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.

Thank you.

Sir, if you you'd like, you can connect with our assistant city manager here, and we can make sure that we connect with you on the issue.

Yes.

Okay.

All right.

Hi, Mayor.

Um, thank you for letting me speak.

Uh, council members, uh, city officials and Leo.

Thank you for letting me be here.

I'm Judy Henderson, a registered voter, 11 and a half year resident.

And uh love Monterey.

I want to say thank you to Hans and Nat and the team, everybody that participated uh with us and provided us the in-depth um transparent as it was.

Um view of the city through the first city academy and cohort one.

Thank you for choosing me.

Thank you for letting me be a part of this.

Thank you for um uh guiding some of my decisions and maybe as a voter, but also as an more informed citizen now of Monterey.

And I'm staying.

I I know I'm still a renter, but I'm staying, and I'm very invested in the city.

And again, thank you.

I'll stay for the rest of the meeting too.

Thank you.

Thanks, Judy.

Thanks, Judy.

Hi, everyone.

Um, I'm Maylin Fullop.

I'm one of the applicants for the MCAC um position.

I just want to take this chance to say thank you to all of you for considering me for this role.

And sorry, I don't mean to cut you off.

This is on the agenda and so up.

We will have a public comment period for that just to kind of keep things consistent and on the topic.

This is for items that aren't on today's agenda.

Okay, I jumped the gun.

Well, I'll you're good.

You're good.

I'm glad that you're here though.

Thank you for showing up in person.

It means a lot.

So of course we'll make sure to get you back up when that item comes up.

Okay.

Which you soon.

So uh I've I've got at least a little practice.

Thank you for it.

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

Yes, I'm calling on Jane.

Jane, you can unmute and then begin speaking.

Okay, hi, everybody.

Jane Sake here living in Monterey for several years.

And um I have uh recently uh noticed Taylor Deinhart for planning commissioners.

So we would like to show our support for her.

Um her qualifications are incredible.

Jane, um, this is this is the same thing as the last public commenter.

You're speaking to an item that's on the agenda.

This is for general public comment.

So I'm okay.

I'm sorry.

Okay.

Okay.

It's I know that um folks are eager to share their public comment and it happens.

So no no worries.

We are doing can um we're doing general public comment.

We're gonna do consent next, right after consent.

We're gonna do our first public appearance item, and we'll take this item and then encourage you to raise your hand again so that you can share your comments at that time.

Okay, and with that, we'll go ahead and close general public comment and move to consent.

Um there's been no items requested from staff, I understand.

So I just wanted to check in with the council.

Anyone wish to pull anything?

I'm just ready for a motion.

Let's go out to the public and then we'll come back for it.

Um all right, we'll open up for public comment for folks on Zoom.

You can use a raise hand function.

Anybody in the chamber wishes speak or pull anything from the consent agenda.

All right, seeing none in the chamber, I'll do a countdown.

Yep, come on up.

We'll do the one in the chamber and then I'll do a countdown for folks on Zoom to five, four, three, two, one.

We have nobody on Zoom.

Okay, thank you again, Judy Henderson, registered voter.

I'm actually speaking about the turnouts.

I fully support the fire chiefs uh decision on the turnouts.

And I think as far as best practices go, it's very, very important that we also focus on uh treating these turnouts when they're dirty for uh the hazardous materials and keeping our firefighters safe.

Um thank you.

Thank you so much, Judy.

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

I'll pass it to council member Smith.

I'll just make a motion to uh approve the consent agenda in secondary.

All right, it's been moved and seconded.

Any other discussion?

All those in favor?

Aye, any opposed?

Motion passes unanimously.

And with that, we will now go to our public appearance item, um, which is item 10 to receive subcommittee recommendations and an appointment and appoint applicants to positions on building and housing appeals board, historic preservation commission, museum and cultural arts commission, measure P and S Oversight Committee, neighborhood and community improvement program committee, parks and recreation commission and planning commission.

With that, I'll pass it to Hans.

Clementine.

Oh, Hans, you want to pass it to her?

Yeah, I just want to get a one line or all I'm still a little bit dizzy about the speed of the consent.

And within No, don't ruin it.

We're on a good path right now.

That's it's like spinning a little bit here.

And with that, I hand it over to Clementine.

Well, now the pressure is on.

Um I have a very brief presentation.

Everything that we really need to know is in the agenda materials, but the subcommittee was formed a few months back by the council um in order to conduct interviews and formulate recommendations for appointments to our boards and commissions.

And um we did hold three subcommittee public meetings.

We had members of the public were here and who commented.

So it was a robust process.

The subcommittee interviewed all of the qualified applicants.

Um they discussed the interview processes, process, um, and they deliberated and formulated the recommendations that you see in our packet.

Um I wanted to note uh in response to a public comment that members can serve only on one body at a time, um, according to the city code, except for a couple exceptions, which are just the measure PNS committee and the appeals boards.

And um, so if there are any questions, Mayor and Council, I can answer those.

I also did want to add that in making the appointments, the council has the option to appoint people for a term ending June 30th, 2029.

That would be about a three and a half year term.

We do have four-year terms in the charter and um, I'm sorry, in our city code, and it's flexible for situations like this where it's like a mid-year appointment.

Um, and so the people who would have had their terms ending on June 30th, and we did have a little bit of a delay.

Theirs would have ended June 30th, 2029.

So it's kind of up to you how you'd like to do that.

Um, either use 2029 or 2030, which would be a four and a half year term, which is also okay in the city code.

Okay.

Um thank you, Clementine.

And and I just want to before we go too deep into this topic, just give a lot of love and appreciation for Clementine and um the city clerk's office.

Um, this has been a huge lift on their part to coordinate between the vice mayor and myself and with all the applicants.

Um, and it went swimmingly from my perspective.

Always opportunities for growth, but just a lot of kudos to staff.

I know that this is taking a lot of capacity on your end.

Um to the council, are there any questions at this time?

Please.

Yes, come time.

You did a fabulous job.

25, around 25 applications, a lot of paperwork, a lot of time.

Um, my specific questions are does the architectural review committee rotate the chair and vice chair, or is it like NCIP we're in a selection by the members?

I may need to call a friend on that one, Kim.

I'm assuming it rotates.

Most of our boards do rotate, but yes, she says it does rotate.

And um is this the time for specific questions about specific applicants?

Yeah, any questions.

Right.

Okay.

So on Mr.

Justin Pauly, he's been on the ARC for five years.

And it's used a credential.

He used a credential from MIT uh Massachusetts Institute of Technology, I presume, of course.

Um that he had um something called MCP.

Can anyone who's an architect or an engineer tell me what that is?

Yeah.

Great.

Um Mr.

Pauli is a licensed architect, but he also has a master's in city planning.

Masters of city planning.

Okay, thank you very much.

Okay.

Um and somewhat on the same vein on applicant for planning commission, Taylor Ryan Hart, um, who has dual master's degrees, one in urban and regional planning, one in public health, and a BS in political science.

She listed that she is an AICP certified planner.

Could could I have more information on what that means, please?

Um, so it is an exam that you can sit for.

It's voluntary, it's called the American Institute of Certified Planners.

And so once you receive that um credential, then there's required continuing education on an annual basis to maintain your license.

Or really it's not a license, more of a credential.

Credential, thank you.

And um what is the what is the credential?

You might as well stay up here, Kim.

I'm almost done.

What is what is the basic credential for an architect?

Is that an academic degree or is it a credential?

It's usually both.

So architects um at a minimum have a bachelor's of science and architecture typically, and then they also have to sit for an exam.

And in order to sit for that exam, they have to have a minimum number of um years experience in the field, and then they're qualified to apply for an American institute of architects.

So it's an AIA certification.

That's how you get the AI.

Yeah.

And you can't be a practicing architect without passing that exam.

And it actually is more like a license where the AICP is a credential.

Okay.

All right.

Anything else?

And then I have questions for about the process, and I think maybe what we're doing are we aiming to approve the whole slate?

Are we gonna we're down the line?

We'll discuss perhaps changes to the nomination.

Will we do it individually or by committee?

I think maybe we can pick that up when we come back from public comment.

All right, all right.

It it'll become evident the best way to do that.

Okay, that's uh all my questions.

Okay, any other questions from the council?

Please.

Yeah.

So when I looked at what the subcommittee uh did, I think that there was um some conversations in terms of when you're doing your interview, you decided on questions, and then I'd like to know more about how you scored.

Was it a one to 10 score as you were doing the questions, or where did you how did you put them into some type of uh category?

I'd just like to know more from the subcommittee.

Um for me, and I'll let Gino go next and how he did his his own process.

Um the most important thing was trying to get as many people on as many boards, commissions, or committees as possible.

So some people applied to multiple things, and it worked out for them where maybe they were the only one that applied or they were better fitted for one position.

So then that would, in my opinion, knock them out for all the rest of them, unless something occurred where there wasn't an ability to fill a seat.

So that was a big factor.

Um, also their experience if they previously served.

Um, I'm also taking into account the decision that the majority of the council made to um establish term limits around um uh time serve, so creating space for new voices.

So creating space for new voices.

That's generally general mine.

I could go, I mean, it depends on the position, so I can go into more detail if there's a if there's a certain discussion around a certain seat, but that's my general problem.

That'll come after.

Yeah, and and for me, it was um somewhat similar.

Um I paid, I I would say close attention to their responses, their uh question, their the responses to the questions we had.

Um I I didn't necessarily have uh uh scoring matrix um for my my own decision.

Um I I looked at the various positions that they were applying for and just based on their responses, try to figure out what I thought was the best placement based on on my own, you know, criteria, just you know, their interests, their uh some background.

Um yeah, so it was I had uh also a list of uh all the uh candidates and just wrote notes that kind of stood out to me.

So okay, yeah.

Um and Mayor, you'd mentioned something about uh term limits.

Uh could you talk more about where that comes from?

Because have we established term limits to our boards and commissioners?

So it was a vote that the council took and a majority voted in favor of that.

I don't know how that works as far as something that's written in the policy, but in my opinion, even if it's not, it's still the lens in which I'm using to have based my selection.

Okay.

And so what would that term limit be as an example?

Someone who is a two-term planning commissioner, they've had eight years.

The council moving forward, the ballot measure established a maximum of 12 years.

So in your mind, was that the top level of a candidate for a planning commission?

No more than 12 years?

So generally, I I based off of how we voted on it, it was to have it match with the policy that passed on the ballot for the council.

Okay.

Okay.

And so were there any candidates that in your mind had been in a position for 12 years that as a result of that 12 year that they would have not been considered because of the doctrine of term limits?

The only ones that I can find were eight years.

Mike Brasfield and uh and Bill Wachkowski fell into that category.

Um, but as you may see, Bill was recommended in the final recommendation because of the way that there's four seats available, and uh and there was only four people left to to appoint to that.

Okay.

And there was another mention um that our by charter or by past practice, we only allow one person to serve at one committee at a time.

Is that by charter or is that just our past?

I accidentally said charter, but it's city code.

Okay, yes.

And and it so you can serve on multiple boards if you're on the measure PNS committee.

That means you can also serve on a different position, and then also the appeals hearing board.

So appeals hearing board, disabled access appeals board and building and housing appeals board.

Okay.

And it's as an ordinance, so it's a city ordinance, which means the city in the past has passed this.

Um, are there any exceptions to that where a subcommittee or council could say, well, we have an exception.

Maybe there's a lack of candidates for a board, and we want to keep that person on the board, even though they are also an applicant for another board.

Is there any exception allowed for that other than the ones you mix you've outlined?

I'm just pulling up the city code right now.

Um it's using the the word shall.

No person shall be a member of more than one city board, commission or committee at a time.

Okay, thank you.

You're welcome.

Mayor, that's the only thing I have right now.

Any other questions?

All right, with that, we'll go ahead and open it up for public comment.

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

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

Anybody in the chamber wishes to speak on this item?

Um, so I would ask if you stay up to the left of the podium.

If able, um, if you prefer to stay seated, um, I'll I'll ask for hands here in a second.

And this is specifically for public comment on the board's commissions and committee appointments.

Okay, so I see one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine.

One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, nine in the chamber.

Uh you guys are together.

It's okay.

You each get three uh you each get your time.

So um uh so there's nine in the chamber.

It's I'm counting nine standing.

Anyone else that I'm missing that's still seating that wants to speak on this item?

Okay, so we have nine in the chamber.

I'll go ahead and cut it off to those nine, and I'll do a countdown for folks on Zoom to five, four, three, two, one.

We have three on Zoom.

We'll go ahead and start in the chamber.

We'll do three minutes.

All right, thank you again.

Thank you, Clementine, for all of your work and for the committee.

I am speaking specifically.

Uh, this is Judy Henderson.

Speaking specifically to museums and culture arts commission, I would like to um express my support for Monique Caldy for this position.

I think uh she is very well suited for it, and I think the position is suited to Monique as well.

So she has my full support.

Thank you, Judy.

Good afternoon.

Uh Pat Venza Monterey Vista area.

Um I sent in a little email.

My big word is consistency, and um I think as a parent, you need to be consistent as a pet owner, you need to be consistent.

And I think in this process there needs to be consistency.

And what I'm referring to is the question on have you ever been to a meeting prior to applying?

And many people said no.

And I'm thinking, wait a minute, we've had so many issues in this city, and you never found an issue that you came to a city council or a planning commission or a parks and recreation commission, and now you want to do the budget, you want to make the rules.

Um, I think, and some of these people were very qualified, overly qualified in the case of one person applying for uh planning commission, but to never attend a meeting prior to that, I have problems with.

I think that um maybe a little mentoring by you folks to these people who are really well qualified to offer suggestions on how they could get involved at a lower level or in some of the other um lower level uh boards um might be okay, but especially uh planning commission and parks and recreation, but there needs to be consistency if you do it and you allow somebody who's never been to a meeting on one commission and you deny them another person on another board, there's something wrong.

Thank you.

Good evening, Elizabeth Yannish, uh community member, Monterey Monterey Vista neighborhood.

And um I'd like to talk this evening.

I what had the opportunity to attend um all three days of the uh interviews for these positions for the sit for the um commission and committee meetings, and I am so proud to be here to really just say thank you, you know, because this new precedent that uh is now before us for city governance that brings me in as a community member, um, gives me a voice and an opportunity to learn.

And this is my basic thing tonight.

sit for the um commission and committee meetings and i am so proud to be here to really just say thank you you know because this new precedent that uh is now before us for city governance that brings me in as a community member um gives me a voice and an opportunity to learn and this is my basic thing tonight what I learned in sitting for these three days for um these applicants which I have to say knocked it out of the park many of them were well qualified new people many to our city governance but um some not and I just welcome the fact that every single one of them was able to be heard here and and that the interview questions were consistent and repetitive was important for maintaining a certain amount of of uniformity for all uh applicants so that that too is wonderful um I have to say one brief thing about being here and being present what I learned by sitting in chambers watching these people not only be so excited about applying for jobs in the city as well as talking about their skills what they offered and their passion to serve the city was overwhelmingly wonderful for me to experience so that was a big uh that was a big um takeaway for me what I want to say though is at the end of the three days when uh the recommendations were being made what we heard in the chamber was the position and they you know who did you vote for well this was the name that we got back and there was no way for us to know how you made those decisions there was no back and forth discussion there was no for me I didn't learn anything about your process of making those decisions and that to me is what I hope will happen tonight because if I don't learn about your process I cannot be a valued member of this community and help you also in your jobs.

Thank you.

Hello um can you hear me?

Yes we can um I'm Jeannie Ferrara I'm a member of Monterey Vista neighborhood I'm a realtor and um I appreciate the transparency with which you uh conducted this process um I want to uh encourage you to um vote for Taylor Reinhardt on the planning commission I think there's a serious lack of women on that board they're all men and I think that it could benefit from a female presence she has uh amazing qualifications and she's still working remotely for Florida I believe in the same capacity and um so she's already familiar with the process in a different state but it would make her much easier you know make it much easier for her to learn about the our process here you know about the cities of Monterey's process here and um so I hope that you vote for Taylor Reinhardt um I also want to um to to thank you for appropriating 10,000 for the food bank of Monterey County I think there's a lot of needy people and that part is not on this agenda item so you can't really speak to that one at this point.

Thank you for your comments.

Thank you.

Uh Mr.

Mayor and members of the council um there's a couple quick comments um number one I'm really grateful for your thorough approach to picking members for these important committees um I think the planning commission is one of the most important um groups of citizens in our town it it really has such an outsized impact on everything that happens here so um I I just want to I want to advocate for Taylor Deinhart for one thing um I think that she brings a a lot of variety she brings a lot of out of town experience which is really fresh and new for us I think new ideas are what we can really you know in a small town like this is it's really easy to get kind of ingrown.

So um I also love the fact that we would have another woman on the council I think it's uh on on the commission and um I just really want to advocate for that kind of diversity.

I thank you for your hard work and um look forward to seeing what the results end up being welcome back.

Thank you Maylon Fulp yet again um just wanted to thank the council for their consideration um for the MCAC position.

So excited to be able to serve the city of Monterey and foster a deeper sense of community through the arts.

That's it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Hi, Mary Williamson and City Council.

Now, um, my name is I'll banjo.

I'm the project director from the Village Project.

Uh, we intended to come here to talk a little bit about our mental health campaign and just you know about support.

I can see that this particular item is referencing a particular appointment process.

Um, I would like to see if I can get approval since we do have our youth here to just share a little bit more about our campaign.

Is that okay with you?

Unfortunately, we can't.

We have another opportunity at a bite at the apple, though, at our seven o'clock evening session.

So we'll open general public comment back up where you can speak about anything that's not on the agenda.

Okay.

All right.

So sorry about that.

I I unfortunately the process doesn't allow for that at this point.

No worries, right?

Thank you so much.

Thank you for being here though.

All right.

Of course.

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

First, we have Ray.

And Ray, you can unmute and then you can go ahead.

Hey, good evening.

Uh, this is Ray Myers, and I live in Monterey neighborhood.

Uh, I was a business person on Monterey Principal for 50 years, and I went through the interview process hundreds of times as applicants, so I understand the different and uh appreciate it.

Um, I'd like to give my endorsement of applicant Taylor Deinhard for the planning committee.

I watched the recording of her interview with our mayor and the vice mayor, was impressed by her educational and professional background as well as her enthusiasm for her public service.

I enjoyed hearing how she explained how she would bring these skills and resources to the commission and benefit the city of Monterey.

Mrs.

Deinhard holds a master's degrees in urban and regional planning as well as public health, which will directly serve her on the planning commission.

She now holds a title of certified planner and certified public health professional and is a research associate at the urban transportation research center.

Professional research association possesses unique skills that can assist her in analyzing various issues that's going to be part of the planning commission.

Um I was equally impressed with their enthusiasm that wanted to help the city of Monterey and make these required difficult decisions to look forward to the future for land use in the development.

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to endorse uh Taylor Deinhard for Planning Commission.

I believe she'll add a balance to our planning commission with her educational background in a professional skills perspective.

Thanks.

Thank you, Ray.

Our next speaker is Jane.

Good afternoon.

My name is Jane Sink.

I also am a uh Mona Vista resident for 30 plus years.

And I'd also like to climb on the bandwagon for Taylor Deinhardt for planning commissioner.

Um obviously her qualifications are exemplary.

I'm so excited to hear uh about her um dual master's degree.

She's very, very obviously qualified.

Um I read about her was that she said I would be very happy to use my background and expertise to serve my community.

I believe I could contribute meaningfully to neighborhood improvements, the stewardship of parks and recreation resources and long-range land use and development decisions that shape the future of our city.

So uh she's highly qualified.

I agree that we could use uh some um female perspective on this commission, and uh I think she will do a fantastic job.

So um thank you for the opportunity to support such a talented person.

Thank you.

And our last speaker is Tom.

Thank you.

And I'll start out by uh thanking the mayor and council member Garcia for uh heading up that process.

It was a lot of work for you, I know.

Um I also want to uh thank very much Jean Rish, uh, Councilmember Rach for bringing some reforms and improvements to this process.

I think it worked very well.

It was uh heartwarming to see all of the people who are interested in their community and step forward a volunteer and then not just people, but very, very well qualified people.

It's really amazing to see the body of talent we have in this community.

I thought I was the only one who would speak uh to Mrs.

to Ms.

Deinhard, but apparently that's not the case.

Um, I agree with the previous speakers.

I I looked at her credentials and uh she just seems to be a stellar candidate for planning commission.

I think all the other decisions you made in the process, I didn't have a big problem with that.

I just think that Ms.

Deinhard uh has a super resume.

Uh one thing that I'd like to see as a note of improvement is that when it comes to the NIP committee, I think it would be a good idea to reach out to the neighborhood associations.

I know that there's been some things said about neighborhood associations.

Um and some of them are not very active, but some of them, such as New Monterey is very active.

Now, New Monterey did not uh have a turn in the barrel, so to speak, this time around, but other neighborhoods who I asked whether or not the city uh reached out to them who do have active neighborhoods, uh responded that the city didn't uh bring this to their attention.

And I understand, yes, people should keep their noses buried in agendas, but the fact of the matter is many people in general and associations don't do that.

So just a simple request that you send out a little tickler to people and neighborhood associations saying, hey, these people have applied.

Do you uh do you have any opinion one way or the other?

And that would be input to the committee.

So again, thank you very much.

I appreciate it.

Okay, with that, we'll go ahead and closed public comment on the item.

Thank you for all those that contributed uh public comment on that.

Um I'm gonna try to start us off here.

Um and just try to respond to some of the comments, the public comments, both um during the meeting and then also some com public comment that was received via email.

Um there was trying to think of how to best approach this.

Um there was um uh a letter that came into the council.

Um and was critical of um maybe newer folks coming in and getting a position on a board commissioner committee.

Um, and how they may not be as invested or fully appreciate um what it's like to live in in the city of Monterey, um, as opposed to people that have lived here longer.

And um, in as much as I can appreciate the history of how long somebody's lived here and and all that comes with that, I think there is something very refreshing about somebody that is new and what is that perspective and what do they bring to the table from likely a competent person um that cares about the community that they're currently living in and wants to contribute.

So I just wanted to provide a little bit of um feedback in regards to that suggestion that we limit our selection to folks that have been longtime residents.

Um there's also a comment in the same letter um around prioritization of district seats, and that's one thing I left off earlier.

Tried to share the load in regards to what part of the city folks come from.

And so um, even though that's a factor, it's not the only factor, and I wouldn't necessarily say a more important factor, it's just a factor that's weighed into the consideration.

Um, but I do think it's important to have geographical representation throughout the city.

Um Pat, um, I I appreciated your comments though, wasn't quite clear in regards to what specific position individual we might we might have been referring to.

And I so bad wanted to ask that while you were up on the mic, but I want to be careful not to like break that um process as far as allowing the public comment.

Um I think equally though, without again having specifics, the the question being raised around consistency saying, well, the quite the question of um have you ever attended a meeting?

Again, it doesn't, it's not an absolute that because you haven't attended a meeting, you're absolutely out.

Um, it's just a factor that's used in the decision making process.

And so there's a lot of things that go into identifying the person.

Um, and they might be really skilled, competent, have the ability, and might be the best person for the position, even though they never attended a meeting before.

That doesn't mean that they won't be successful and have a lot to contribute to it.

Um Elizabeth's comment.

Um I would push back just a little bit because um actually I I want to thank Vice Mayor Garcia for this.

I think that there was a I was trying to jump right into having us go back and forth and engage with who we each selected.

And maybe what you're referring to is more position by position, but before we before we went through the process of identifying who we each preferred for a seat um for the recommendation of the seat, um we did engage in a process where we communicated the process and particularly how I articulated to council member Smith just now.

Um we did that exact thing um during that meeting.

So we talked about how we went through our selection process prior to naming off names.

So maybe that part wasn't fully um caught, but it it was we did do that process, and maybe that could be done better.

And I'm happy to connect with you offline to make sure that we find a better way of doing the process in the future, because maybe there's something that was missed there.

Um and then I think Tom brought up here at the end around the NCIP committee positions and reaching out.

And I spoke about this last time we did appointments to boards, commissions, and committees, but I'll just re-articulate it because he brought that up.

I feel that it's important to keep the integrity of the application process and how we interact and engage with the public on the selection of appointments to our boards, commissions, and committees.

And I don't think it's right or fair to reach out to one special interest group in the community to get their feedback and input and not do the same for others that may want that same thing.

Um, and to Tom's point, if Mona Vista as an probably the most engaged neighborhood association in the city wanted to have feedback and input, then I'm sure that they would have a member or members of their association that were paying attention to the agenda, which is exactly what happened.

Actually, they had um some days multiple members of their neighborhood association present, and they could have spoke during public comment, and everybody in the public would have heard what their feedback was in regards to the selection process as opposed to something that was maybe done behind closed doors.

So I would just encourage and continue to encourage the neighborhood associations to just go on the city's website, sign up for the newsletter, and you will get no, you don't have to go through every agenda, but you will get notified for the agendas related to boards, commissions, and committee appointments, and that way you can stay abreast and make sure that you're present for the meetings or send in a letter if you can't make it to the meetings with your suggestion or recommendation.

Um just kind of wanted to provide a quick response to some of those.

I'm gonna pass it to Councilman Garcia if you had any additional thoughts to add as the other member of the um subcommittee.

Yeah, uh I wanted to touch on a couple of points.

Um going back to the uh first the question about did you attend the meeting?

That for me um wasn't so much about uh understanding whether or not uh the applicants did in fact uh watch any of the meetings.

For me, it was more about what is the starting point for that candidate, right?

Um, and what um what can we do?

Um all of us, council, staff, right, to ensure that if that candidate is selected, that uh we'll be providing the support needed for that candidate to succeed in that role.

Um I mentioned uh this um during uh the the our final um uh meeting where we were selecting the list, um, that for me um I the the first thing that I was really looking for in candidates was the enthusiasm to serve.

And that for me is very important because I think that's um the the first step to any part of this process.

If you don't have that enthusiasm to participate and to hang in there in in any of these bodies that um many times have very um uh dense discussions, um, right?

Then you know, maybe it's it's something to consider for the candidate.

And and that makes the decision for me a little bit more difficult because I'd like to give all of them the opportunity, but we only have limited spots and and we uh because folks certain folks apply to multiple uh uh boards or commissions, uh then it becomes uh um yeah, an exercise of really figuring out where can we make the best placement given the limited number of seats.

So I just wanted to touch that uh on that really quick.

Um the other point, and I really appreciate the uh hearing the support for uh Taylor and I I mean I I'm just as impressed with credentials.

Um Taylor did apply to three boards and commissions, and um having uh worked in in a similar line of work in transportation planning, I really see uh from my perspective that her credentials could also be very well used in NCIP.

So for me, that perhaps brought a little bit of a different context and and really motivation for selecting uh Taylor for that for that seat.

Um, but uh bringing it back to the uh point that Taylor did apply to three uh boards and commissions.

So um, you know, it's it's it's it came down to again trying to uh decide what what is the best um placement for not only Taylor, but then how does that impact placement for other candidates uh in other seats?

So just wanted to provide a little bit of that context as well.

Thank you.

And I appreciate you jumping back to that Taylor piece because that was a predominant um part of the public comments.

And I echo, I'm not gonna repeat what you said, but I I I echo the same sentiment.

All right.

With that, we'll open it to the rest of the council.

Please.

Okay.

Um I want to thank the applicants.

Um, I agree with Elizabeth Yanish at how um qualified they are and um enthusiastic.

And uh it was a very impressive process.

Um, I was there for 100% of the interviews.

And um and really hope that someday we'll transition to all of us hearing the the five of us hearing the live interviews.

It it was it was very special.

Pat mentioned um preparation for positions and um to the applicants who aren't chosen, um, please try again.

It's somewhat timing and it's somewhat uh what the mayor was saying, what positions are open.

So um please consider applying again when openings occur.

And also um remember we now have um what Judy Henderson was talking about, the first city orientation.

It's a um it's a multi-week event where you go around and learn all about the departments of the city and you learn how the city functions.

And um, we did it for the first time this year, and there we got rave reviews.

So that's a great opportunity to learn.

Um consider joining your neighborhood association.

There are um executive positions you can rise to.

You can learn about your neighborhood concerns and meet your neighbors.

It's a great way to learn to serve.

And there's then the association with NCIP says there's that important access of service.

You could also become cert trained.

That's the community and emergency response training, where um volunteers assist the police department and the fire department in times of need.

And also attending meetings as we've been discussing, does help um get expertise and speaking when you have a strong opinion will give you some training.

So to those that don't um aren't selected tonight, please consider some of those ideas.

I want to thank the council for supporting me and my first agenda item.

I really do appreciate this the support that was shown me.

Um and I I love the move to transparency.

I love how the public has been included and to date on the first round of interviews.

There are 120 clicks to the YouTube video.

There's 94 for the second round of interviews, and there are 54 clicks on the third, which was the also the selection round.

So this tells me that um we're tapping into something that the public wants to participate in and is finding a lot of value in.

And thank you, Madam Clerk, for um uh getting all the questions from the council.

That was very helpful.

And I think we we put together some great questions.

And I hope that we can have a good forum on um potential changes to your ideas.

Um, it's evident that there's a lot of support for um Ms.

Deinhart.

Um she meets all the qualifications.

Um I would like us to consider her for one of the positions.

I think balance and um various qualifications are important.

She's fresh, she's new, she's qualified, she does research.

So I think that's very important that we I also think it's important that we consider the public's opinion and the the three people who weren't on the subcommittee, and I I'm I'm sure you'll look you'll agree with that.

I mean, it's not just two people coming up with nominations, it's it's uh it's a collaborative effort, and I hope we'll have a collaborative um answer.

Um, if we were to put Ms.

Deinhart on the planning commission, that would allow um retired lieutenant colonel Robert Ward to serve as the NCIP Skyline alternate.

He is a DLI alum, he serves with Meals on Wheels with his wife, and he very much wants to volunteer.

So if we shifted them around, that would give him service, and I think would allow Ms.

Deinhart to serve at her full capacity.

What else?

Um, I really I I really want to advocate for her.

I think it's important for balance.

So I I won't opine on any other opinions because I think I want to put my chits there.

Thank you.

We'd like to go next.

Sure, please, Customer Smith.

I'm kind of uh taken back to a time when many of us were in college and we took a number two pencil and we went in and we took a test, and you know, the the next day, the next day after the test, we all scrambled in the hallway to see the scores and who who passed the tests based on our ID number.

And uh unfortunately that's not this.

This is a kind of a subjective, you know, it's not a specific score, not a specific test you take, but based on the interviews.

So I do appreciate the fact that we have a cross section of the community, as it's already been mentioned to thank all the members that took the time to apply and also figured out that they had several interests, not just one, but there were two, three, four, but they wanted to be involved.

So much appreciated the fact that we have a vibrant community based on the level of interest and response to this.

And um, as has been said, there's not every spot is not gonna be guaranteed to the applicants, but however we decide tonight does not mean that you should walk away and say, well, they didn't want me.

So I guess I'm done and I'll I'll move on.

I would encourage those that are not selected tonight that you stay engaged, stay to the point where you were watching city government and reapply as soon as we do this again, because this is something that we do uh annually as positions become available.

I want to make a couple of comments um and and dial in real quickly uh to the deer flats, the NCIP.

Um I'm not quite understanding where I have uh I note that Monique Caldy, and I'm not guessing, she has advised me that she was interested in a couple of different selections, and she was selected uh for uh let's see, historic or arts and uh bear with me several pages.

Um she was selected for museum and cultural arts commission.

She is willing to serve on that.

Her preference was alternate for Deer Flats in CIP.

And I understand that um David Overton, who is currently there, really was not interested in being the person, but by virtue of the fact that he's got experience, he's there, he's also a member of the HOA, lives in Deer Flats, and Monique lives in Deer Flats.

She was interested to be an alternate.

So by picking Caldy to place her in the other commission, we still have an alternate vacant on the NCIP.

So it seems like if she lives there, she had an interest there, that was her primary interest.

Why wouldn't we fill the alternate NCIP position?

Yes.

Could I answer that as a question?

I can't.

So the representative position was the one that was vacant.

So we wouldn't be able to um advertise the vacancy for an alternate until it was actually vacant.

So if Mr.

Overton is appointed into the representative position, then the alternate would be vacant and we would advertise that.

But currently that's not a he's already filling that position, so that position is not vacant.

Okay.

And so I would turn to the subcommittee.

Is that the way you understood it and why she wasn't considered for the alternate position?

Yeah, she was um identified as as you indicated, being on Museum Culture Arts Commission, and like I articulated previously, yeah, trying to avoid duplicating in this instance, we wouldn't be able to duplicate somebody on multiple um boards, commissions, or committees.

And I did ask Mr.

Overton during his interview if he'd be willing to serve, and he said yes.

So as the primary.

That's correct.

Yeah.

Um, and so what you're saying uh is that we have not advertised an alternate position for the NCIP.

So that would be something we would go back out to and advertise, and there may be additional candidates.

We couldn't automatically elevate her to that position because we have not yet advertised.

That's exactly correct.

Okay, thank you.

And if he is appointed tonight, we would be starting that process very shortly.

Okay, okay.

And then she could certainly apply for that when that vacancy has been created.

Yes.

Okay.

Uh so I'll leave that for now, and and I support her selection as the subcommittee has uh placed her as one of the four representatives in the museum and cultural arts.

Um, I want to go into uh Mrs.

Diabold.

I I believe I was very impressed with uh Taylor's resume.

Uh it just seems like there's a lot of disciplines there that would apply to a lot of different places.

So in the selection for the planning commissioners, I'm just I'm struck by the fact that you were the subcommittee is recommending Eric Palmer, which is District Three, Justin Pauly, District Two, David Stoker, District Two.

And I'm wondering why we would not renew Mike Brassfield, who's district four.

And if we went with your recommendation, we would basically have no one in district one, two in district two, none in district.

No, we'd have one in district three, and we would have um none in district four.

But if Mike Brassfield has been there serving well, last year attendances 100% is interested in continuing as a planning commissioner for district uh to represent the city and lives in district four.

Why would we not select him?

And why would we reach back to somebody who is a former district or former planning commissioner who's been off the planning commission for many years and is also in district two.

So I just need to more need some more information about why we would want to have someone taken off the planning commission and have a new person added.

Um actually two people from the ARC elevated to planning.

So I'd just like to hear more about why we want to deselect one um member of planning who is now serving in good stead and doing a good job and vacate that position and put two uh brand new people in planning that are from ARC.

Um was uh again looking at that opportunity to fill those uh roles with folks who um have the enthusiasm and and want to serve at some capacity in any board or or commission.

Um not to say that Mike doesn't show that enthusiasm.

I mean, I uh I respect the work that Mike has done, um, has proven to be a good member.

Um for me, it just came down to looking at the candidates that we had and and seeing if there's that opportunity to offer uh uh offer the space to somebody else who wants to also have that experience.

So that's that's what in general the selection for me came down to.

Yeah, and I I kind of already articulated earlier in regards to kind of the term limits in that discussion.

Um I uh don't know how much more there is to add, really add there.

Um I've already kind of articulated it.

So I don't know what else I can add.

I don't want to extend a conversation that doesn't need to be extended.

And I get it's everybody's got their own perspective as you're interviewing people and you're trying to figure out a big play card, and there wasn't a lot of applicants.

I would acknowledge planning commission seemed to be the one that uh a lot of folks were interested in.

I guess I'm just struck with when I look at the ARC and I look at the experience of Eric and uh Justin.

Uh Justin's got five years, I believe.

Eric's got two years on the ARC.

Mike's got eight years, but we're bless you.

We're replacing three positions on planning.

So that would place two ARC members on planning and one long-term planning commissioner who, but he's been off the planning commission for quite some time.

So we have three experienced planning commissioners that are vacated and step off.

So having Mike's tenure, and we don't have any hard fast rule about term limits.

I I don't see why we wouldn't consider keeping a journeyman on a commission.

So that's just my perspective.

Um, let me shift uh to I I would I would prefer that we uh not yet elevate Eric because he's two years on uh the ARC.

And also there is quite frankly, some perspective of uh I don't know what word to use, but yes, he's on the ARC, he's been there two years, but he also was running for city council and heavily endorsed by two members of this council.

And there is some appearance that you know starts to look like, well, why are we taking somebody off the planning commission that's been there in good service and no statutory reason to remove them, but Eric is being elevated.

That to me is just an inequity that I can't, I can't come up with a uh a clear line of justification of why Eric should be elevated above someone who's already on the planning commission.

Could I could I ask you a question?

Sure.

Was there a statutory reason where you guys remove Dave Stoker from the planning commission?

No, there was not.

And I can I can go back to that conversation, and I did not vote for his removal.

Matter of fact, I was an advocate, and I thought he did a an excellent job.

But no, there was no statutory.

It was up to at the time under the government's policy.

That was up to the mayor.

And the mayor made that recommendation.

The council had uh various nuances in their vote, and I did not vote for David Stoker to be removed.

So the okay.

So I'm I'm just so it sounds like the same applies here.

There may be a non-statutory reason to make a change in uh seat of a board commissioner committee, similarly to what the council did in the past.

Well, there is no statutory reason, but it it's still I can't justify it in my mind why I'm getting rid of the experienced position where we've had no problems with his service, and we're pushing uh a tenured planning commissioner out and elevating someone who has two years on the ARC.

I think we need the experience with Mike Brassfield's last eight years with what we've gone through as well as he's on district four and we know district four as probably the most potential significant um economic changes and impact and he's been a good voice and an advocate for all things city and serve the planning commission well so I'm not in favor of removing him I'm that's all I want to say okay Dr.

Barber all right so um I guess it's helped um so thank you to everybody as everyone has already said for all the hard work that went into it because I know that it's a lot when you are working with subcommittees and uh the staff and the and everybody who applied and and everybody taking their time to come out for all those three days um I can um applaud um the subcommittee as well for the work that you had to do because I know it's not easy.

Um so I have I just have some questions is that okay if I ask questions okay so um my understanding that I'm I'm wrapping my head around um is I know the ARC was one of the ones that we had uh voted on to dissolve and so that's kind of like where part of the ARC which I looked up to see their names and did we have any discussion with and I'm just curious did we have any discussion with the the ARC members after we talked about dissolving what that looked like I'm just curious as to you know how they were included in even this conversation of what would go next and how that would look since they were in a in the actual commission that we voted on to dissolve I I'm not sure if I fully understand the question but if it's if I had a conversation with the not you specifically but like the city uh us is who we represent like that after we voted on that was something communicated to to the ARC.

Yeah like as a is the city staff that we do any I don't know I mean I know we didn't direct the city to do that so I'm not looking at anybody or any particular person.

I'm just curious as to uh process you know like did we did we have a conversation uh afterwards just like we did with NCIP when we're dealing with different things and we had the dual meetings uh the joint meetings and having them be included I'm just curious as to what transpired with the ARC.

Um did did anything go to the planning uh to the ARC members about the decision that the council made no not that I'm aware of okay okay I and my assumption may be because we haven't voted to actually implement the change in the city code related to it perhaps I'm assuming that maybe once the final decision is made that there'll be some level of communication to the ARC members regarding the end of their term okay all right so I this was trying to get that process and what's happening there in the head.

And so now currently for uh for the planning commission I'm kind of switching gears here um is there um is Sandra Freeman still a part of the planning commission she is okay um I'm just curious I'm just trying to get all my ducks in a row of what I'm saying Sandra is still part of it um and then I guess uh it's Terry Lad Laddisau is part of it as well correct butassa I'm sorry please forgive me you're good uh mispronouncing anyone's name uh Mike Dawson correct is he still Mike Dawson he's busy resignation okay so I'm sorry so he's not this the site isn't the the city's I'm saying it's not updated yet okay so I'm just trying to get like who's currently uh in place so Sandra Freeman is part of it yeah so it's it's Bob Robert blue bluuth Peter Silva uh Mike Brassfield uh Sandra Freeman and Terry Letasa okay got it all right thank you so um I have a couple things I mean I I really did like Taylor um Deinhardt I was really impressed with her um and saying that um but it also helps me to know that um Sandra Freeman is still on the board because I I guess I would when I wasn't getting all that totally but I really was impressed with Taylor Deinhart.

Um, I was glad to see that she was at least chosen uh for Skyline so that can she can kind of start in and moving forward with doing more things for the city and with the city um with her background.

I really do like that.

I really would like to see um um, you know, as she continues to move forward and working with the city.

I would like to see us work more with her.

I'm very impressed with her application.

And then I kind of looked up some things too over here.

And so I I do like that.

Um, but I mean, everything else, I really don't have any questions where I'm just really my main thing is um the planning, the the ARC, how that was handled with the the you know, dissolving what that looks like, what's equitable even for them, you know, of what that looks like, and then uh dying heart.

Um, so that's kind of where I am and what my questions are and what I'm looking at.

Can I ask a question for clarification?

Sure.

Are you okay with the recommendations that Gino and I made from the subcommittee, specifically as it relates to planning commission, given that Taylor was appointed to or is recommended to be appointed to the NCIP?

Um long as I see her in something.

I I just I don't want to make I want to make sure she's not missed.

I think she still would do well with the planning commission.

Um I don't have a problem with that either.

Um, but I just want to make sure Sandy was still on there so that we did have some representation of a female being on the planning commission.

Um, but I I mean I think she would do well there as well.

Um is um with um Skyline as an alternate.

I mean, I think either way by getting her up there into one of the positions, I think is important, but I think she could do well in either way.

And and the fact that she is from um uh what is it, district three, which has uh a lower amount, it it I think it makes it even better.

So yeah.

Um so I I appreciate um all the public comment specifically as it relates to Taylor.

Um and I can fully appreciate the need for um diversity.

In fact, that's one of the things that I spoke to last time a lot of when um making appointments to boards, commissions, and committees.

So um I I think that generally speaking, the committee uh the community knows that well um that diversity, equity, and inclusion are all important elements of our selection processing criteria.

Um I will say that it's it's a little ironic that of when using that before.

Um it just the inconsistency from from some of the perspectives.

This isn't to take away from Taylor's qualifications.

I 100% agree.

I think Taylor is qualified for this.

Um frankly, and I'll add just an additional layer to this.

Um to me, the planning commission is obviously the most um high level uh board commissioner committee in the city, and it's represented through the number of people that apply for this seat versus any other seat.

Um there's always an abundance of people that apply for planning commission.

So it's going to be challenging of how to move those pieces around to make all that work.

Um I think another factor that I use um in my selection process, particularly for the planning commission, is how engaged are they already in the community.

Um I'm excited to elevate Taylor and have her get engaged um in the city.

Um, and I expect um wonderful things in what she brings to to the table.

Um, I will say though that I in all of my engagement, and it's not this criteria alone isn't standalone.

It isn't, it didn't it didn't um dominate my decision, but it was a factor in it.

I haven't seen Taylor engaged.

Um, and it doesn't mean that she hasn't been, but um, I think getting on NCIP, which is a very powerful committee.

Um, I would argue probably the second most powerful committee in the city, maybe not even more so than planning commission because they have a six million dollar uh budget to work with.

Um, and so for Taylor to get on there and understand one of the most important um and critical programs within the city of Monterey, that's not nothing.

Um that's that's pretty significant.

And um, and I think it's important to make sure that we're putting somebody in the alternate seat that can perhaps consider transitioning to the full representative seat.

And I know that's probably going to be needed at a certain point um as we look at trying to create transitions.

So um I see Taylor being here for for the long haul and able to make some good community impact.

Given what I'm hearing from the council, I'm gonna go ahead and make a motion to approve the I want to let me just make my motion real quick.

So I'm gonna make a motion to approve the recommendations as submitted.

So I can okay.

Um I just want to say I'm disappointed that there's not more consideration for Ms.

Deinhart.

I would like to make a friendly amendment that we take your suggestions, but we include Ms.

Deinhart.

I don't think we should have two people choosing all 25 positions.

I think I'm asking you to consider one exception.

Um we need breadth.

Two women is not inappropriate.

This woman has a master's in urban and regional planning.

She has a poly sci degree.

She has the certificate of public health.

She works as a research associate in urban transportation, which we're so needing.

She works for improving accessibility, equity, and sustainability and transportation systems.

She investigates, she writes, she researches.

We we need her on the planning commission.

We need her energy.

The commission needs her breadth.

There is an excellent person who can be the NCIP alternate in Mr.

Ward.

And many have spoken in her support.

And I I'm I'm asking you to stretch to other ideas rather than just the subcommittee.

Thank you.

Um, as the motion maker, um, I will decline the friendly amendment.

Um I'll reiterate, I have I I am a big advocate of diversity.

And so having um diversity, whether gender, race, sexual orientation, country of origin, you can go down the list.

I'm I'm I'm all about it.

It's not the only factor.

And try to move the pieces around.

Um I just articulated how excited I am to get Ms.

Deinhart involved.

Um doesn't need to be a specific board commission or committee.

Um, and and I'm excited to see what she can do with NCIP, which um, as you're aware, I would argue has more um has more public eyes on it than things that are going on in the planning commission and the role that she can play there with her skill set, um, I think can be very helpful and significant towards not just the NCIP, but the overall functioning of how we interact with the public and do that work um with the with the neighborhoods.

I heard you some movement over here under discussion.

Yes, please.

I think uh council member Rash brings up some valid points.

I think it illustrates how we ought to next time do this as a council.

I think we're missing out on an opportunity to come up with the same uh set of information to be able to make these picks.

I did watch many, although not all, and I did speak with several members.

Um I just feel like the criteria of moving an experienced person out just because there's somebody else that you think is younger or more engaged.

I lean a little bit more into competency of the job, the performance, and I and I think past performance should weigh in somewhere.

And it just seems like the criteria for the planning commission is not even considering that.

Um again, I hate to single out an individual, but the data is clear to me.

I think um think Eric Palmer's not ready.

He's got two years versus somebody else who has already eight years in the planning commission.

So I haven't heard a single thing that justifies why we would go to have somebody else removed from uh a position.

Uh to me, I just think that we're we're in a rush to turn over, and it's back to this concept of rushing through term limits just to say that we can say we brought more people in quicker.

Well, when you're talking about planning commission, we have people on the planning commission that have been there long for the ride over the last three to four to five years with all things housing and economic uh planning and uh neighborhood specific business specific plans, and somebody who's been in ARC for two years is not really going to match that experience of somebody who's already there.

I concur with uh Gene Rash's assessment that Taylor definitely needs to be here in a relevant position, and I think her resume is absolutely beyond measure at the top.

So again, I guess it's a case of if she was evaluated and her resume was reviewed and she was matched for her desire to get into planning.

Well, why wasn't she picked at planning?

But then again, planning's probably not something that should be a stepping stone.

It should be you've already served somewhere else.

And I get I get that reasoning, but I'm just not quick to throw away or ask somebody to step aside if they have participated, 100% attendance and been a viable member of the planning commission.

So uh somehow or another, we're gonna have to separate this out because I I cannot support your motion uh for the planning commission appointments.

Okay.

I just two clarifications.

You said you didn't hear anything in regards to why not, but why not moving forward with um Mike?

And that's just not true.

I I articulated it earlier.

Gino also shared his opinion, but maybe there's just a difference in understanding that there.

So just wanted to clearly articulate that um it was communicated, and then you raised a selection criteria being age, and I haven't heard anybody say anything, nor was it a factor in my selection.

Did I use age?

You did, and that's why I'm that's why I'm bringing it up because I just want to make sure it's clear to the public that age was not used as a criteria towards the selection process.

So I just wanted to clarify that.

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

We're getting close to time here.

Oh, please, please.

And I also want to be clear because I am definitely a proponent for um uh Ms.

Martin.

Um, but she did have all three.

And and on her application of NCIP, parks and rec and planning commission, so um, hopefully she will be happy as she moves forward as well.

So um, because that was part of it, and I don't think she said one or the other, but that she wanted to be able to use her her um background and helping to improve neighborhood uh improvement and parks and recreation along with land use.

So I think um that's all part of it.

Okay, thank you, Dr.

Barber.

Uh before we move on.

This is the last comment, and then we'll go ahead and call the question.

If if I said age and the three of you said you heard me say age, so I must have said age.

Um I believe I'm not really saying the age of the candidates because none of these candidates are.

I mean, we're not talking about 21-year-olds here.

We're talking about experienced at whatever level they are.

I'm talking about the experience that's currently on the planning commission with the loss of an experienced planning commissioner stepping aside.

It's the competence and experience that I I mean to say.

Okay.

Thank you, Councilmember Smith for that clarification.

All right, without what you vote.

Can I just ask for you to clarify which term you would like to appoint them for?

I'm good with um June 30 30.

Okay.

If the council is so so just to clarify, the the all the options we have is to have the terms go to from June 30th, 2029 or June 30th, 3030.

2030.

So 20 seconds to 2030.

I'm sorry, 2030.

2030.

Sorry, I don't know what I said.

What did I say?

3030.

30 30.

I was looking at this and uh anyways.

So you're saying essentially saying June summer of 29 or summer of the of 2030.

Well, I think it's four years plus a few months.

That's correct.

Well, no, it's exactly a year difference.

So we oh, you're saying from the start of the So from the start of it, June to June 30 would be four years plus where we are now.

So December, January, February, March, April, May, June.

So four years and seven months is what the So are you guys is is everybody okay with June 30?

Okay.

Okay with that term.

Okay, I'm not hearing any disagreement.

Okay, um we're voting now.

All those in favor?

Aye.

So any opposed.

Yes.

Yes.

So there's it passes three, two.

We're gonna move on to the next item.

So sorry, Councilmember Smith.

I allowed you to have the last word.

I I'm trying to make it a point of order here.

Consistent order.

Is there something wrong with the process that you have a question about?

It's the point of order in the voting.

I'm fine for voting yes on everyone except for the planning commissioner.

So I would propose that we we should have had that marked in.

I would say no only to the planning commission and yes on everyone else.

Okay.

I think because the mo I mean, unless Chrissy, I'm just looking at you to see if there's a way that we can do this different.

The motion on the table is to prove uh to approve it as is.

We could I understand we could do a separate vote, but the motion is what it is.

And so can he can he annotate his vote to be a yes for everybody else on the motion?

The vote.

Okay.

But it'd have to be someone that voted in the affirmative um to do a motion for reconsideration.

Okay.

All right.

So we'll move forward as is I I I I appreciate and understand.

I imagine that um Council Member Rash would have done the same thing.

I'm just trying to um move us along here.

And I and I think that the public is aware and knows that it's not a no on everybody's seat.

So when they look at the records, they see a no.

Okay.

Okay.

With that, we'll go ahead and go to public comments on closed session items.

There's three items.

There's uh closed session item number 11.

Oh, congrats to all the east.

Um closed session item 11 is conference at legal counsel existing litigation pursuant to government code section five, four, nine, five, six, tac nine D1 stronghold engineering incorporated versus City of Monterey.

Uh item 12 is public employee appointment pursuant to government code section five four nine five seven B1 interim city manager.

Item 13 is conference at labor negotiator pursuant to government code section five four nine five seven tax six, unrepresented employee interim city manager.

With that, open it up for public comment for folks on Zoom.

You can use the raise hand function.

We'll check in the chamber.

Anybody in the chamber wishes to speak on this on any of these items.

All right, seeing none, we'll go ahead and go back to Zoom.

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

And there's nobody on Zoom with that.

We'll go ahead and recess the closed session.

See you back at seven o'clock if you so choose.

Recording in progress.

Good evening, everybody.

Welcome to our evening session of today's council meeting, November eighteenth, twenty twenty-five.

Um we will start with Pledge of Allegiance, and I'll ask Council Murash to kick us off.

So I'll start on Zoom.

You can use a raise hand function.

Anybody in the chamber wish to speak for general public comment.

We'll go ahead and start in the chamber.

There are there are a safety hazard to people that walk across the street, bikers that bike on the street, cars, front ends get ripped out, torn out, because some of the the streets are just almost unnapigatable.

Now I understand that we're we're we're we're uh trying to fix everything, but at the pace of the snails pace and the things that they tear in, then they come back and they tear it out and redo this and come back and they do this part a little bit, and then they come back and do this.

And I've been watching this for a long time, and I do uh projects for a living, as you know, and so I just don't see um cost effectiveness in it.

And and the the terrible condition of everything for the amount of money that this city spends.

I can take you back in when I got back from college in 80 no 70, 76.

And I can remember that the streets were and always in decent condition.

You know, you didn't you didn't have this sales tax was only four percent four percent.

It's nine and C quarter.

You guys are talking about adding another what you call it and taking it up, I think almost a 10 or the max, whatever it may be.

And it's not getting any better.

And I'm stunned that this city, and every city's doing it.

You're not any different than any other city.

I don't know why.

That it doesn't, we don't get ahead.

Seems like everything just just gets worse and worse.

The streets are are uh worse off, and I'm just I have to raise it to you guys' attention because I guess you guys don't really pay attention to anymore.

You guys maybe so you guys walk through it so long that you don't even see it anymore that you guys just assume, but for the amount that the taxpayers in this city are paying for that amount of stuff.

I think you guys really should pay and address the streets because they're in really deplorable shape.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That will go to our callers on Zoom.

First speaker is Tom.

Thank you.

Um November the 5th, the NIP committee considered the council's direction to look at past funded projects and prioritize them to come up with three to four million dollars worth of potential cuts.

The committee had considerable discussion about the logistics of meeting this direction and then made and passed two motions.

Motion one was to ask the council if they would consider taking the required funding from fiscal year 27's budget instead of taking it from the existing funded projects.

Motion two was that the committee will go through the current funded projects to call out projects that are no longer viable.

These two motions were reasonable and they would achieve the same end goal, but without having to spend considerable more time going through the current projects, which will involve contacting the proponents and neighborhoods and going back through the voting night in order to rank the projects.

Then there's the ill will that doing this will raise.

I was expecting these sentiments to be transmitted back to the council for your consideration, in which time you could either agree or disagree with the druthers of the NIP committee.

What happened though was that that almost the exact same item reappeared on the NRP's agenda of November the 12th.

At first glance, I thought I was looking at the wrong agenda, or perhaps it was a mistake.

Neither of those were true, though.

And it was staff making another run at the same issue.

I see this as a serious breach of trust between the committee and staff.

The committee's direction of 11.5 was clear.

It's staff's duty to bring the news back to the council.

After more discussion and pressure on November the 12th, the committee made a new recommendation, which is to finish consideration of the current round of project nominations.

And then after the voting process is completed, re-review the same projects along with the currently funded projects in order to satisfy the literal direction given by the council.

This makes very little sense.

It compounds the same logistical complications that the NAP committee brought forth at their meeting of November the 5th.

Many will expect that if their project nomination is approved that this year is voting night, that's it.

But in fact, their project could be eliminated shortly thereafter.

I would like to ask the city council during your council member comments at the conclusion of this meeting to consider agendizing uh giving the NIP committee alternate directions to what you previously gave to them that would allow them and you to consider ideas such as using funds from fiscal year 27.

I think this will make the whole process a lot easier on the NIP committee, and it would achieve your same goal, which is to look for ways of closing the budget gap in fiscal year 27.

We've already said that fiscal year 27 is sort of a bridge year.

Well, we see if tax revenues will come in.

Thank you very much.

Our next speaker is our telephone caller.

Um so you'll need to dial star six to unmute, please.

And you can go ahead.

This is Nina Beattie.

Um, last week the Monterey Bay Aquarium conducted high decibel sonar surveys of the Monterey Bay near Moss Landing at the Monterey Bay uh Canyon, underwater canyon.

I filed a protest with the State Lands Commission, um, sent it to the aquarium as well as to other state um commissions protesting this for the damage it was going to do to all the living creatures that live along the edges of the uh canyon as well as the floor of the canyon where they were going to be surveying from eight till five for from the 11th through the 16th last week.

Um OSHA limits for human exposure for half hour are 110 decibels.

Um, lethal levels are 150 decibels.

This is not merely 40 decibels more than 110.

This is 10,000 times greater than OSHA limits.

But the aquarium's equipment is even higher.

It's at Saturn 5 rocket levels, it's a billion to a trillion times OSHA's limit.

And the new David Packard boat is even higher.

This is the sound levels, the decibel levels, the resonance, the frequencies they're using, these are devastating to marine life.

Some of you may have seen the letter from Jay Murray, who was a scuba diver, no more, because of what he experienced the sonar in the ocean, what it does to bodies.

Um the aquarium finally responded back saying basically that all the federal and state agencies say this is fine, and everyone else is doing it.

And I was appalled at the lack of science, um, the lack of analysis of any of the issues I raised from resonance to the frequency to the decibel levels.

And there was no science in her response at all.

President Batias.

Um, I was embarrassed, frankly.

And she I reminded her about the doctors that used to um uh criticize anyone who suggested they should wash their hands when they went from an autopsy to a birthing babies.

That was the wisdom is you just didn't wash your hands, you know, or Galileo, who had the temerity to say that the um the sun didn't revolve around the earth, that the earth actually revolved around the sun.

That was heresy.

Um, this is not the only thing that Mumbari's doing to destroy the ocean.

They have captured and implanted RF transmitters in hundreds of sea otters to track them.

And this is despite the known hazards of EMFRF on biological organisms, including causing cancers and tumors, heart attacks, seizures, um, and they partnered with PG ⁇ E to capture and implant transmitters and otters down in San Luis Obispo County and implanted transmitters in badgers in Fort Ord for a doctoral students experiment.

This aquarium is not a responsible citizen.

All right, and our last speaker is Laurie.

Good evening, mayor, council, and staff.

I want to address what occurred during the last agenda item at the city council meeting on November 4th.

After public comment had closed when I had no ability to speak, the mayor chose to call me out by name and accuse me of spreading mistruths here in council meetings and on social media.

That is not public discourse.

That is using the power of the dais to take a shot at a resident who is procedurally barred from responding.

What makes it even more troubling is the timing.

Just the day before, at a volunteer breakfast at the embassy suites, the mayor gave a speech urging people to quote, be more kind to one another, particularly those who think different than us, end quote.

24 hours later, he singled out a resident and attacked their credibility from a protective position.

That contradiction speaks for itself.

And let's be honest.

If any member of the public spoke to the mayor or council that way, calling them dishonest, questioning their integrity, they would be gambled down instantly.

Yet the mayor can do it from a dais with no accountability.

That double standard is exactly a concern.

Public comment is supposed to be a safe place for residents to participate in their local government, not a place where they risk being personally targeted afterward.

For months I've raised questions about spending priorities during a 10 million dollar structural deficit, like international travel, symbolic projects, and discretionary expenses.

Those concerns resonated with the public.

People showed up.

Some proposals did not move forward.

That isn't spreading mistruths.

That is civic engagement working as intended.

Hitting a nerve is not the same thing as being wrong.

The mayor also stated that he quote wished I would have reached out to him to get the facts, and quote.

For the record, I did.

I received a response from the city attorney yesterday, and I'm grateful for her reaching out.

I received nothing from the mayor.

If we're talking about public discourse, let's at least be accurate about who's engaging and who's not.

Our community deserves a governance policy and a code of conduct that protects residents as much as it expects decorum from them.

If civility is a standard for the public, it must be modeled from the dais.

No resident in Monterey should have to choose between speaking up and being publicly attacked by an elected official.

In this case, Mayor Williamson, who still owes me an apology.

Thank you.

And have a good rest of your meeting.

All right, with that, we'll go ahead and close general public comment and we will move on to announcements from closed session.

On the first item, conference with legal counsel, existing litigation, stronghold engineering versus the city of Monterey.

There was no reportable action.

On the second item, public employee appointment for the interim city manager on a unanimous roll call vote with councilmember Garcia absent.

The city council voted to appoint Lou Bauman as an interim city manager.

Number 13, conference of labor negotiator for unrepresented employee interim city manager.

On a unanimous roll call vote with councilmember Garcia absent.

Confidential direction was given to the agency negotiator.

And for the public's information, any final contract would not be approved until it's at an open regular session meeting of the city council.

Awesome.

Thank you, Chrissy.

And with that, we will go on to our public appearance items for this evening.

Council, would you be okay if we switch 14 and 15?

I feel like 15 might be a little bit straightforward and easier to get through, and then 14 is probably gonna be a little bit more of a robust conversation.

Any objection to that?

Um awesome.

With that, good item 15 is direct staff to send a letter to support of support to the state water resources control board for the modifications to the cease and desist order WR26-0016 that recognizes the pure water monterey and desalination water supply projects.

That'll pass to Hans for staff presentation.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor and Council.

Um, this is uh an item that we were asked by the water management district to uh consider putting uh uh letters forward on which the council uh supports modification to a cease and desist owner by the state water resources control board and our community development uh director Kim Cole will introduce the item and also um uh make a recommendation of uh what course of action we propose the council should take.

Um, thank you, Hans and Mayor.

Um, as you both introduced, um, the purpose of tonight's um agenda item is to receive your authorization to send a letter to the state water resources control board to support the application from the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District to modify the cease and desist order.

As the council is well aware, the cease and desist order adopted in 1995 and amended in 2016 has a very specific condition in it that is restricted development in our community and as well as other jurisdictions served by the water district.

Um, that condition has prevented um new water meters from being enlarged or new meters to being set at all.

It also has restrictions on the use of water.

Um, so we're at a really exciting um juncture here where there is a new water supply available from the Pure Monterey Project Expansion Project that was just um came online.

And this is our opportunity to support the water district in um their application to lift the cease and desist order.

There are two letters in your packet, they're almost identical.

The difference in the staff recommendation is to include the letter that acknowledges that the DSL plant is part of the long-term construction and needed water supply for our community.

We acknowledge that that project is going to construction fairly soon, and we see it as a way to continue to uh for us to meet our water obligations.

So we're recommending approval of the letter to the state, authorizing or supporting um the water district's application, but also acknowledging um the work that's being done on the desalinization plant.

Awesome.

Thank you, Kim.

Any questions from the council?

Um, I'm just looking for the draft letter.

It should be in the packet, correct?

Yeah, 230.

It's on page 239.

239.

Why don't we go out to public comment and then once you get a chance to look at it, maybe we can circle back with you?

I've got marked up questions.

Oh, perfect here.

Okay.

So I'm ready to go.

So um I I wanted to make sure I understood the rec staff recommendation uh by by looking at the letter.

And thank you very much, uh, Kim for the overview.

So when I when I look at the letter, it does appear to align with the the components of what the recommendation is.

Um with the part of the paragraph here is however, until this new supply is online, we support this current effort to resend condition two.

And this letter is a draft letter that's in the packet that is, if this approved is signed by the mayor.

Okay, so that's the one I'm I'm reading on packet page 239.

However, until this new supply is online, we support this current effort to rescind condition two of the CDO and allow for the construction of new housing and creation of local jobs.

So because we're asking for them to modify the CDO, what is the specific way in which you would ask them to modify?

Um so is it a complete removal of the CDO or just a numerical modification?

It's a specific amendment or rescinding of condition number two of the CDO.

And condition number two of the CDO is one clause within the overall cease and desist order, and it has two primary clauses.

The first is to um not allow the setting of new water meters, and the second part of that is regarding allowing additional water upon change of use or rezoning.

And so there's two aspects to condition number two.

So the the rest of the CDO remains in effect.

Okay, and the draft letter that I'm looking at.

Um maybe I'm missing it, but you said something about with the condition of moving forward with the DSAL plant as a portion of that.

Could you look at the letter and restate what that sentence is in the letter?

Because I think that's really important for the public to hear.

Sure.

I'm happy to do that.

So that's in paragraph five of the proposed letter.

It states the city of Monterey supports construction of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Desalination Plant and firmly believes this fillet facility is a permanent and sustainable water supply for the community moving forward.

However, until this new supply is online, we support this current effort to rescind condition two of the CDO and allow for the construction of new housing and creation of local jobs.

Okay, thank you, Kim.

Appreciate it.

Mayor, that's all I have right now.

Okay, all right.

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

For those on Zoom, you can use the raise hand function.

I'll do a check for those in the chamber.

If you wouldn't do me a favor and stand up and stand in line to the left of the podium, you're good.

You're first, so you're you're good.

But if anybody else wants to speak on this item, I just ask that you stand up to the left of the podium.

If you prefer to remain seated, um, you can just identify yourself by raising your hand.

Um okay.

So I have three folks in the chamber.

They're all standing currently.

All right, so we'll close it off to those three in the chamber.

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

We have four folks on Zoom.

We'll go ahead and start in the chamber.

Kevin Dayton, government affairs liaison for the Monterey Peninsula Chamber of Commerce.

Uh, this is a great victory and a good step forward for the region.

The uh three-legged stool of uh pure water monterey recycling, uh, aquifers storage and recovery and desalination has been moving forward the components over the years.

I'll mention you're even making a little contribution here from the city with the Yellastero stormwater diversion project.

And now you're able to send a letter saying it's time uh state water resources control board to uh amend that cease and desist order and give us some power to build some housing and maybe allow allow a few of those uh vacant retail spots in our business districts to uh be able to be occupied again.

So this is a great the chamber supports you sending this letter, especially within the context of the three-legged stool.

And thank you for doing this and make sure you uh let the residents know that you know this is a victory for the community in the region today.

Thank you.

Thank you, Katie.

Um Mayor, I just want to arise in support of the letter to the uh uh water uh uh resource board up in uh Sacramento.

Um my question uh really have as a question is that in the uh 35 years is this uh letter that you're sending out gonna mean that um we will be able to that Calam will be able to issue meters to us if we have existing water uh uh credits so that we can split things and do things so that we create housing.

And so it wasn't really clear in that.

I just want to that that's what I want to understand.

Thank you.

If you could clarify that to be sure.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Josh Stratton here with California American Water.

Thanks for having us.

Um while it's true that uh Calum has not exceeded his lawful carmel diversion limits for several years.

It is inaccurate to say that there is quote that there's no threat to Calum will exceed that in the future.

Uh indeed, we came within 100 acre feet of exceeding that last year.

Um Calum supports and encourages uh pure water monterey expansion, of course, and we provided the initial funding to assure that its success in this development.

So but expansion is not yet online, and it is still unproven and vulnerable in times of drought.

There are several significant water quality concerns with groundwater seaside basin, and the reliability of that supply has been overstated.

Given these water quality issues and risks of seawater intrusion, we are very concerned about becoming over dependent on the seaside basin to rely upon the Carmel River ecosystem.

Uh, I liken the the decision as a budgetary body here to budget long-term uh allocations based upon short-term grants, for example.

Would you hire 10 employees because you got short-term funding?

No, you wouldn't.

And so we didn't make sure that we have long-term drought-proof water supply before we issued long-term obligations.

Uh the Monterey Peninsula's long-term water supply depends on completion of all aspects of the Martin Peninsula Water Supply Project, which includes the salination.

For years, the Monitor Expensive Water Supply Project included desalination and to renege on that agreement.

Now the expansion is online, it's premature and against years of sound planning.

So we support your decision to support the let to approve the letter tonight that includes desalination.

Thank you.

All right.

And with that, we'll go to our public commenters on Zoom.

Yes, first calling on Tammy.

Yes.

Hello.

Um, I do not approve of the second letter stating that Calam and the desalinization plant should be part of it.

And I recommend that this mayor do not sign that letter, please.

For all of the residents of Monterey who have to pay for that desalinization plant, please don't sign that.

Let's see if the pure water monterey expansion works as designed, which we believe it will, and will provide water for the next 50 years.

Please don't sign the letter.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is uh Ms.

Beattie.

Thank you.

Oops.

I'm so sorry.

Go ahead, please.

Thank you.

This is Nina Beattie.

Um I don't approve of either letter.

Um, with the increase of seaside basin water due to the state DC synthesis order and use of treated sewage water to the taps.

I now am sensing a nauseating chemical smell that's present in my laundry after I wash and dry it.

And I have to air it out for days before I can use it.

Water is now forming crystalline deposits on metal faucets and molds are growing very quickly.

I'm sure I'm not the only one in Calam service district that's noticing this.

Monterey County is the first in the nation to use industrial wastewater.

Um, this synergistic uh interactions of ag pesticides and fertilizers that are happening with cleaning and personal care products, antibiotics, heavy metals, pharmaceuticals, PFOS, and other toxins.

This is the water that's coming into our pipes into our homes, and we're using the water that we have that have been made, quote, available to us, is not viable water.

Um, it's not potable water.

Um, the water that the seaside basin sits underneath the most contaminated area of the Ford Ort Superfund site.

And that water has not been tested for all the munitions chemicals and the uh dioxin and furins and munitions, uh other chemicals that have been sprayed, including um heavy uh herbicide use on that site for decades.

And they weren't that's not been tested for any of that.

So we don't really know what's coming out of our pipes.

And with the increase in seaside basin water, we're getting more and more of that uh bathing in it, bathing our children in it, um, watering our plants with it.

So we don't have a viable water supply.

You would think that I would say, you know, the cease and desist orders to blame the D cell plant that Cal M proposes is not a solution because of all the contaminants that are in the bay that are increasing.

We don't have a viable thing, and to expand water to other users to put on more meters on more homes and say, come on in, the water's fine.

It's not fine.

There's been no evidence that it's fine.

The only state, the only uh requirements and testing that's done on our water is uh the general requirements that are put on water systems anywhere, not ones that are coming from under superfund sites.

And I don't trust companies that don't disclose the equipment that they're putting on our water pipes or water districts that don't comply with orders from their own board of trustees.

So I do not think that the cease and desist order should be uh should be removed at this time, any element of it because we don't have a viable source of proven potable water.

Thank you.

Next speaker is Michael Thank you.

Can you hear me?

I can hear you.

I would like to encourage the city council to consider approving this letter as been presented by staff for the reasons based on the research I've done in following the Monterey Peninsula Water District's uh science behind the recommendations of using pure one pure water one as a source as an interim source to be able to allow water expansion within our city that's been held hostage since 2009 and allow property owners and taxpayers the privilege and benefit of expanding their water according to needs that would benefit not only the economy but the personal comfort and privileges that people at existing have and allow those who've been paying taxes and preparing fire safe spaces all these years and not being able to use their properties the right to proceed with building and uh supporting the economy as well as um enjoying the quality of life here in the Monterey Peninsula.

I've found that the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District has used science and not politics to support and overcome all the objections that people seem to have, and I strongly recommend they read the science that has been applied so they can become comfortable with the fact that the district has not trespassed, trespassed for over four years.

They've not overpumped the Carmel River, and they've followed all the rules and regulations qualifying them to actually present this letter to PUC at this time.

So I strongly recommend the council proceed and approve this additional um source of water in this unique opportunity we have until the 21 heavily conditioned environmental conditions of the D cell plant that will take at least 10 years for CalAM to procure and bring online can happen.

We don't need to be held hostage any longer, and we'd appreciate your support and would encourage that people look at the science of the pure one water uh approach and become acquainted with what they may not be aware of.

I thank you very much for your concern and consideration.

I look forward to your decision.

And the last speaker is Adam.

Good evening, Mayor, Council members and staff.

Thank you for your work and diligence in considering this important question before you.

We all know that housing is a significant problem, not just in Monterey, but on the Monterey Peninsula, and the lack of housing is what is driving the housing affordability crisis.

And the lack of housing is what is driving the housing affordability crisis.

So when we all say we want to deal with the housing affordability crisis, what we really need to be dealing with in order to do so is the supply crisis.

We cannot regulate our way out of a housing shortage.

So I think it's very important for you to consider this.

Monterey One Water, while an excellent project and an excellent source of waters, it is ultimately not the most reliable and permanent source.

It'll be great if we can get as much water as we can out of it for now, but drought or other developments later on down the road uh may affect how much water we can get from that.

And that is why it is so important that we also incorporate desalination, right?

That is the three-legged stool that everyone's been talking about for over a decade at this point.

So I support um the version of the letter that acknowledges the importance of the desalination plant and that that is ultimately crucial for the long-term future of housing and housing affordability in Monterey.

Uh, but with that, let's also get started right away building more homes with the water that we have through Monterey One Water right now.

And in that respect, I I wholeheartedly appreciate all of the stakeholders who have worked through some of these difficult conversations around this issue.

Um, because ultimately our goal is all the same is to improve our communities and to improve the life of the people in our communities.

So thank you for your time tonight.

All right.

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

Um, yeah, I just wanted to, I think there was one question from the public, Mr.

Vegas.

So the uh this letter will not uh move the needle uh with respect to lifting the meter moratorium uh when the CDO was put in place by the state water resources control board, then the CPUC issued the meter moratorium.

And as such, uh the state water resources control board doesn't uh exercise control over the meter moratorium.

What this though could accomplish if the CDO is being lifted or partially lifted, the CPUC might be inclined to look at lifting the uh meter moratorium.

And the last item that uh uh I think I've also learned from Mr.

Stolt is that the uh that right now only CalM can ask for lifting the meter moratorium, and that could could be other legislation being developed to uh let others ask for lifting the meter moratorium, but the ball is in the court of the CPOC and not the state water resources control board.

And this letter will not change the water meter moratorium a bit unless the CPUC and Kellan move.

Okay.

So open up to the council.

Thank you for that, Ans.

Who'd like to kick us off here?

Oh, sorry, Dr.

Robert, yes.

Um, so thank you, um, everyone for um all of your uh presentation that you gave, Kim.

Um, I just had a couple of questions, just listening to some of the um comments.

Um a couple people referred to attachment one and attachment two.

Can you explain like the difference between those two?

So it really comes down to that paragraph five.

Um, the staff recommended letter recognizes that DSAL is an important aspect of future water supply for the peninsula.

The other, the second letter omits that paragraph.

It just talks basically about um supporting the application, but not uh but not taking a position on D Cell.

Okay, thank you.

And both both letters were prepared by Monterey Regional Water Manager.

Monterey Peninsula.

I just wanted to get that clarification because it came out in a couple of the things with public comment.

And then that that's fine for you, Kim.

The other question is actually for Chrissy.

Is there are there any uh legal ramifications in sending this letter?

No.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um, yeah, I want to go through a little history of uh some of the requests that's previously been made to the water resources.

Um we visited this back in 2022, 2021.

I think uh if I get my my dates right in in probably in 2021, uh the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District uh started to indicate to us that they had some paper water.

Um it was the conversation back then was talking about 75 acre feet.

So this is going to turn into a question to staff.

So back when we were corresponding with the uh pencil water management concerning the topic of um paper water, which I believe was 75 acre feet.

There was an indication from the Peninsula Water District that we had the rights to that paper.

Um we talked about this at the council, and then we sent our city manager to send correspondence to the state water resources control board, and that was accomplished, and then we had to correspond a couple of times, and we eventually heard back from them, and their their letter that I examined basically was a letter that said no, because there's a cease and desist that still exists.

So my question of staff is what has changed since 2021 and 2022 when we corresponded to state water resources.

And I know that EMW one has phase two that construction is nearly over.

When will that start producing sufficient data that we could incorporate that into a request of the water resources that says, see, we have a production of water and we're requesting uh relief from uh condition two.

So it is help me understand where we are in the timeline and when would we really know that there's water that's considered to be in the inventory available?

And that's a question of us our city manager.

Thank you for that question.

Uh the uh if I if I recall correctly, the response that we got in 2022 from the state water resources control board was uh was a letter uh sent to the water uh management district uh rejecting the uh request of partially lifting uh the CDO or allowing uh the additional uh uh 70 or 75 acre feet of water to be made available for housing projects.

That was the small ask that the water management district brought forward, and that was the ask uh that the city um vehemently supported at that time.

The reason for the rejection at that time, as I recall, was that the state water resources control board uh did not uh agree to acknowledge Monterey's expand uh Monterey's uh uh uh initial water project as a sustainable source.

Uh the state water resources control board at that time also weighed in that they felt that the um that the different um sources of water uh were also highly dependent on on the weather, the drought resist uh the drought, uh rainfalls, etc.

So at that time, the the answer from the state water resources control board uh to the water management district uh and to our own disappointment was um a categorical uh no, we are not a knowledge in that water source as a reliable water source.

What has changed, you ask me, and uh the answer is that we have a second project now uh going online as we speak, the Monray one water expansion project that uh brings in another 2200 or promises another 2200 acre feet of water.

And uh the state water resources control board is now asked to uh weigh this water as sustainable.

And uh again, that water uh can also be argued, and uh you you you will hear or you have heard people arguing about this also as not um uh 100% shall I say uh reliable or 100% sustainable because it depends also on water that is coming from the Salinas growers, and uh as such, the Salinas growers have indicated a few times already that they will not continue to give that water to that project uh because they will use that water in their own uh for their own purposes in Salinas Valley.

So uh it has changed.

There is the Monterey One expansion project online and uh with that letter uh with that fact also it comes down to the state water resources control board to weigh uh if they feel that this expansion project has the weight uh that it needs to have to be lifted.

Um the the staff went uh to uh put the desalination back into the um mix.

So we selected the the letter uh that the district uh proposed that includes desalination for the very reason that we know that the state water resources control board acknowledges this as a sustainable water source, and so we feel that if we want a partial lift or a lift of the CDO right now using uh Monterey One waters expansion project, it makes sense to ask for that right now, uh indicating clearly also that the path forward for sustainable water includes desalination.

So we picked up on that option that was given to us by the water district, and we feel that the old fashioned three-legged stool um the theory or approach uh makes sense in this case.

Yep, thank you.

Um so let me just briefly ask the question.

And I we don't have uh Mr.

Shuto here tonight to ask the question, but we've heard that we believe phase two is about 2200 acre feet, it's coming online.

Do is that accurate, Mayor?

3450.

I'm sorry, 2450.

2450.

And is there everything done with that project where they've released or they've received all the permitting from the state?

They're able to say that it's functioning, they flip the switch and it's and it's currently being um a completed project, or is there still something remaining from um phase two?

And I guess I would ask the mayor, you're on the you're on the board, actually, the chair.

So when is the point when the state water resources would say show us your data that shows what you're producing so we know how much you're producing is meeting what you think your production is capable of?

Yeah, that's it's already happening.

The the expansion is already online, it's producing water, it's it's storing the additional water in in the aquifer to meet the contractual obligation of the full 5950.

That's contractually obligated to Calium.

Okay.

And so there's no remaining permits that they have to acquire from the state.

Permits were um received on October 9th.

Um the project is substantially completed, operational, and is fully permitted.

Um there's some items on the close-out punch list, but that doesn't, it's not preventing us from actually providing the contractual obligation.

Okay.

Well, and that's and that's good news to factor in.

Um I'll step aside for other questions right now.

Okay.

Isn't this discussion?

I think this is a discussion.

Sorry, it's been a long sorry meeting already.

I'm here.

Um so I think for me, um, I'm still uh trying to make sense of um why we would um support to send a letter that includes D Cell, given the um the amount of feedback that we've gotten from uh our residents and and even throughout the region about environmental concerns.

Um if we see that M1W has the potential to provide the water that we need.

So um no questions on my end, just um that's where my mind is, and and um because I'm not hearing um any additional information um as to why we really should uh consider D Cell.

Um looking to support um the letter that excludes that information.

Please I have um similar feelings to um Councilmember Garcias.

I support lifting the CDO, but I'm not prepared yet to endorse the D Sal that we have right now.

Maybe not no D Cell forever, but not this D sell now.

Um because of the cost to the residents, the concerns, environmental concerns of the residents, the success of Monterey One public water.

Um they are online, they are producing.

But everything is leading in the direction of success for Monterey water one.

It's um it's succeeding.

And I still have a big problem with the D cell plant as proposed and the impacts on marina, on the environment, the inequities.

Um I get it that people want it feel that the agricultural water isn't um sustainable, but so far it is, and I believe there would be time if this precedent setting successful effort by Monterey One water is gets into trouble.

I I just don't see it coming.

It just it's not looking that way.

And I think um we don't have to act real fast on the on the D Cell.

Um I'm gonna I'm trying to move us along here a little bit because I know this next discussion is going to be probably pretty lengthy.

So I'm gonna go ahead and make a motion to approve the version of the letter that doesn't include the D Cell paragraph.

Second.

Um, so just a couple of quick points.

Um I don't think that the city needs to get involved in this discussion or debate around D cell.

So I don't see why we need to add to it at this point.

We're talking about trying to have the condition two of the CDO lifted.

So I think let's focus on the task at hand.

Um I don't think it's any surprise to anybody that I have concerns around the proposed uh D sal project.

Um the base project has provided its legal obligation every year since it's been online.

Um, even more so, so much so where we've provided an additional reserve allocation each year as well.

Um, I know that the concern or the arguments that are used that question the reliability of the source water for the pure water Monterey project.

Um focus around um the ag industry and drought years, but the reserve is set up for that exact reason.

So when the years that we're producing more purified water, um that additional water will be there for us to extract in years to make sure that we meet our contractual obligation.

Um the argument around ag saying that they're gonna do something is um from my from my opinion, it's baseless.

There's been nothing, no project proposed, nothing submitted, um, no permits, nothing, nothing, nothing.

It's just a lot of talk, um, a lot of um maybe coulda should have would uh um but the fact of the matter is that aliens can also come to Earth.

Um the likelihood that the ag industry is going to start building their own plant to recycle their water is very low because and the reason for that is because it's so expensive.

Ag industry is not interested in trying to spend a whole bunch of money on developing a plant to increase the cost of their water.

They got something that's working good right now, so why ruin it?

I would further offer that around 7,000 acre feet a year of wastewater comes from the peninsula that currently goes to um ag and we could easily take that water and use it for our own purified uh uh water supply project for for water here on the peninsula for our needs.

I believe in regional um collaboration, and I think we need to work together across the county.

Um but I think we all need to get on board in supporting um getting water available to us right now because housing is needed, and uh just I think I know everybody in the room here, and I I think it's fair to say that everybody sitting in this room is not living in the conditions that some of the folks in our community are living that are on the verge of homelessness or that are already homeless, and by getting this figured out as soon as possible so that we can allocate water, which is gonna be the discussion we're gonna have on this next agenda item.

Um is is should be the number one key priority for for us here.

So um, for those reasons, that's why I I made the motion.

Um I I I want to say one more thing.

Nina Beanie uh made a comment earlier regarding not supporting either of the letters, and it was based off of having not potable water.

Um folks, pure water monterey that that the recycled water that comes from that is cleaner than the water that comes out of the Kramer River.

I mean, it has to meet such a high level um state standard in order to be added to our water supply.

Um it's so pure, it's it's it's purified so much um that they have to actually re-introduce nutrients into the water before um before it goes into the aquifer.

So um this is a good solid project.

And the fact of the matter is is that um there would be no way we would get off the cease and desist order if the pure water monterey project wasn't online, and regardless of how you feel about the the water, which I would disagree if you make the argument that it's not pure purified um and safe for for potable use.

Um but the state recognizes it.

Um and that's what we are moving forward with here.

So I'm just trying to base it off of facts and and um the facts that we have in front of us.

So that is the motion.

Any last discussion, please, Council Smith.

Um yeah, I I think that uh it's an incomplete request from the state water resources to not say something about the pending project for the D cell plant.

It's gone through CEQA, it's gone through NEPRA, it's gone through the Coastal Commission, and the water demand amount just a couple of months ago was approved for four to zero.

And all considerations of all the folks that have analyzed this and looked at this.

There's a couple other factors where they frequently refer to sustainable water and absolutely get off the Carmel River, and they've accomplished that, but by the thinnest of margins.

As we heard the representative of Calamb tonight talk about, they were within 100 acre feet of running out of water for us.

Now we have a new project, and how is the state water resources going to review um MW1 in phase two when it's brand new?

I think they're going to be looking at what they've always been talking about, which is a sustainable water supply, which all of the science and all of this testimony and all of the state levels have always said the only thing that is sustainable is the amount of rain that comes out of the sky, and we have little, or what's produced in a DSAL plant.

So I I just think it's a narrow position to say that it's not a factor.

So I I could support a letter that includes that.

The chamber of commerce has included that.

We've had testimony from some that has said that it should be included.

The draft letter, I think says it spot on.

And if I go back and refer back to um one of the Monterey County water resources, uh actually the the Monterey Peninsula water management district ordinance 197, and we're going to get into this in the next agenda item.

It it talks about all projects using allocation, with the exception of Bishop, Ryan Ranch, Hidden Hills, units of Calam are subject to the moratorium on new connections imposed by the state water resources.

And pre-existing Peralta and pre-Piralta allocations may be continued to be used in the interim.

And this is kind of like trying to open up a Christmas present on December 22nd.

What's the hurry?

And the next agenda item we're going to be talking about is forging into policies about what we're going to do with the water that we think we're going to get.

I think all of this is premature.

I think it's it's just something that is kind of being rushed.

Um, but I could support a letter that included the terminology and the acknowledgement that there is a DCAL plant that is pending.

That has been approved by the state.

So why not acknowledge it?

It doesn't mean we're giving it our approval.

The state's already approved of it.

So what are we avoiding?

I just think that it's you're you're leaving out part of the cards that are in the deck.

So I would support the letter that includes the acknowledgement of the D Cell plant.

Anyone else?

All right.

The last time we've seen this level of um of demand was in 1958.

Um Dwight Eisenhower administration was in was in place.

Um the same year America launched its first satellite from the newly formed NASA.

Um so I think that says a lot about um ratepayers on the peninsula becoming more efficient in their water use.

Um mind you, there is a state level requirement that requires um reducing um water demand, and we're doing better than that, but um I think we're going to only continue to see that that trend move in that direction.

Um I would argue that as we continue to build um that additional wastewater is not incorporated into the supply um of what comes out of pure water monterey.

Um so we can continue adding to um our our supply through through the system that's available there.

And then the last thing um I I would raise is and and the reason why I'm concerned about the inclusion of um of DSL at this stage is the cost.

Um if we are without the expansion for the last four years, have met our diversion requirements from the Carmel River, so much so where we're producing additional reserve.

Um what makes us think that we're gonna use most, if any of the water out of the DSO plant, that's going to be extremely inefficient and increase the cost of our water supply dramatically.

And again, maybe not so much the people in this room, but there are folks that are living paycheck to paycheck um that are struggling the affordability of living in our region, and they're just as much deserve to be here as the rest of us.

So I think we need to be more intentional around um how we orchestrate this, and and frankly, I think it's going to require some deeper regional collaboration and discussion.

Um, so with that, let's go ahead and call the question.

Um, all those in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

No.

Motion passes for one.

And with that, we will go to item 14, establish water policy distribute distributing water available from the Monterey Peninsula Water District Ordinance 197.

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

Yeah, thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Uh Kim Kim Cole um will present to you our proposed uh water policy.

We um in the course of uh developing that solicited input from from various sources and uh um hopefully uh we are showing that we have learned from from Mr.

Stold and others by by presenting uh of I think of a very solid uh water policy proposal.

Thank you, Hans.

Um, as I start off here, I just um want to provide a little bit of background.

Um as you're well aware of the cease and desist order and all the water challenges we have you just discussed, but with the last general plan update that when the city council adopted in July of last year, there was the critical issue of providing additional housing opportunities in our community, and as you're well aware, our city was assigned a regional housing needs allocation of 3,654 housing units.

In addition to that, we will receive another allocation um at the end of the eight-year um planning cycle.

So this will be a number that continues to grow.

Um as we grappled with that issue in our general plan update at a staff level and also a decision maker level and with HCD, they I think everyone recognized that we didn't have the water supply to build the number of housing units that our region is being asked um to uh plan for and so um ultimately the general plan update and included housing program element or the housing element program to dash J.

And basically it states that you know, considering all of the different water supply projects that the city would adopt a water supply, uh a water policy that when water becomes available, how it would be distributed, and we're required to submit um the a report to the state of California early next year to prove that we did adopt that policy.

And so that's why I'm before you tonight.

Um we have this unique opportunity with the water district passing ordinance 197 that will allocate 141 acre feet to the city to fulfill our housing element program and to um define what our policy will be when that water becomes available.

The program 2J talks about prioritizing water for affordable housing, and in that to really consider three criteria the project size, the number of units, and the level of affordability.

So in compliance with that policy direction in our general plan that's been certified by the state of California, um we had a lot of discussion internally about how to maybe not overcomplicate this matter because there's a lot of different pathways we could have taken in creating a water policy.

We also looked to all of our surrounding jurisdictions.

We looked at what the city of Seaside is doing, what the city of Carmel is doing, and what other agencies are doing in terms of water policy.

And what we came up with after considering all of that information is um basically six simple priorities that would uh make up this policy.

The first is to recognize the language in the housing element that water will be prioritized first for affordable housing, and that with that three criteria project size, number of units, level of affordability.

But there's an important caveat in that number one that basically says it'll be provided before other projects.

So if a project that doesn't include housing comes along, um we'll have 141 acre feet that we will be able to allocate water to that project if it's ready to go to construction.

Number two, all comes down numbers two, three, and four of the proposed policy really comes from experience and looking at what happened historically in the city of Monterey and other jurisdictions about when people hear that water is available, everybody tries to submit what I almost call as paper applications.

They try to do the minimal amount in order to reserve that water, and so somebody else, you know, they're first in line.

They're trying to reserve that economic opportunity.

Um, but at a staff level, we're really recommending to try to allocate that um that water to projects that are closer to shovel ready.

And so there's three safeguards in here.

Um first, the city would not sign the water release form.

That's the form that's given to the water district until all planning entitlements have been received.

So that means all their permits, they have all their city planning permits.

If that project requires a coastal development permit, they have their coastal development permit.

And they basically receive an email from the um this the building department that they've their plans that they submitted.

So not only have they gotten their planning permit, but their building permits ready to issue.

And so with that, um the building officials say, you know, you can come and we'll release your water release form and go get your plan stamped at the water district, and we are ready to issue that permit.

So this comes to the second little um issue that we sometimes see is then plans sit at the building department.

We have fully plans ready to go to construction.

Um, but where we're saying is that that um uh applicant is gonna have to pull that building permit within 180 days of receiving the email that they can pull their building permit and go to construction.

If they don't, for whatever reason, then they lose that water reservation.

Doesn't mean they can't reapply when they're ready, but they're gonna lose that place in line.

And then the third um protection is in number four, and that is not only do they have to pull their building permits, so that's a substantial amount of money, but they actually have to um pass their first building inspection within one year from pulling that building permit.

So there's we want to see construction in the field and shovels in the ground, that that is happening.

And historically, I think we've all experienced in sort of the administrative side of the house where applicants will try to potentially reserve water at any of those stages.

So we're trying to reserve that water for projects that are ready to proceed and be executed.

We also um had a lot of discussion about um you know homes, single family homes that may want a third bathroom or a fourth bathroom or a fifth bathroom, and the creativity can go from there.

Um and so the proposed um water policy establishes maximum water credits per unit type.

So for basically a one bath unit that could either be a JADU, ADU or a single apartment, we're looking at 0.063 as the maximum allocation, and that's really generous.

That gives all of those units, um, you know, a washer, a washing machine, full kitchen, and a bathroom.

Um for a two-bath unit, point one one one, which gives you that second bathroom, and even allowing up to a house to have two and a half baths at point one two nine.

It wouldn't allow the third, the fourth, or the fifth bathroom.

The clause number six is probably going to be the one that I imagine the council discusses the most this evening.

Um staff is proposing that um water permits will be uh issued when the CDO is modified regarding condition number two, and the reason for that is if we issue a building permit, that homeowner or that business has all of their approvals in order to do the construction and spend lots of money to um execute that building permit, and what we would like to be able to guarantee them is that that CDO is been modified, so any potential restrictions or ramifications against the project or against the city or against the water district or or against Calam could not be executed, and it's our understanding that with the application that you're just supporting to the state that you know optimistically we're looking at this next spring to be able to issue permits, and so we're really excited about that opportunity.

We're asking you to take a moment of caution and wait for the CDO to be formally modified by the state.

And that's the conclusion of my presentation.

Thank you, Kim, for the presentation.

Open it up for questions.

So what do you expect tonight?

It sounded like you were saying this is a draft, this is what staff is thinking.

Is it we would approve it in concept so that HDC is satisfied?

But are you saying that this would be the final policy and we would move forward and then we basically wait for modification of the CDO, and then there is a release of the water so people can actually go to the Calium and get a water permit or a water meter.

Are you they could correct?

Yeah, so this this policy would basically sit in place until the CDO is modified.

And there's there's no execution of this policy, correct.

Okay, but we will be able to say to HCD and comply with our housing element obligation that we adopted the policy.

Yeah, so we would be in compliance with the state and then everything would wait.

Correct.

Okay.

That's the only question I had.

Um, Kim.

Um, so I just have a question.

Um the housing units, uh, can you give me like a comparison?

I know you were saying how it was generous for the 0.63 acre feet.

Um how did how did it compare to to the one bath residential before or the two bath residential before?

I mean, I know you were saying that's generous, but just to give me uh uh some real numbers.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So um, and if you want to on page 203 and 204 of your staff report, there's this table we created.

Um actually took the concept from the city of Carmel.

They have a very similar table.

So it'd be similar to Carmel.

Yeah, correct.

And so you can see for a one-bath dwelling with high efficiency of fixtures.

We're looking at one wash, uh a full bathroom with a sink, a toilet and uh shower, um bathtub, a kitchen, a dishwasher, you know, a kitchen sink, a dishwasher, and a clothes washer.

Okay.

And the only thing that really changes then with um the two bath is you see you go from one wash basin to two because you recognize that second bathroom.

Okay.

Thank you.

I appreciate the breakdown.

Uh-huh.

That's all I have.

Please.

Um, I appreciate all the cautions that you've implemented.

I think they're great.

I don't, I don't think anything should be moving forward when it's presumptive still.

And um I I like that.

I I like I like the um proposal.

The question I have is um you can hear me that no the number one projects that include affordable housing are the city's top priority for water allocation and will be issued a water permit prior to other project types.

No problem with that.

The priority for water allocation is based on the overall size of the project, the number of affordable units proposed, and the level of affordability proposed.

I would feel a little bit better if that were broken down as to really how you're gonna implement it.

Does this mean that the 100% affordable project hopefully going on back in Colton is going to be number one, and that 100% affordable housing projects will all be tied for second place after that that the community community's been that clear that that's what they want their minimal water allocations spent on.

Are you I guess I just need clarification on your question?

Are you asking if the project behind City Hall, which is an 100% affordable project, is the city's top priority by this policy?

Yes, and future 100% affordable.

So it it says it depends on the size, the number of affordable units and the level of affordability, but that doesn't really tell me what the rankings are.

So the project behind City Hall meets all of that criteria.

It's the only one being planned right now.

If it's up first for building permit issuance, it will be the first project that will receive water credits.

Okay.

And if but it actually doesn't need water credits because we're able to move water potentially from um other city-owned facilities to that site.

So um my my next concern is just gradations of this.

So we just passed the one J element up to six units, and only one has to be affordable.

So there's a piece of me that's uncomfortable that a developer could come in and at market rate get five units helping with only one affordable unit, which to me um is a is a problem.

I don't like it that we're disrupting our zoning for one affordable unit out of six.

And I I don't want that kind of development jumping to the top of the of the list because they have an affordable unit.

They have one affordable unit.

I I would rather homeowners um, and I think they're protected under the um second bathroom protocol, but I want people who have homes right now to be able to have an extra bathroom, which I think is covered before someone can put in five market rates and one affordable and get part of these water allocations.

Yeah, I I actually don't think the policy is written addresses that concern.

Um it allows all types of housing development and the ones that include affordable housing would be at the top of the list.

Saying that, I think we're gonna have water for all of those types of projects if the cease and desist order is modified.

140, just to give you an idea, 141 acre feet is a substantial amount of water.

I am so excited to see what this community can do in terms, and we've been so depressed in terms of economic development, in terms of even building an ADU at somebody's house if you don't have an extra bathroom.

You know, I think we can report back to you once that CDO is listed uh lifted with the moratorium and say, this is what we're actually seeing.

You know, this is the type of permits that we're issuing.

Because it's gonna take a little while for um development to ramp up, because there is a substantial financing piece that's the second part of this question.

I want to echo what Kim is saying.

Uh 141 acre feet of water is a lot of water.

And if we start now to put layers on, we I want to see this, I want to see that, I want to see this.

We we do what would we are well known uh for in California that that we really kill our own um children here.

Um so uh I think uh what you bring forward makes uh makes a great deal of sense.

But if we really want to uh have the market and then housing developed and economic development, the less restrictive the water policy is in the beginning, the more bang for the buck you get uh in the in the in the long and midterm.

It's not like that we have uh 100% affordable housing developers knocking at our doors right now.

And so while while I I like Kim said, while we appreciate uh from a staff notion, the idea of kind of put already our policy hands into that and we'll make it a little bit more uh difficult for for the market forces to prevail.

We are doing exactly what what what what has not functioned in the past.

We we are adding a burden of cost, and we will create right now at this present time more stumbling blocks for for housing than then we we should do at the present time.

Having having said that, when the water goes down to 20 acre feet again or to 10 acre feet, and you have projects competing with each other, by all means, go for uh what the policy then wants, but the policymaker wants to go for at that time.

But the more liberal we are right now, I think the the more beneficial we will get uh in return from from our community.

So I appreciate that.

I appreciate that the liberalness will allow the development to occur.

I get that, but I really appreciated the second part that when the when the water uh is is spent and allocated that we'll get into, or staff really will get into discerning the decisions that will have to be made on size units and affordability.

And I'm um I hear you say don't force us to find that it'll all work out.

And I I tend to believe that that given the liberalness of a policy, it will work out and that in this community, the more affordable project will will get funded before market rate.

Okay.

Thanks, Kim.

You're welcome.

Question for Kim.

Well, sorry, you didn't go yet.

Yeah.

He's already he hasn't gone yet.

Um Kim, you mentioned that through this proposed policy, um, the goal would be to go after um projects that are as close as possible to shovel ready.

So my question then looking at um points number three and four.

And and I don't know the adequate timing, but just looking at those numbers of 180 days for uh pulling a permit and 365 days for an inspection feels a little bit long.

Can you speak a little bit to that?

I think it is generous.

We're basically giving people six months from the date that their permits ready at the building department counter to pull the permit.

Um you could say 30 days, you could say 60 days.

Um we just tried to be uh give people a little bit of flexibility there.

It was a judgment call.

365 days actually corresponds to some building permit um um expiration dates that are built into the law for when you have to get progress inspections on construction.

So the 365 really lines up well with the construction um process.

If you wanted to shorten from 180 days down to 90 or 60, I think those are clearly policy alternatives.

What developers are typically struggling with in that period, they've it's always a question of how much they're gonna spend before they have their whole financing picture available.

And um, you know, we saw one major project at the city.

It was fully ready to issue for probably seven to eight months, and the financing fell through on the project.

So I think six months is generous, it could be less, but um, that was our goal.

And sorry, just as a follow-up.

So are these timelines that are currently being used like for other projects?

It's no, I mean the 365 is like to keep your building permit alive.

You you can't just pull a building permit and then sit on it for over a year and not do any construction.

You have to have progress in expect uh inspections, and then there's um specific extensions the building official can grant because you don't want people just keeping building permits alive indefinitely based on code cycle changes, right?

And I guess that's where I was headed.

Where I mean you know, really thinking about uh the purpose of this policy, right?

And and the need for housing, um, what can we do to uh not necessarily speed up the process but tighten it up so that you know construction is happening.

So thank you.

That's all I have.

It's a good question.

Um trying to figure out where to start.

Um I think I'll touch on the second bathroom policy.

So actually to kind of preempt, I think a little bit where I want to focus, and you kind of alluded to it when you concluded your presentation.

Um I'm actually trying to find a pathway for us that allows us to move forward with issuing um some level of allocation.

I acknowledge that there's concern with allocating it towards certain projects, but not all projects are in a space where we can't allocate.

And so, how do we find that space to start allocating where and when we can?

Um, and I just want to read a part from the CDO that kind of speaks to this.

So Calam shall not divert water from the Carmo River for new service connections or for any increased use of water at existing service addresses resulting from a change in zoning use.

So doesn't this mean a change in use has to occur for the CDO to be violated?

So that's part of it.

Um, and existing service connections is the other part.

So um let me give you some examples where we have tried some things, and the state has said you can't do that.

Um the city worked with the water district, there was about eight or nine acre feet of water sitting in their allocation, and we wanted to we applied to or we asked and requested that water so we could build out start um building on Garden Road.

Um the water district supported us.

We were really excited about it, and then during the um review, the state water resources control board um provided input to the um the water district that we would be violating, you know, somewhere, you know, whether it's the city or the water district or Calam, we'd be violating the CDO.

So the city actually wrote a letter um to um the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District not taking them up on that water allocation because they wanted us to assume all the risk in that relationship.

So it's been clear to me as unclear as this whole process is, every time it feels like we've been trying to get additional water from the water district, the state has said no, you can't do that without the CDO being lifted.

The the change we have allowed is I don't know, maybe you have an existing building with a commercial use and you're changing out commercial uses, or we converted a nightclub to residential uses.

We've not exceeded the on-site water credits for that building ever, as far as I'm aware.

Like that's what the the pro like the Chibos building, where there was the nightclub above.

We converted the nightclub, which was a lot of water credits to some residential units, but we've never injected additional water into the site.

So I just kind of want to read this again because the the example that you give regarding the garden road project, that was a that was a change in use, right?

So that was going from commercial to residential, which is I I imagine where they were hanging their head on the issue that they were raising.

Um so I just kind of want to read this again because I want to make sure that we're all tracking on the same page.

Calim should not divert water from Karma River for new service connections or for any increased use of water existing service addresses resulting from a change in zoning or use.

So if there's no change in the zoning or use, I I think this is getting to the conversation around intensification and I guess I'll ask it this way.

We have the um second bathroom policy, so we're increasing use, or just additional water going to uh well.

I think that's the question.

Is it increasing the uh the water?

If they don't have the water and we're giving we're allowing them to do something that requires additional water credits, if you will, right?

Um, isn't that increased use?

Well, I think the the argument has always been made.

Well, if there's two people using a bathroom and they're using one sink or they're using two sinks, are they really using additional water?

And I mean, I think that's where I've heard like that common sense.

So our house was when we purchased it a two-bedroom, one bath.

We added a second bathroom.

Um, and we for a period of time rented out the second room.

We wouldn't have done that if we had the just the Jack and Jill bathroom, but now we're gonna have an extra person living in the house.

There's an increase in water use.

So you could have a situation where there's no increase in number of individuals living in the household, but you may also have a situation where, especially folks that are living more on the edge and trying to make it work, that there is an increase in use.

So you know, I think that gets to the, I mean, so I did the same thing at my household.

The number of people didn't change.

It's just instead of my husband and I using the same sink, we use two sinks.

So I think there's different household situations and the issue of you know, there's also where multiple families are doubling up in a house and tripling up in a house in order to afford I'm I it's a tricky issue.

Um, I guess my recommendation to you is that you know, April is not that far away, April, May.

And to make sure we're completely in the clear with the state is something that I recommend.

I I realize it's conservative.

And I so I I can appreciate that, but I I still want to drill down on this a little bit because if we can start giving water out now, why are we holding on to it?

It feels safe as you articulated and as council membersh is articulated.

It feels safe to just like err on the side of caution.

But if there's something that can be clarified through this discussion that allows us to recognize that there isn't an opportunity to do some type of um allocation, I mean, I go back to the point that I was sharing earlier.

People are hurting now, and four months for us is different than four months for somebody that's looking for an a unit to live in and being able to afford the cost of living here.

So I think it's worth trying to drill down on this a little bit more.

I'm I'm open almost hoping that we can have uh Mr.

Stolt come up and I know he's been listening into the conversation.

I'm just interested in any thoughts that he has at this point.

I've had some conversations with him um offline, but maybe before that.

I I guess I still want to get back to this second bathroom thing.

It so I guess where did this come from?

Is it come from the water management district?

The second bathroom rule, yeah.

The the water district changed their regulations and how they looked at water credits.

And was that pre or post cease and assist order?

Post.

It was after the cease and assist order came out.

So we created a policy that could potentially intensify use.

Or not.

Or not.

No, no, no.

Yeah, it's either or yeah, it could answer the need.

It could, yeah.

And and so but it's based on the presumption that it won't.

That's the presumption.

That's my intent.

That's why they're allowing it.

But that's okay.

Correct.

Oh Chrissy's um providing some uh another good input.

No, it's it's a good perspective.

The water district doesn't recognize that you can take the second bathroom that's been allowed through that uh or the second sink through that policy and move it to the ADU.

They do consider that an intensification of use.

So you can put the second sink in the master bathroom, but they don't recognize that you can take that and put it in a JED or ADU.

So that's where the intensification piece is maybe recognized by both of us.

Okay.

Umr.

Stolt, would you um mind coming up and sharing well?

Could could I finish my question?

And then maybe we could continue.

Please.

You don't want to finish.

So you changed the agenda and you thought thought the other one was easier, huh?

Well, who knows?

None of them forever used yet.

Yeah.

So a little point of clarification.

The second bathroom protocol was actually put in before the CD up before the cease and assist orders 1998.

And the sequel work for that was that there would be no increase in intensification of use of water, the thinking that it was a matter of convenience.

Now we live in a peninsula very, very creative people, which is why Chrissy mentioned the prohibition on moving your second bathroom to an ADU, which is clearly uh somebody somebody read our rules and we had to shut that door.

Um, but it was designed to be a convenience, not an intensification.

Um I don't know if you want me to address some of your other uh comments about whether we could get started now or not started now.

Yeah, please.

I am prepared to do that.

Okay.

Uh let me let me pause a little bit and talk about the role of the state, the district, and you as a uh city.

State doesn't care about these allocations.

The state governs growth and intensification use solely through that condition too, as as you've read and it was in the staff report for this item.

So when we allocated water, they're not they're not going to bless the allocations.

They have no action on that.

That was a district action to say we have new water available and we're going to split it up and we're gonna make this much available now and retain some and see which city grows and wants to uh establish policies and support.

And then your job, of course, is to figure out how to use it, which um I I applaud you for looking at a policy and and trying to uh encourage your policy objectives.

Um, but I do believe you can start now.

And since 2013, we've been going back and forth with the state regulators about what does condition two really mean.

I mean, if you think a little bit about it, um, even though you didn't did not make a water allocation to the aquarium's learning center, the Vectal Learning Center, how do it go from a long vacant building to a demolition to a full-scale building without it triggering a intensification of use at an existing service connection under condition two.

And the reason it didn't is the state regulators recognizing the uh the complexity or let's say just um words have meaning, but when they're strung together, that meaning gets a little clouded.

So they looked at their own condition two, and they said, huh, this opens a can of worms.

And so they developed a rule of thumb that said if it's residential and remains residential, no need to look any further.

If it's commercial and remains commercial, no need to look any further.

So a project like the learning center, which was commercial, although vacant, was fully demolished and rebuilt, was allowed to go forward without looking any further.

Similarly, uh, you've got a project in front of you right now, revision down on Cass Street.

It's a parcel residential, they want to remain residential.

The interpretation by the state regulators would be look no further.

You could release that water today, and there's got to be many more similar projects.

If you have a vacant commercial space on Alvarado, and somebody wanted to come in and I'll put it in a restaurant, but previously it was a mattress store.

Well, that'd be an intensification of use, but commercial to commercial.

You could do that now.

So that's one area of the proposed policy that I would suggest you don't have to wait.

Um, we did request the state to put it in writing, which they did for us in 2019.

Um, I'll pass this uh email chain between an attorney at the state board, um, which can give you some hope that this is real.

It's not embedded in the document.

It's just simply that's been their practice.

That's been their determination.

And then they finally put it in writing.

So now we can catch them on it.

And I say this because there's no guarantee that state that any government agency will work quickly.

Um, we think it's four to six months or considering our application, it could be longer.

Uh, the state water board has a lot of significant issues, including Bay Delta things, uh, some water rights issues.

They're trying to calendar this, um, but we've been told, you know, no sooner than four to six months.

But you do have because of this, uh, a window of opportunity to do things on uh uh remodels, like to like, meaning residential residential, an ADU is residential on a residential site.

You could permit an ADU if someone came in ready to go.

Could I could I just read the first paragraph?

His uh Mr.

Stolt share uh sent me the email that I believe you just shared with our our city attorney.

And what they say in the email is you have asked whether the state water resources control board or the state water board is comfortable with parties' proceeding under its currently proposed interpretation of change in use in the context of condition two, also referring to as ordering paragraph two of section two of state water board order WR 2009-0060.

Under our currently proposed interpretation, a change in use would only occur when a service address changes from residential to non-residential or from non-residential to residential under the existing rules of the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District.

That is what I shared.

Yeah.

And that's why I believe you have the opportunity.

That's why we've permitted many projects that have uh both received an allocation or uh worked with credit.

The state doesn't distinguish between project built on credit, project built on allocation.

They just look to see if there's an intensification of use at an existing service connection due to a change in zoning or a change in use.

So that's you know, we ran into a little bit piece of uh a problem on that with the American 10 cannery project in Pacific Grove.

Uh, this email was precipitated by another project in Pacific Grove, which was mixed use and was going to remain in mixed use, but the proportion of residential and commercial was really changing.

So it was a little, you know, how did you how did it fit in?

Um, but I think that does give you the cover that you need to do some of these interim projects.

Um, the Garden Road project, uh Brad Slamas project clearly was a change in use, which is what attracted their attention.

Um, the only other thing I want to say on this policy, I do believe that um it's very prescriptive in terms of how much water for the type of unit.

Um, I would encourage Kim to take another look at it uh because there's no land water for landscaping in those factors, we think.

Um, but the other thing 141 acre feet is a lot of water, but it's not all the water we thought you need if you were going to really go after your housing requirements and job creation.

But we're holding a lot of water back.

So we're looking to see which cities committed.

And if you use up a lot of that water and you get down to your 20-acre feet, come back to us.

We have more water to allocate.

So any other questions at this time?

Um, no, I'm just uh thank you for for jumping up.

Uh unless somebody else has questions first, Mr.

Stolt, while he's up.

Unit of time for that.

Like there's 141 feet.

How long does that last?

I mean, well, yeah, that's just a matter of how fast can you can you grow?

How fast can building departments process permits?

How many developers can make a profit?

How many projects are there?

Um we've talked about it a lot here in in Monterey because your six-cycle arena number is so high, you know, say 3600.

Right.

That's what I'm thinking.

You know, you get your first 600 units and you're feeling really good about yourself, and you're only 20%, you know, less than 20% there, and you'll start looking around going, well, where's the next project?

Where's the next project?

And so it could be a very long time.

And I think in some cities where they've complained about their allocation, we've said you haven't built anything in 20 years.

Are you worried about it?

Yeah, why are you worried about it?

You want to name names?

I'm just kidding.

Where I live.

Oh, he did.

Um, so thank you.

Thank you, Dave.

Um there.

Yep, please.

Yeah, other council members might have questions with David.

Dave, uh, don't go away.

Yeah, thanks.

Yeah, it's all it's all it's all easy till it gets hard, right?

Yeah.

So what you said tonight is a bit of a departure from what we knew in the past.

Uh, talking about one 141 acre feet, and you have some in reserves, quite a bit of reserves for the peninsula's use.

So is what you said tonight written down for instructions to each of the cities, like to us, so that internally Kim's staff will be equipped to answer the questions.

And change of use is real easy.

If it's change of use, it's a no-go.

But there are nuances to what you said that almost requires staff training for them to be able to be prepared for people coming to the counter.

And then here's the question.

If after the holidays, someone comes in to Kim and says, I need a building permit, I've got plans, it's fast-tracked, it's shovel ready.

And she says, okay, go see uh water uh water office, because they've got to get something to go to Calam to get the meter.

So I seem like there's something missing in here.

Yeah.

So we have to distinguish between the two parts of condition two.

No new service connections means no new meters.

That part can only get resolved on the schedule that Kim suggested earlier.

We need the action of the state water board.

Existing service connections have a meter.

And so that's where this discussion on what can you do now?

What can you get started with now?

Yeah.

And I think it's it's important that you made that distinction because lots of record without a meter are still not qualified.

Yep.

A commercial space that is going to another commercial space is going to be fine because they've already got a water meter.

If it's a residential and it's going to be intensifying the residential and they need an additional meter, they're going to have to wait.

Right.

So what you're talking about is a narrow, a narrow set of circumstances that qualify to members of our community.

So tomorrow morning when they read in the Herald or the Weekly or wherever they get their news, the headline we we have to counter, because we're not saying there's 141 acre feet of water, come get it.

It is a narrow condition.

So that's the part of the education.

That's a very good point.

And that's why in December, when we told all the cities we went around to city council meetings that you're going to get an allocation on the first of March.

Many cities said, gee, it's the Christmas season and your presence wonderful, but thanks for nothing.

I can't do anything with it if I if I can't set a meter.

Right.

So it's small projects that may be shovel ready now that fit the commercial to commercial or residential to residential, right?

That can move forward.

Yeah.

And the aquarium building we're talking about, you know better than I, but it was previously occupied with a very large bar that had the nightclub tremendous amount of water of record on the property.

So it probably made it easy for the state to say previous record, you know.

So they didn't even go down that path.

That's what started this discussion, which is we said we have your interest more at heart than you do, because if you change a commercial site to using very little educational, yeah.

We always use the example of the hot tub bar and grill.

If I go from a mattress shop to a really high water intensive restaurant, and they said, if it's commercial and remains commercial, we don't have to look at it.

No change in use.

Yeah.

And there's such a pent-up demand in our peninsula that it's generally vacant commercial that needs to convert to residential that needs to have the water meters, and that's where we we come up short.

Yep, and mixed use too.

Yeah.

Can I ask a quick favor?

Because well, no, no, I I want Kim to go, but when she's done, don't leave.

Maybe you could just sit there.

Yeah.

And that way, because there I have some, I want to get engage a little bit more on just trying to chisel down on this because I'm going to put this out up front.

I'm not trying to put the city in a precarious situation, but I'm I also don't want to unnecessarily restrict ourselves from moving forward with projects that could get on get us going on meeting our reign requirement.

Um, so I I just want to maybe have a little bit of a lobby opportunity here.

But Dr.

Barb, please go ahead.

So thank Dave for all that information.

That's very helpful for me.

I I've heard it many different times, but it seems to always have another line or another understanding or interpretation that I get out of it each time I hear it.

But from what you're saying, and and I want to make sure I'm understanding this.

And number six, for the purposes of what we're looking at with the policy here, um, you're saying we could start now that this CDO, the CDO, because that's coming from a state level, and you're saying the state really doesn't care about that part, they really, you know, more about the growth piece, and then kind of let us get into the weeds with it.

So are you are you saying because of that statement, even though it seems to be very narrow in scope of what could be now and what would have to be later, because if it's a new meter, then that would be later.

So how would you look at this number six um to be able to kind of carve it out in that way so that it doesn't get misinterpreted that it's more than just the one piece of you know, um, the existing meter and not the not the new meters, so we don't get caught up in that if that makes sense to you.

It does, Doctor.

And I I would just um I would just suggest adding some language that uh directs it to be related to the setting of new meters and or new service connections, have to wait on that.

Um or intensification of use at existing service connections that results in a change of use, meaning um, you know, one of the Avala projects is uh going from commercial to residential, that would be a change in use.

Uh Garden Road going from commercial to residential change in use.

Unfortunately, those are the ones that even though they're not controversial and no one would probably bat an eye, and we've permitted many of those kinds of projects.

Um, that may be where the city says, well, I'm not gonna eyes wide open, contribute to what could be perceived as a violation of condition two of the still current, still in place CDO, even though the chances are no one would, as I said, bat an eye at it, that you could do a mixed-use project or a conversion.

Um, the worst situation would and keep in mind the the enforcement is not against the city, it's against California American.

And through the moratorium, the PEC had to go down a path where it says our rules are that you cannot discriminate between two customers and a can and a class of service.

So, how do we deal with uh this intensification of use issue?

And what they said was okay, Calam, we will allow you to discriminate between two properties in the same class of service, if one intensifies use in violation of this part of the order.

They never really said how.

We think the only how would be because Calum doesn't know there, if you're not setting a new meter and you change the use and you intensify use, they may just see a higher bill and not even think about it.

I mean, they are in business of selling water.

So if somebody says, I don't like that project, I'm raising it to the state board, then it would get the attention.

They could say, Yeah, you know what?

You did change in use and you intensified use.

That's a violation.

And the remedies at that point are you put a flow restrictor in and the amount of water going to the project is reduced to what it did before, which has a bad outcome, or you chase tenants out and you you know, batten down the you know, seal off the third floor.

Um, that has repercussions too if you've already say leased an apartment building.

And now you're making uh an enforcement action by the state asking Calam to take an action where they don't really have the power to chase tenants out of six apartment buildings.

So it was never really thought through very well in the first place.

It's on the books, it can be enforced, but no one really knows how.

And so even though enforcement isn't against the city, I think the city probably has a compass that says let's not do that if it's um highly likely to be uh caught up in this enforcement action.

Sure.

Okay, thank you.

So what you just shared is is enlightening.

I guess this may be a rhetorical question, but I'm open to either staff or or Dave, you responding to this.

Um what is the problem with telling a property owner or developer that we can give this to you conditioned on the risk associated, the liability associated with whatever kind of response that has nothing to do with the city, you're taking that risk.

We've clearly notified you.

Um, Brad was in here earlier, but I've heard him say, I'm willing to take that risk.

Um so uh would Mr.

Stolt hasn't shared with us the date of the email.

So that's that's an email from 2019.

Yeah, uh so the conditions in 2019 are different than they are in 2025.

And in 2019, when this email was created, Mr.

Withof uh from the state but Westhof, sorry, wet Westhof, what's responding to the current conditions with respect to the water that we had at that time available?

And at that time, the state water resources control board in the email that then Mr.

Stolt is sharing with us, stated, yep, you can do it if you do uh if residential states residential, you can give them an additional bathroom.

Um, if you switch from non-residential to residential, no, you cannot do that.

There's that's that's an old email.

Well, it does not the policy.

Sorry, that email does not address Bradslama, for instance.

That email does not address Brad Slama.

So when you stand here and you say, Oh, we can do it for Brad Slama.

No, I say email that is the changes.

Sorry, real quick, real quick.

So can I get to that point real quick with you?

Because I think it does in the sense that Brad's property was commercial and he's trying to make it residential.

Yeah.

So that would be counter to what the state water resources control board is saying could be permitted.

No, that that's what I'm saying.

That's that's not what the email though says.

That's what it's that the email says you cannot switch from non-residential to residential.

We're all in agreement.

What you may have missed heard me say is if you did, it's not on you, it's on Calam to enforce.

I'm not suggesting that you do it.

I'm saying, but if you did it, it's not so so that let this let me phrase it differently.

So I can commit some something that is not okay, and someone else has to have pay for the consequences of my doing.

That's what you're saying.

So basically say, hey, go for it.

Tell them is on the hook, not you, the city.

I believe I just said to the mayor that I wouldn't suggest that you do it, that it runs counter to what a right thinking council would do.

Yes.

What I was suggesting is it's already happened in jurisdictions.

There has been an intensification of use at an existing service connection and a change in use.

What I'm saying is enforcement has been lax.

Yes, it has happened.

And I agree with you.

And you and I were on a phone call with Mr.

Westhoff and his code compliance guy on that call, if you recall that.

It's a while ago, but where he said also I can enforce and I have my code compliance guy on the call with us.

This was maybe an empty threat, but you and I were on that phone call, and okay, is the past a predictor for the future?

No, we know that.

So can I ask a clarifying question?

I'm the city manager.

I'm not understanding what the disconnection here is in our understanding.

I'm saying you have the opportunity to do things now based on that advice, if it's like to like.

So I I I kind of almost want to move away from this, but I I I guess I have one more question for staff.

I guess what is the concern from the city's perspective moving forward?

Like what risk do you see that it poses to the city of Monterey?

Uh, you know, when we issue building permits at the city, we want to make sure that they can operate that building.

I can't imagine being in the situation where restrictor flows or anything has to be implemented.

And I've been in the unfortunate situations, you know, when there's health and safety issues at a building, you know, making people move out.

It is a horrible process.

And I I guess my recommendation is that you know, in April, May, we're hoping the state holds this meeting that they clearly rescind condition to, and that we can move forward.

I mean, that's and that everybody's clear on the rules.

And I'm I personally, and so yes, four and five months can make a difference, but in constructing new units, it's gonna take about probably about five to six months to get through the permitting process and a year and a half of construction.

And I just think we need to do it right.

So couldn't we say to a developer like Brad that maybe wants that water now so that he can feel good about it, he's already articulated his interest in taking that risk.

If he can even get permitted in five or six months, why couldn't we write into our policy saying, hey, there's some big ticket developments that we could really chisel away at our arena.

Let's build that in as first priority as we work towards this transitionary phase, so that way they feel good about having this kind of water guaranteed, assuming that the condition two is lifted.

So I think that's what the proposed policy does.

It says that when the CDO is lifted, so if they want to start taking that risk today, that the CDO will be lifted in three or four months, five months, six months.

They can start and get all their planning entitlements.

They can even be up through building permit.

We just won't sign that water release to go to the water district until the CDO is lifted.

But I imagine, and I and I hope Brad is online or a developer, maybe could speak to this in a way that from their perspective, just so I can understand it.

Um, but I I wonder if having some level of guarantee of that might be helpful towards going down that pathway.

Um, given the uncertainty.

So I'm gonna let that sit there for a second.

Thank you, Kim and Dave and Hans for all of that.

I have one last questioning um thing here, which is how we're identifying it, and I can appreciate the idea of it being liberal.

Um, but one thing that is it it sticks with me as we think through how we want to break up the allocation is making sure that we're getting a mix of all different development types um from multifamily residential projects all the way down to ADUs, and so how do we work towards incentivizing those kind of more ADU types, smaller folks can do it on their own property to help contribute towards the overall um increase.

Um I I'd be interested in seeing a bucket allocated for that.

And maybe and I'm thinking through this in my head a little bit now because the conversation today helped, but maybe it could be um a in an affordable unit program where they're guaranteed because if it's if somebody's applying to develop an ADU and it's just one ADU on their property, there's no affordable unit requirement associated with that.

So they're not going to get priority for the water allocation.

But if we created a bucket of four ADUs that say, hey, if you make your unit affordable, um deed restricted affordable, we're you're guaranteed out of this bucket that we've set aside for ADUs.

Um it helps to create a program and talk and conversation in the community around really helping to support that pathway methodology moving forward.

So I guess I just kind of wonder what staff's thoughts are on those.

And then there was the additional piece around non-affordable housing development, which was was was brought up in the in the proposal, and then this piece about commercial as well.

So I just kind of wonder what the staff's thoughts are on that.

Um so some communities are choosing to not provide water to all types of projects, they're creating classes of projects and thresholds.

Um, we were recommending sort of the least restrictive approach because what we usually hear is any restriction at the city level is impeding development in some way.

So, you know, it's our arena allocation includes market rate, low income, and all types of units.

So with this policy, we're not going to reach the 141 acre feet for quite a while.

So I think there's water available that if you want to come in and once the CDO is lifted in, you can get water for your for your ADU.

And what you're discussing is, you know, would you create an economic policy on top of that or some sort of policy that says, no, we're only going to give water to um ADUs that are affordable?

You could use water as a as a token or as a um incentive.

Incentive.

Um you could say all your water is only going to affordable housing projects, or it's going to, you know, you can policy-wise do that.

I would love to see what it does for a year when the CDO is lifted without complicated restrictions and then look at tightening things down if we need to.

It was my recommendation, but it's they're they're policy choices.

Okay.

Okay.

That's all my questions.

Counselor Smith.

Um, do you do we want we want to slide over into discussion?

Um I was gonna go out to public comment first.

Yeah, we'll do that.

Okay.

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

Folks in the chamber, um, can I identify yourself by either staying up to the left of the podium or raising your hand?

So I have three folks in the chamber, one hand for a sitting and two standing.

So we have three four.

Okay, we have four folks in the chamber.

All right, we'll cut it off to those four.

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

We have six on Zoom.

So we'll go ahead and start in the chamber.

Thank you, Kevin Dayton, government affairs liaison for the Monterey Peninsula Chamber of Commerce.

Uh the Chamber of Commerce uh supports this policy that's put together pure before you.

Uh it's a good balance.

I can tell you that people were pleased and perhaps even a little bit surprised that there isn't uh, you know, something in there saying, well, at this time we're not going to give it to businesses or commercial operations.

I actually think that's wise because I'm hoping that this may fill some of the vacancies that and the various business districts here.

And you know, when people say, Oh, yeah, I've been waiting for my water for a long time, maybe this will answer it.

Um let me put this in some context here.

Uh, I think Kim Cole is right.

Uh, this 141 acre feet, uh, you know, it'd be great if this actually happened, uh, Councilman Smith and all these people rushed forward to say, Yeah, I want some of this water allocation.

We're probably gonna get instead is people saying, Oh, uh, I don't want those water allocations used for a project in my neighborhood, but that's a different story.

Regarding the affordable units, uh, I have your arena progress report through 2024, and it'll be interesting to see uh the 2025.

You were only at one percent, and uh, you know, you have even for above moderate 1,200 two as your goal, and you had 44 for the cycle.

And what you really need to do is you just need units, you know.

I don't think you need to say prefer one or another, just please bring bring the units.

Uh, regarding use of water, I was thinking about this.

Uh I believe that that affordable housing project that's next to City Hall, the water demand is going to be 2.88 acre feet.

And even here in your staff report, it says an ADU is going to be 0.63 acre feet.

I mean, it would be fantastic if you got a whole bunch of applications in saying I want to start using a lot of this 141 acre feet.

I think you're gonna fall far short of it.

And what you should do is just encourage there's probably a lot of demoralized people in the city of Monterey who have property.

Encourage them to do it.

If it starts getting crazy and you get too many applications, well, you can change it at that time.

But right now, I think your message to the people of the city of Monterey is please, we're gonna give you a chance here.

Go for it.

It's not five-acre feet left anymore.

We're even talking 141 acre feet.

Let's see a change that goes on here in the city.

I think you'll get out of a lot of the sluggish economy and really start see the seeing things happening.

Good for housing and good for business.

Thank you.

Um, Mayor, I just um would like to see if you would just um and I'm I'm not against low-cost housing.

I just don't believe it should have any higher priority than any anybody else.

There's a bunch of us that are a bunch of own commercial property.

Why are we being punished for not uh uh not allocating water to us?

If anything, you should say, okay, we're gonna put 30% to low cost housing, but the rest goes to the the rest of the the property owners.

There's lots of property owners on this peninsula, and in this city rather, that are commercial multi-unit.

There's a there's a million uses and to to say to us that we have to be in uh low-income units and and and get less rent and spend the same amount of money as market rent.

We don't get uh money like you guys get when you doing uh low-income projects that the state gives you or the federal government gives you.

This is our money, this is real money, and we pay lots of interest on that money.

So if you want to see something happen, I'd like you to just take that out and allow that to happen.

And going uh to that mixed land use uh project that you're talking about here with the water.

I've done a couple of them, okay.

My understanding was the law was as long as you got this allocation on your parcel, how you used it was entirely up to you.

If you decided to, I I took a building in Seaside on Broadway.

I took the upstairs and made all apartments because the commercial was dead.

There was no one renting upstairs commercial.

I made it seven beautiful units.

I have it all rented out.

I use the same amount of water.

I had water meters there.

Um, I just combined all the water into one main pipe coming into one uh water heater closet, and I put my separate water water meters for every unit, and I submetered myself.

And I read them every month, and that's that suffices for the law.

But I don't use more water than I was allocated at the time.

And I think that's really the key.

It's how much how much water is allocated to that property, and are you meeting that use at that time?

And it should make a difference.

But I would take out number one and or restrict it by a 6040, six, 70, 30 or something to that effect, but not to say, hey, it's everything got to be low-cost housing and to the detriment of everything else and other uses.

I don't think that's fair to the other people.

Thank you.

And Laura Davis commenting on behalf of Landwatch.

We support an allocation policy that will prioritize infill and affordable housing and housing of all types.

In coming up with these recommendations, we spoke to local developers to get a sense of what would work in real life and what would have the most practical application.

Uh, one of those developers did just confirm via text that he would take on the risk that uh Mayor Williamson was asking about.

We recommend that the city allocate and distribute immediately where not prohibited by the CDO.

There's no reason to wait.

We also recommend simplifying the water allocation categories into two categories housing, which is all types of housing, and non-housing, which is everything else.

So commercial, industrial, etc.

We recommend prioritizing housing by making 100% of the allocation available to housing and up to 30% available to non-housing with distribution on a first come, first surfed basis and where prioritization is necessary, prioritizing affordable housing in accordance with policy 2J.

We also recommend um allocating the water in two stages, starting with 70-acre feet over two years and collecting data, which the city could then analyze after the 70-acre feet have been used or after two years to see what modifications are necessary, if any, to promote affordable infill housing with the remaining 71 acre feet.

Uh, we also support incentivizing building by establishing deadlines.

So we agree with a use it or lose it approach, but it should have reasonable time frames so that the developers will actually have um adequate opportunity to build.

So we recommend two-year deadline from planning application to planning entitlements and a two-year deadline from entitlements to construction.

Lastly, we um recommend incentivizing by lowering permit fees for infill.

Thank you.

Either Mr.

Mayor, members of the city council Luis or so do you?

Obviously, a complicated matter.

I'm gonna make a couple of comments at the risk of making nonsense because it's really tough.

Um I think uh council member Rush listened to something and mayor you guys were talking about how to maybe incentivize affordable housing.

Um I know there's a lot of need for all types of housing, but maybe the policy should include something more than staff is recommending to make it so it's easier for people that want to build affordable housing, either in ADU or something else to get on that on that on the process.

Um there is a like Mr.

Vega mentioned, there is you know vacant commercial properties, and I think we need to figure out where that falls into the mix.

Like I'm thinking about Fremont North Fremont Street.

There's a couple or three sides that are being vacant forever there, and uh even one which was the gas station came to the city a few years back and they made the wrath of the neighbors, so they went back and um so maybe this commercial properties can be also given some priority.

Um the other piece of the of the of the issue is after the police adopted.

I think we need to have some really clear implementation guidelines.

So when people go to the counter, and I'm sure Kim knows this, people go to either the planning counter or the building department counter, people know exactly where the priorities are and what the process is.

And I think because I mean, when you approve the policy, people are gonna start coming and they're gonna need to have those clear lines because it takes time to develop a project, either an ADU.

I mean, you need to do technical background reports, you know, geological reports, things like that.

And so that's that's really gonna be where the where the rubber meets the road, I think, to make all these happen.

Hope I made some sense.

Thank you.

No.

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

First speaker is going to be Adam.

Good evening, Mayor.

Council members Adam Pinteritz, on behalf of the Monterey County Association of Realtors.

And uh to get straight to the point, I urge you to go with the very uh well-considered staff recommendations.

Um, and I'll outline a few reasons why.

Uh I do want to appreciate the um concerns mentioned by council member Rash of protecting our our neighborhoods and and our neighborhood character.

Um, but to that concern, um I I would argue that it's similar to the to the state law that would allow would have allowed parcel subdivision, right?

And in over a year of that law being in effect, not a single application had been completed to actually do that.

So I think organically our communities are going to decide for themselves what's right for them.

And uh, and we need to allow that process to take place, but but very well placed concerns.

And I also appreciate the concerns of councilmember Garcia and and Mayor Williamson uh in regards to getting as many housing units, especially affordable ones online as as quickly as possible.

Um I I do certainly understand staff's concern and and prudence and and um you know maybe there's a need for a disclosure, right?

That that a developer uh, you know, until the CDO is lifted, uh for sure, uh, or modified, uh, that a developer uh you know actually acknowledges um the the risk involved in that, right?

Uh there's a way to work around and work through these types of issues.

Um but but more than anything, I want to emphasize um you heard from from Kim Cole, this is a lot of water, right?

There's no need to restrict it or put it in buckets or say who gets what first.

It should just be first come first served because you have a lot of water and you need all the types of projects.

You absolutely need the affordable housing.

You also need the mid the mid-level housing, the missing middle, as they call it.

Um right, right.

You need housing at all levels, and and you need some commercial, right?

You need some commercial redevelopment, some reuse of of some existing underutilized facilities, right?

You need those tax revenues.

You have a budget problem.

So let's not restrict ourselves, let's not tie our hands.

If if you put things in a certain bucket and say nothing else can touch it, maybe a year down the road from now, you get to the point and realize nobody touched that bucket at all, and we've just been sitting on it for nothing.

Um you also heard Dave Stolt tell you, even if you use up all of that huge amount of water, come back and ask him for more.

So there's really no reason to tie your own hands or or uh or impede in any way the improvements uh uh for uh in store for the residents of Monterey.

So uh I again I urge you to please uh move forward with the staff recommendation tonight.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The person I was going to call in next, uh her hand has gone down.

So if that was in error, you could raise your hand again and we'll still call on you.

Um meanwhile, I will move on to Tom.

Thank you.

Um I already handed in some written comments, and I'd like to elaborate on those comments.

Uh, under the proposed policy number one, um I'm a little confused by the terminology that's been used here in terms of top priority.

I think the point was already made that if you have applicant A come in and they're proposing two affordable units along with three market rate units, and then five minutes later, applicant B comes in and they say, Well, all five of mine are gonna be affordable units.

How do you judge one against the other?

I I I just I didn't quite hear an answer to that.

Uh, you know, and and then throughout conversations about housing, we keep hearing or I keep hearing we need more housing, we need more housing.

Well, I I don't agree with that, not in Monterey.

We need more affordable workforce housing.

And why do I have workforce?

Because the goal here holistically is to have housing where people are working, and that has two benefits.

First of all, it being affordable, and also it it provides the housing near to the job so that we can keep those cars off the road.

So we need affordable workforce housing.

I don't think we need more million and a half, three million dollar houses for retirees to move to Monterey from Los Angeles or wherever it is they want to move from.

That's an insatiable appetite.

They'll keep moving here as long as there's open land to build on and people to pile on top of people.

So I think um it needs a little more work in terms of how the prioritization is gonna work.

And again, I think we need to uh really emphasize workforce housing here on the peninsula.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we've got Tammy.

Um I believe that uh Kim's letter or proposal is straight on.

I think that we should wait until the CDO is lifted, but still go ahead and work before the CDO since we've got the 141 acre feet of water that can be utilized for people that want to put in another bathroom that have been waiting, you know, 10 years to put that bathroom in.

It's residential or residential.

There's just no problem.

And as far as the commercial, if there is a commercial property that wants to get in there and develop it, and there isn't going to be a problem with uh the state resources board, do it.

Let's get as much construction going as we can.

And then when the uh CDO is lifted, then we'll be we'll be good.

We'll be even better.

That's how I feel.

All right, thank you.

The next speaker is Esther.

Good evening, everybody.

I just want to echo what Tom was saying about making sure that we're addressing workforce housing.

Um, yeah, we don't need any more, you know, homes here that are going to be occupied by people who are not even living in the city and contributing.

Um, I think we need to go ahead to get ahead of this, but it has to be really with that in mind, because as much I just recently attended a summit, the a housing summit that Selena's put on, and it was attended all by developers and only there was there were no housing advocates there, just a bunch of developers.

And basically the number one thing that they keep talking about is that the process of getting uh projects off the ground needs to be streamlined.

So I kind of um agree with that, and I think that while we're talking about all this wonderful water that we have after waiting for so long, that we should be looking at our uh permitting process and all the other you know things involved so that we get ahead of all of the water issues, but also at the same time find a way to fast track some of this because you know, we absolutely are not gonna be able to build overnight.

So we can't just keep looking at RENA numbers and worrying about meeting those RENA numbers.

We need to find a way to make whatever can happen happen sooner rather than later.

Um, I also think that uh while you know, going back to the whole workforce housing, you know, the RENA numbers are based on jobs that I have no idea where they're gonna come from.

What jobs are going to justify having all of those units put built in this city?

We can't attract businesses here to diversify our economy because we don't have housing.

So, you know, the arena numbers are always looked at as some kind of you know, pie in the sky, and it's kind of a joke because until we have all these pieces connected, and again, you know, saying that we're gonna have all these units because we have all these jobs, and that's what it makes zero sense.

I don't know anybody that's been able to answer that and connect those dots.

So I just I just want to caution um, you know, the the policy because affordability is is has to be considered if we want to keep locals here and we want to avoid gentrification and you know what we see on in Seaside that they just built units there that are $4,000 for a one-bedroom apartment.

There are no locals in Seaside that can afford that.

So we need to keep that in mind here in Monterey while we're putting together all of this.

Thank you.

Next speaker is Ms.

Beattie.

This is Nina Beattie.

Uh, why weren't visuals or a PowerPoint provided tonight?

Uh, you could have shortened this discussion and clarified issues quickly for everybody.

The community has given assurances it will work out, the market will sort it out, but the market works for those with wealth and financing already in place, just like David Jack's and shuts out those who simply want a place to live, just like he did.

Safeguards, guarantees, protections aren't credible.

Staff's track record of misrepresentation, failure to comply with this existing laws, cherry picking laws, they advocate or enforce failure to respond to identified problems or to involve or notify the public as required with an appearance of bias towards special interests, lack of transparency and unlawful actions.

With all that, will there be audits of the allocation versus the permits issued?

The limited measure PS fund was used to close the street without city council approval or public review simply because staff wished it.

Any developer, especially those of market rate housing, will be rapidly approved when it comes to that point with state approval.

Major developers already have financing in place.

SB9 densification, less restrictive, more liberal water policy, as the city manager said, that's the reality.

This is about investment in market homes.

That's not affordable.

This should be about workforce housing, not Samuel Morris's quote, right people.

Affordability is a red herring.

That's not how this community works.

Calam is the enforcer regarding intensification units use with enforcement when enforcement is historically loose and the city is off the hook.

That's sweet.

Back to water supply.

Former city manager Fred Mirror was in charge of Fort Ord when wells were closed or water combined with other wells so that toxin levels would fall below federal limits.

A new monitoring well has now been added on the Dunes shopping center due to toxins.

The Associated Press covered the cancers of student of soldiers that lived at Fort Ord after Mr.

Muir supposedly fixed the problem.

I don't recall him ever talking about this toxins on our water supply.

Well, city manager here.

And I understand that Mr.

Muir doesn't live in Calam territory, which is interesting.

The industrial wastewater and treated sewage being injected and stored in the ground of Fort Earth National Priority Superfund site in the Seaside Basin lies under Site 39, the most contaminated part of it, which was never tested for the hundreds of toxic munition and pesticide chemicals that permeate the ground and infiltrate into the basin.

The list of substances that have been provided to local officials have been ignored.

As far as I can discover, these substances are not being monitored, and only 10 chemical substances were ever tested for initially at Site 39 at only one sampling site on its perimeter.

Calam indicates it only tests for general state and federal guidelines for water anywhere, not the unique situation of a superfund site with military contamination.

Absent a detailed and open examination of superfund contaminants, interactions and biology, this water cannot be regarded as safe for potable use.

Thank you.

And our last speaker is Michael.

Hi, well, war to begin.

I really have to concur with the first speaker for the chamber.

Monterey needs to be open for business.

This water source we have with Monterey One has been proven with its purity and its process.

And people need to really look at and understand the science behind it and uh viability of this water.

I also agree wholeheartedly, you stole my thunder with Adam.

It's got to be a first come, first served basis.

Open the doors and say those who want to spend the money can afford to spend the money, will spend the money.

It's an arduous process at best to get through development of even a single family dwelling.

So those who advocate for low housing income housing and this sort of thing.

I don't know that you've ever been through the process of actually purchasing a piece of property, entitling that piece of property, building out that piece of property, and doing all of that at market rate cost, and then offering something other than.

So I have to weigh on the supply and demand.

This is a principle that America's been built on, and it seems to work financially.

That's not to say you do things unrestricted and without wisdom of some kind, but supply and demand kind of is a checks and balances system that seems to make sense.

And those who can afford to offer low-income housing and and reduce their their cost or even donate, bless them.

And there are those that do.

But those that have to have a return on their hard-earned money and they're spent generations assembling that money and still adding to the city coffers.

It's there's absolutely no doubt the city of Monterey is looking for increased tax revenue from all kinds of sources.

We have an untapped source sitting and waiting in life for over 10 years in new revenue, a new source of revenue.

So adopting this policy, moving forward, allowing development, having the message of being open for business as the city of Monterey, you will solve 99% of your lack of uh tax revenue in that one element itself.

So I encourage us to really truly consider the supply and demand issue, move forward with this and get people who can afford or willing to pay the price to get through the process and enjoy the life on the Monterey Peninsula that you all offer.

Thank you.

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

Please.

But I don't want anything that is going to put up the banner that says if you don't have an affordable unit or multiple units that are affordable, then you know we're we're not going to find a way to allocate you some water.

I think it needs to be broad enough, at least for the first year, to determine what the market will show us, see where the pent up demand is.

And it's still going to be tough to navigate.

A builder is going to be challenged to navigate through some of the still existing conditions of the cease and desist.

In the event it's released, that changes everything.

But I think we need to have a broad uh funnel with the first 141 acre feet.

So I I think that we should change um item number one, where it's rewritten where it's not, it's not so stating that affordable housing is going to have the priority.

I think projects that come that are housing of any kind should be the priority.

First come, first come, a first uh come application basis, uh, would be my preference.

Um we heard a lot tonight that's different than I think what we were coming into this meeting thinking we had.

There is an opportunity for this to go to a policy, but I think I'm really uncomfortable with this doing anything that encourages an applicant to go forward and we issue a building permit unless they are going to be able to get a water meter, and they're not going to encounter problems later from the water resources or the PUC.

Um, I think that we heard a vibrant discussion about that.

I know we've heard comments about builders that are willing to take some kind of a risk.

Um I don't know what that risk means, but I would be cautious that we don't have a policy that takes on any risk from the city.

If we God forbid issue a building permit and it goes down the line, and then they've spent money and they turn around and sue us because we shouldn't have issued a building permit because there was no way that they could get a water meter.

Um, so I think we need to discuss this a little bit more before we're ready for a motion.

But um, I'm in I'm in favor of broadening the funnel and not just limiting it to affordable housing.

And I'd like to talk a little bit more about how we we do have a policy that is cautious until we go forward until we get to that four to five months period that Mr.

Stolt talked about in uh Tim Coles talked about.

I think we're very close to having a little more clarity, so I wouldn't want to push the envelope too much where we are launching into something that we're not quite ready for.

Um so for me.

I feel that we need to move forward with the proposal to start.

I think um we have enough information even from Mr.

Stall of what he spoke about tonight, even hearing from the public about moving forward with the proposal to start somewhere.

Um it has the the um piece about the CDO and that being lifted.

It also I think was a good idea from Adam from MCAR that a disclosure could be actually put in with um the application when it's um um brought up brought in and submitted so that people understand that it is um um uh contingent on those pieces, the CDO being modified or either lifted, but those pieces being a part of it.

I think for number one, um, there could be a possibility of saying uh projects that include affordable housing are the city's top priority for water allocation, which is still important to our arena numbers and to what the needs of the city are, but you could put a period there and take away the other part so that it doesn't seem that it's so um confined, so other projects would not feel that they would not be considered.

And so I think with with those um modifications and with the things that are already there, that they I think it's a good way a place to start and then can be able to look at it in a year's time to be able to decide and see what the realities of what applications are coming in and what the needs are at that time.

Uh I'd like to start with a question actually for staff.

Uh if uh the proposed policy is um if we uh as a council we decide to move forward with the proposed policy, what are the next steps?

Where does it move to?

If you go uh if you if if you uh go forward with the proposed uh staff policy as it is, uh we will start issuing building permits, including water allocations off of the state water resources control board as ruled on the uh application from the Monterey Regional Water Management District.

Sorry, the policy would if accepted tonight by council, it would become effective immediately and it becomes effective immediately, but uh if you take a look at number six of our policy, okay, that would be part of that.

Got it, yeah.

Okay, thank you.

Um when I read number one, and and I'll start there because um there's a lot of mention about number one.

For me, it's not necessarily restricting other types of uh projects.

It's just indicating that there's um a strong preference to have um affordable housing projects move forward.

So I don't feel like it's really restricting other projects.

Um I mean, I'm open to if if council wants to reword it, um, but I think there should be an emphasis for affordable housing um for the variety of reasons that we've heard tonight.

Um and I think also in terms of the timing, we're talking about um CDO maybe being hopefully lifted uh within five, six months is when the decision would be um coming forward, right?

So um I I don't see really a reason to in the meantime while we if the council adopts this policy and we we potentially start um offering some of this water, I I don't see um that happening so quickly within a five to six month period.

So I think I would also support um the idea of moving forward with uh projects sooner rather than later as well.

I think after the discussion we had tonight.

I see the Kim and her staff together.

Actually, what you want?

Your mic on.

Excuse me.

I after the discussion, I can see I feel that Kim has put together in her staff a beautifully nuanced proposal because it is putting the affordable housing at the top, but but what I heard is that it's a welcome mat to other projects because they're not gonna be all coming at the same time.

They're gonna be staggered and of different kinds, and then we have 141 acre feet, which is a lot of houses.

So I think this is a good beginning.

I can see the beauty in not parsing it out anymore, but having it be interpreted the way I heard it's a welcome mat and affordable housing is at the top, but we have plenty of water.

So I I'm hearing an open policy.

So with that and without pushing staff to tighten it in ways that will be more restrictive.

I can support this as written.

Um I just wanted to get to a couple of the things that I heard during public comment.

Um Vegas spoke about the pro the concern around number one with the prioritization of affordable housing.

And I don't know if it needs to be said, but I think it's important to say that this doesn't mean that only affordable units get developed or prioritized.

To me, what I hear it's projects that have affordable components to it.

So if you're developing a project that has more than five units in it, that has to meet the city's inclusionary housing requirement that's gonna have at least one affordable unit in it already.

Um, so that in my mind would get prioritization over a project that may not have any affordable um housing in it.

Um and I agree with Council Magarcia.

Um based off of what I'm hearing from staff in their presentation, it sounds like we're gonna have more than enough water to permit any type of project.

So it seems like the guardrails are off.

I think it's perhaps more of a symbolic gesture effort and a way for us to clearly communicate to the community that we're really focused on trying to incentivize the development of affordable housing, which is greatly needed.

Um I don't know why I write um use it or if I understand correctly, um, so Laura had spoke to this idea of user or lose it, but I feel like that's kind of already drafted into the policies with the release, the water release form, the building permit, the building inspection.

Is that fair to say?

Um, Kim.

Okay.

Um, and then I'm wondering if somebody could respond to Tom Reeves's question around like two alternative affordable housing projects, like how do we determine which one would get more priority?

Again, it might be a moot point given the fact that they probably would both be approved given how much water allocation is available, but I say this with all the love I have developed for Tom over 28 years, knowing him very well.

It's a typical Tom Reeves question that is is uh abstract, hypothetical, and um is a brain teaser to come up with a good answer for that.

But if you have two projects that are coming forward, we would basically prioritize uh according to the policy, the one with which has the higher uh and affordable housing component, uh is it is it realistic?

No.

Okay, thank you for thank you for that, Hans.

Um yeah, I'm still compelled to create a space for us to think outside the box.

Um, I mean, I heard I heard you say uh councilmember Smith.

I'm assuming you were referring to a developer coming back and suing us.

Yeah, or anyone should have it, but that was kind of the point that I was making.

Like if we essentially indemnify the city or allow them to take on that risk, that's on the developer, and I imagine that we could use that in a court case if uh if they do try try to sue us.

So um I mean I just want us to be flexible, nimble towards the needs now, and um and and I'm not hearing a concern around the intensification of the use of a property if there's no change in use.

So I think the Chabuza housing project on Cass Street is a good example.

I think they're trying to add eight units on an already residential lot.

So why would we not permit them to move forward with that project?

So I guess it's a water district issue if they were able to get uh a permit to go to Calam and get a Calam meters put in.

Well, that there's a restriction on the meter, so they wouldn't be able to do the meters, yeah.

So so we could get to the point of planning uh application building permit, but that applicant still has to go to water resources and obtain the pathway to get the water meter.

So we we are not going to issue what that piece of paper is that allows him to go to CalM.

That's gonna come from the water district.

So we could go as far as we can issue a building permit, but you're required to have before we issue the building permit a water permit, which is why we have the allocation, and we have to be able to release that allocation.

Well, it's it's it's one of those policy questions.

It's like we we don't have the full authority to tell them go get the water meter, they have to go to the water district to get that.

Confused why the water meter is coming up.

I don't think there's any request for a water meter.

And well, I think those those would be the applications typically would which would cause the conflict.

Now, there may be some applicants that don't have a conflict and they have uh current use to new use, doesn't intensify, and the other building permit's gonna work, but they still have to go to the water district.

Could could I could I offer something?

Um, because I I don't feel like there's a need for us to resolve this tonight, and and I feel like I would feel better about some clarification around some of this, um, especially if it'll if there's a pathway for us to issue some water, if we can get on board and feel comfortable with it.

So I'm wondering if we can maybe direct staff to work with Dave from the water management district on trying to get some clarification from the state water resources control board, and if we can get some affirmation in regards to what is appropriate, some examples, um, some specific language that it might permit us to be able to feel comfortable in moving forward in a way for at least some projects.

So I know Mr.

Stolt will agree with me, but the back and forth with the district over how is condition number two interpreted and what does intensification of use mean has been the subject of uh decades of letter writing, legal briefing, hearings, opinion letters.

So I I don't think it's something that absent this hearing and this petition that's pending is is likely to generate a clear answer from the state water resources control board with just a letter.

I mean, could we would it be helpful if we had like a very specific question like the Chabooza project where it's like it's currently residential, they're not changing use, they're not changing zoning.

Um they want to add eight units, we have the water credits available for it.

Is that we could ask, but I I'll also just point out that if they're saying um adding a JADU is an intensification of use, then adding eight units who's who's saying that adding a J the water district says that.

So if you have if you you cannot use the second bathroom protocol to have an ADU, you can use a second bathroom protocol as long as it stays within your single family residence.

So if you have a two-bedroom, one bath, single family home, and you wanted to use the second bathroom protocol as a way of developing an ADU, the water management district says no, that's an intensification of use.

So to me, I don't know how you get from that extreme limitation to eight units um in a in a residential uh I I don't I don't understand that how you get there.

Dave, how do you justify that from the water management district's perspective?

If we can't add an ADU, given this idea that there's not an intensification, but yet intensification would be okay in Chabuza case.

City attorney's right that we've said that you can't use the second bathroom protocol because it's an intensification of use.

So you would need an allocation of water from your jurisdiction.

So what we're talking about here is would you make that allocation?

And because it's residential to residential, you could make that allocation.

The problem has been there's been no water to make an allocation to do it.

So that's been the barrier to seeing ADUs move forward is the not just your own jurisdiction, but other jurisdictions as well have not had water to allocate.

And um earlier there's a question about calimeter on on, for example, the Cass Street property.

Our rules allow submetering if they're you know, if there's more than four units, so it could go forward.

So Dave, I want to ask you what what would the builder applicant come to you and ask for, let's use the case of eight units on CAS.

Yeah, they come to you, they've applied for the building permit, they're waiting to come back to us to show proof that they're gonna have water before we issue the building permit.

They come to you.

You're able if we have allocated water with this policy, then how does that change what you do with that applicant in your office?

Correct.

If this policy goes forward with approval tonight, we'd all take a holiday for six months or however long the state board needs to act on our application.

Um, if the policy is modified to allow for release of water, then that project would come to the city and say, okay, I have an on-site credit available, but I'm short, whatever it is 2.8, 3.1 acre feet.

Would you release that water to me as the developer from your allocation from the 141 plus actually a little bit more from prior allocations?

And if you said yes, you'd sign the water release form, they'd come to our desk, we'd check the numbers and issue a water permit, which would enable the just the uh city to uh issue the building permit.

And during the course of the next six, seven months or hopefully sooner.

Um, but while we're waiting for action on the modification of the CDO, there may be other similar projects.

And as I said earlier, it could be an ADU was residential, remains residential, or it could be somebody who wants to go into a vacant space on Alvarado or one of the streets here in town.

Okay.

I I in that context, if I may ask a question.

So in your ordinance 197 in section five, you're pointing out that all allocations are really preliminary pending the lift of the CDO.

I don't believe that's the wording.

Each jurisdiction should limit the release of water from its allocation to projects that will not be completed before December 31st, 25 until pure morality expansion has received its final approval.

All projects using an allocation, with the exception of Bishop Ryan Ranch, etc.

are subject to the moratorium on new connections imposed by the CNDC or on you, you called the numbers there.

Yep.

So we're all in agreement.

Absolutely.

Yeah.

Any allocation is subject to the C Synt assistant.

Right.

It's kind of where the difference is is that so you are you're using your ordinance 197 to create a backdoor for you.

We told you so.

Oh, no, no, no.

We're doing what we've been doing since 2009 when the CDO was issued.

Right.

If there is no change in zoning or use, yeah, a project can move forward.

Yes.

And it took us a lot of conversation to get the state board regulators, the staff, to say, how do you interpret a change in use?

We know what a change in zoning is.

Um, but the change in use there was there were other issues, you know.

What are you comparing in intensification of use against?

What's your baseline?

And we went through a lot of discussion on that.

Um, but the one thing that we've been able to hang on to in all of that time is the interpretation that you see that uh Mr.

Wesoff wrote.

And he's not the first one to say it.

Uh, there was a gentleman named John O'Hagan who said the same thing on the learning center, uh City of Monterey project.

Um it's been said multiple times that them speaking to us.

If there's no change in use, we need to look no further.

Okay, so I I think it comes down to who you want to follow uh with the recommendation right now.

If you want to trust Mr.

Stoltz um assurances, or if you want to follow state uh staff's uh recommendation, which which is uh more conservative, a little bit more prudent, a little bit more looking out for for the benefit of the city.

I'm opening it back up to the council.

I'd like to make a motion.

Please um I'd like to make a motion to approve um the staff's recommendation for proposed policy um to be approved um tonight.

Um second.

Okay, discussion on the motion.

Just a question, I think to go back under the six items in the proposed policy.

I heard our um planning director and economic development director say that projects are going to be coming in, and she would evaluate based on first come and whether they are affordable housing.

And and then it's got in here in the policy.

The priority for water allocation is based on the overall size of the project, the number of affordable units proposed, and the level of affordability proposed.

But if I go down through this, there's nothing in here that says somebody who comes in and wants a three-bedroom, two and a half bath home, could be considered in the same the next day.

Is that correct?

Okay, and that's the way I understand it.

Okay, thank you.

In that case, I can support the motion.

Anyone else?

Um I don't know how I feel.

I I have mixed feelings.

At the end of the day, I can appreciate the idea of finding something to move forward with, though I know that the water management district gave us this water to issue, and now we're not issuing it.

So um, and for all the reasons I stated earlier, just concerned around being another bureaucratic process that's getting in the way of of moving the process forward.

Um I I can appreciate the risk associated with it, though I think that this is an area where it's it's worth taking the risk and um setting ourselves up in a way that mitigates that risk as much as possible.

Um so a little bit disappointed that this sounds like the direction that we're gonna be going in.

Um and hope that there's opportunity to continue to have conversation around um being creative, innovative in the in in the interim um to try to find a way of making something work.

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

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye, others opposed.

No.

Right.

Motion passes three, two.

With that, council.

Thanks, David.

Council comments.

anybody council comment?

Uh I'm not ready, but I've got a few.

Somebody else wants to go first.

Um, I think it was Tom that spoke earlier about asking the council to speak during council comments around this NCIP proposal and having that agendized.

Um, I've been talking to Hans um about the budget discussion and um what I recall from where we left off that conversation, which was a late meeting.

Um at least what was spoken from council member Smith was that he wanted to see the numbers as it relates to the surveying um of voters before picking up the conversation again.

And my understanding is that that information will be ready at the first council meeting in December, which will also pick up the discussion around the $10 million budget deficit then, which I assume creates the space for us to re-engage on the topic around NCIP as well.

So just wanted to be able to respond to Tom Reeves' comments there.

That's it for me.

And then I'll let Ed go and then we can go to city manager reports.

Or did you have something on that?

But I just wanted to clarify what Tom was stating was um is different than what the council actually uh directed the NCIP to do.

So the council action on October 13th said city council provided direction to the NCIP committee to review their program using a prioritization exercise similar to the council's process on September 2nd, 2025, and returned to the city council with a recommendation for three to four million dollar worth of projects of the lowest priority to the committee, four to one councilmember voting no.

That is the direction, and then Mr.

Reeves was uh was uh insinuating that um that the NCIP did not have the task, but uh NCIP was uh asked to was potentially um able to provide a counter proposal, and again, the council direction was clear that does not exclude, of course, that the NCIP after they have followed the direction from the city council, may make other proposals to the council for their evaluation.

So well, and and thank you, Chrissy, because Chrissy was at that first NCIP meeting and clarified multiple times to the NCIP committee regarding the task, the the direction from council and the risk associated with them not engaging in that action.

Um I think that Tom understands that.

Um, I think that the NCIP committee understands that, albeit might have a different um political drive to try to get things to happen in a way that they think that should happen.

But I I appreciate staff because then also at the following meeting.

Um is leaving me right now.

Amy, our public works director, Andrea Andrea, Andrea articulated the repeated um Chrissy's point from from the prior meeting.

Um, but yet they still decided to move forward with this proposal.

I think it's worth the council considering it was it's been enlightening to hear the discussion from the NCIP committee, and it and I think it's fair game, but I think we can save that to the next council meeting.

So just to kind of tee that up for folks.

Councilman Smith.

Uh yeah, so comments.

Um today I attended the uh the bridge um for luncheon to see a presentation graduation by one of the the members.

Uh it is a uh a program supported to help folks in recovery.

And uh the celebration today was somebody graduating from the culinary program after nine months, and uh we evaluated their performance and he he did a fantastic job.

Kudos to Trevor, who is uh graduating the program and going into uh culinary arts uh looking for work, but fantastic uh time to go.

And I was also in accompaniment with uh David Pacheco from Seaside and um Alex Miller from Seaside Council.

So it was great to see uh full room.

Um this month on November 7th.

Uh uh many of the community members and many of the Monterey Police Department members attended uh the passing life celebration of David Fortune, uh captain from Monterey PD.

I know we closed a meeting many months ago in um honor of his name and and the celebration was good to see so many people coming back into town to honor Dave in his services.

Um also um last week the Monterey County Hospitality Association uh had the employee appreciation luncheon uh attended by a record number of uh 800 attendees at the conference center, which was beautiful and shined um while we were honoring our uh local employees in the uh Monterey County Hospitality Association.

Also, um last week was the Rotary District 5230, which is a district from Monterey all the way to Madeira, south to San Luis Obispo and north to Santa Cruz with over 59 clubs, and we were honored with the international Rotary president who lives in Kansas, who is the incoming president.

Uh, and he will represent over 1200 clubs.

And uh I think our numbers are like at two million members of rotary.

So it was nice to have him there and to lunch and to see and connect with Rotarians from all over different cities.

And like I said, 58 different clubs.

And the last week, many of us also attended the uh Veterans Day appreciation at the conference center.

Great job.

I know the city organized and hosted that.

So that was that was good to be there and recognize the veterans from the 50th year of the end of the Vietnam era.

And uh got an opportunity to sit next to two veterans and uh exchange things.

And I was 16 years old when my brother was killed in Vietnam.

And it's been a long time.

The family frequently talks about it, but uh an era that we still connect back to many members that we grew up with that also served uh the military services in their country so well.

So it was good to see the the veterans celebration.

And last thing is Thanksgiving, happy Thanksgiving to all of you, and uh eat lots of turkey, be warm, be healthy.

Thank you.

Thanks, Ed well said, and uh lots of love and gratitude to you, your family, and your brother's service to our country.

Thank you.

Um before I pass it to Hans.

Um we this day is bookend by two birthdays in the room.

So we are going to sing happy birthday to Dr.

Barber and whose birthday is tomorrow, and that's whose birthday was yesterday.

Um, so here we go.

Happy birthday to you.

Happy birthday to you.

Happy birthday, Dr.

Barber and Happy birthday to you.

Thanks for the help, Jake.

Happy birthday, truly to both of you.

Got to take every moment in life to celebrate.

I'm a big believer of it.

So all right, applause to Hans for sitting on Drew.

I have nothing to say.

Thank you.

Awesome.

With that, we'll go ahead and adjourn.

Thank you, everybody.