City Council Meeting Summary: November 18, 2025
City Council Meeting Summary: November 18, 2025
The City Council of Monterey convened on November 18, 2025, for its afternoon and evening sessions to address routine administrative matters, board appointments, and critical water policy decisions. The afternoon session focused on appointing members to various boards and commissions, where a subcommittee's recommendations sparked significant debate regarding term limits, district representation, and the elevation of Planning Commission candidates. The evening session addressed urgent water allocation policies in light of the newly operational Pure Water Monterey expansion and a pending request to the State Water Resources Control Board to lift a long-standing development moratorium. Throughout the evening, public commenters expressed strong support for expanding water access to stimulate housing, while others raised serious concerns regarding water quality safety, the inclusion of desalination projects in advocacy letters, and the prioritization of affordable housing.
Consent Calendar
- Approved unanimously (5-0) without any items pulled from the agenda.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Business Licensing: Nick Jacob, owner of Hotel 1110, expressed strong dissatisfaction and opposed the Finance Department's practice of not providing timely notice for business license fees, describing the "wait for notice" approach as an unacceptable mindset where staff are not working for the public. He urged the Council to instruct the Finance Department to implement proactive email or mail notifications.
- Community Engagement: Judy Henderson, a registered voter and former City Academy participant, expressed support for the Fire Chief's decision on dirty turnout treatment and thanked the City Academy team for providing transparent insights into city operations.
- Board Appointments (Support for Taylor Deinhart): Multiple speakers, including Jane Sink, Ray Myers, Jeannie Ferrara, and Elizabeth Yannish, expressed full support for Taylor Deinhart's appointment to the Planning Commission. They highlighted her dual master's degrees, public health background, and the position that her diversity (being a woman in a male-dominated field) and "out of town" experience are beneficial assets. Jeannie Ferrara specifically advocated for her to bring a "female presence" to the board.
- Board Appointments (Process Concerns): Pat Venza expressed concern and opposed the inconsistency in the selection process regarding applicants who had never attended a meeting prior to applying, arguing that experience with city governance should be a factor. Elizabeth Yannish expressed a desire for more transparency in the subcommittee's scoring and decision-making process.
- Water Policy (Support for CDO Modification): Kevin Dayton (Chamber of Commerce) and Michael Balboa (Developer) expressed strong support for sending the letter to the State Water Board and supported the first-come, first-served water allocation policy to drive economic recovery and housing.
- Water Policy (Opposition to Desalination & Safety): Nina Beattie expressed strong opposition to including the desalination plant in the support letter and opposed lifting the CDO moratorium. She argued that the Seaside Basin water is contaminated (containing toxins from the Fort Ord Superfund site) and is not safe for potable use, stating that the water supply is not viable. She expressed concern that the market will favor wealthy developers over affordable housing.
- Water Policy (Prioritization Debate): Tom Reeves expressed the position that the city needs workforce housing rather than market-rate luxury homes and opposed the prioritization language that might favor larger projects over specific workforce needs. Laura Davis (Landwatch) expressed support for prioritizing infill and affordable housing and recommended a phased allocation approach.
Discussion Items
-
Board of Commissions Appointments:
- Councilmembers and staff discussed the subcommittee's recommendations, noting the city code restriction that members generally serve only on one body at a time, with exceptions for Measures P and S and the Appeals Board.
- Discussion on Term Limits: Mayor Williamson clarified the position that the Council voted to adopt a 12-year term limit for boards and commissions, aligning with the ballot measure, and noted that this was a factor in the subcommittee's selection process to create space for new voices.
- Debate on Planning Commission Appointments: Councilmember Smith expressed strong concern and opposed removing Mike Brassfield (District 4, 8 years experience) to appoint two new members from the Architectural Review Committee (ARC), arguing that experience should be valued. She voiced opposition to elevating Eric Palmer (2 years on ARC) over a long-serving planning commissioner, citing a lack of justification for removing an experienced member.
- Debate on Taylor Deinhart: Councilmember Rash advocated for appointing Taylor Deinhart to the Planning Commission, arguing that her qualifications (dual master's degrees, research background) offer necessary balance and diversity. She proposed a friendly amendment to include her, but the motion maker declined the amendment, arguing that her skills were best utilized on the Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program (NCIP) committee, which has a larger budget ($6 million).
- Final Vote on Appointments: The Council voted 3-2 to approve the subcommittee's recommendations. Councilmember Smith cast a "no" vote specifically regarding the Planning Commission appointments while voting "yes" on the other items, resulting in the overall motion passing.
-
Water Policy & State Letter Authorization:
- Item 15 (Letter to State Water Board): Councilmember Garcia made a motion to approve the letter supporting the water district's application to lift the CDO condition, explicitly excluding any mention of the desalination plant. Councilmember Smith opposed this, advocating for the inclusion of the desalination plant in the letter as a long-term sustainable solution. The motion to exclude the desalination paragraph passed 3-2.
- Item 14 (Water Allocation Policy): Staff presented a policy allowing water allocation from the new 141-acre-foot supply, to be activated only after the CDO is modified, with exceptions for "like-for-like" residential/commercial conversions under Dave Stolt's (Water District) interpretation.
- Debate on Implementation: Dave Stolt testified that projects with no change in use (e.g., residential to residential) could potentially proceed immediately, though the City Manager expressed caution regarding the legal risk if the State eventually enforces the CDO. Public commenters urged the Council to open the water allocation broadly to all housing types without restrictive buckets to maximize development.
- Final Vote on Policy: The Council voted to approve the staff recommendation to adopt the water policy as written. Councilmember Garcia voiced mixed feelings but supported the motion to move forward, while Councilmember Smith expressed support but noted concerns about the risk. The motion passed 3-2.
Key Outcomes
- Consent Calendar: Approved unanimously (5-0).
- Board Appointments: The Council approved the slate of recommendations for the Building and Housing Appeals Board, Historic Preservation Commission, and others (3-2). The vote specifically excluded Councilmember Smith's support for the Planning Commission appointments due to objections regarding the removal of incumbent Mike Brassfield.
- Interim City Manager Appointment: In closed session, the Council voted unanimously (4-0, with Councilmember Garcia absent) to appoint Lou Bauman as the Interim City Manager.
- Water Policy Action: The Council authorized the sending of a letter to the State Water Resources Control Board supporting the modification of the CDO, but explicitly rejected the inclusion of language supporting the desalination project (3-2). The Council also adopted the new water allocation policy (Policy Item 14) which prioritizes affordable housing but remains open to other housing types and commercial redevelopment once the CDO is lifted.
- Next Steps: The City will await the State Water Board's decision on the CDO modification (estimated 4-6 months) before issuing water permits for new meters, though staff may proceed with "like-for-like" conversions based on the new policy interpretation.
Meeting Transcript
Recording in progress. Hello, everybody. Welcome to our afternoon session of today's council meeting. It's November eighteenth, twenty twenty-five. I'll go ahead and call the meeting to order and pass it to Clementine for roll call and share announcements with the public. Councilmember Barber. Councilmember Garcia. Councilmember Rash here. Councilmember Smith. Present. 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 and phones muted to prevent audio interference. So this is for items that are not on today's agenda agenda. So this is for non-agendized items. So we'll check with folks on Zoom. I'll do a countdown to five, four, three, two, one. We have one person on Zoom. We'll go ahead and start in the chamber and we'll give you three minutes each. Good afternoon. My name is Nick Jacob. I'm the owner of Hotel 1110 on Del Monte Avenue. I'm gonna present to the chamber and to the mayor and the council members. An issue which might be trivial, but believe me, it is not. And I hope that you take it seriously. The issue is the licenses for the businesses in the Monterey. We're supposed to be a license fees every year, which we'll be happy to pay. But the issue is we never receive notice. And we receive notice only after the fact. For example, the the fees was due in July 1st. I received the first notice in September 17. I left Cubby's hole for you to see it. And the finance department response is well, you have to know yourself. We don't need to notify you. I don't think that's acceptable. It is it's not a good practice. It's not a good way to conduct business. It doesn't cause any major major work for them to do. They could notify by email, they could notify us by mail. Apparently, they know how to notify us. They sent us. So uh and they enforce fee penalties that are necessary for people who want to pay. So I would like you to consider that and instruct the finance department. It is matter of principle. The first is notice is you know basic thing. I mean, I did with 12 tax agencies, all of them notify me when the taxes are due. All you know, this is the only one, and this is not a good practice. It is a mindset. You know, I think the mindset is the employees or the staff think they they could do whatever they want in the city, and they forget they are working for us, so not working for them.
openpublica.com