How do we give us a hug Today's council meeting.

It is Tuesday, August 19th, 2025.

Go ahead and call the meeting to order and pass it to Clementine to do roll call and share nonsense with the public.

Councilmember Barber.

Councilmember Garcia.

Here.

Councilmember Raff here.

Councilmember Smith.

And Mayor Williamson.

Here.

And public comment and participation information is provided on this meeting's agenda, which is online at Monterey.gov/slash agendas.

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

Thank you for participating in your city government.

All right.

With that, we'll go ahead and open it up for general public comments.

Just for folks' awareness, what we do is we identify the individuals that want to speak during public comment at the beginning of the public comment period.

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

So once those folks are identified, we don't take up hands afterwards.

So we'll go ahead and check in with folks on Zoom.

You can use the raise hand function while you're navigating your way there.

I'll check in the chamber.

Anybody in the chamber wish to speak on items that are not on today's agenda.

So if you can do me a favor and stand to the left of the podium.

And if you prefer to remain seated, just continue to raise your hand so I can identify you.

Okay, so I see three.

I see three folks standing.

Four.

And then there's one hand raise in the front row.

Anybody else in the chamber?

Okay, so we have the five in the chamber.

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

We have one person on Zoom.

We're gonna go ahead and leave it to two minutes.

We'll go ahead and start in the chamber, please.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, Council members, city officials, and Leo.

I'm Judy.

I am a Monterey citizen, but I am also an event worker in Monterey.

I just want to say I love cars.

Thank you.

Keep them going.

I have a note though, however, it is from a participant in the event.

And if I could share it, it would be about trailer parking.

Um I'm told him I would bring it to you all because I am uh in the city of Monterey.

But he wanted um to have some type of a resource on the website so that the trailers that are towing the vehicles have somewhere to park because some of them are coming from a long way and there's no collective resource for them that's available right now.

I will share the um contact information.

Uh but also then he had a comment on the parking safety.

Uh from me.

I loved Car Week again.

I came 20 years from Reno and Hot August night.

So I love this continuation.

Let's keep it going.

Provide some shuttles, increase the safety, get on seaside and let's keep it going.

Thank you very much.

That's nice to add it.

Go ahead and go to the next speaker.

Um hi, I'm Uva Groebecker, New Monterey.

Uh, proud honor of an e-bike.

I'll just let you know.

Um, I'm sure you heard it before.

I love to come downtown, especially since I have a bike now.

I enjoy going by the wharf, the trail.

It's great, but there's one thing what just blows my mind every time I go there.

And probably you already discussed it and have talked about it.

The bake trial between Sun Calus Beach and Wharf parking lots needs some maximum 10 miles speed, or maybe even five miles speed limit, and a clear separation between bike and walkway with a buffer zone using low scrubs or something to make a clear colored bike difference between walking side and bike side.

Walking tourist with children as well as fast approaching bikes do not pay attention as it is today, that accidents to be happening and I don't I know you're liable, I don't want you to get in trouble.

So I really want the council to look into this and see where you can make a clear difference there.

This is a big hazard.

Thank you.

And I love what you're doing.

I was just walking in the direct show yesterday and talking to somebody about that very conversation, so appreciate the public comment.

Yep.

While you're getting set up, why don't we have the next public speaker come up?

Hello, my name is Marsha Renzula, resident of Monterey.

I'd like to talk about roosters.

Recently, a couple of roosters were added to our neighborhood.

They often wake us up before dawn, crow throughout the day, and can be heard several blocks away.

I'd like to propose updating the City of Monterey Municipal Code, Section 6.6 on domestic foul.

So roosters are not permitted.

I'd like to start with the noise.

Um the city of Monterey has a noise ordinance um where it sets performance standards and noise.

The residential areas, the maximum decibel is 60.

But the average decibel of a rooster is 130, more than twice the amount of the allowable amount for our town.

Um in addition to excessive noise and disturbing the peace, roosters can be used in cockfighting, cause public health risk if waste is not managed properly, causing smells, inviting pests, and are able to pass diseases to humans.

We do have an ordinance, but the 6.6 on restrictions of keeping domestic bow, but it's very broad.

And it I'd like to see if we can get that tightened up so that roosters are not permitted.

Proposed solution, update that section 6.6 and allow egg laying hens, but roosters are not allowed in the city of Monterey.

Let's follow what Marina and Selinas are doing.

Both these sister cities do not allow roosters.

Marina allows egg laying hens, but does not allow roosters.

And actually, the city of Salinas does not permit either roosters or chickens because they don't have the animal control resources to help monitor and maintain these items.

So let's help create a peaceful and harmonious community.

Thank you.

Thank you.

A couple of different items.

So let's take a minute.

Um last meeting, there was a mention about encroachment.

Um saying that the area, um I'm talking about the description of the harbor view area.

Encroachment being um the example that one of the council members mentioned that that um the encroachment was not an issue.

Um, I'm once again, I'm Daniel Mandares, artist owner of a local business, and you know, and I'm talking about is um a football field away from the fishman's wharf area, the harbor view pause area um now being described as the foot of the wharf.

I do not agree with this statement being the foot of the wharf because in that statement of the foot of the wharf and the definition of encroachment that qualifies as the definition of encroachment, where one of the gentlemen said it was not encroachment.

Um the question, um, I asked at the last meeting what is the total square footage that we're talking about with the street vendors, and I didn't get an answer from Levi.

And you asked him a question of what's available.

Once again, he didn't have a proper answer.

Um, the square footage is roughly about 5,000 square feet.

The feet being proposed, I guess he said something like 500 and a half, maybe 540.

I don't know the exact number he's he said, but it wasn't very accurate.

But taking um 98% reduction in space, I feel it's um very um, I can understand uh an adjustment to make it fair, but um taking away 98% of the area allowed is I believe unacceptable.

And um, also real quick, um, I would never address the city manager never um replied to my complaint or assessment.

Uh several members are not um currently or have maybe I can ask a question.

Um have they taken their sensitivity course because it's required every two years, and I've seen several times where the business members have acted on professionally.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, I also would like to talk about roosters.

I live in the same neighborhood, several houses away from the people that have the rooster, and you can hear it all morning and into the afternoon and evening.

So if you're right next to them, I'm sure it's really disruptive.

And uh I think they uh laying hands to be fine, but they have to announce their presence all the time and and uh I think they should not be allowed.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, so um, we're gonna go ahead and close it in the chamber and we'll go to callers on Zoom.

I'll see if we can try to turn the volume up to so that folks can hear better.

We have one caller on Zoom.

Um Jody, you can go ahead, please.

Thank you.

Um, my name is Jody Emerson, and I own a condominium in the city of Monterey, which I purchased through the low income housing program.

And I'm I would like to ask the council to consider.

Um incentivizing owners of low-income units to decarbonize their units by being given permission to add the monetary value of decarbonizing, transitioning to electric appliances to the selling value of their unit.

And I did notice that this evening there is a meeting um of the climate action plan of Monterey that is going to talk about the decarbonization of buildings and whether or not we should make that a priority.

I intend to attend that meeting.

But specifically for low-income unit owners, can they be incentivized to make transitions such as that by given being given permission to add that cost to the selling value of their home?

Does that make sense?

It sure does.

Thank you for that.

Um for your public comments there.

Um, and if you get a chance to get plugged in with the climate action plan process, it would be a great time to include that in our plan.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

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

It will move to consent.

We've already had three and seven requested to be pulled.

Council, is there anything else you wish to pull from the consent?

No, you cover it with three.

Okay.

Um Hans, any further items to be pulled?

Uh no, nothing further.

Okay, to the best of my knowledge.

Okay, we'll open it up to the public at this time to see if there's any additional items that are requested to be pulled.

So we'll check for folks on Zoom to use the raise hand function while you're navigating your way there.

I'll check in the chamber.

Anybody in the chamber wishes pull anything from the consent other than item numbers three and nine.

Seven.

I'm sorry, seven, three and seven.

I apologize.

Yeah.

Um okay, I'm not seeing any takers in the chamber, so we'll go ahead and close it off in the chamber and I'll check on Zoom.

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

And there's nobody on Zoom.

We'll bring it back to the council for motion deliberation.

So second.

So moved and seconded.

Any other discussion?

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion passes unanimously.

With that, we'll move on to item number three, approved second reading of ordinance amending chapter 33 and chapter 38 of the Monterey City Code to implement and provid the provisions of California Senate Bill 9 in housing Element Program 1J allowing for ministerial approval of qualifying residential developments and lot splits.

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

Yeah, thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

My suggestion is not to have a staff presentation.

We just had this two weeks ago and just go directly to the question.

Okay.

Are there any questions on the council?

Uh yes, if I may.

Please.

I got a couple of questions that came through some emails and some phone calls.

Uh one of them is, and let me just highlight so the public knows what we're looking at tonight.

Is we're considering the second reading of uh the Monterey City Code to implement the provisions of California Senate Bill 9 housing element program and allowing for ministerial approval of qualifying residential developments of lot splits and commencing with section 2100 of the public resources.

So as we discussed it a couple weeks ago, the question I have for uh the resident was if it's acted on tonight, when will it become effective and put into law in the city ordinance?

So if the city attorney could give us a highlight of what the process is, right?

So it would be effective 30 days from today.

Okay, okay.

Uh and so as we had talked before, when we do an ordinance, and it's it passes the first time, then we have to wait five days to hear it a second time.

The second time is then the second reading, and then 30 days after that second reading is when it becomes law.

Correct.

Okay, thank you.

Uh the other question I had was um they were looking at this um ordinance tonight, but it did not have the component that they were after, which was the area that staff had presented, the requirement of home ownership on the site.

What was the period of time that someone had to be a resident if there were four or six units built on the property?

And what was the um the total number if it was six, and there's a residence on the property?

What would the city do to oversee and regulate the requirement that there be a resident on that property?

So that's the question of staff.

What will we do to regulate that?

And isn't is it true that it's the residents got to be present on the property?

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay.

So the owner, the occupancy requirement only comes in when there's a lot split.

Okay.

So when you split the lot, the owner of the lot or the one of the resulting lots has to live on one of the units for three years.

Okay.

And we and the requirement is we're we're following the requirement of the state law, which says that um the owner has to submit an affidavit, stating their intent to occupy one of the units for at least three years.

Okay.

And so let me go a little deeper with the question they had, which was not on lot splits, but on intensification in R1s, where they could build as many as six units in an R1.

There is no requirement that the owner of the property reside on that property on a situation of six additional units plus the R1 residents.

The you can only achieve six units if you do a lot split.

We are only allowing uh owner to go to develop six units if they meet the affordable housing requirement and if they do a lot split.

Okay.

They cannot build six units if they're not splitting their lot.

Okay, and I think that's the significant question was they wanted to know what was the oversight, what would the regulation be?

So additional units up to six, we would only be uh qualified on a lot split.

Okay.

And then the other nuance to that question was the area that you covered in the presentation was if there were multiple lots that co-joined that property.

What if you could give us an overview of how that's regulated?

So it could not be one lot and then another lot and the lot behind it, and the lot next to it.

So what was the parameters where it reduces the the number of lots that could come into play?

Yes, so um so if one owner owns two adjacent lots, that owner can only split one of those.

You you can't split you can't own both and split both if they're adjacent, okay.

And adjacent would apply to one that's behind them as well.

Yes, okay.

Uh, Mayor, that's the only questions I had.

Thank you.

Thank you.

With an urban lot split and the development to the maximum of six units, do these are one parcel, remain legally R1.

Yes, okay.

So that the questions I'm getting from residents include, so they would still be protected by our small cell tower ordinance that applies to R1 lots.

The the zoning does not change, so it's still single-family zoning.

So nothing about the zoning is changing other than now allowing up to four or six units if you do a lot split.

Okay, and if we go to six, I I understand what you said.

I just am reiterating it the way some of my constituents are asking.

There's no threat with six units of being interpreted as a commercial as allowing commercial overlay at the point where there's six units.

No.

Okay.

And my other question from Principal is um we legally could have required both the fifth and sixth unit to be very low income had we chosen, uh, that would have had to go uh into the housing element program.

Right, right, but that was an option apparently never considered.

I think um if I could sorry, um, and maybe Ken Cole can clarify.

I my understanding is that HCD was adamant that um having affordable units was itself um a disincentive to housing production, and so HCD was more of a roadblock to that concept than staff policy um making.

Um I saying that right, Kim.

Um that is correct, and we're also seeing that interpretation in other areas.

Um, even the concept of inclusionary housing, um, which as you know, we have an ordinance that requires 20% be deed restricted in perpetuity.

There are arguments out there and thoughts that that actually decreases housing production by um putting that on the developer.

So um it's unclear whether um I think HCD would have had a significant concern if we would have required two of the units to be low income.

Right, thank you.

And I uh appreciate the discussion because I'm trying to highlight the inconsistency between having a state law that's reaching to provide very affordable housing, and yet we are afraid of alienating people with low-income housing.

I mean, it it's it doesn't apply.

SB9 does not really address the challenge of of achieving very low income housing.

So, what we're dealing with with the questions from the community are the inconsistencies in achieving the goal.

So, thank you for that.

That's my only two questions.

Thank you.

Please.

Oh, question for city manager.

Question that uh is coming up from residents as well.

Um, and and I remember there was mention of this in our last meeting, so if you would reiterate for the public, um conversations around um other cities that are currently in litigation relating to this, and no, we can't tell the future.

But from um from uh what do you see now?

Is there any benefit in us waiting to see what happens through that litigation with other cities as something that potentially could impact our decision here?

Uh the way the process works is we are bound to legally comply with SB9 as written now.

If the pending litigation, which involves five charter cities and it's on appeal right now, it's been fully briefed, or arguments will next be scheduled, and then there'll be a written appellate decision.

And if it's a published written appellate decision that says SB9 does not apply to charter cities, then the city council might be able to revisit its policies at that time.

You may decide to maintain what you've done or or not, but largely that's going to depend on what the decision says.

And so that's coming.

But in the meantime, we have to um comply with SB9.

Dr.

Barber, did you have anything?

Um, one second, I just have to write my thought down.

Um, it's kind of a follow-up to Councilmember Smith's questions around the lot split.

Um, so how does SB9 impact a property that doesn't do a lot split?

Um, so if you don't do a lot split, you can build up to four units.

On the one property.

Yeah, without having to split.

And how how does that differ from our ADU law?

So, right now, if you have a single family zoned property, you can have a single family home, and you can have an one ADU and one JDU.

So that's three units.

Okay, but with SB9, you can have two single family homes and an ADU and a JADU.

So that's four.

Okay, and this is already law within the city of Monterey.

Yes, okay.

Awesome.

Thank you.

All right, I think that's it for questions for now.

So we'll go ahead and open up to public comment for folks on Zoom.

You can use the raise hand function for folks in the chamber.

Just ask if you can stand up to the left of the podium, and then I'll ask for hand raises once I get a group standing up, so that way you don't have to keep your hand raised.

So I see seven folks standing.

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

So I have eight, anybody else in the chamber?

All right.

So we just have the eight folks standing.

We'll go ahead and close it off to those eight individuals.

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

We have four on Zoom.

Go ahead and do three minutes, please.

Mayor Williamson and council members.

On August 5th, I spoke in opposition to the implementation of SB9 that included the incentive to expand the number of units to six.

If one unit was permanently deed restricted as affordable, as many speakers noted, there is no urgency to approve this ordinance, as the issue has yet to be decided by the appellate court as to how SB9 would apply to charter cities.

City staff noted that there's been limited outreach to the public explaining how this would affect all the neighborhoods, nor any explanation as to how the city would control the deed restrictions affecting private property sales.

All public comments ran three to one in opposition to this amendment.

But as soon as public comments closed, Mayor Williamson made a motion and denied the council an opportunity to further discuss this amendment.

Council members Rash, Smith, and Barber all seemed to have concerns about the incentive for six units, as did the public.

But the mayor stifled any discussion with his rapid motion to approve the amendment.

It was obvious Mayor Williamson did not want further discussion.

This move for the mayor is disrespectful to his constituents as well as the council, and sadly feels closed-minded to a discussion of other options, such as adopting four units as required by the state, waiting to see the outcome of the legal court challenge, or simply waiting to allow more time for outreach to the public.

This code change could have serious detrimental impacts on our residential communities.

Where is the funding for infrastructure?

Where is the water for these developments?

How does the city plan to deal with deed restrictions?

I urge the council to table this amendment until the city has reached out to the R1 neighborhoods about the effects of this densification.

This will also give time for the neighborhoods and residents, the mayor's constituents, to understand Mayor Williamson's rush to amend this ordinance and his lack of concern in protecting our R1 neighborhoods and resident quality of life.

Thank you.

I live in Old Town.

And I was here on the 5th and spoke, and I still believe I would like to see this tabled because uh as was just pointed out, it is something that we may be able to do better without the types of uh implementation that you already have in the bill.

Two things I don't see I was looking at this bill.

Where does it limit that when you have these further densified additional units?

Where does it say that they are going to be for Monterey residents?

People who are already living here.

Where does it say that they can't just come here from outside and move in?

Where does it say that they um have to be, if not a resident already of Monterey, that they are already working in Monterey.

We don't we have such a lack of housing for our own people.

If you were going to put this in place, where are those two provisions to require that one must work or that they be already residing in Monterey to get the to get to the this new um housing that's being created?

I think it's very important because it is been strong, or it has been stated that this is to provide more affordable housing and to make it easier for people to find housing.

But I think what you're going to see is uh what is already a trend I've noticed, and that is that you get a lot of 30-day rent vacation rentals, and there is nothing that I can see the way it's written that prevents it from just being creating 30-day rental properties with four units, or six well, six units possibly.

So I think you need to revisit this.

I think you're rushing it.

I think that is a critical because I think that's what would be the normal thing.

And I say that as a former mortgage loan officer, because I could find no way that affordable housing on its own is financially viable.

You can't get financing on it because there's not the positive cash flow you would need.

So I think the only thing you're likely to see is investors coming in to here to use it for 30-day vacation rentals, and you have nothing that I see that stops that from being what would be happening.

So look at it.

Make it for Monterey residents, make it for Monterey workers, at least benefit our own people.

Thank you.

The mic is not on.

My wife and I bought our property on Pine Street.

We bought what we could afford, which is the most run-down house in the area.

That's the realtor's photo right there.

Isn't that a beauty?

We spent five years of hard labor, blood, sweat, tears, injuries with scars to prove it.

And most recently losing my two fingers, as you know, my fingertips.

Building a new house out of that wreck of a house, safe in the knowledge that we are one and a half blocks out of the apartment zone region.

This is the result of our hard work.

That's all by Gail and me.

Personal work.

Mayor, at the previous council meeting, you reiterated my comment that I don't want to have a two-story house within four feet of my backyard.

And you further stated that this is part of the problem.

Everybody wants it in somebody else's backyard.

Perhaps you don't appreciate the reasons for zoning.

Nobody wants an auto repair shop, a laundry, or a fast food restaurant next door to their residence.

As important as those businesses are without zoning, one could pop up next door to any one of us.

This illustrates why we have zoning.

Good zoning is what people expect and depend upon for planning their lives and livelihoods.

I've had the experience of living in a dense urban environment, and I don't want to return to that type of living.

Zoning has never been an easy, never been easy to change for good reason.

One of those reasons is that people plan their lives and livelihoods on zoning.

Nobody likes negative changes in their lives.

I hope that all of you are extremely concerned with the news that the Supreme Court will be taking up a case that could jeopardize same-sex marriages.

This is a severe violation of public trust.

Doing away with R1 zoning is a betrayal of public trust that the city council is vested with.

There are numerous options available to increase housing without going to this extreme.

Do not adopt this ordinance and if these ordinances and enforce the city and instead enforce the city's charter rights and oppose this overreach of the state.

At the very least, commit to repealing these ordinances if and when the state loses its appeal to the Los Angeles Superior Court case, which involving the five charter cities, uh challenged this overreach.

And I'd like to add that I believe the current uh ordinances that we have allowing the accessory dwelling units in JDUs goes too far also.

I I just think that having three additional units, this city hall chamber here is probably not much under 2400 square feet.

And you're talking about getting six houses in this space.

Thank you.

I move again from the Monterey.

I'm gonna roll today.

Um, the microphone up right to your mouth.

Thank you.

Um I live on Parcell.

I have a half-sized lot next to me with one house, narrow house.

I'll keep putting the whole lot, two-story, two-bedroom.

You have any idea what a nightmare parking is on my block.

It's only bad enough that we have single family homes with two, sometimes three families living in there, having six cars parked in front of the houses.

If you split these lots and make them smaller, unless you want to put it underneath the house, which is gonna be a joke.

I definitely I'm against it.

So parking is the big issue.

I'm with Watchmana Lump several lots together and come to me in there two-story where you have six, eight or twelve different units, which from a constructor's point of view makes more sense the cost of investing it than having a single lot with one two-batroom house and no parking.

Thank you.

Is this all?

It's on, but speak up, please.

Let's see if that's sort of yeah it's um those people can't here as citizens maybe has been open i feel like we shouldn't put restrictions on who can come into a community that's open and access for every American and the outrageous ideals of those people and people is frustrating because um I've been taught on unbelievable places and um it's upsetting that some good respond to like the laws police will continue to control the city thank you good afternoon um as discussed briefly earlier sb nine is in litigation with the superior court holding that it's unconstitutional for the state to overreach into charter city issues um in the August city council meeting there were public comments from residents asking the city to wait on the decision or go to only four units until the litigation is over and to join the litigation um these property tax paying homeowners were ignored um this is a very complex issue and needs time to be fully and transparently discussed and reviewed with the residents before passing this update to the ordinance Adam Pinterest and the government affairs director of Monterey County Association of Realtors has delivered uh his statement to city council um that a Monet County Association of Realtors would like you to wait to delay this decision to update the ordinance to six units because it basically destroys our one uh single family single family residential zoning which is one to four units any any benefit uh will be outweighed uh by decreased property values um more noise more traffic inadequate parking less privacy destroying aesthetic values uh too many cars less open space and not to mention uh much much more above ground wires to poles uh to individual units separate smart meters which means more background radiation from meters and Wi-Fi exposure from surrounding neighbors um very high fire hazard zones are exempted from SB9 development um most of Monterey Pacific Grove and Carmel are in very high fire hazard zones overdensification to six units on each R1 will create even more fire hazard and going to going to six units uh with only one low income unit will not cure the problem of affordable housing for anyone not for renters not for the commuting workforce that crowds highway one south every morning to come to work I urge you not to not to uh update this ordinance and not to pass it thank you and Tom Harry I've been a resident of Belmont Beach for eight and a half years I'm requesting that consent item number three be pulled from the consent agenda today is in the money beach and that's why I'm here talking about that area is drainage right now almost every homeowner there has a problem with drainage it's coming up to the foundations it's coming up to the sand it's a big issue.

There's no civil engineering that I know about that's been done in the area, and I believe that we need to understand where the water is coming from.

We all know it's going down the ocean, but is it going to 10 homes?

Uh and then down one lot, and that person's getting all the water from those 10 homes.

In my opinion, the Delmani beach neighborhood is overlaxed for drainage, and that's why there's so many drainage problems.

We have a home at 18 Spray Avenue that's been under construction for over six years.

They cannot keep the water out.

I strongly recommend that the city of Monterey hire a civil engineer to do an investigation, come up with remedy or some type of conclusion on what change we have and how much more we can afford.

In my opinion, we're relaxed.

Thank you.

Um I apologize in advance if he's already answered in previous legislation.

This is my first city council meeting.

Um my concern is are there any minimum lot sizes for these regulations?

Um I was curious about that.

I heard 2400, but I didn't know what the minimum lot size is on that, and also I'm very concerned about the water sources.

I try to get I've been a resident in Monterey for 13 years now, and I tried to get an ADU, but I couldn't because there weren't enough water credits.

So something probably happened over the past five or 10 years.

Maybe the water credits are available now, but I am concerned about where the water's gonna come from and if there are minimum lot sizes for these um R1s and then the um lot splits.

Thank you.

And our first speaker on Zoom is Esther.

Good afternoon, everybody.

Um I just wanted to make a comment.

Um that I had last time.

This bill is from the Senate.

Just wondering how many of the people that are coming here and blaming our mayor actually talked to John Laird's office and whatnot before um coming and attacking our city council.

And just want to make a point to what Gene said earlier.

Um the way I all once we have more ADUs available, but if you might people will locate it at so we can hear you a little bit better.

Oh, can you you can't hear me?

I can hear you, but you're breaking up.

Yeah, okay.

Let me try and check.

I'll try and get in again.

You sound better now for leaves and oh, maybe not.

Okay.

Well, what I was saying, did you hear my comment about contacting Led's office?

Yes, okay.

So the other comment I made is uh this jet coming over my house.

So you won't be able to hear me.

Hold on.

Military jet.

Again, again.

Yep, why don't you hold up for a second?

We paused the clock because we hear it as well.

I can't hear you.

Sorry about that.

Um, can you hear me now?

Hold on one second.

I'll let you know when we can start up again.

I'm not gonna be long, so you're good.

So go ahead, we can hear now.

Okay, sorry.

Um what I was saying is um how does these ADU help um low income and actually middle income also um folks is that it by them having access to more units, whether they're BDUs or otherwise, it frees up the lower the lower income apartments that are there.

So whether middle income or very low income, the more units we have, the more opportunity there is for people who move to those.

So every who's saying the only solution for housing problem is to build more, that's a that's a perfect example.

How it's not that you know people are gonna be moving in there from, you know, that are super low income.

It's going to free up other units that will move to if these units are available.

So just our next speaker is Cecilia.

Mayor, City Council members, my name is Cecily.

Hello, good afternoon.

Um can you hear me?

Okay.

Okay, great.

Um, my name is Cecilia Moreno and I live in Dare Flats, and I spoke last uh on August 5th as well.

Um I'm asking your your counsel to not approve the second reading of the ordinances amending chapter 33 and chapter 38 of the Monterey City Code to implement provisions of SB9.

Um again, I recognize the need for affordable housing for young families and adults, however, these ordinances are not going to lead to an increase in affordable housing.

I've seen what similar policies in Los Angeles area have done to those cities and neighborhoods, and I really don't want that to happen here.

These ordinances will change the character of the neighborhoods in our city, these ordinances will lead to increased traffic, increased noise, increased pollution, and all the other uh problems that other speakers have mentioned.

In addition, SB9 is currently litigation.

Um finally, I guess rather than approving the second reading, I asked Monterey to please postpone the adoption of these ordinances until such litigation has been resolved in the courts.

We don't need to rush into this.

Thank you very much.

And our last speaker.

Good evening.

This is Nina BD.

There's a problem with the mic, both for in-person uh people and as well as people on the phone.

Though the planning commission got a PowerPoint presentation last uh last or last month, you did not get a presentation last meet meeting.

So just to clarify what staff said, and I also request that the city council postpone adoption of the ordinance, find out again what legal action the city can take, including initiating its own lawsuit, and reject staff's a proposal to increase densification to six units per lot, and also consider joining the draft ballot measure by the group Our Neighborhood Voices that will amend the constitution and protect local decision making, restore Monterey's authority, get rid of RENA, and preserve CEQA.

We're hearing again tonight.

SB9 was a subterfuge.

There was no intention by lawmakers or agencies to make affordable housing.

It was disappointing to your land watch's position last week.

Um investors can come in, buy properties.

Blackstone is evicting people in different states, um, and homeowners to and then turning things into rentals.

And now they're I guess one of the largest rental management uh firms in the country.

Um homeowners must be present for only three years, but from what I understood from staff at a prior presentation, that could be retroactive.

So I could own a house for and I've been there for three years, and now going forward I can split the lot and not be there.

Homes used to be affordable in Monterey, but they started zooming out of reach several decades ago.

And why wouldn't two or more families live in each of these new units?

These aren't affordable, and so how are they gonna afford it except for multiple wage earners living in each unit, which even crowds the neighborhoods further?

Um again, city staff misled the planning commission and misled you, and they did not tell you about the lawsuit that the charter cities won and the judges' ruling that it was unconstitutional.

And that's the state had to cease enforcement of SB9 on these cities.

It seems like a lawsuit by the city of Monterey would be a good idea.

The public needs time to study this.

Staff has admitted they did not outreach to the public.

This is being rushed at the public, it's being rammed down its throat.

You only gave two minutes for public comment at the first reading.

Now you're giving three minutes.

We did not get a PowerPoint presentation last time or this time, which would show some of the problems up front.

SB9 requires single family home lots to be allows to be split and construction of two units per half lot.

And the over-the-counter permits at City Hall removes the planning commission and the architecture review committee from oversight, discretionary approval, public hearings, public input.

We wouldn't even know until a dump trucks and earth movers roll into a neighborhood and start tearing down a house or building new lots.

We just wouldn't know because there wouldn't even be any notification likely.

Does Monterey want to turn into New York City or San Francisco?

These takeaway local.

That was our last speaker.

Okay.

Thank you.

With that, we're going to close public comment.

Um I'm gonna try to start off by asking some follow-up questions related to the public comments.

Um there was a lot of comments made about public outreach.

So I'm hoping that staff could just clarify what the public outreach process has been as it relates to the housing element, which includes this program that's included in it.

Okay.

Um so for our housing element, uh, we did outreach for over a year, and uh in-person outreach uh surveys, um multiple public hearings, and uh all that we're proposing that is different from SB9 is this housing element program one J.

And that program was included in the draft housing element that was part of the public outreach process, correct?

Yes, okay.

Um sorry, I'm just trying to read through my notes here.

There was a question around water.

Um, hoping that maybe you can provide some clarification around that.

Sure.

Um so any SB9 application still requires to receive building permits, and at the building permit stage, the applicant is required to show proof of a water permit.

So they still need to go through the water district and either get um they they basically need to use the water credits water credits that exist on site.

Correct.

So there's no so just to clarify that further there's no new water that's being allocated for these types of units specifically.

There's no water additional water available.

So if that water's not on the site, then nothing can be developed.

Um there was the c the comments regarding um Del Mani Beach and drainage.

I'm not sure if you could speak to that at all.

Um, so like I said, it any new dwelling is required to get building permits and through that process.

Um, the building division requires soils reports, uh geotech reports, and also uh every application is required to comply with stormwater regulations, so through that process, um should be able to um resolve any drainage issues.

Okay, um and then minute there was a question around minimum lot size requirements, uh so the through a lot split process, uh the resulting lots can be no smaller than twelve hundred square feet, and that's the lot, not the unit.

That's the lot.

Okay, I think I think that's all the questions that I captured from the public comment.

Um, so we'll go ahead and open up to the council for a motion and deliberation.

Who wants to start us off?

Um go ahead.

Please.

So thank you so much to everyone online and here in the dice.

I did have a question.

I I know you captured most of them, but was curious as to uh one of the questions, I believe it was Nancy had asked about where are the provisions for like new housing for uh people are to come in, whether they work here or whether they already live there.

Is there a provision or some sort of process in place?

I think that was one of the other questions.

Um we, I mean units that result from SB9 approvals, they don't have a requirement that that only residents existing residents have to occupy them.

There's no anyone can occupy them.

Okay.

I wanted to make sure we had that clarified because it was a question that was.

Yeah.

Um and if there's a lot split again, the owner has to live on one of the units for a minimum of three years from the date of recreation of the parcel map.

Okay.

So that's all a part of that, but that's for the owner, not for who it would actually who else would be in the other unit.

Yeah, that's just for the owner.

Could I ask a follow-up question to that?

Um, because I I particularly appreciate the idea in theory.

And in fact, this is something that I've been pushing for with all of our housing programs was to try to create a prioritization for people that either work or live here.

Because I recognize that increased density is uncomfortable for a lot of folks, but if it goes towards addressing the issue of our community, that there's more willingness to to go through that.

Um, so does anything preclude us from being able to include that as a requirement as part of um as part of the program implementation.

Would it knock us out of compliance if we were to add that piece is my question?

I'm not sure about that.

Um, okay.

Can we someone is there?

Is there can we some help coming?

Yes, excellent question.

Uh so the state law is written, does not require any local preference.

So in order for our local ordinance to be consistent with state law, we would not be able to require that.

Um thank you.

Sure.

Um, so that kind of it brings me right back to where um sorry, can I ask one follow-up to that?

What about program one J though, specifically related to the six units as opposed to the four?

Yeah, so I think that would go back to uh Kim's earlier comment about HCD seeing that as a further impediment to additional housing.

So each additional requirement or string that we attach to those additional units, they're gonna see that as additional constraints that the local government's placing on this development.

But what if it's and and to me, I see some logistical issues as far as managing this, but what if it wasn't like limiting it to only residents and workforce, but the prioritization of those units for those individuals.

Is that we run into that fair housing issue and being in compliance with that?

Okay.

Sorry, I didn't mean to steal your under.

No, this is this is right where my questions were going and trying to get to and seeing what we could and could not do legally.

So thank you for being able to clarify that.

Um that's all my questions as far as getting that uh handle on some of the things that we can or cannot do.

It's still going back to the legalities of it.

Um I know that uh some of the charter cities have had rulings, but my understanding is those aren't final things because a higher court can actually reverse all of it.

So um, kind of wanting to see everything settled, even though um you see some glimpse of pieces of hope, but I'm hearing that if we even, you know, saying that that on the hour, or cross on a T that it takes the thought of compliance.

And I think at the end of the day, uh we still have to be in compliance and not be at risk and be able to modify my understanding from what our conversations two weeks ago that once the death settled, we can modify some things, it's not understanding.

That's correct.

I'm looking at that city attorney.

I know, just if in case somebody else said, Yes, it'll it'll depend on large part what the ruling says, but if the ruling says SB9 does not apply to charter cities, and I think that opens the door for new policy decisions or revising existing policy decisions.

Okay, all right, thank you.

I think since you already are on the mic, I know, and it kind of has to do with some of the comments that Ms.

Beattie said, and I was just hoping that maybe you could provide some additional flavor for us there.

Yeah, sure.

Um, a public speaker has twice now um insinuated that staff was making a deliberate intentional misrepresentations to the city council and to the public by some omission of any discussion of this pending litigation.

And so for the public's benefit and the city council's benefit, I'm sure you already know this.

Um we did have no less than three full paragraphs addressing the litigation with specific case numbers, dates of rulings, the impact of those rulings in the August 5th agenda report.

So there's been no such um uh omission or uh lack of information provided on that pending litigation.

So thank you for that chance to clarify that for everyone.

And for whatever it's worth, um there's been much communication shared um from our attorney's office with the council, which is protected attorney client privilege, but there's been a lot of communication from our staff to the council on this, and I think we've been well informed on this, probably more so than most issues.

So I just want to give our staff all the kudos for um their due diligence and making sure that we're well informed on this topic.

All right, with that, we'll bring it back to the council for any additional comments, motion, please.

A couple of questions.

I think it'll go back to staff.

Um so I want to clarify in my mind that moving from four to six, the current law does not require us to move to six.

Is that correct?

The Senate Bill Nine law does not have the six, um the affordable incentive to go to six.

That is a city of Monterey proposal.

Yeah, yeah.

So the the question I have is how did we get from four to proposing to the city council to go with six?

Was that a staff staff suggestion, a council member request?

How did we go from four to six?

Sure.

So as a as a recap, as everyone here is aware, uh, we received a very sizable arena allocation whenever uh we were going through the housing element process.

So as we were working with HCD on how to identify appropriate sites and what programs would be necessary for them to certify housing element that addressed our RENA allocation.

This was one of the programs that came up through those conversations was a way to for the city to go kind of beyond what SB9 as a state law allows to in order to incentivize uh more units.

So that's how we got to the point of well, expanding upon what SB9 allows, which is four units on a single lot and going to six units and then having that affordability requirement.

Um so that's how we got to that point from four to six.

Also, just know I know there's been a lot of conversation about whether or not we can add more affordability requirements or whether or not that makes sense or why we wouldn't.

And I would just remind everyone that of our 3,654 units RENA that we received, a total of 1,946 were low and very low income, which means the additional 1700 is moderate or market rate units that we were still identified as being a need of.

So it's a it's an across the board housing need in the city.

And so the housing element that was approved of in October of 2024, that's correct.

Included the suggestion that the city could, but it was not something that the housing element said that we would do.

It did, in fact, say that the city was, yeah.

So all the programs included in the housing element were uh the city's commitment to carry out those programs in a uh identified time frame uh approved by HCD.

So in a general statement is we promised the state that we're gonna we're gonna figure out how we can move forward with a lot of these suggestions.

That's correct.

So want to make the correlation between the HCD, that housing element has been approved.

What happens if we don't act on this and we postpone this for six months?

Operationally, when is your phone ring?

When do you receive an email or do you?

Because we've already got an approved housing element.

Yes, so the city's required every year to submit an annual progress report to HCD, and then that report it shows uh a full uh inventory of the units that we've constructed over the last year, and it also is required to show our our progress on the housing element programs as as laid out in the adopted and certified housing element.

So I can't give you an exact time frame.

I do know that our time frame has a slated to complete our SB9 ordinance within this quarter.

So whenever we submit that housing our APRs that's referred to to HCD in the spring of 2026, if we haven't already achieved this, we will have to document that on that report, they'll be alerted of that lack of progress.

You could say, and then at that point in time, is probably when they would reach out with questions of compliance and spring of 2026 give me a month.

They could reach out sooner than that uh based on just checking in, but that is when we definitely have to submit something to HCD every year.

Uh, you know, kind of laying out our progress.

And spring of 2026 is a period of three or four months.

What month are you thinking?

We typically submit it in March or April.

Okay.

Okay, um, I think that's all I have for Lee.

Can I have a follow-up since Levi's there?

Please.

Okay.

Um, Levi, how many of the arena allocations are attributed in our figures to the SB9 um law, and then how many are added in for the two incentivized units.

So it's hard to say exactly because the way that our arena sites inventory was laid out.

So obviously it goes into different buckets.

We have pipeline projects, we have units that we're projecting based on rezonings, like our multifamily overlay.

So this gets lumped into some of the other like inclusionary zoning, but roughly it looks like uh between our ADU ordinance.

Uh, we were projecting um a total of 120 units, and that's across all affordability levels.

Uh kind of another inclusionary or inclusionary reallocation gets us close to about uh an additional 37.5.

So uh it looks like we didn't have so, and then our local density bonus is an additional 200.

So it kind of falls into there.

Those were kind of general projections that we made for these kind of smaller zoning updates that we were gonna do.

Let me see if I understand.

ADU 120.

And I, and then I'm not sure where the 37 and a half landed.

Sorry, inclusionary ordinance that we're gonna be updating to codify the split between the moderate and low and very low income.

So that's kind of just coming.

Uh outside of SB9, right?

Correct.

Okay.

And then within SB9.

200.

Well, that's that's more of a general number for local density bonus, which is kind of lumped into this.

Okay.

So we didn't project a lot in our arena for SB9 because we just didn't have the data to back go off of whereas ADUs, we had previous years of data to kind of support that.

I I understand.

So the 37 are attributed to the incentivization of SB9.

Not necessarily.

That's just an inclusionary projection that we made.

Okay.

So you have a a common bucket of ADUs, junior ADUs.

Okay.

Correct.

Could I could I try to ask that in a different way?

So there's something to the tune of.

300 in 60-ish units that could potentially be produced out of SB9.

And in combination with SB9 ADU, local density bonus, kind of all of those things.

It's clumped in with a whole bunch of other programs.

Correct.

Um, so we don't have derivative of that.

Correct.

Right.

Over the next eight years.

Correct.

Okay.

I think we've got a somewhat of a grip on the numbers.

I have more to say, but I'm we're doing questions still.

Yeah, it's open.

It's open.

We can do whatever we want, but I do have questions on this uh train of thought.

Um could you speak more to the noncompliance?

Like the fact that we've had a first reading and a we're in a meeting having a second meeting, and let's say we take a different direction here.

I mean, is HCD paying attention to things like that?

And does that have a potential impact in regards to what they do in response to that?

What it what does happen in response to that?

So we're so they say we're not in non-compliance.

What does that mean?

What are the implications associated with that?

Sure.

So in response to how close of the attention HCD's paying, I mean, they they take calls, emails from the general public.

So, you know, kind of delaying this tonight.

Any member of the public can reach out to HCD and say that the city of Monterey is not following through with their housing element, and they can choose or not choose to or not to look into that further, contact us.

We are required to submit our rezonings that are being made in association with the housing element implementation to HCD for review.

So they do review those pretty closely.

They do comment to us on those ordinances uh after we've adopted them.

So they know that as we make progress, we are submitting these for review.

As far as they kind of have layers of enforcement, obviously, there's a stern letter that you're gonna get that says, you know, you're we've noticed you're not following through with your housing element, provide some kind of uh indication of what your time frame is to get back on track, but it can go as a as extreme as is uh them uh, you know, a surrendering our permit authority.

Uh they they can it has funding implications on different grants that we receive millions of dollars in grant funding that's allocated through HCD uh through our local MPOs.

So it has it can get to that point.

Um, but uh we would obviously have you know there'd be some indication that that's coming before it gets that severe.

And what is the deadline to implement this program in our housing element?

Um that's hard to say.

Um I think it was probably slated for either uh end of uh the last quarter of last year or the the mid-middle of this year.

So this is one of those program areas.

So we're already in non-compliance essentially because we haven't implemented it yet.

Uh, in terms of the calendar that was included in our housing element, yes, but I don't think ACD would they have found, they still find us with the data compliance.

Okay, follow up to that.

Yeah, we could as a community quickly reallocate it, won't be quick, but we could try to make up for the not a criticism, but the vague numbers under the extra two inclusionary units um quickly and still be in compliance.

It's the numbers that matter, the 3,654 and how we're getting there.

So yes, so in theory, you could propose an alternative means of getting to those units that would unfortunately require us to reopen our housing element for review, pretty lengthy process, and no guarantee of whether or not HCD would be accepting of that, but in theory, you're right, it's a numbers game, making up the numbers elsewhere could account for that.

Right.

And and somewhat of a massage because we haven't even identified exactly the numbers for the SB9 inclusionary units and the SB9 guesses, because they're guesses, I get it.

Again, I'm I'm not trying to be critical, I'm trying to be precise in an area that's not precise yet.

I guess just the one um thing I would caution us.

I don't think anything about the housing element is fast in amending it.

There are required posting dates, 90-day review periods, etc.

etc.

We would also potentially have to relook at our environmental document.

So while you cities have the ability to reopen housing elements, um, just be aware I I can't commit to a fast process with that.

Um gosh darn it, the question left me.

Um it's there, it's there.

How many applications have we had for SB9 related projects in the city since SB9 has been in law?

I believe we've had five.

And when was SP9 implemented?

When did it become law?

2021, I believe is when it was passed in effect of 2022.

So it's been over three years.

We've had five applications, and how many of those applications have actually broke ground on a project?

Broken ground, I believe none.

Okay.

So we're okay.

Okay.

Um I wanted to move back around if if I'm just going to keep the conversation going.

Um there was some concern around 30-day rentals and these units being used for that.

But I'm wondering, is there anything that creates these units as potentially being more ripe for 30-day rental properties, or is that just a general concern that exists generally for any units in the city of Monterey?

Uh so in the draft ordinances, there's a prohibition against renting for less than 30 consecutive days.

So any SB9 unit will be um subject to that deed restriction.

Okay.

Um that goes for ADUs and JADUs.

Okay.

Okay.

Well, I've got some more comments if we're ready to go to the round, the round.

Um I want to just say how ironic it is that we're talking about R1s that the state is still expecting us to call them R1s, which is one family.

We're talking about being forced by the state to say that then R1 is no longer really an R1, but a nod and a wink is you're going to call it an R1, but somebody can put four or six units on it.

So I just think it's very ironic that the uh state housing and community development works around and exerts their their force and will.

Um, but I'm still compelled to say that I don't see the urgency.

Here's where I'm coming from.

A couple of things are percolating.

We just had the California Public Utilities Commission rule last week about a water supply demand amount, which starts the conversation again about where's the water coming from.

So the five units that were applicants since 2021, we don't know why they haven't built, they haven't been built, but I'm gonna guess that they're probably trying to get the water.

Uh we've heard Tyler talk about MW1 having additional water coming when phase two comes on, October ish, maybe a little bit later, I don't know.

So there might be some water supply there.

We we don't know.

Um we don't have a plethora of projects that are urgently needing an ordinance such as this that can dramatically change significant lots, and granted, it's more of the larger lots, likely to impact more in skyline forest, uh, Alta Mesa, deer flats, fish flats, my district.

Skyline is council member rashes, but the significance to me is I don't see the urgency.

Staff has indicated that a potential housing community development look would be in the spring of 2026.

I'd like to see what happens, plays out with the challenge by other sister cities that are challenging this.

And at the appeal level, we don't know if it'll go to the appeal and stay there or if it goes to a published and to the Supreme Court.

But I just would like to see that play out.

So I'm not compelled to move so fast.

I don't see the harm in waiting until January to give these things an opportunity to sort of play together.

There's too many things on the table, moving parts with water and applications, and also the court action.

So I don't see any urgency.

I want to try and understand something that I appreciate Levi and staff answering the genesis of this coming from the strong suggestion from uh HDC in the housing element.

Uh so the issue is why change the chapters 33 and 38 to move to such a great number when it has the potential and far far outreaching the public's awareness of even what could potentially be coming to them in a neighbor near you.

I don't think the public is even really paying attention to this just yet.

The housing element went through, the staff did the outreach.

These things get buried, they get lost.

The public's not really seeing this, they paid attention on August 5th.

They're obviously paying attention again tonight.

We have again speakers again.

We have call-ins, we've gotten emails.

I get several uh phone calls and had several conversations.

This is this is alarming to residents that are concerned about a significant change to their community in those larger lot neighborhoods where they've purchased invested and they're okay with ADUs.

I haven't really heard of a complaint of an ADU from a neighbor in the backyard.

There's one in my neighborhood, but I'm hearing a lot of concern and fear that this has a manner of significantly changing the neighborhoods and the quality in the neighborhoods.

And that's really what this is about.

I think we should wait, and I think we should postpone this until January.

And if this does pass, and my opinion is not on the top side of the vote, I would think that appropriate motion should include that.

Should this prevail in the courts, we should have a requirement that this come back for discussion again, because if it loses at the court, then this council should revisit whether we stay with this because we would be an outlier.

And then I think that this council as a policy should see this again after the court decisions have been delivered.

Um, and just to summarize it, and I'll I'll pass it on.

Um, this is a move that really just pushes everything to be considered as a monetized effort.

And our neighborhoods shouldn't be that way.

I understand a neighborhood might remodel it, they might add an ADU, they might even have a big enough lot to do uh two ADUs, but the thought of four or six in a large lot, taking away the protection of an R1, the R1 then means nothing.

The R1 is then out the window, and now it's an R4, or it's a C4, or it's a C6.

Uh, we can call it an R1, and it's an overlay and it's a forced bias uh with legislation from uh SB9, but I just think that it dramatically changes uh what our communities are like today.

If you went back to 1940, and I had some relatives that were here, they were struggling for housing, and there was unmitigated and unregulated housing bills and in density in Old Town, Franklin, Jefferson, and all the streets up there, and we see how crowded it is now.

And there's a lot of those lots that have absolutely everything in their backyard is nothing but concrete and apartments.

I don't think we should allow that in Alta Mesa and deer flats and fish flats and the other neighbors uh that have these larger lots.

We have an opportunity to postpone this to do our part as policymakers and not just buckle down to everything that the state pushes and demands.

And if we have an opportunity to wait till January or February and there's no looming consequence my preference is to postpone this until we know what the court is saying.

Okay Dr.

Barber um I totally understand and agree with all of all that and the concerns that I brought up earlier even back two weeks ago saying thing but in lieu of what's going on here and so that we can be able to be in compliance I would make a motion to accept this today with the caveat that we bring it back after the legal ramifications are settled for us to be able to revisit that's my motion.

I can go ahead and support that with the second okay so are we still taking comments absolutely okay I can I just ask for a clarification um I think what I heard Ed speak to was if the um if the litigation prevails then to have it come back not regardless of what happens like if it's if it fails then um I don't see a purpose that's clarificate that's that that's what I mean okay okay so I just wanted to maybe we can clarify that and when we finalize the motion and then and then I would just offer one additional point which is um if any of the um supporters of the motion wish to change their mind and maybe this is a question for Chrissy how does that process work like if if we didn't have this piece about having it come back to dependent on the outcome of the litigation um any of the supporters of the motion can change their vote or and have it come back to the council for deliberation.

Right so this the caveat on the motion isn't um deciding one way or another it's just saying revisit the situation once there is a ruling it could probably be a staff informational report on the what the decision says and then the council could give direction from there on what to do with it.

Come back with revised policies.

I think the point that I'm making though is like just regard like let's say any issue that comes in front of the council and then there's a simple majority of the council that supports that item that's being presented but then one of them changes their mind after the council meeting isn't like a reconsideration like yes yeah right so if if um yes someone who votes in the majority can bring a motion for reconsideration before the next meeting okay so I I would just for whatever it's worth offer that as an option as an alternative because my assumption just kind of reading the tea leaves is that we will have a three two vote on this and as opposed to further burdening the council and the public with a whole session that may not change anything um if one of the three that's voted in support of today's motion changes their mind then we could have that reconsideration process triggered that would allow this conversation to happen.

So I'm just throwing that out.

Before the next meeting, though.

It's that fast.

Yeah, but that's already okay.

That's a rule.

My last.

I apologize.

Thank you for that clarification.

Okay.

Oh, yeah.

Counselor, I know you you're ready to go.

All right.

Staff.

Nothing that I'm saying is meant to be any kind of personal criticism.

Um, there's no one more dear than Kim.

There's no one I enjoy talking with more than Levi.

Unless it's Andrew Easterly.

The two of you, I love talking to you.

We like roughly opposite.

The problem that the community is having, is that we got the cart before the horse here.

And I I went to the meetings in 2024, and I read the agenda, and it does say housing element 1J, it doesn't describe it, and it says no progress yet.

And I asked about that.

And I said, I understand this to be a change of zoning to six units, and it hasn't even come before the public.

And I was my word reassured, no, it will come before the public.

So it came before the public in the public's perception, it came before the public August 4th, unless you're like me and you're also watching the planning commissions.

And we were told August 4th, a version of it's too late because we've already done the housing element planning to support these RENA numbers.

And you know, I get I get the tension, but the problem the community has is having is it was always noticed as housing element.

It was never said we're gonna talk about amending your zoning in your R1 neighborhood to R6.

No one got that, and that's the problem the communities having.

It says we have a housing crisis, and we're gonna fix it this way.

Um, we have a low-income housing problem, and it does not provide a solution that provides for low-income housing.

That's that's why it failed in the court.

And if if you want to read some beautiful writing, get I will send it to you.

I will give you my PDF.

Judge Ken wrote a beautiful analysis.

If you want to see that, so that's what we're talking about.

Um, I still find it very ironical that never was it discussed publicly whether we should go to five and six units as um very low income.

So the hypocrisy of having this be addressing low income, and it was never discussed to take both five and six units to very low income.

It's just part of the huge massive problem that SB9 has.

And don't even get me started on my disappointment with Sacramento.

That's my main disappointment.

This disappointment is that we have legislation that is just wasting all this time.

It's it's gonna go down.

Um, it's gonna go down at the appellate court, probably go to the Supreme Court of California.

I predict it'll go down again.

So we, you know, we have an imprecise law that now we're arguing about, so that's very frustrating.

Um I hope again that we will hold to just the mandated four units tonight.

I again propose a friendly amendment that we support the four, that we do not include 38 26.1 G1A, the two extra incentivized units, and that we um it sounds to me like we can massage the numbers which have never been defined to um to absorb those very few incentivized units into the arena numbers.

I think we can do it.

I think we do can do it quickly.

Yes.

There's been a request for a friendly amendment so to the motion maker rejected because I even to our um director we can call that it wouldn't be done quickly and that would impact our our um our standings with ACD.

And just really quick I wanted to pass it to our city attorney in regards to um the civil penalties associated with right um leave I did cover a number of penalties in January of this year became effective um a new law where attorney general can bring in action against cities that are noncompliant with the housing element or SB9 and all of these other um measures intended to facilitate housing the consequences can be um minimum $10,000 per month up to $50,000 per month in the legal action so it's it's um a factor to consider in addition to what um levi said were also consequences.

Thank you for that.

Council McGarcia thank you I just wanted to take a moment to um explain a little bit why I'm supporting this um so it it it definitely has been an educational conversation here and um as as we know it's a very layered conversation which is why we're still having it um but not much of what I've heard here this afternoon this evening has triggered anything that would make me change my mind from um what we spoke or what I shared last time uh last meeting I I think there's a lot of uh fear around this in terms of if council moves forward with this that all of a sudden or just density is going to skyrocket.

I I don't see that happening even with the interest from um property owners folks who support this um there aren't folks lined up to start building and and for the various reasons that we've shared here tonight um so I think we have an opportunity here to for those folks who might be interested and might be ready um to provide a little bit more support for them to do that to build additional units and still keep it in the in a very controlled way as to still maintain the character of our of our neighborhoods which I know is is also a concern um there are parameters in place um that again uh allow us I think to to have this be more of a controlled move and controlled increase in in units um spoke about uh properties that are um uh or or the inability to build on uh properties that are adjacent right um and those kinds of things and I think also looking at some parts of our city where lot sizes are already small um you know having to meet those uh size requirements I think would be pretty challenging which then allows us still to keep the the character of those those neighborhoods.

So I'm not too concerned about that.

And I think there's um there's a mechanism here where if we see that there that that becomes more of a concern as we get deeper into into these conversations, uh, there's an opportunity to come back and revise all that um and and something that came to mind also tonight is that as we've had conversations on how to support um our our residents to find affordable housing in our city.

Um as we've navigated those conversations in the past, I do recall uh many folks from the public coming and saying, well, what we need is more units, period.

And that's going to um allow the market to control itself and to provide uh not only the units but the affordability that we need for our residents.

So here we have a tool that potentially could um, you know, address that those issues of affordability and the uh number of units.

So I'm not quite sure why we wouldn't uh support that.

Um, and at the end of the day, uh it keeps us compliant.

So I mean, that's really for me the least of the concern, but it is an item that we need to consider.

So for those reasons, uh I'll go ahead and support staff's recommendation.

Okay.

Um so I I just want to start off by having us think about why why we're here in the first place.

Um, why is the state pushing housing policy that dictates what we need to do at the at the local level.

Um, I sit on the board for California League of Cities.

Um, the mission of Cal Cities is to maintain local control.

And when I first joined the organization and got involved, I had a lot of trouble with that because there are things that the state is doing that I acknowledge and understand, maybe I don't agree with it, but I can appreciate it because local governing bodies have failed to meet the needs of our communities.

Um, but over time I've come to appreciate it.

And um, I think that there are very solid times um that exist when we need to make sure that we're maintaining local control.

But the point that I'm making as it relates to this conversation on housing, um, I think is a prime example of where that idea of local control has got us into this situation that we're in for decades.

Local jurisdictions have failed to keep pace with housing construction in their communities.

This has happened for decades.

This has happened before I was even born.

I'm 38 next month.

This has been years in the making.

And the reason why is because every jurisdiction, whether you live in a small town like Monterey or whether you live in a larger city like San Francisco, I've had conversations with folks in Monterey saying don't develop it here.

There was actually a comment tonight.

We don't want to be San Jose, we don't want to be San Francisco, which by the way, nobody's talking about, nobody's talking about making Monterey San Jose or San Francisco, and we don't become that by this policy.

And in fact, staff has shared that five applications have been submitted since 2022 when this policy came into place, and zero have been developed.

So I understand the fear, and Councilmember Smith was speaking to this earlier, and I think that that's a lot of what's driving um jurisdictions historically to have developed housing because the fear of um what that impact is going to be to a certain individual's quality of life, um, and so that's why we see the state coming in and trying to push policy.

So if we as a city, and I said this at the start of the housing element process, I encouraged everybody in when I canvassed, I encouraged folks to stay engaged in the housing element process so that we can maintain our control over how we implement housing programs.

And so I think it's not really fair to characterize the process as not being transparent.

Uh Councilmember Rash, you just said that you knew that there was these five or six units.

It was kind of unclear to you, but there wasn't any comment or pushback or or um a huge group that came out at that time.

And I get that that's kind of where the tension is, because sometimes in the planning phases, folks aren't paying as close of attention.

I I completely acknowledge that.

And then when it's time to implement something or when a project is being proposed, that's when a lot of the pushback comes back.

So, and that's what we're seeing here today.

It's it's it's a fact.

This program has been in our housing element, and I knew this.

I knew this program when it was being cycled through the community.

So it wasn't like it was a secret or discreet or there's a lot of programs in our housing element, and we didn't sit here and go line by line in a public meeting to talk about every single housing program, but it's been transparent.

This has been out there, the public has had plenty of opportunity to provide feedback, and still today, we've had a lot of feedback.

But what I see and hear is a lot of things that just aren't true, and it goes back to councilmember Smith's point, which is it's a lot is driven by fear.

Um, when again, staff has articulated tonight that there's been zero projects developed related to SB9 um in the city.

And speaking to the facts not being true, as if the first public comment was that I didn't allow the council to have a discussion on this topic when we voted it the first time.

That is flatly false.

Anybody can go back and watch the council meeting from last time.

I did come out and make a motion as soon as the public comment was over, but I allowed a robust discussion.

I allowed the council to provide feedback and input, just like Jean said earlier, she made a substitute motion that was considered, it died, but there was robust discussion, and anybody can go back and watch that.

So the mischaracterization from the public comments is just disappointing.

I understand where it comes from and I understand the feelings associated with folks' concern as it relates to the legislation.

I just don't find the arguments compelling to say that we risk getting um fined 10 to 50,000 a month for implementing a program that this city has already previously approved unanimously bind you.

And with no concern about at least from data shown so far of actually any units being developed with the program.

Um there was a comment also made about rezoning commercial.

This pro this this policy has nothing to do with rezoning.

It was Tom, I think Tom's comment earlier about having a hairdresser or or whatever these other commercial spaces were.

This policy has nothing to do with that.

Um, and one thing that I think is important for us to think about is whose voices are we hearing from in this setting on this topic.

Um I believe, as far as I could tell, almost everybody was a homeowner.

Um, we're not hearing a lot from renters.

Um, and I think that says something.

Um, and I think it kind of gets to to Councilmember Garcia's point earlier, there's a need for us to develop housing in the city of Monterey.

We need to do our part just like any other jurisdiction needs to do.

Um, and so uh we are in a crisis and we are at a point where it's all hands on deck to try to find a way of making this happen.

And by increasing the number of units, in as much as, and and Levi, I appreciated you describing it earlier, our housing element is broken down by income levels.

So the 3,654 units that's subdivided into income levels, and these units fall into the appropriate income levels associated with that.

But by the mere fact of us potentially developing all these units in the city of Monterey, theoretically will help either stabilize or lower the cost of housing.

And I further my point that ideally we try to find ways to prioritize these units for people that already work or live within the city of Monterey.

Um I've talked to developers and multiple developers, and none of them see this as an opportunity for them to develop.

They're not even going to waste their time.

And it's particularly because of the requirement for the property owner to stay living on the property.

So it's a barrier for developers.

They're not going to use it, which is probably why we haven't seen any developed.

Delaying the idea of delaying, which I appreciate the effort, it doesn't change the fact that this is a program that's in our housing element that we would have to um address.

And then the last thing I will share is um Councilmember Smith made a comment around this is all about the monetization.

Um I don't think that that's true.

Following the state legislatures that have pushed this legislation, they aren't doing it to line the pockets of developers.

They're doing it because they have what I've observed the most care and concern around addressing the affordable housing crisis in the state of California.

And they're trying to find these solutions, which albeit are uncomfortable, are trying to push the curtain to make it happen because it's not happening.

And even with legislation like this, it's still not happening.

So I'm not saying that this is the solution, it's the end all be all.

None of these things are, it's not one thing by itself that's going to solve it.

There's no silver bullet.

And that's kind of why I say a little bit hands-on deck.

But the idea of it being about monetization, I just think is false, inaccurate.

Um, and but even if you were to take that premise, um, it's interesting how we can turn the conversation around monetization towards the arguments that are being made around people's property values, and some having taken the mindset and they've come in here and spoken during public comment around people and not being able to afford the cost of living here.

And if you can't afford it, then you can move somewhere else.

Because you, if you can't afford it, it's not our problem.

So when we talk about monetization, let's talk about all the economic factors that exist for the lack of affordable housing in our city.

So, what I'm gonna do is I'm gonna offer the opportunity for any last-minute comments.

One more bite at the apple here, and then we're gonna close this out because we've talked about this for quite a length.

I'd like to make a second friendly amendment that the fifth and sixth units both be very low income.

Is that accepted by the motion maker?

No, because the field tank is that is she offering a friendly or a substitute motion.

The attorney can advise me.

The the other attorney can't advise me.

Um, if you wish to replace the motion that's on the table, you can make your own motion, a substitute motion, and if it's seconded, then that would be voted on first.

Okay.

Well, we had a refusal to my friendly amendment from council member Barber.

And so you want me to make a new one?

It wouldn't be an amendment to the motion that's on the table.

You'd be making a substitute motion, okay, which if you obtain a second on that motion, it would be voted on before okay, Dr.

Barber's motion.

Thank you.

I make a substitute motion that we accept the um staff recommendation, but that 38.26.1 G.1A includes two, that both incentivized units would be very low income.

Um, I'm prepared to second that, but I need a clarification.

Is your motion intending that it's four units and not six?

Or are you talking about low income that would include lot splits underestimate?

For the urban lot split.

Yeah, so a low income requirement.

Right.

Okay.

I would second that motion.

Okay.

Um I won't be supporting that for the very reasons why it wasn't accepted by the motion maker when it was the front of the amendment, we wouldn't be in compliance with our housing element.

So with that, we'll go ahead and do understand for that.

Yeah, I would say that it's not that we wouldn't be in compliance per se.

It would be that that's what HDC didn't prefer.

And they were telegraphing that they wanted no limits on anything.

But they accepted it and they approved housing element.

Yes, they accepted that.

Okay.

What this motion would mean is that we are identifying a specific need of low income housing in Monterey, and that we believe that some of those units by builders should be required to answer the need, which is low income.

And that would be our defense.

Okay.

Can I just have staff clarify one more time for us?

If we approved the motion as it is on the table, would we be in compliance with our housing element?

Okay.

I got a no from the city manager.

I think we're good there.

I'm going to go ahead and call for the question.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Excuse me.

I'm sorry.

Everybody ready to go?

Yep.

Okay.

All those in favor of the motion?

Aye.

Aye.

And all those opposed?

No.

All right.

So we have two yes, three no.

So now we go back to the original motion.

All those in favor.

Wait, you were you're still you were still going around with one one last comment by each council member before that motion.

You just made your okay.

No, I made the motion.

I made the motion for on this on the secondary.

Please.

Yeah.

So I, you know, there's a lot there.

Um, you went on and you mentioned my comments three times.

I'm not going to go back and go point point for point.

But what I want to say is that this underlies one of the reasons why I'm on the city council.

And it sounds as though you're leaning in towards your housing advocacy.

And you made several comments about uh that there's no renters here that are advocating for it.

It's all we're always hearing about this from property owners.

And and I respect that because this is all about the quality of our neighborhoods.

Regardless of who lives in the neighborhoods, it's important for me to preserve the quality of what we have in Monterey and not turn it into something that people don't want.

People are expressing what they want in their neighborhoods.

And this is exactly why the conflict between the state and the city of Monterey in our land use is such a big deal.

So I hope that the core prevails and gives us as a charter city more control and says no to SB9.

Now, as a housing advocate, yes, we need more housing units.

And I was there for the two and a half years where we fought through the RENA numbers with Ambag on the fifth cycle and the second time where we got to the sixth cycle.

And again, to give you all a history lesson that for the public, this cycle was 600 units in RENA, and we accomplished 300.

In the sixth cycle, it's 3,654 units, and that's for eight years.

A dramatic increase.

The objectional piece to this is that housing development or community development in the process of arena establishment going through the numbers using their matrix and the position of andbag.

We were so limited in what we could vote for because what the state was doing to us.

And the last point I'll make is in the RENA problem with AMBAG, they would not allow us to articulate our shortage of water and a cease and desist.

They would not let us factor that into the equation.

So again, the state housing community development is doing a one size fits all through the state of California, and they're forcing cities to have these conflicts.

And in our city, we can't resolve 3,654 units in eight years, nor will we have water for those units that have applied in the foreseeable future, maybe two or three years.

Yes, I don't think a lot of those units, and to address what Gina was saying, likelihood is there won't be a lot of those units built in the larger lots because we don't have water.

Our policy impact will be in two or three years when there is water, when we have the water, and we see these things like SB9 start to take over our neighborhoods.

If we don't act now with the mindset of a policy that defends our neighbors rather than being a housing advocate, I would caution this council and all councils, have a local mindset to listen to your neighbors and listen to the speakers in this count in this chambers, the last two sessions.

Overwhelmingly, the folks don't want this.

And to lean in and tell them not in your words wrong, but to preach to them in your how your housing advocacy, Mayor, I think is insulting to the members of the public.

It's insulting the ones that are home listening.

And I think that the tenor of what I'm hearing is moderate residents are concerned for their future because they don't feel like they have enough advocates at this council.

And thank you, Gene, for standing up with me.

I think the neighbors count, the neighbors know best, and we need to be careful with how we change our ones in our community.

And this issue will grow to become a harder issue to deal with when there's water.

And I fear that we're not going to be able to stop this and control the unabated growth in the wrong neighborhoods.

That's all I have to say.

Okay.

Any other comments?

So I want to make sure we're clear.

Councilmember Smith is thinking for himself and council member uh Rouse, but he doesn't speak for me when putting me in a lot of not caring for the resident.

I think by making that comment and having it to be very blanket, it's very manipulative.

And so I think it's very important for people to understand just because someone wants to be in compliance with the state policy, bringing it back after the legalities are settled, doesn't mean that you're not hearing from everyone, not just only people in the room, but people who contact us who are out of the room who are part of the 36,000 who live here in the beautiful city of Monterey.

Everybody's voice counts, and I think that's important to all of us who are here.

And so I would not degrade anybody by thinking that any less of that.

So my motion still stands.

I'm hearing from everybody.

I have concerns just like you, but I also know I want to be in compliance so that we don't have the risk of 10 to 50,000 a month, but also saying the caveat of bringing it back to make sure that we're able to modify when we can actually do that legally.

So that's all I have to say, and my motion still stands.

Any last comments on this side?

Okay.

Um I'll comment, Councilmember Smith around the preservation of our communities, which by the way, I live in a community, I live in Old Town, I'm part of this community just like everybody else.

And just because I take a different stance and I'm trying to listen to voices outside of um uh I I what I would refer to as a little bit of the iceberg effect, right?

There's a few folks here, but there's a larger number of voices that exist outside of those that have shared their public opinion with us, either digitally or in person.

Um we cannot preserve our communities if people continue to get priced out.

And when those of us that have it already, right?

We own our property, we're set.

There can be it's very easy for us, and I'm lumping myself in there because I'm a property owner.

It can be very easy for us to forget the plight of people that don't live that existence, and so I'm advocating for everybody in our community, whether you agree with my opinion or not, because I want to take care of our community.

I don't want to get fined 10 to 50,000 a month.

I want those dollars to go back into maybe creating a program that creates more affordable housing in our community.

So I think we need to find a way of bringing all of us together, and I fully acknowledge and understand that folks are not happy around the direction that we're taking as it relates to this vote.

Um in as much as I can appreciate that, we have to make a decision and we have to find a way of moving forward, and so for that reason I will support the motion.

Um and I'll go ahead and call the question.

Uh nope, I'm sorry, but I no, it's a good time because it and you brought me back in.

Ed, I what I said was before Jean made her her attempt to make a second um substitute.

Substitute motion, I said I'm gonna go around and give everybody one more chance.

Excuse me.

Ed, please let me finish.

Please let me finish.

So you made a comment on the substitute motion, and I tried to not allow you to speak again because you had already made a comment, but you rightfully clarified for me that you didn't make a comment of your general last minute swing at it.

So you made your comment, I went around to everybody else.

I did my second one, we all did it.

So if I open it back up for you, we're gonna have to open it back up for everybody else.

I'm calling the question.

All those in favor of the motion, aye, any opposed?

Yes.

Motion passes three, two.

I got you.

Okay, all right.

With that, and I have to go on my phone, so I apologize my computer died.

Um so item number seven, which is amend and restate resolution 25-058, the FY2526 position control list to delete a deputy city attorney classification and add a new deputy city attorney one-two slash two classification and amend the and restate resolution 25-059, the FY2526 salary schedule to establish the salary.

I'm gonna go ahead and just go straight to public comment because I know that this was polled by a member of the public.

So we'll go ahead and open it up for folks on Zoom.

Um, use a raise hand function.

Anybody in the chamber wish to speak on this item?

All right, I'm not seeing okay.

We have one, so we go ahead and close it off in the chamber to just the one, and we'll jump back to Zoom.

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

And we have one person on Zoom, please.

Yes.

Just to clarify the um, can you tell me the subject matter?

Okay.

So it basically we're um amending our position control list as it relates to um the deputy city attorney position in the city.

Yes, um, just the distraction of everyone on our other room.

Uh no, you're fine.

I couldn't I once again I'm sometimes gathering my thoughts, but um, they're always there.

Um I have to commend you on the um model.

Sorry for a little ID.

What's that contrast with your problems?

And um it's difficult to um, but yeah, you're doing it fighting state issues, and at the state level, um it's sad that we don't have communities representing that broader issue of the state.

Sorry, and I just want to clarify um the public comments are specifically to this item.

So I and as much as I appreciate your your comments, um, I just have to make sure that we stay on topic as it relates to this item.

Yes, once again, I kind of lost my train of file.

No worries with the adjustment of all the people, no worries.

Um, I will not comment more.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

With that, we'll go to their public comments or on Zoom.

Cecilia, you could go ahead.

Hello.

Hi, it's Cecilia again.

Um, anyhow, I've I've lived here in uh Monterey for 13 years, and I've really grown to love this area.

And I agree with council member Smith.

I think we're rushing into things.

And sorry, I I apologize for interrupting, but we're we're now on to the next item.

So the public comments have to be specific to the to that new item that we're on, which is regarding our deputy city attorney position.

Oh, I'm so sorry.

Okay.

No worries.

Sorry for the confusion.

Okay.

All right.

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

We'll bring it back to the council.

Are there any questions from the council?

Please, uh Councilmember Rash.

I think the question is.

Listen to me.

And uh Madam Attorney can comment.

It's whether our codes allow that appointment, or do we have to change update the code?

And I presume it wouldn't have gotten this far without it being totally legal.

So right, right.

Your interpretation is correct.

Um I think the public commenter was thinking our city charter limited um the city council to only having one attorney, but um that's not uh I don't have concerns with having staff and having the office staffed.

Um it's legal and it's been the case for a very long time.

Okay, and I think the confusion is that when you move on to the discussion of the city manager, it calls it all out quite eloquently.

And maybe the the commenter expected that kind of language.

Probably, I think that's probably correct.

Yeah.

Any other questions or the motion and deliberation?

Uh I'll make a motion that we uh pass recommendation number seven, gender item number seven.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded.

Any other comments?

All those in favor, aye, any opposed?

Motion passes unanimously.

We're gonna move to our public hearing item number eight.

Adopt the historic preservation commission and planning commission recommendations to approve first reading of an ordinance to rezone eight seventeen Martin Street from R115 to R115 H2 as a historic resource and authorize a Mills Act contract property tax savings program for historic structures.

But that'll pass it to Hans for staff.

I assume you all read the agenda report.

Do you have any questions?

Are there any questions from the council?

None.

All right, we'll take it out to the public.

Anybody in the public wish to speak on this item for folks on Zoom, you can use the raise hand function.

Meantime, I'll check in the chamber.

Anybody in the chamber wish to speak on this item?

All right, I see none.

So we'll go ahead and go back to Zoom.

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

There's nobody on Zoom.

Bring it back to the council for motion deliberation.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded.

Um, I I'm gonna just jump in and make a quick comment here that um I have some concern around um I I know that our timeline has lapsed from our previous discussion as it relates to the MILS Act, which is why this is in front of us today.

Um, but I'm concerned around the loss of property tax, which is already a struggle for the city of Monterey for properties that I question are even fully compliant with our program, um, as it relates to having Mills Act status and um what the overall benefit or value is to our community.

I completely appreciate the preservation of um historic properties.

And so um I I I it's a hard conversation to have as it relates to that.

Um, but I just I'm interested in having this conversation come back so we can figure out how to move forward with this.

Any last other comments from the council?

Um I would echo too.

Yeah, we I look forward to seeing us revisit that and fine-tuning that and uh bringing in some limitations on um the mills act for the future.

Alrighty, and with that, we'll go ahead and do a roll call vote.

Uh sorry, we'll just do a vote.

All those in favor, aye, any opposed?

Motion passes unanimously.

With that, we'll move to the public appearance item number nine, appoint council members as representative in alternatives to serve on the Access Media Productions AMP board of directors.

Um, can I just oh, I'll pass it to Hans.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Um, the the bylaws of uh Access Monterey Peninsula.

This is the uh the organization that helps us uh to to uh transmit uh the uh council meetings, planning commission meetings, and a variety of other services uh that runs also the local channel 24, 25, and 26 for various communities.

Uh they are requiring now, their bylaws are requiring that the cities of Monterey's representatives has to be a council member.

In the past, it was either the assistant city manager or another staff member of the city of Monterey.

So tonight we are asking you that the council is uh appointing a council member to serve as a representatives of the uh excess monterey peninsula board as a representative and an alternate for that as well.

The board meets quarterly on the third Monday of the month in person and via Zoom, and the meetings are um at 12 p.m.

at lunchtime.

So meetings are held at the M headquarters at 465 Tyler Street in Monterey.

And so with that, I hope that you can um appoint a council member and an alternate alternate today.

And then how did we get not in compliance with the bylaws?

How did that happen?

I think they changed the bylaws uh in January.

And Lori had a 10-minute presentation prepared.

Thank you for being prepared.

If you like, uh we can go there.

Mayor and council.

Actually, I had to like a one or two minute, but yeah, the the bylaws were changed in early 2025.

Okay, yeah.

And and historically, it's always been um the uh city um staff member that was appointed.

All right, perfect.

Any other questions from the council?

All right, thank you, Larry.

Thank you for the being prepared for um all right.

Public commenters.

Anyone 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?

I am not seeing any takers, so with that, I will close it for the chamber and do a countdown for folks on Zoom to five, four, three, two, yeah, one.

We have nobody on Zoom.

Bring it back to the council, please, Hans.

Yeah, you uh, so I just want to procedurally that we are um you have.

They're just getting comments.

Just get comments and then you appoint someone.

Got it.

I'm sorry.

No, no, you're good.

You're good.

Yeah.

Any takers?

It's it's uh was nobody online.

We close public comment.

Okay.

Um not really because I've already kind of booked on Mondays, but like to hear what other everybody else says.

I'll come volunteer.

But I don't know anything about technology.

Oh, gosh.

This is what happens when you say something, then you get called out for it.

I was waiting.

Gino, what do you think?

Yeah, I'll do I'd be glad to do it.

I know Monday's terrible for you.

There you go.

And I can be an alternate.

I'll make so I'll make it an alternate.

We'll just go from MST.

You're there, council.

You're there.

Okay.

So that's my motion.

My motion is Gene.

Uh primary ed alternate, is then seconded.

Any other discussion?

All right, all those in favor, aye.

Any opposed?

Motion passed in and unanimously.

Council comments.

Anybody have council comments?

Uh, just real two quick questions.

I'd be interested to know is there are we overlooking an opportunity to address a comment about roosters?

I've lived close by, not in this city to roosters, and it was really tough.

So I'd like to know from staff in the future.

Do we need to do anything on a rooster uh ordinance to control that ownership of roosters are still not legal in Monterey?

Uh, that would be my preference.

The other one is uh a couple of comments about uh the rec trail safety hazards.

I know somebody who got hit by a bicycle when they were walking to work, and I got an email from uh another near near hit on the rec trail.

Very congested um around wharf one.

And particularly, I would be interested if we could bring it back and get from staff a sense of is there any opportunity for us to get more enforcement, also speed limits, um, and also an opportunity to look and see where we're going to be doing striping around where the vendors are set up along the rec trail.

I'd be interested to know is that an opportunity to also look at our potential lines and striping on the other side of wharf one on both sides of the rec trail to improve the safety as they cross wharf one.

So I'd like to see what staff might have to do about uh offering some options to improve safety along the rec trail, especially at the crossings of the very high impact intersections.

Anybody else?

Well, I just want to say I support that because it's a reoccurring issue is the safety.

Yeah.

And NCIP deals with this every session.

We get lots of comments.

Yeah.

NCIP gets lots of comments.

We have to be a little bit careful how we talk about it because we don't want to avoid it on an agenda.

Just maybe bring it back and we talk about it.

Right.

Let's bring it back.

Okay.

Any other council comments?

Okay.

Um to city manager reports.

Uh, thank you.

So this Thursday at Hilltop Park, we are uh starting something new.

It's called City Hall in your corner.

Uh it's a pop-up event where we are basically bringing everyone uh from uh different departments uh um uh every department will be represented there.

Neighbors can come ask questions about parking building permits, uh, us public works, what they are doing, uh, and ask uh our community development director how many chickens we are actually allowing in our um uh uh ordinance and also what we can do if a chicken uh starts cockadoodling uh because that's also happened when we had chickens, female chickens do the noise of a rooster.

So um we're kind of knowing about that issue.

Uh Councilmember Smith.

It's it's not a trivial one.

Um, so this will happen at Hiltop Park uh this Thursday from 5 to 7 30, and the next one is planned at Montecito uh at the Montecito Park area for September uh 13th.

That is a Saturday uh in the um in the time I believe from 10 to 1 or something like that.

We'll we'll get in more details.

Um we also um are at the back end of car week.

Um, this car week was was different than previous covers.

Uh we received quite a number of concerns and complaints from residents.

Uh, the police department, our police department in the city of Monterey was on top of things.

Uh, we had a lot of um uh 212 traffic stops.

We issued uh 130 citations, uh, 10 of the drivers were arrested.

Uh one of the drivers was carrying a gun.

Um, we also towed four cars.

Um, there was a side show uh at in an outburger, and our residents live close in that neighborhood to in an outburger, which um uh happened on a Thursday, it also happened on a Friday, and it happened also on a Saturday.

Uh we will uh have a conversation with our friends over in Seaside, uh, because it should not have happened repetitively.

Um, and uh that definitely is something I would like to address uh with them as well.

Our neighbors were the ones who were suffering from the noise, and I can only imagine what the hotels surrounding hotels had to do also with compensation of rooms, especially two hotels in Seaside and one across the street at the Hampton in Monterey.

Um, so again, this car week was different.

There has to be follow-on work that we as staff will do, and I will share also with you, council on Friday, all the received uh complaints that we received in writing as well as telephone messages.

So you also get a good feel about that.

Uh, the main challenge I see, and I I will be very, very brief, is that the character of the exotics on Broadway as well as the additional event at Monterey County Fairgrounds uh are attracting a crowd that is uh favoring um side shows such as burnouts, uh, um right uh doing donuts and and reving the engine, and that uh definitely uh has significantly contributed to um the negativity that we are now hearing back from our neighbors uh at Laguna Grande, but also the neighbors in the Casa Ova Oaknol, Villa del Monte neighborhood who also heard a lot of those those noises.

So we'll address this also with Monroe County Fairgrounds and hope that um we all uh at the end come to a good solution thank you Hans Um with that we um are going to be transitioning to closed session but we'll take public comment on the closed session agenda item um closer closed session item number ten conference with legal counsel existing litigation for government section five four and ninety five six act ninety one we'll check with folks on Zoom to use the raise hand function anybody in the chamber wish to speak on this item all right seeing none we'll close it off to the chamber and do a countdown for folks on Zoom to five four three two one we have zero on Zoom we'll go ahead and close public comment and we're going to recess and we'll be reconvening at seven o'clock.

How 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 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 Hello, everybody.

Welcome to our evening session of our council meeting today, August 19, 2025.

We'll go ahead and call the meeting back to order.

Um we'll start off with the pledge of allegiance, and I think it is Council Member Rash's turn.

Yeah.

I've learned to the five at the United States of America.

To the Republic from which it stands one nation under God, with liberty and justice for all.

With that, we'll do announcements from closed session.

Uh existing litigation items one through eleven.

There is no reportable action.

Awesome.

That's easy enough.

With that, we'll go ahead and adjourn to a joint meeting of City Council and NCIP committee and establish quorum of NCIP committee.

And I'll pass it to Clementine and take roll call of NCIP committee.

For Aguajito Oaks, um member Purdy.

Or um alternate Babrowski.

Okay, we do not have Aguajito Oaks.

Um for Alta Mesa, Member Stocker.

And for Casanova Oak Noel, Member Schmidt.

For Deer Flats, Member Kohic.

For Del Monte Beach, Member Fields.

For Del Money Grove, Laguna Grande, Member Hampton.

For downtown, Member Tipton.

For fisherman flats, Member Baker.

And that alternate seat is vacant, so we do not have Fisherman Flats.

Um for Glenwood, Member Whitney.

Yeah.

For Monterey Vista, Member Yanish.

For New Monterey, Chair Obona here.

For Oak Grove, Member Adam.

Or um that vac that alternate is vacant as well.

So we do not have Oak Grove.

For Old Town, Member Rickettson.

For Skyline, Vice Chair Duke.

Good evening.

And for Villa del Monte or Via Del Monte, Member Johnson.

Or alternate Jennings.

We do not have Villa del Monte either.

Thank you, Mr.

Man.

Thank you, Clementine.

With that, we'll go to our public appearance item for this evening number 11 joint meeting on this of the city council and neighborhood and community improvement program, also known as NCIP, to discuss project priorities and process.

That I'll pass it to Hans to begin the presentation.

It's a follow-on meeting from a meeting that we uh had uh held uh I think a year ago at the Hilltop Park Center.

And um at that time uh a lot of uh topics were discussed, and uh I think uh in the past uh 12 months or so uh there has been significant progress being made with respect to uh the collaboration and and the working uh uh environment that that um this NCIP has now uh created together with with staff.

Um from a city uh manager's perspective, um we are really struggling still uh and will continue to struggle with staffing issues.

Um the the NCIP is probably very uh much aware of those uh issues.

Uh we uh with the help of the council, we uh adjusted the salaries for our engineering and project manager positions.

Um, but it seems that we are not able to um attract uh qualified candidates.

And just today, we were disappointed by another uh applicant who we had extended an employment offer to.

And unfortunately, this did not materialize today, even though we tried to uh intervene and personally also convince that person that there is no other choice than the city of Monterey to work and live and engineer for.

Uh, this um also parallel, we have another uh position that is leaving us in uh in public works, and uh so we are understaffed.

Uh and we will be understaffed for uh the uh for the for very considerable time.

Um we also are trying to um manage the projects, the bulk of projects that we have in the CIP and in the NCIP by using um uh a variety of of uh um tools that we have in our toolkit, which is uh using outside engineering companies, outside project management companies, um, outside consultants to help us with the projects.

Um the disappointing news I need to share with you is number one is they all are also uh in in uh high demand, and also um they are also not uh the the solution to a lot of our challenges, which is timely project delivery.

Because at the end of the day, they can also choose and pick what they want to work on and how they prioritize.

And uh one of the challenges we have as a government is that government work is safe work.

People uh know that we are here, that we have the money, and if there's some other opportunities coming up, they will um find ways to uh ensure that they can ride the wave as long as they can ride the wave.

So if there is a recession and then we have a downward spiral of our economy and nothing is moving, our projects uh get get pushed through pretty fast.

But if we have um uh an area at a time of of high um demand for certain professions and engineering, um we are uh part of um the process of um our consultants who then select what is uh the most economic way for them to maneuver through the next two, three, four years.

However, having said that, they also have the same challenges we have.

They are also not fully staffed, and they are also looking for help.

So, why why do I say that as my setup before I introduce um Andrea is um we we very much council and NCIP um suggest that we are um careful with the number of projects that we are awarding this year.

Uh Reggie's um uh Reggie's data will show you uh how much we are already in the hole.

Everyone is painfully aware of that.

It doesn't help anyone if we are adding uh 30, 40 new projects to that.

So my appeal tonight is um let's limit it.

Uh think about what is a good number to limit those projects.

But I tell you when Reggie tells you he can work on 12 to 14 projects a year, we complete that number per year.

Uh that's a number I think that is already astronomically high for the cycle of um uh upcoming NCIP project.

So uh B my appeal is uh let's look at a number that is manageable, and maybe it's a number that is below 10.

And uh I ask for below 10, knowing that you will probably give us 20.

So um uh I um uh I wanted to caution all of us.

Uh we we cannot we cannot provide the the amount of work that um that we'd like to do, and it's not because we are not capable of doing it, but it's just because the environment right now is so tough that we do not have enough um uh professional capacity inside the city and outside of the city to help us manage all those projects.

Uh so with that underway, that is my hope for tonight that we create also a little bit of breathing room and understanding for the number of future projects for Andrea, Reggie, and her and entire engineering and project team.

Uh I hand it over to our very capable public works director, Andrea Rennie.

Thank you, Hans.

And good evening, is it working?

Okay, good.

Uh, good evening, mayor, council members, and CIP chair, vice chair, committee members, and members of the public and residents.

So, as Hans mentioned, this is the second meeting that we've had in about a year and a half.

The last one we have was in uh July 18th of 2024, which is hard to believe.

It's all been over a year.

So during that meeting, there are quite a few requests and comments, and staff heard the comments and requests from council and the committee members.

So we have had more member more meetings with the chair and vice chair, and those have been extremely productive.

And I'm very grateful.

Um, for you taking the time to meet with us and to go over agendas and all that we do.

Uh, the mayor, Mayor Williamson, and council member Raj have also attended the meetings.

And the other thing that we did since last year is we also changed the NCIP schedule.

That has been very, very helpful because before the nominations were due very early in the year, so they were due about February.

And that was before we had the chance to show to council the city of the state infrastructure, the CIP, the budget.

And so with this change, now what we've done is the nominations close after the state of the city, the CIP and a budget are adopted.

So there's more transparency and more of an opportunity to understand what the financials are and what projects are needed.

Um on June 3rd, City Council also we had a meeting that we have once a year where city council less the NCIP committee knows, know what the priorities are for the next year.

And that used to happen before voting night, but also before the nomination after the nominations were due.

So there's not a chance to nominate projects that the council felt were important.

So by changing the schedule, there's also an opportunity to have that discussion before nominations are due.

We um as staff, we also went to uh the NCIP committee on June 11th, and we had a discussion on the city projects.

Where NCIP committee asked questions, and then um we also collaborated with NCAP on submitting projects.

So out of the 73 new projects that were submitted, I want to say about 20 of them were very closely coordinated with staff.

In fact, um we work with Dennis and other members of the NCAP committee to actually put their name on these nominations that we wrote together.

So with that, I just want to say that we are struggling with staff capacity.

Um, of the person that Hans said might be leaving public works, it's not Reggie, so rest assured.

It's not myself and it's not Reggie.

So okay.

Um Reggie did get an intern, she was very helpful.

Um, we do have consultants, we have other folks, but as Hans mentioned, we're still running at about 50% vacancy, so we still have some challenges.

And before Reggie gives us a quick status update on projects, I want to recognize the work of the chair and vice chair on all of this, the hard work of the committee.

And I also want to express my gratitude because it has been a different year.

It has a it has been a year that has been full of collaboration.

I feel like the meetings are really great.

You do have a lot of committees, but I think everybody works well together.

And as staff, I think we really appreciate that.

Reggie.

All right, um, thank you.

Um, so I'll jump right into it.

So I'm just gonna highlight some of the the numbers from NCIP um this year and in uh the past couple of years.

So uh in the last three NCIP cycles, NCI uh council has approved and funded 105 projects.

That was 31 in 2022, 44 in 23, and 30 in 24.

Um, those part projects totaled to 22 million dollars uh in budget.

Um in that same time period, last three years, we staff has completed 38 projects to date: 15 and 23, 18 and 24, and five so far this year and 25.

We currently have 75 active projects.

Um by active, I think there's there's question, what does that actually mean?

So active means they're on the books, and we're at least thinking about them.

We're trying to get to them.

Um we're working towards completing those projects.

There's like another 18, 20 that are sitting for some reason or another.

Um we brought four of those to council uh two weeks ago.

Um, so we're gonna close those out.

That leaves what another 16 that I'll be at some point bringing here uh to talk about.

Uh currently of the 75 active uh city staff, parks, public works, ISD, police department, various other um, we're working on 44.

So that leaves 30 what 31 that we're not touching really.

Um they're in the they're on the bench, we're hoping to get to them at some point.

Um the community members that you know have those nominated those projects who who want them done.

Um if you recall two weeks ago I was here, I said I'd receive four calls, emails, you know, inquiries on what's going on with my project.

So just to catch you up, the next week.

So last week I got three of those, and this week one.

So in three weeks, I'm at eight.

Um people following up, calling, questioning what's going on with my project.

Um so that's where that's where we are with those.

Um, as Andrea said, we received 73 new nominations in total.

Uh the process will start again um September 3rd.

So uh after Labor Day.

Uh voting nights November 19, and we'll be back here uh with the projects in front of city council on April 7, 2026.

All right, so uh I'm I'll be around and available for questions.

And I think it's uh back to Hans, right?

No, no, okay, to the mayor.

Okay.

Um well thank you to the NCIP for um all the work that you all are doing.

Uh I'll try that again.

Thank you to the NCIP committee members for all the work that you all are doing and representing your neighborhoods and um I've had the fortune of attending all but that one on June 11th as I was out of town, but um just being able to listen in um has helped me better understand the process and see what you all do.

So um I appreciate the work that you all do.

Um and I'm thankful that we're able to be back in the same space again to pick up on the conversation that we had from last year.

Um, I think just big picture and trying to um, you know, going through some of the feedback that was provided to the NCIP in the lead up for today's meeting.

When I think about the priority of what the NCIP looks like moving forward, um the thing that I think about um through the conversations that the council has had over the last year since we've last met, um, are our capital improvement needs.

Um, and so how do we help achieve those?

One of the things that I think about is we have different buckets of money in the city.

Um, our main bucket of money is um TOT tax, and so when we look at these different flavors of money, in my mind, we should be prioritizing those funds towards things that are similar or relevant to that flavor of money.

And so to me, the most relevant thing as it relates to uh TOT dollars is how do we lessen the impact of tourism in Monterey on local residents?

And when I look through the projects that are proposed by staff, when we look at globally the entire city, a lot of the projects in the CIP meet that need.

And so I just look back to this past week with Car Week and all those pressures that we all felt.

And there's a lot of projects that are currently going on, but there are a lot of projects that are way deferred.

We could have helped lessen the impact by addressing these things.

And how can we take a pause and be creative about having a conversation as a community around what does that look like?

What does being more intentional around lessening the impact of tourism?

We have to recognize that TOT is in a large way our bread and butter, and it's not going to go anywhere.

So, how do we help strengthen that and help support what increases in tourism look like?

Because that's what running a business does, which in a way, this is somewhat of a business transaction as it relates to our sources of revenue and the expenditures as it relates to the programs that we offer in the city of Monterey.

So that's just something that I think about is how do we prioritize those types of projects.

So just kind of sharing my my thoughts out loud.

How do we do that?

And it's going to be a tough conversation.

I know that our study session next week, which I would encourage folks to listen into, is going to be focused on different ways of funding a lot of the deferred maintenance and infrastructure needs that exists in the city and how we pay for that.

So I look forward to that discussion and public comment.

It's going to definitely be appreciated as we engage in that discourse.

Another thing that was brought up in the staff report from NCIP members was resident engagement.

And I'm I'm pointing to my colleague here to the to my right, maybe y'all's left.

Gino has brought up before this idea of participatory budgeting.

And it seems to do a lot with what NCIP does with helping to try to prioritize our budget in the city of Monterey.

And so I think as we think big picture and try to reimagine how things are done, how can we incorporate that into the process in a more intentional way?

So just kind of wanted to bring that up as a way to try to do a better job.

I think we do a good job through the neighborhood associations of engaging with folks in our neighborhoods.

How can we do even better on getting more folks engaged and involved in the process?

And I think there's value in that.

And then the last thing I would speak to before I pass it to the chair is um, I know I think it was sometime last year we were having discussion around NCIP, and or maybe it was two years ago, and I had posed or asked the question around the idea of changing the seat makeup of NCIP.

And I just want to reassure folks that I'm not pushing for that.

It was um a question at the time that I thought was worth considering, but I think that there's enough other things going on and pieces moving where we don't need to engage in that conversation.

Um, so anyways, that's just a little bit of an intro for me.

I'm really interested in hearing from the committee members and what feedback that you have in engaging in a deeper conversation here.

So with that, I will pass it to the chair.

And I did include a slide.

Are we able to pull that up?

So while we're reading for that, I just want to go ahead and extend uh thanks to the city council, city staff, uh NCIP members that are here tonight, as well as the public.

Um, I think there has been a lot of progress towards improving communication, collaboration uh between this committee and city staff.

And I specifically want to shout out Andrea, Reggie, and Parker who have been amazing to work with and really helpful in fostering that sense of collaboration between the staff and the committee.

I think a lot has been said about NCIP and the process, but I also want to explain what that process looks like for those who may not be familiar with how NCIP works or those who haven't attended a meeting.

And I included a slide that was a year in review.

So these are the meetings that we had in 2024.

The data from this slide was taken from minutes from the meetings as well as looking at uh submitted public comments or written comments as well to get a sense of what the engagement was like during those meetings.

So we had a total of nine meetings.

We start off the year with an orientation, and then we move on to preliminarily screening all the projects that are submitted.

So that second meeting is after the deadline, and we get all the projects submitted.

We then do a first review, and we break that up by doing the first half of all the neighborhoods and then the second half of the neighborhoods.

We follow that up with a second review, again broken up by first half of neighborhoods and second half of neighborhoods, um, and then we move on to our voting night, um, and then we have a wrap-up meeting, and we happen to have a special meeting in December.

Uh so total of nine meetings, average meeting time about two to three hours.

Um, and uh in terms of um public engagement, uh, we really see those numbers go up uh during the first and second reviews of the projects.

So oftentimes these are people who submit projects, people who are aware of projects that have been submitted and want to voice their support or opposition uh towards those projects.

Um, and we also get an uptick there as well in terms of um written comments that were submitted uh prior to the meeting.

Uh so looking at that in total, it's uh from the data that I was able to access about 18 hours and 30 uh 32 minutes, more likely more than that.

Um, in terms of public comments, more than 120, 123, and then the written comments about 42.

Uh, but those numbers don't include the amount of time that is spent by each of the individual NCIP reps and the alternates uh who are doing the legwork with the submitters of those projects, who vet the projects, who advocate uh for their neighborhood as well as the entire city by doing outreach and outreach is not just neighborhood associations, it's also getting feedback by sending out emails, surveys, social media.

I've really tried this year specifically to try to let more people know when we're having NCIP meetings.

Um, not on Facebook, but I am on Nextdoor.

Uh so I do post before the meetings on Nextdoor that we're having the meetings.

I post the links uh for the agenda, the links for how to join on Zoom.

Um, and I've actually gotten some people right back and say thank you and actually say that they're gonna attend a meeting.

Uh, and these are people who've never attended a meeting before.

Um, so really a lot of effort has been made to try to increase engagement and let everybody know that anyone can submit these projects.

Um, and uh anyone can come to meetings and uh voice their support or opposition uh about those projects.

Um so I really see NCIP as a liaison between residents in the cities and the city uh regarding what residents view as a priority as it as it relates to recommendations for how the NCIP funds are being used.

And sometimes there are different perspectives when it comes to that.

Um there's a different perspective from residents in terms of what they feel is a priority, and then different perspective from the city in terms of what they view as a priority.

Um, but it's really that process of going through the NCIP uh committee that is the best and I think ideal form to be able to vet all of those qualifying project ideas and have a place where all projects are viewed as viewed viewed at equally.

So there isn't a heavier weight uh based on who is submitting the projects.

And I think that's something that's very unique and really important about that process.

So in other decisions as it relates to how funds are used by the city, residents may not necessarily have as much of a say.

So through this NCIP process, their voice is really important and emphasized.

And so I think it's important to protect the integrity of the NCIP process as well as to remember the spirit of the program.

So why was NCIP even thought of as being a program and why we have a committee in the first place?

So again, as the numbers show, this is a very important program for Monterey residents.

It does encourage engagement of residents who may not otherwise participate in local government.

I will say this is my third year on the committee.

My first year I served as the new Monterey alternate, and then I applied for the rep position when that position became open the following year.

I also want to emphasize that since my first year and learning from more experienced NCIP committee members, there was always an emphasis on projects that promote safety and public health.

So that's always what was told to me on day one, as even as an alternate, that those are the projects that we really want to focus on and make sure we're advocating for.

But we all work together, we all collaborate and we really try to ensure that each neighborhood's top priorities are included in that priority list, which is the product of the voting night.

And that's the list that eventually gets sent to city council.

So we spend a lot of time and effort in this volunteer position.

I do understand that the uh city council does have a final say as it relates to where the funding goes.

But I do hope that there's a recognition of the work, the time, the sweat, the effort that goes into this voluntary position, and uh really looking at this, uh looking at the list and vetting the list and working with other residents.

Um it's very important work, it takes a lot of time, and I think it's a really um valuable service that the NCIP uh provides for the city.

Um I did want to give a metaphor.

I uh for the past five years or so I've been quilting, and I will say if you've ever received a handmade quilt for someone, you know that you are absolutely loved.

Because when you're making a quilt, a quilt, there's a lot of thought that goes in and intentionality that goes into picking fabrics, thinking about the color scheme, picking out the thread, thinking about the type of stitches that you're gonna use to put together that top layer, and then finally the actual quilting part is putting those three layers together and um doing a quilting design uh using a specific stitch pattern.

Um, and so I feel like that's very similar to kind of the NCIP process in that it's a labor of love.

We really do our best to try to represent the residents of Monterey, just as the city council does its best to try to um represent all the residents of Monterey as well.

Um so I would definitely encourage council to watch the meetings online, get a sense of uh the engagement of the process of vetting that we do.

Um I would think that it would be a great idea for you guys also to have access to the full applications that are submitted to get a better sense of what the project, what the submitter intended in terms of writing the uh the specific project uh and specifically the projects that do end up on the priority list.

Um, so really encouraging you guys to try to hear, understand and balance what the residents want to see the NCIP funds spent on, even if it may not necessarily be how the council would personally prioritize that list.

I think there's still a lot of work to be done in addressing the backlog of projects, and I and that's been addressed.

We are very grateful for the dedicated staff that is that has been working on the project.

So again, shout out to Reggie and saying thank you for all of your hard work.

Um I think there can be improvement in terms of communication with the NCIP reps and alternates uh with residents that are submitting their projects to kind of set more realistic expectations as it relates to yearly budgets, construction timelines, um prioritization, uh, and how best to follow up on the prog on the progress of approved projects.

So that is all I have to say for now.

Thanks.

Thank you for that.

That was a great intro.

Um and I think with that.

It says public comment next.

Is that in lockstep with direction of workers if you're going in, Hans?

Uh yes, I'll unless you want to ask all the NCIP members to.

Do we want to have NCIP go first or do you guys want to hear from the public first before we engage?

Any thoughts?

Public first?

All right, okay.

Yeah, all right.

So let's open it up for public comment for folks on Zoom.

If you use the raise hand function, and while you're navigating your way there, I will check in the chamber.

Anybody in the chamber wish to speak on this item?

All right.

I'm not seeing any takers in the chamber.

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

And we have one person on Zoom.

Esther, you can go ahead.

Good evening, everybody.

I can't believe that there's nobody to comment besides me.

Um, I just wanted to say um huge thank you to Reggie and Shaniri and all of the NCIP reps.

I can already sense there's a whole different feeling to how this committee is being approached.

And I think it's much more inclusive.

And I think the new leadership and the new um people that were included and allowed to be part of the committee are definitely setting a new tone that is very much appreciated by those of us that have been watching and involved.

I've said before, uh Reggie needs more help.

Obviously, you guys know that.

Um, I know that he does the best he can, and I don't know what the answer to solving that is.

But really, I just want to say a big thank you to all the NCIP reps and the new leadership and um my personal, my my neighborhood's NCIP rep, Scott Hansen, who does a great job working with our neighborhood and prioritizing our needs.

Thank you.

Okay.

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

Um, so we can just open it up and uh we do let's have the NCIP go first, and then maybe we can have the council provide some comments so time for questions, comments, thoughts, ideas, please.

Yeah, maybe I can also um we we ask, we we can uh we ask NCIP for some uh feedback uh or some ideas to talk about and some of those are maybe we can discuss um also priorities uh for the upcoming cycle.

What are the priorities you like to see as council?

Um how can we more engage the residents?

Um how do we prioritize projects?

So that also would be helpful.

Uh Reggie works on 44 projects that he touches.

Uh is it does it make sense that he touches 44?

Should he focus just on the ones that are really um on the launch pad there?

Um, we want to talk about NCIP term limits.

Is that something that the council wants to discuss?

We have um again talked about that before.

Um, what what ideas does the council have for the NCIP?

Uh, how can we together figure out how we tackle the backlog?

Uh and um also, is there uh a path forward to add maintenance uh to NCIP projects that cost for maintenance.

So these were all topics that from time to time um came forward, and it might be now also a good time to to collaborate on that and exchange um ideas, opinions, and suggestions.

Thank you, Hans.

All right.

With that, we will pass it.

Maybe you guys can just pass the mic and we'll put on the line.

Whatever.

Okay.

You know what might be helpful is if you just come to the lectern.

That's a good mic.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So the budget constraints have constraints in our working areas.

Final sister, I'd tell you to apply right away.

Um, which doesn't take a lot of thinking about how it's public safety and full action.

Because without those sidewalk, read our AI post because if a lot of factors, is there a way that we could turn off this one?

Maybe they use the that mic sounds better.

Can we mute?

Can we that one?

The one in the lecture.

Okay.

And the hand just use that.

I wasn't going to talk, but they handed me the microphone.

So I just want to say thank you, everybody, for being here because you guys put in a lot of hours too, and that's really appreciated.

It's important, everybody serving the public is important, and the roles you're playing are essential.

Um I want to say uh city council has kept NIP on the forefront of my neighborhood's tongues all year, even during slow season this year.

Uh thank you.

So we've we've had a lot of discussions, um, talking about taking funding from NIP, uh, talking about changing the way the represents our representatives are talking about limiting or or restricting the the bringing of revenue who represents.

Um what I can tell you is though, we've also had lots of good discussions.

Uh we have the smallest number uh in our neighborhood has had the smallest number of new projects submitted this year that they've ever had in all the time I've been a rep.

And they're small, and the little bits of money just supporting existing departmental operations to get a few little things done.

The conversation in my neighborhood right now is we've got good projects we'd like to get them done.

So the the conversation is not about mine's more important, it's just let's work together to get them done.

And in the past, what we've seen as representatives is when we let the engineers in the city have their choices, they can make good choices about what to get done.

They can put projects together to make them more efficient, they can prioritize based on costing that they're seeing.

Uh so that's kind of just a little bit in answer to those questions.

Um, and I think the last one on there, I can't read my handwriting.

So I'm gonna go ahead and turn it over to the next person, but thank you very much.

Um it seems the most pressing problem is really the backlog.

There's some you brought up some very interesting topics and term limits and and other things, but um, it does seem to me that the most we can do a great job of our process and have great projects and uh do all that work, but if we can't get them done, um, then all of that is for naught.

Uh so I'm curious whether other cities have this same problem.

Is it unique to Monterey because of the cost of living and how perhaps other cities have addressed this?

And um the changing of the charter so that it includes maintenance.

Um, is that something that would also be impacted by the short staffing, or is that something that that's just a dollar issue?

Um, so I'd be kind of interested in hearing the city's comments um on those areas.

Thanks.

Hans, do you have any thoughts on those comments?

Yeah, uh so and engineers are a sparse resource across every uh city and every public agency and private engineering companies.

So it's not a city of monterey issue.

It doesn't help, of course, that we have a high cost of living, but um that's why uh when we look at the compensation and also we uh have a retention uh uh I don't I don't want to call it bonus, but we we provide uh annually 12,000 to engineers if they stay uh employed with the city, 3,000 per quarter.

So every quarter they are getting $3,000 as a gratitude to stay.

Um and we pay top salaries in the Tri-County area.

We still cannot attract qualified engineers.

We can hire engineers, but they are not qualified enough for our standards, and they would not pass master uh for us to um to do good solid project work.

So the picking is is to find qualified candidates is absolutely slim.

Uh the cost of living doesn't help us, uh, but we have the same um uh the same challenges in other cities as well.

Our our staff is uh occasionally on uh interview panels uh in other cities when they hire uh engineers and uh so we know also what what is going on in other cities.

So it's not we are not unique with that, and uh we're trying to mitigate it through uh our our um compensation, but that doesn't help.

Uh us uh still uh an engineer on city staff staff is less expensive uh and uh I want to say also more productive than anything we can buy on the market right now.

Uh we would pay way more dollars for that.

That applies to many other professions in the city, but also especially to the engineering profession right now.

Uh with respect to the maintenance, uh, that is a topic that uh comes up from time to time.

Um, I uh I share uh with council every single time when we have projects coming forward to uh to approval for the city council.

Uh and I've started this probably in 2010, 2011 in my different function in public works, that all those projects will require maintenance dollars.

If we have brand new uh NCIP projects um that are not uh uh upgrading a fire station like fire station 1213 or something like that, but creating brand new projects, they require maintenance costs and we are not getting a dime from the NCIP for maintenance of that because that's not part of the charter.

But the council and the community needs to be aware that they those maintenance costs continually um burden the budget and the revenue uh side cannot keep up with all the other challenges that we have that we can afford also projects that cost additional maintenance dollars.

And I understand from some conversations that maybe also NCIP members had or council members had, that's a topic that we need to tackle one way or another, because uh again uh um one of the great examples uh is not a big cost item, but are those speed signal signs that we have in the neighborhood that do traffic coming and where the unhoused use the solar power there to go back into their encampments, and we have quite a number of of those panels that are not functional because the solar panels get re uh get done, or we have now panels that are 10, 12 years old or uh need to be replaced.

We don't have funding to just replace them.

We don't have funding to put new solar panels on there and have them fixed.

That's a very tiny product, very tiny uh project, but any new type of project that does not work in the existing in the existing infrastructure that does not improve um or maintain uh rehabilitate existing infrastructure.

Anything new will cost maintenance, and uh there are great intentions for many of those projects, but what we always forget is that those maintenance dollars will come from the operational budgets, and it's my hope that when we look at the NCIP in the future, that we also consider those costs and allocate funding to that.

It cannot be done without it.

It can only be done through a charter amendment because uh our interpretation is very clear that the NCIP or the charter prevents allocating money to uh uh to ordinary maintenance services.

So that's Amy, hopefully the right answer.

Not the right one, but that hopefully answers it.

Hans, can you uh while you have the mic, could you help distinguish between what kind of maintenance projects that that type of fund could potentially cover versus ones that would might require a new project to be submitted?

Because I understand that when maintenance is needed for certain projects, that oftentimes there are projects submitted.

So how do we distinguish between between the two?

So uh it's it's a great question, and I I want to give the example of fire station 12 or fire station 13.

Um, the the NCIP for fire station 12 has last uh council meeting uh allowed to propose to the council to award another 900,000 to 1.9 million dollars.

That's a capital project.

That's a project that basically is not a maintenance project.

It it creates uh rehabilitates the fire station on so many levels.

Once the project is completed, once the 1.9 million dollars are spent, the ongoing maintenance uh has to become from uh the city's maintenance budget.

So I'm not suggesting that you have to take that on for the fire stations.

So that's that's the misinterpretation.

Hopefully, that nobody makes.

But I give you that as an example because the fire station, once it's completed, needs to be repainted, the the toilets need to be replaced, the flushers need to be done, light bulbs need to be replaced, there may be uh catastrophic failures in the kitchen, you know.

Uh stuff have to be replaced.

These are then the maintenance costs that are going on on an ongoing main basis.

What I emphasize for the NCIP is that brand new projects that are coming to us uh will have a cost burden for us to uh maintain and and to repair and to upgrade and to fix.

These are the costs that I think we have to discuss how we can share those cost burdens.

Because again, uh we have uh uh an excellent infrastructure in the city of Monterey.

We have playgrounds everywhere, uh we have great parks.

If we add to all of that uh, which is great, does it really fulfill additional needs?

Maybe, maybe not.

In my humble opinion, these are many times nice to have projects.

If we have nice to have projects, we need to find also the funding for the maintenance, because the flip side is if we do not tackle those questions for the ongoing maintenance one way or another, something has to give, and those something has to give our service levels on the city, whether they are um in in positions that nobody feels that they are missing, or they are actually in in areas where where you really uh understand what we are not doing anymore because uh elementary services are being reduced.

So that's that's the point I uh I'll share with you.

The city is right now in a 10 million dollar structural deficit.

What does the structural deficit mean?

It means that we are spending 10 million dollars more than we have as income, and so our revenues and our expenditures are out of balance.

We were able to go into this fiscal year right now on which we are in with uh a set of um uh I want to call it maybe parachutes that we are able to to manage over the next 12 months.

Uh but having said all that, it it explains to you, and we will we will address that, how we are um uh solving that puzzle, but what it tells you is that we have that challenge uh that every little thing that we are adding, every little thing that um that we are maintaining uh has to be paid one way or another.

And and right now, uh all of you who follow the city's conversations, um, we have a 10 million dollar hole in the budget.

There's no no dancing around that topic that is there, we fixed it for this year.

If we don't do something for the following fiscal year, we we are in in a real the real challenging time.

So maintenance is one of them.

And if you add up what we also since the early 2010-2012, we tell the council and we tell the NCIP those projects at $65,000 in annual maintenance cost.

We we look at every single project and Dennis, I bet you have read all that uh and uh what nobody is helping us to fund those.

The council uh green lights the projects, the NCIP is happy, but we are not tackling the maintenance uh cost for a while.

And I think the time is ripe and it's a fair question.

Should we also allocate funding from the NCIP towards maintenance?

Okay, thank you for answering those um fly-ball questions, please.

So downtown is a little unique in the none of the city's submitted projects are actually in downtown.

We have 15 or 14 because we combine two of them.

So we have 14 projects, and half of those are city projects.

The library, the sports center, the El Estero Park, all of those are all city projects.

And if you look at that, and based on what's happening last time, we're probably three million dollars or more just for those projects.

So that's half the budget right there for what is in downtown.

But also I agree with Shannon, it's all safety.

If it's a safety project that comes, that's top priority, and I think that's top priority for all of the NCIP.

So we need to think about that, and then I'm sure we're gonna have more discussions about maintenance and and other things that may happen in the future with the NCIP and its budget.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Um first I'd like to thank everybody.

I was one of the people who is newly appointed last year, and I was actually questioning my decision to accept the nomination and appointment after that first um city council meeting, but everybody has been very welcoming.

Um I want to um really credit Shannary and Dennis for their leadership.

I think that has a lot to do with the for lack of a better term, change of tone.

Um I also want to thank Reggie.

I've had several questions about potential projects that neighbors had questions about um that I wasn't sure qualified, and Reggie got back to me within hours usually, and I was able to relay that information.

So I want to thank him from because I know he's extremely busy to take the time to answer those questions.

Casanova Oak Mills had eight projects.

Um two of those were for speeding, and the rest centered around our park, which I think um says how much our residents value this the park.

Um we've been trying to figure out ways to get programs back into our rec center, but just the park outside itself, there's been uh five projects.

So um, and speeding seems to be a common issue in our neighborhood.

The speed signs, while they may help a little bit, they're not doing the job, and so we're trying to figure out other ways um to address that.

So that goes along with Lee's comment about public safety being an issue.

We do have one street in our neighborhood that does not have sidewalks, and there is speeding on that street, so that's um an issue because people tend to walk in the middle of the street or they're actually walking on people's front lines to avoid walking in the streets.

So um, and I've always thought maintenance should be an issue, and I'd like to hear more why it needs to be a charter.

I understand citywide projects, but newer projects.

I I don't know if there can be a way maintenance could be um funded in that initial estimate to give like a little cushion for future maintenance.

I don't know how that would work, but I have always um had a question about all the projects we approve, and then the burden of the maintenance is on the city, and that's I think where some of that general maintenance issue comes in.

So I'd like to explore ways we can maybe put that in the funding of the project to at least cover a little bit of the maintenance in the future in the near future.

I'm open to your thoughts, Hans, on that, but part of what I think might be a challenge is all the projects that have already been approved.

How do we set funding for the maintenance of those if we were to pursue that?

I'm not sure if you have any um, I think there might be a legal question because it's in the manual and it's part of the original charter.

So maybe the city attorney could answer that right now.

I'm fine.

That's a legal question.

So specifically about maintenance.

Yeah.

So the charter does say that um the funds are not to be used for ordinary services.

I think prior city councils um up to the present date on projects have interpreted that to include maintenance as a regular and ordinary service.

Um last year we drafted a proposed charter amendment that would change and tighten up the definition of a capital project and also to address what does ordinary service mean.

Um at that time, there wasn't the appetite on the city council to put forward that amendment on the ballot.

Um, but that would be one way to address the um to make it crystal clear.

Do you want to follow up?

So we've had a history of the majority of projects being maintenance projects.

And given that the language in the um charter amendment text is only it cannot include ordinary services, might we be at a time where maintenance is not an ordinary service, but it's evolved into something we have taken on.

That's over three million dollars.

And um can we without a charter amendment, for lack of a better word, bless our evolution into these projects that are maintaining.

I I hear what you're saying.

We have a budget deficit, and um I appreciate your suggestion that going forward with projects, we include things to maintain that project, more supplies for the radar, um flashing lights, include provisions for sustaining those, but we already have a long history of including maintenance.

So I'm wondering, does that give us some leeway?

I think we need to define like what what the history of maintenance.

Um so my understanding is really the only project that might be considered maintenance would be Greenbelt.

Um, but I think that's been more um that's the one I can think of.

I don't know that there's been other maintenance projects, such as if there's a new restroom installation, there isn't funding for cleaning that restroom or repairing the toilet seat or things like that.

So is that what you're talking about with maintenance or um maintenance is if I may add to that, Councilman Marash.

People uh people are doing the maintenance.

People go out to the playgrounds that that are funded by the NCIP are also gratefully for me replaced by the NCIP, but they have to be inspected on a weekly basis.

They have to be maintained, maintenance are people maintenance are also supplies.

But if you don't have the people or you cannot pay for the people to install the supplies, you have a maintenance challenge.

And the the former interpretation of the NCIP was that the only personnel the NCIP uh is paying for is the position of uh Reggie right now, who is tasked as a full-time uh paid employee by the NCIP to work exclusively on C on the NCIP.

But many of the projects that are being implemented uh have to be maintained on a daily, weekly, monthly basis by employees.

These are the people that the NCIP should consider also paying for.

The sports center is not an NCIP project.

Dennis the Menace was not, the library, the conference center.

So thinking of creating a maintenance fund citywide is a little uncomfortable for me.

I don't beg off the question of we need more money.

I'm not sure a ballot initiative or maintenance fund for projects that were never initially maintenance, um, is where I would want to go.

I do think there's we're spending so much on maintenance through NCIP, like um in Jamie's district, the repair of the boardwalk and putting the planks in there, that's maintenance.

I mean, we call it a capital improvement, um, but it's maintenance, and and I understand that the repair of the fire station is a capital improvement, but we're maintaining the fire stations.

So I I'm looking for a commonality, acknowledging that rather than a ballot initiative is I appreciate that.

And and you you make a great give it give me a great example about the boardwalks there because the genesis and the history of those boardworks that date back to my first days of hire when uh bit by bit, Jamie, we extended those boardwalks uh that that we have in that particular neighborhood.

Uh, there were projects lined up to now we want to go here, now we want to go there.

But what happens when the wind blows?

Uh it's full of sand.

What do we get the phone call?

It's full of sand.

Somebody needs to come and fix it, or some idiot destroyed three, four um boards and we have to replace it.

This is yes, absolutely.

You you you have a great example there, they increase the quality of life.

Um, they make it beaches more accessible in that area, but you have to have someone there who goes through there and blows the sand away.

What do we have to fight?

Oh, the guy doesn't work with a battery operated blower, uh, and so every 30 minutes you want the guy to go back and have a uh a fresh battery.

I'm just saying, um, sorry for that side uh bar, but but these are the day-to-day challenges we have.

Acknowledge, and so source center is another great example where I think the NCIP has absolutely supported over the years with many, many projects.

Uh, the Sports Center.

Uh, so uh when I talk about the Sports Center and I talk about the locker room upgrades, the lighting upgrades, uh, all the various helps that we have received from the NCIP.

There's nothing else than then really appreciation going out for that.

But at the end of the day, many of the projects also that we have outside of the Sports Center are projects where we also require people to maintain them, and when we see uh certain projects that come forward, we just see maintenance dollars, and that makes us a little bit um antsy uh to really um uh push those projects jointly forward with the project uh proponents.

Um can I follow up and maybe I don't know, you don't want a lot of opinion right now, but I wanted to sort of close the gap on it.

Seems like we need a really good definition of what maintenance is.

Well, we're we're we're we're talking about maintenance.

I think we all understand it tonight.

Whether it's a charter amendment, whether it's uh could be interpreted into what's currently the charter.

I don't know.

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems like uh the city manager's giving us a really good um sort of model to think about defining what maintenance is.

And I'm I'm thinking about back to the public safety that many of you have already indicated is very important, and we look at um the locations that we can put public safety radar positions or other equipment that that they might have that does have a life.

So when it's purchased, it's probably got three to seven years, and then sometimes you can't upgrade it, but we do need to replace it.

So the replacement might not be covered, but until it's no longer serviceable, we should be able to maintain it.

But currently, we need a definition of what that maintenance is, so that we can say if we've invested in CIP dollars in purchases of something that you've said is important, we've concurred, we've purchased it, we've installed it.

We do need to have some sort of a factored in of what's the life of this piece of equipment going to be and how and how do we prorate that into the overall cost that we're anticipating that the thing will be broken at some point, but also may require labor costs um monthly or weekly to service that installation or whatever that may be if it's outhouses or or walkways.

So it looks like there's an opportunity to kind of really think about where there's a choice is it defining maintenance and trying to do it now, or is it going to require a charter?

So I guess we would just need to lean into the legal question.

Um, are we limited to do it without a charter change?

And I don't necessarily need an answer.

It's on the scope.

I mean, so I'm hearing what council member rash is saying, and I'm hearing what you're saying, and I don't think that's an impossible goal to have, and it it maybe depends on the language or how um ultimately what you consider maintenance, and then we'd have to think about that.

So I'm not saying it's impossible, but um, you're saying you're saying give the asset a life.

And um, I also hear that council member rash is maybe um characterizing what staff might consider to be a capital project as um maintenance, like a conference center renovation, it's renovating the building.

We view that as a capital project, and in your view, that might be maintenance or a roof replacement might be considered maintenance uh under a different interpretation um and not a capital project.

So I think we're all kind of talking about the same thing.

It might be some semantics that could be fleshed out.

Yeah.

So let's yeah, so let's put a bookmark in there.

I I I know knew that this was a topic of question, and um your your how you stated it is exactly it.

We need to I think better define what that looks like regardless of whether or not we move forward with a ballot initiative.

So um who was next, Scott Scott, please.

Well, thanks now.

I think I understand the better, it's a question of definitions.

And just off the top of my head, my preference would be to do it the easy way, probably the hard way through a charter amendment.

I think the committee would be cooperative and and making whatever changes need to be made.

I just want to thank Reginald and Andrea for the schedule this year.

It's a whole lot different than the past and Shaman and Dennis for working on with that.

I really appreciate the sense of collaboration this year.

It's real uh uh welcome change, is all I can say.

Thank you.

Thanks, Beth.

Yeah, uh, a comment after I was sharing with Dave, uh, wasn't sure if I had a comment, but uh everyone unfortunately Hans is not here to get my little joke, and that is everyone's talking about reducing money, and I actually want to ask for more money, and that is only for the in the context of uh community outreach and but reaching those folks in our neighborhood neighborhoods that are in our boundaries, but perhaps we don't have email addresses for personally, I don't have the time to walk door to door.

Nobody would feel comfortable doing so.

Uh, love the opportunity to discuss options for every once in a while, maybe it's annually or every other year, as required.

I don't need to send uh a little mailing to every single person in my neighborhood.

But for those 13 or 10 or 25 outside of the Deer Flats HOA neighborhood who do receive emails constantly from our HOA, but those folks in our NCIP boundaries of our neighborhood uh have no, I have no means to contact them.

And I feel I just want to make sure that everyone has a fair voice, so you can be a part of you have the opportunity to learn about NCIP and be a part of the process um kind of more fairly.

That's all.

I appreciate that comment.

I know that this was something that came up in the neighborhood association presidents meetings that we have quarterly.

Um, and there was a lot of back and forth with the group about it.

Um, and part of the challenge is if we're giving funding to the neighborhood associations that creates some challenges, but I I kind of wish Hans was here too, because um I I almost want to ask, and maybe this could just be left.

I I maybe like pose it to Chrissy.

Um, but could we as a city um send out like an annual mailer that kind of helps communicate what their neighborhood association and break it up based off of your address you fall in in like you have a specific mail?

It's it's samely formatted, but it changes some of the verbiage as it relates to your specific neighborhood association.

Yeah, I I would defer to Hans and everybody, but my initial thought is that it's a part of the running the program, and so that can come out of the funds.

It's an overhead cost, just like running a meeting, having an engineer on staff, um, posting the agendas, all of those are sort of overhead costs.

Maybe this could be funded out of of the um, it's a part of doing the program, outreach is part of the program.

So, yeah.

There you go, Hans.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Just yes or no.

So yes.

Yeah, because sometimes you can hear you sometimes you can hear in the back.

Maybe we could ask to ignore the mayor.

No, I didn't know what came from.

Well, so I would I was just your flats.

Giving the context of how we had this conversation in the um neighborhood association presidents meeting about, and I think Esther had brought this up to us a couple of times.

Like, hey, can the city help us out with sending a mailer out to the neighborhood?

And there was some conflicts there because they don't the neighborhood associations don't fall under the city, but could we do something to where like annually the city sends out a templated mailer that kind of changes the verbiage based off of your address that helps link you to your neighborhood, and it's just like blanket across the board.

Okay.

So my caveat is answering the questions.

Yeah, no, I was answering the question, not that the neighborhood associations would be able to spend money.

I was saying it would be a part of the NCIP program overhead.

So could we say this is your NCIP rep?

Uh if the and I guess what I was trying to say um in response to the gentleman's comment um of having more outreach to residents in his particular neighborhood, that that should be something the NCIP program can fund with the assistance of staff if that were the direction for the manager.

And that's what happens when you step out.

You can overrule me.

So let the uh I apologize.

Uh the uh the question in front of us is whether we can whether the NCIP can send out mailers on behalf of the NCIP.

Well, the city send out mailers on behalf of the NCIP.

For what?

Community like try in an effort to try to help with community engagement outreach.

To identify neighborhoods.

But quickly, he had a question dealing with Deer Flex, but just so you know the context of it, yeah.

Sorry, on uh, we have 188 homes in the Deer Flats HOA, but we have about 50 homes outside of our HOA that I have don't even have email addresses for.

Public records, but I have mailing addresses, and I don't have the time in order to feel safe knocking on people's doors for outreach.

I would like them to have an opportunity to have an equal voice and a say in the end in CIP.

So perhaps even if I just say I don't need 200 uh mailers or stamps, I just need for these 34 homes, and I send addresses to you know the the NCIP leadership, and then you're saying maybe there's an NCP like we can then vote to use a few dollars to do that or not.

I guess that's the question.

So I would say no, and here's why.

Um you can expect that the planning commissioner may have the same idea that Ishi wants to reach out to their folks as well.

Um I think it's it's the problem of the NCIP rep, how the NCIP rep reaches out to to their folks.

If they want to use mailers, use mailers, you can go door to door.

The um if if we are going down that rabbit hole, I can see that there will be other commissions that can make a similar argument to to say, hey, I would like to do something similar, just because the NCIP is sitting on six million dollars, uh it should be not part of that.

All right, you have the money, you can spend it, or we should spend it.

So I I don't know if I I'm a little bit late in the in the logic here that that was developed while I was outside.

But uh I I hear what you're saying, a mailer uh what are 50 stamps, you know, for for you.

What are 50 stamps?

Right.

So what is it?

So so part of my thought, and just trying to get my own thoughts looped into the comments.

I see value in it in a way that's beneficial to the NCIP that wouldn't be the same for any of the other boards' commissions or committees, and but I think there would have to be a caveat where it's fairly accessible to all of the NCIP reps.

So either we do it blanket like everybody in the city, or there's an opt-out option.

So if you don't want to send it to the 150 other people that you already have contact for, that you can opt in for you can stay in for those other ones.

Something I think the question more is though, not necessarily is it a good idea or not?

Just more of is it possible?

Is it can we can we do that?

I guess is the question.

So, as you know, I retire on December 30th.

Rumors are hearing a lot more of that.

I just just very briefly, I I talked about a 10 million dollar deficit.

Yeah, and here we are adding a little bit dollars here, a little bit there, and everyone can say what's $50, what's $350.

A mass mailer to the whole community is about $9,800.

So what is that, right?

And we say this every single time.

Um I stop here.

Um I think that kind of answers my question, though, and I understand.

I mean, I'm not saying hit go.

I'm just wondering legally, is it a is it a opportunity where we could spend the money?

Uh council McGarcy had a question, and then I think we I think I heard uh more of a comment.

Um, and and I I think what I'd like to do is I I really appreciate um what you share, um Hans.

But uh but I'd like to um maybe rephrase um part of the part of the comment that it's it's not uh it's not the representative's problem to go out and and figure out that community engagement.

That's that's a great thing, and I really appreciate the initiative to go out and and think about how you're gonna reach the folks that you're trying to serve, right?

So um that's something to be applauded, and and that's something that we need to see more of.

Um, and and I think um where that could lead us is to think about maybe um if the option that we're talking about here of maybe uh uh mailers is is not a viable option, then then what is a viable option that could reach the the same goal?

Uh and I'm wondering if maybe even, and this is kind of thinking a little bit outside the box, and I'm just gonna share it and and put it there for food of uh for thought.

Um maybe in part of the uh project planning for NCIP, maybe there is a budgeted project that focuses on community engagement, right?

As a board, right?

How can the board participate in community engagement in each of the uh neighborhoods that are being represented?

I'm just gonna put that out there.

Well, I think maybe part of the challenge is how the funds can be spent.

I don't know.

I don't know if we can spend NCIP funds on that.

Doesn't have to be.

I that's um I was trying to suggest legal as an overhead cost.

I would think just like running a meeting.

Uh, I see what you're saying.

Um, administrative cost of the program.

Uh, potentially uh in my view, I'm not saying it's policy-wise, whether it's a good choice, just with that legally.

I wouldn't think it was an illegal expenditure.

But I think doing it as an overhead cost is something that's like a staff-driven decision as opposed to it being submitted as a project.

I don't know if something like that can be submitted as a project, could it?

I don't think so.

Yeah, I don't think it falls into the project.

Maybe not a project, but a decision that has driven by yeah, as the board, they could decide that it's something that's bookmarking.

Yeah.

Bookmark.

Okay, I'm gonna go to Council Smith and then we'll finish up in the and the way I interpreted that is that your ask is for help in reaching your neighbors, and because you might not be able to go door to door.

But if you had everybody's name of an and the address in the Monterey file, that's a geo file.

Marketers get that all the time.

The city of Monterey may already have that in the GS file of properties and names.

And instead of the city doing the list or or participating or stamping it or doing the mailer or coordinating with it, I'm just saying maybe there's a way that the city could provide a list for those 15 association neighborhoods, and it's an Excel spreadsheet, it's a geo file that you can then just take.

Now, the problem is every year now you're talking about more staff time.

So I think it's something to bookmark and think about, but maybe the one-time generation of a list, and then you take it from there and you make it better, but we do it the first time.

And it's not that we're doing it for you.

We generate the list from the home property and what we know is to be the names.

So, councilmember, you can purchase that from the county.

Yeah, purchase yeah, yeah, but uh again, the county just knows the owners.

Right.

You don't know who lives at that site.

So you can write resident and 300 Glenward Circle Apartment 169, and you have the same effect.

Uh all I'm saying is um that there is a path forward, like you indicate to do that.

Yeah.

Uh and um unfortunately the city doesn't have those geo lists.

We have a list of of uh addresses and the property owners, yeah.

And some of them may live in that property, some may not live and live outside of town.

Right.

So yeah, and I think that there's a offline, once upon a time, I purchased a citywide list of every address, and it costs 350 dollars.

So I think that's a way to do that offline to maybe get you what you need.

Yes, sir.

And the scale is really maybe 30, 40 homes on Google Maps.

I can just easily just read off the, you know.

So we're not talking for me personally, the outreach is a very small.

Yeah, all right.

Yeah.

So we're guys very much for your time.

We're gonna bookmark that one because I think it's a good one.

Um, did you have anything else before we you pass the mic already?

So thank you for the comments, all right.

All right, thank you.

Um, just not sure what Scott can aboard became the alternate for your flats, and you know, since I've been with the committee for 10 plus years now, it seems like that process.

I think we share it is not information.

We've seen the backlog for years and years and years.

I think that's what we'll do is the budget deficit.

And um I think it's really unfair to our public uh to kind of advertise a program and taking all these uh inputs in and uh high level projects and just increasing the backlog.

But I don't think we're gonna resolve that here.

And I would propose maybe an NCIP moving where we would talk about some limiting factors for what we actually want to propose.

And I think we've all worked well with the city uh and council own priorities, and has been said here safety, public safety and and uh foul.

I think we can do well going forward.

Um, I would not want to see another 30 or 40 projects because how do we done in the past?

We've done the uh well percentage of the budget.

What we'll get from TOT and just spend that money that's allocated for NCL portfolio, but we're just battling, you know, to that.

So I think those are wrong on issual meetings too.

I think it depends on the project.

Give flats a uh hardscape and just public land is on our own interest of the property, and then we maintain that.

What is it called?

Would you the um 10 percent uh to project condenses?

So yeah, it all seemed like that's that far fetched that we would maybe consider that a public has a lifecycle maintenance that that couldn't somehow be put in without a charter when it's well.

We're not gonna solve tonight, but we could think about and talk about as a committee and make recommendations.

So thanks.

Thanks much for sharing Timmy.

And uh I also echo the thanks that who else has had for you know, support we get from staff.

So appreciate it.

Thanks, Dave.

Yeah.

Yeah, I've definitely the thanks, especially to our new chairperson who's been working really hard and definitely has been talking to us and getting our opinions as well.

So she's been doing really well and we're very proud of her.

Um I think we have been working together well, and I think we I think most of the committee understands that as a city we're all in the same boat.

We all we're all gonna float or sink the same way.

So um I think we are working together well, and I think uh we are have worked on reducing the number of small projects.

Um we all are concerned about the backlog, but we will um have to hear I guess a little bit about all the city projects that are full write-ups, and I trust that NCIP will vote in the best interest of uh of the city.

So I think we'll work work well together.

So I appreciate the whole NCIP process, and I uh think we uh we can work in a way to keep the process um alive in the way it was initially intended, and uh I think it'll it'll work well.

It's definitely going through some changes, some adjustments, but I think the heart of the NCIP program, if we keep that in mind, will uh we'll continue to be a uh we'll continue to work well together.

So thanks everybody for their involvement and uh look forward to a long future with NCIP.

Thanks.

Okay.

Nope.

Who's left?

Okay.

Yes, I get to say something.

You get to get a mic to let me decide.

So a couple of comments I wanted to throw in.

Um I was looking at when NCIP was formed.

It was 1985, it's 40 years.

Kind of an interesting anniversary.

You could say it's the fun.

Uh, sir, Kenneth.

Well, I'm I have the microphone down my throat.

We wouldn't be able to hear you, yeah.

I'd be the other yeah, I've I've said to the committee before we have to guard the goose that lays the golden egg, which is the TOT.

We have to support things in the city that makes the city attractive for guests to come so that we can get the TOT so that we can afford to do other projects.

Uh we've also kind of taken a new approach and looking at backlog of projects.

If it's not doable, let's take it off the backlog.

And we've had several that have come up for review, some of which we've come back to city council to defund.

And if Reggie's sitting on eighteen to 20 that aren't there that we can't get done, we're going to consider it and try and get going that way.

I want doable projects.

The reason I supported the 900,000 for station 12.

It's a doable project that can get executed that we can get done.

And we need it because it's part of safety for the city.

Uh as I recall looking at the statistics, people get called out of that station 4.3 times a day.

It'd be nice to have it useful.

And it was unfortunate that the only time it's been updated since 1951 was when the ceiling collapsed from water leaking through the roof.

We do need to maintain the buildings.

Very much like Lee was saying, public safety and the fuel potential damage that we've seen from some of the fires that were down south and et cetera, that could cause problems for our city.

Um, you know, I'm an accountant, so I tend to think a little bit differently than most folks.

If you're spending money on extending the useful life of an asset, that's a capital expenditure.

If you're just maintaining an asset so you can use it, that's maintenance.

Okay, if radar speed sign loses its solar panel, you can't use it.

It's lifetime is over.

If I add another uh solar to it, I can still use it.

So to me, that's a capital expenditure.

It's it's a matter of definitions and how you put it together.

So I think there's ways to do that.

And thinking about that issue, uh, we have a opportunity property buying fund so we can buy a piece of real estate if it ever comes up on the market.

Maybe what we do is we have a maintenance replacement capital expenditure lengthening a fund, and we learn from that what kinds of mistakes are happening and what we're proposing.

And we whenever we have to spend from it, we document what that is, we go.

Oh, how can we make the solar panel less detachable?

Um, one of the stert containers that we just moved at MCP, MVC, uh had a solar panel taken too.

So it's a problem that we have in a number of places.

It'd be nice to solve that problem rather than just continue to suffer it.

Um so that's just one thought in terms of how that could work.

Um I think it's a great program.

I think we're doing a lot of work for the city, and I I think we're quite uh cooperative at this point, which I think is where we needed to be.

Do you have any last comments that you wanted to share?

Okay, um, we'll bring it to the council.

We'll do last close-out comments from the council.

You want to go ahead, Dr.

Robertson?

Yes, since you guys have been talking all the sound.

We waited.

No, uh this just kidding, but seriously, um I cannot tell you how much I appreciate NPIP, all the volunteer work.

I mean, I love how you brought broke that down.

That's why I class of the hours, 18 plus hours.

And that's not talking about what happens when you're not in front of everybody, you know, doing the meeting.

So thank you for all the work that you do.

Um, it's a lot.

And you can tell, and I love the analogy of the labor of love with the quilt because you wouldn't be here if that wasn't the case.

And I love the combination of it and really appreciate Andrea and Reggie.

Reggie, hold on, help us comment.

You know, uh the intern, they said that worked out.

So I'm hoping that, you know, maybe we can get a couple of interns there.

Maybe we can um uh um, you know, work with MPC and C S UMB, UCSC and pipeline through those um different um institutions that for not only that, but also engineering, you know, being able to build up partnerships, a lot of things happen that way.

I know don't know other qualifications, of course.

That that specific um role is looking for, but just having those relationships, I think would be helpful.

I agree with the maintenance uh the the uh definition.

Um I like how you were thinking, uh Dennis is um making sure to go it to me it's almost like a cleanup year, right?

You you go and you start cleaning up okay off what what works and what doesn't work, what's not do what's doable and what's not doable and getting it getting it off the book so that you can have a cleanup year to have everything together of what's doable to see more projects done, and not just saying, oh, we approved 105 uh projects, you know, since 2021, but have a low rating of what's being done.

So I think being able to balance out that ratio is gonna look great.

So thank you to everyone and all of your hard work.

And um I do uh look forward to working together to do uh bigger and better things and getting a definition for the maintenance part and also the bookmark part, of course, about the um how the outreach looks.

So thank you.

We'd like to go next.

Um I think first for me, uh I want to go back and acknowledge the tone.

Um I think what we're experiencing here tonight is much closer to what the original intention was behind NCIP.

Um, so I want to appreciate the collaboration of all the members and the amazing leadership right from the chair and and co-chair for in relatively speaking, in in the in a very quick time frame, changing what those conversations, what these conversations are sounding like, and also appreciation to staff for um also diving into that as well and um and keeping an open mind about um the uh not only projects but the uh the way that those projects interact between the um the committee members and and staff.

Um and to that point, I wanted to share that having done as as um Mr.

Mayor here had mentioned some participatory work in the past.

Um I think there's always that uh disconnect um where members of the participatory group um identify the uh the um whatever it is in this case important projects that need to be moved forward, and then how the um uh the connecting agency can either move forward with those projects or not, right?

Um, here we have I think a great dynamic where in that process where these projects are being identified, you have real-time input from the agency who'll be receiving those projects, right, to at least steer the conversation a little bit as to maximize everybody's time.

Um and I think that's that's something that maybe we can continue to nurture and and continue to develop so that members of NCIP maybe have uh a little bit broader understanding of the context that staff and ultimately council um are contending with, right, in then ultimately accepting the recommendations or or deviating from that.

And and the deviation, at least in my experience here on the dias has been that it's not because the uh the time and effort is not appreciated from NCIP members.

I think all of us really understand that it takes a lot of time, a lot of dedication and thought and and conversations to get to that list of projects.

Um so the deviation is not about not acknowledging that those efforts, but rather also what we're hearing from uh the rest of the constituents that we're having conversations with who might not even um uh understand the process of NCIP or or be involved in any way, right?

But also us having to um have that be part of the equation so that we can better serve our our constituents.

Um I wanted to touch uh quickly on the um the item about maintenance, um, and also the the length of of product or the length of the list of projects.

Um I think it is necessary to um the define a little bit more clearly what maintenance means and also how long is that list of projects that will be coming uh to council every year.

And that length could be different, I think, every year, but it's just a matter at the beginning of the process defining how long that list will be.

And I don't necessarily think that it would be important for the current members, because we are having those conversations, these conversations in defining um these items and these conversations, but I think more importantly, at least for me is having those definitions in place for future members who will then at some point in the future have the same questions that we're trying to address here.

Um with that, I'm just gonna wrap it up and once again express gratitude and and appreciation for all the work that you do in connecting with your neighbors, connecting with your communities, and always looking to make the best decision for not only your neighborhoods, but that also equals to the city as a whole.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Who would like to go next?

Please.

Gotta get rearranged.

Yes, um, thank you to all the reps.

It's um it's a challenging job.

It's a lot of work, it's a lot of hours, and it it is a lot of outreach, and I had to learn how to get out of my comfort level.

I mean, you really do have to learn from your community and and reach out, and that that's why it's hard.

Um, so I acknowledge that and thank you for that time.

Um definitely safety and public health um will remain my priority as a council member, that the taking out of the dead fuel from the forests will remain very high.

I would also love to see the ADA repairs that have been submitted, those projects for the ADA repairs in the library and in the all over town in all our facilities.

I mean, I think that was the 7,000-page agenda item we had one council meeting, was all those ADA requests.

I would love to see those funded.

It would be straightforward.

As far as the um maintenance, Dave uh Overton, I think you had a great idea to look as representatives at attaching a maintenance instruction to it.

Uh, I love that a park was repaired and the neighborhood association was going to maintain it.

Maybe that really has a future where the committee and the reps can take on some of the burden of in the project talking about the long-term maintenance.

I see a future there.

I would also love to see the NCIP take on the question of defining with a policy, it wouldn't have to be long.

Um, what is neighborhood support, how much neighborhood support, who, who can stop a project with we have this frustration with the Mar Vista project, and it I think the real problem was it took so long that the ownership of some of the homes changed, and then the neighbors had different opinions on whether the traffic should be slowed down and how it should be slowed down.

But I would love to see the NCIP committee define what kind of support comes in, what kind of written support comes in with this the um with submitting a project, and then what kind of um objection can cancel it.

So that all gets figured out while you're working with the project before it's voted on.

Um, and if we had a if you if you had a policy that you could work from, I think that would would help.

I think that's a would be an interesting poll to fill.

And that's it.

Thank you very much.

Is there water down here?

Um needs it.

So we're all about service, right?

Uh so thank you very much for those of you who were here and in CIP reps, and you've all said so much.

You've expressed your your heartfill, you know, your thoughts about your neighborhood and your neighbors in their community.

And for those that are watching, I know that you you've got many of the presidents of your associations and uh members of those boards that are probably watching.

Um kudos to you all and those that are watching too for being able to be so uh articulate tonight, considering that nobody's got any sleep in the last three or four days uh with the auto work, auto, auto auction stuff going on with the cars racing up and down the streets.

So kudos to you all for being able to muster the energy to come tonight.

Um I'm not gonna repeat a lot of the things, but I just want to kind of roll through what's on my list.

Uh really much appreciated how much there was that was in continuity with your your other NCIP reps.

Um, a definition of maintenance, we we talked about that.

I think we need to resolve is there a way to fine-tune that within the charter, and then we can talk if there's not a way to do that.

Then I think it's time to say, okay, I think a charter amendment, if it was done correctly focused, it would likely pass.

Um, and I think the reason we didn't want to approach it the last time is there was a bunch of ballot measures, and I think we just didn't want to uh cloud cloud the and confuse the electoral with so many ballot measures, but I think we need to resolve that because it's important and for important for you as well.

Um we've got some uh some hanging needs bookmarked.

Um, outreach piece, I think that's doable that we we should be able to throw resources your way that's outside of having to do anything officially the city.

Uh and if you want to give me a call, we can talk about that.

Um, and so uh yeah, please give me a call.

Let's get together and talk about how we can access the material that's readily available.

Um, I think we we need regular meetings like this.

I think this should not be annually.

If somehow or another, we do this more often.

Eyes face to face, sharing ideas.

This is what builds strong communities, and so this is good.

We should do more of this um more more often and not just do it once a year.

Um, I think you all were talking about dealing with the backlog of projects, but also many of you said let's focus on what's doable.

Uh Dennis's word, figuring out what's doable and what's important, and I think that that's something that you all could go back and really chew through in terms of is 2026 the year to give staff and Reggie a chance to catch up.

And we've had a few years like that in the past, where we just said no new projects, and they pile through those projects.

So this might be one of those years where it's significant to say, well let's take a pause and let's catch up and let's really go through the list and let's eliminate what's no longer a viable project because it's it's dated or it's too expensive, and and there's no longer any interest.

But I think a 2026 is an opportunity to figure out what is doable and what should be pushed forward for a great cause.

And I love the link to public safety, um, also addressing uh the the fuel buildup in the forest, forced bed and forced lands in all of our neighborhoods, but focused specifically on public safety, and that has a broad definition as well.

Um, so I appreciate your thoughts.

You've given me a couple of ideas.

Um we don't have any decision making uh that's coming up for NCIP anytime very soon, but I think we should keep the dialogue going on whether we can figure out the maintenance decision, how we can do a better job in helping you connect to your neighbors through what we know.

We've all ran elections.

We've got a lot of material that I don't think any of us would mind sharing about who lives in your neighborhood and who who's there and who's a renter and who's an owner and what the addresses are.

So I think that there's an opportunity for us to collaborate with that more.

And uh that's all I have.

But thank you for coming and thank you for your input and your hard work.

I appreciate it.

Mayor, I would just say on that last point, be careful with the information that we share from the campaigns we sign that off when we get that data from the county uh there's privacy information there, so but addresses are known and exempt as long as you don't put a name because it's all tax-based tax roles, you know, the addresses or you can figure it out on Google.

Um I think the challenge is is that if you don't have registered voters, you're not really getting all the data.

So I don't know how helpful that data would be, but that neither here nor there.

Um, this has been a really good conversation, and I I agree with council member Smith.

Um, I think the more conversations that we have, the better.

Would be great to have some uh maybe a little bit more intentionality around it with maybe an agenda where maybe the chair, vice chair, mayor, vice mayor can sit and look at like the outcomes of the meeting and maybe creating some level of expectation in regards to moving the conversation forward.

It's great to sit here and have a kumbaya and thank everybody.

Um but I think we have a lot of work in front of us, and so how do we chisel down on some of this so that we feel that we're making some progress?

Um, there's been a lot of progress already done, and so I want to acknowledge it.

I want to thank everybody that's been involved in it, and I just want to do a re quick recap of what I heard as far as some of the major takeaways from today.

Um backlog being the top priority and embedded in that is how do we address potentially creating a cap around how many projects that we're doing to ensure that we're focused on not creating that backlog.

And I think um the point was well made in regards to this expectation that we're setting up for residents to submit projects and then for it to get approved, and then for us not to take it on for years on end that has an effect on residents' ability to be able to stay engaged and involved and feel like what they're doing and spending their time doing is making a difference.

So I think chiseling down on that and having that hard conversation is going to be really helpful.

Um the idea of maintenance and how we define that and how do we move forward with that?

I think is is the second thing that I would bring up.

The third is this conversation around community engagement and outreach.

Um, how can we better work with each other to support efforts um to let the residents know this great opportunity that's available for folks and just trying to find ways to get more folks engaged?

And then the last thing is um, and I think Gene brought this up.

So I appreciate you you bringing it up.

But um this idea about who could stop a project, and I actually almost would ask the question now to staff, and Andrea, I'm not sure if you're you're the right person to ask.

I I vaguely remember having this conversation at the last council meeting, but during an NCIP meeting this year, it was like yes, there's something in the policy that says anybody can stop it or something, but the NCIP could still vote to move it forward to the council for consideration.

So could you speak to that a little bit just to have some clarity there in regards to what that is?

Four for four.

And a new manual, we do talk about some of um the residents that are directly affected.

So one example I like to use is if they uh if there's a median and you're gonna be the one that loses parking.

So you're directly affected by the project.

Um but again, I think that nothing in a policy prevents NCAP from recommending the project with knowing and making it clear that there are some folks that object to the project and why.

Okay, okay, so I think that that actually kind of clears that up.

So if I if I were to clarify, and I and I would love any feedback from members of the NCIP if there's confusion on this.

If there's one resident that's blocking a project that's potentially a safety, public safety project that you feel should be pushed forward, even though there's that one resident that's pushing back, the NCIP could still vote to bring that forward to the council.

Are we all on the same page track in there?

Yes.

Okay.

Right.

And I think lately, it's been that the project gets approved, and then the pushback afterwards starts on Reggie.

And I think that really needs to fall to the reps to make sure that there's the adequate support going into the project, creating the project with documented written support from the neighbors that they support it, and and then clarity um from any objectors that that you're gonna go forward with it that that this got approved, and we're moving forward as the rep so that it doesn't kick back on staff.

Again, that's why the job's hard to be a rep.

That's my thoughts.

Awesome.

I think that did I miss anything as far as big picture?

I think I captured it.

And um and and perhaps we can work on scheduling a follow-up discussion um pretty quick here with the chair and vice chair so we can have a deeper conversation around next steps.

Can we close the meeting in honor of Reggie?

And give him a hand.

Yeah, spit up.

Because you might need to walk them out tonight.

I mean, I'm just saying.

All right, awesome.

Again, thank you, everybody.

With that, I'm gonna go ahead and adjourn the meeting.