with fire.

How do we get the emergency vehicles?

How do we get the infrastructure that we are going to need?

And I think the council, while you're looking at this, you should be looking at that infrastructure.

It was mentioned at a long time ago that oh, well, New York City has very dense housing, and they go up many stories and so forth.

Uh, but New York City has a great subway system, and that subway system gets you anywhere.

We are almost dependent on cars.

You saw in your survey that the results show that there are a lot of cars.

There will be many more.

So please try to address that too.

And I have only one second, so can I?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor Williamson and council members.

I have concerns about the implementation of SB9.

I encourage the council to adopt only what is mandated by the state, four units, and not allow six units on a single residential R1 parcel.

Those two additional units are not mandatory requirements, and this build out would not guarantee housing affordability, only increased housing density.

Where does the city anticipate the water will come from for these construction projects?

And what is the anticipated increased water requirement?

Would separate water meters be installed for each unit?

The city cannot require low-income affordable affordability unless it approves six units per parcel, with one as low income.

How would city monitor any low income units?

Thank you for clarifying clarifying that these affordable units would be deed restricted.

How would the city ensure that these affordable units are enshrined is affordability and in perpetuity?

I encourage the city to require at least one parking space per unit, is off-street parking to avoid increased pressure for on-street parking.

As you are aware, often each unit has two residents, often with two cars.

This increased pressure can be seen throughout Old Town due to the build-up of apartments on what were previously R1 lots.

Much of Monterey is designated as R1, and if the city must comply with SB9, you should take the least harmful path and allow only four units per parcel.

Personally, I would prefer the city pursue legal recourse against SB9 as other cities have done.

Please consider the impact that this will have on the quality of life for all residents within R1 and the drastic changes from increased urbanization and densification into our neighborhoods.

Many residents purchase their homes in R1 areas so as to be not in close proximity to neighbors.

An SB9 could forever change their forever home.

Please consider your residence.

Good evening, Mayor and Council members.

My name is Cecilia Moreno, and I live in Deer Flats in Monterey.

I ask that your council not adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation and not approve the first reading of the ordinances amending Chapter 33 and Chapter 38 of the Monterey City Code to implement the provisions of SB9.

I recognize the need for affordable housing, particularly for young adults, young families.

However, SB9 will not lead to more affordable housing here in Monterey.

I've seen what similar ordinances in the Los Angeles area have done to those cities and their neighborhoods, and I do not want that to happen here.

The Planning Commission's recommendations will change the character of our neighborhoods in the city and will lead to increased traffic, increased noise, pollution, and lack of parking.

In addition, SB 9 is currently the subject of litigation.

Initiated by several California cities.

Finally, rather than adopting the commission's recommendation approving the first reading, I asked in Monterey, please postpone this and future meetings until such litigation has been resolved in the courts.

In the proper zoning, this is this is consequences of years and years and years of neglect of housing policy.

And now it's come to roost on the people that you care for about most.

And those are the people in R1, the ones with the families and the kids and the things like that.

So it's an unfortunate situation.

You're not going to probably be able to change too much of it.

Um, because you're gonna have to adopt something in uh unless the litigation uh works out.

But um, I don't I'm looking for because I have uh sell properties on in those areas like that, and not kind of looked at them, and I don't see that there's gonna be a rush to do a lot of units, in my opinion, of four or five units in the house.

And I just I don't see that happening.

You're gonna have someone that may do it here or may do it there, but I don't think you're gonna see that that groundswell of uh homeowners that are all because I live in Bay Ridge and we're pretty much up there, and we all keep pretty much you know, the the neighborhood, the neighborhood.

I think that's pretty much for skyline that's going to be pretty much uh in New Monterey.

And so I don't think that people will, I don't think that you should panic, but you should address the housing problem.

And that could be done with zoning in other areas where it is conducive, so that you can encourage those things.

And the first thing you might want to consider is reducing the cost of what it costs you to issue a permit.

Permits are gotten so expensive that it's pushed the boundaries of what's affordable anymore because those costs directly go to everything that goes into that project.

Some of the some of the laws that you guys have, not you guys, but the state has passed on on developers and what they have to put into a unit is just push the housing cost through the roof.

But I feel for you guys.

Thank you.

Thank you.

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

All right, first we have Tom.

Go ahead, please, Tom.

Thank you.

I won't repeat what the previous speakers have said, but I join their course and being fundamentally opposed to this.

Um I think this is a huge overreach on the part of the state.

We are a charter city.

Um, I agree with the uh sentiment that we should be resisting this push from the state.

I think it's fundamentally flawed.

The admission in the staff report is that it really isn't leading to affordable housing.

So, what's the point of this?

Why, why are they pushing us through this?

Um, I think there's a huge area for abuse of this.

Sure, an owner has to occupy it, but what happens if the owner is a REIT or some other kind of a speculator?

I think there's probably a thousand attorneys out there that are looking at ways of gaming this and have figured it out already.

So I'm I'm really opposed to it.

I understand though that your hands are somewhat bound here.

Um I would love it if you did join in a lawsuit against the state, like the Bay Area cities did in Southern California.

But setting that aside, I think I look forward to development of the objective standards for these new housing units.

And I think we could make those objective standards be extremely restrictive, especially when it comes to four units on a lot.

We need to meet the law, that's true, but we can make all kinds of standards about boxing in the height of the building and the footprint of it, especially as it gets closer to property lines.

My fear is that, as the previous speaker said, yeah, these things could pop up here and there.

Well, I don't want something popping up in my backyard, basically, four feet from the backyard fence.

I could potentially have a two-story building, four feet from my rear property line.

That's just not tolerable.

So, anyhow, um, that's my two cents on it.

Thank you.

Next speaker is Adam.

Good evening, Mayor and Council members.

I'm very appreciative of the in-depth questions and dialogue that uh that we're having so far.

Um I think that's good, that's important.

It's important uh for the council members to hear from all of their constituents about this because it affects them all differently a little bit differently.

Uh, as we can see, some neighborhoods uh are probably precluded from this anyway.

Uh, and and I think let's look at it from a practical level, right?

This was not the big difference in housing that the bill's author thought it would be, right?

I mean, you've seen it here in Monterey.

Not a single one has has been built or has happened.

Uh, and it's quite similar in in other uh cities in the region.

So, you know, look there's no reason to panic.

Uh and I there's no rush.

We can put this off and take more time to get community input and to get this done right and to make sure that it's a right size solution, not some one size fits all solution from the state uh or something that was done in a rush.

So I'd say let's put this to the community some more and have a bigger dialogue.

Thank you.

Next, we have our telephone caller with the last three digits 902.

This is Nina Beattie.

I ask you to reject what was approved by the planning commission on June 10th and what's being hidden from the public in you tonight.

City staff misled the planning commission and didn't tell them about the lawsuit that the charter cities won and the judges ruling said SB9 was unconstitutional, or that the state had to cease enforcement of SB9 on those cities.

The commission just didn't know that, just like the public doesn't know about this plan.

I request that the city council find out what legal action it can take, especially as a charter city to support or join the Southern California City's lawsuit or initiate its own lawsuit.

Secondly, adopt an urgency measure to assert Monterey's jurisdiction over its land use and local zoning process and to pause implementation of SB9 until the court cases decided to prevent precedent setting new development here in the city.