Monterey City Council Meeting – May 19, 2026 (Afternoon & Evening Sessions)

How do we give us a hug Yeah, yeah, yeah.

All right.

Christy, could you please try unmuting and saying something so we know our sound is working with Doom?

Hi, testing, testing.

Yes, we can hear you.

Thank you so much.

If we can you're welcome.

Council meeting for May 19th, 2026, our afternoon session.

Um, I can call the meeting to order at four o two, and we'll pass it to Clementine for roll call and to share announcements with the public.

Councilmember Barber.

Councilmember Garcia.

Council Member Rash here.

Councilmember Smith.

And Mayor Williamson.

Here.

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

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

Consistent with the First Amendment and the Brown Act, individuals have the right to speak at public meetings, which includes the right to criticize or support city policies or actions.

With that, we would go right into our agenda.

So with that, I will pass it to City Manager Dante for a staff introduction.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh, this is always one that's good for me too.

Um, it's it's celebrated sort of our public works week.

Um, and it's important because our public works staff, they maintain our critical infrastructure, and they almost do work invisible, and you don't notice until some something goes wrong.

Uh so we have a number of men and women uh in our city that are working on your behalf.

Um I'm gonna turn it over to director Rennie uh to provide the presentation tonight.

Thank you.

I think City Manager Dante did a great job in describing what we do, but I think that this year's theme, which is rooted in service powered by community.

It can describe our public works team more perfectly.

What I see every day is a team that cares, people who show up before the sun rises, we solve problems, and we take so much pride in our work.

Work that most may not even notice because they flushed the toilet and it went down, not up.

They didn't hit the pothole because it was repaired.

So this is what dedication looks like.

What you do matters and you make a difference in this community.

I am grateful every day to be part of this exceptional team.

And to the council, I want to thank you for the trust you place in us, and please know that we will never stop earning it.

And with that, I would like to introduce our team that is going to do a short presentation.

So we have Miles Etchnik from General Services.

We have Courtney Gaskins, also from General Services, Isabella Munghear from parking, and I'm Tony Hernandez from Engineering, and I'll uh pass it on to them for a presentation.

I was expecting a flash mob based off of last year's presentation.

Next time, next time.

Good afternoon, Mayor Williamson and Council members.

My name is Miles Echenick, management analyst two for the General Services Division.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of our department as we recognize National Public Works Week in 2026.

I think we're on the next slide already.

So this year's theme is rooted in service and powered by community.

This acknowledges that the roots of service run deep in public works.

It's been what's propelled public works innovations that have helped our community evolve into places where people can lead lives of purpose and possibility.

Some work is highly visible, while other public works contributions are sometimes hidden from view.

Together, these efforts form the foundation of thriving communities.

Reminding us that every project, seen or unseen, powers the connection between service and the people it supports.

Next slide, please.

Thank you.

The Public Works Administration is responsible for the budget development and monitors our operating budgets as well as administrative support services, including human resources, purchasing internal controls, strategic planning, and organizational efficiency.

And I'll hand it over to my colleague Courtney.

Next slide, please.

Alright, good afternoon.

My name is Courtney Gaskins, administrative services technician for the General Service Division.

The engineering division plans, designs, constructs, and maintains the city's infrastructure.

Engineers and product managers manage the city's transportation system to promote the safe movement of traffic, coordinate the city's environmental and regulatory activities, and review development proposals and encroachment applications.

The General Services Division provides building maintenance and custodial services for all city facilities through cost-effective repair, renovation, and routine maintenance.

We also provide these same services to military partners.

Monterey is proud to celebrate over 25 years of partnership with its military partners.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

My name's Tony Hernandez, Senior Project Manager for the Engineering Department.

The Streets Division maintains 101 centerline miles of roadway, 104 miles of sanitary sewer, 43 miles of storm-drain culverts, over 5,000 regulatory signs, and 56 signalized intersections.

Streets crews are on standby 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year to respond to sanitary sewer overflows, storm, and to support public safety.

The fleet and mechanical division is a fully functional modern vehicle and equipment repair facility with certified technicians and up-to-date equipment.

The division is responsible for ensuring compliance with California Air Resource Board regulations, Department of Motor Vehicles, and California Highway Patrol Requirements.

Next slide.

Hi, my name is Isabella Munghia.

I am a parking service representative with the um parking division.

So parking operates 31 parking facilities that have approximately 3500 off-street parking spaces, and additionally, there are over 3,000 parking spaces that are off-street in the downtown Canary Row and Lighthouse areas of the city.

The parking division works with businesses, residents, institutions, and visitors alike to meet parking needs.

The Harbor Division provides a plethora of recreational and commercial opportunities for residents and visitors in our scenic Monterey.

And they also continue to improve their services and infrastructure to allow for greater access in the area for both fishing and leisure purposes.

All right, give it up for our public words team.

I'll just say this for I appreciate Andrea having uh multiple team members come up and speak, some of you for the first time.

It's nice to put a face um to the work that's being done throughout the city.

I just appreciate your celebration of your team and really to all of our city employees.

Um just tremendous gratitude on behalf of the council and and the citizens of Monterey.

I know that you all get up every day and you're expected to have a smile on your face as you're dealing with customers, but I'm sure we're all going through stuff in our personal lives, and you have to carry that with you, but like not show that.

Um, and then dealing with maybe people that are always happy, um, and maybe folks like us that are changing policies and having to deal with all that, but yet you all are here and serving the community.

So I just have to use gratitude for the work that you all do.

And um public works, you guys are possible.

I'll get a curse, but I'll I'll give it to PG for for now.

But you guys are you guys are you guys are awesome.

So thank you for what you do.

And let's give it up to the team one more time.

All right, counsel, any comments please?

Yeah, quick question.

How many of the uh public works employees that are here today have less than two years with the city of Monterey?

Okay.

How many have less than 10 years?

How many have more than 15 years?

How many have more than 20 years?

Okay, so that's a signal that this is a vibrant group of people because it's fresh, it's tenured, it's senior, it's experienced, and this is your place, this is your home away from home.

Thank you very much for your time and your energy.

Those phone calls in the middle of the night about something that's broke, it's not working, somebody crashed into something, and you are the fixers, the fixers of Monterey.

And as the mayor has said that, and I think uh your boss Andrea also said a lot of times people don't realize what you're doing and what time of the hour you're doing it.

So we appreciate all of your work, and it's evidenced by the uh variety of the number of years of employment here that this is a strong family, and thank you for your service.

We really do appreciate it.

Anybody else?

I'll say this please.

Um, I just wanted to highlight the uh just the various I guess sectors within the department.

Uh I think it's really impressive.

Also, engineering, parking, street, harbor.

Um, so it's really impressive uh that the whole department deals with a variety of of things and also I as I've um understood through communication in the past that there's a lot of cross collaboration between departments, um, other departments and public works.

So I just wanted to highlight that and also say thank you for all the work that you all do.

Awesome.

Anybody else?

Thank you for keeping our safety uh preeminent, and that's really appreciated.

We don't want to have to go through what happened in Manhattan this morning.

So um keep those manhole covers there and on, and um thank you for caring for all the residents.

Yeah, just echoing my c colleagues just uh big thank you uh for all that you do, uh, seeing and unseen.

So thank you again.

Alrighty, and we'll have you come up here in a second so we can do a group shot, but first let's do public comment because I think it's important before you all sneak out of here that you hear from the public that wants to also share some comments with you all.

Um, so how public comment period works is that we identify all the folks that want to speak during public comment at the beginning of the public comment period.

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

So you have to identify yourself at the beginning of the public comment period.

I'm going to start with folks on Zoom.

If you navigate your way to the raise hand function while you're working your way there, I'll check in the chamber.

Anybody in the chamber wish to speak on this item, the specifically the presentation for Public Works Appreciation Week.

We have one speaker.

Anybody else?

So go ahead and cut off to the one speaker.

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

There's nobody on Zoom.

We'll go ahead and take the speaker in person.

Well, as a retired public works official, I'd have to say thank you very much to the public works crew for all you do.

I've been there, I've done that, been woken up at two o'clock in the morning and had to go out in the rain.

So I I, for one, really appreciate everything you do, and I'm sure the citizens of Monterey do too.

So thanks very much.

Thank you.

With that, we'll go ahead and close public comment and let's have everybody come up.

Let's do the group shot.

I'll get it right.

Can you please be careful?

All right, one, two, three.

One more.

Perfect.

Okay.

All right.

With that, we're going to slide right into the next one.

Item two on the agenda is received presentation from Montage Health.

And with that, I'll pass it to Don Say for Staff introduction.

Thank you, Mayor.

Montage Health.

So with that, I'll turn it over to Mike.

Thank you very much.

Good evening, Mayor Williamson and members of the council.

Thank you for the opportunity to spend a few minutes with you today.

Just a few months ago, I celebrated my one-year anniversary with Montage Health and as a resident of the Monterey Peninsula.

And I've spent much of that year listening to caregivers, to patients, and to the community.

During that time, I've also seen firsthand how invaluable our relationship is with the city of Monterey.

And I'm here today, first and foremost to say thank you to each of you and to your city teams for the decades of collaboration and partnership in support of our community.

To highlight just a few uh recent examples, I want to thank the city for your collaboration as we launched our Bloom Energy project, helping to bring cleaner and more sustainable energy to community hospital.

Uh, and for your support as we opened our newest primary and specialty care offices uh in new building E at the Ryan Ranch uh just last month.

Uh so this evening I'd like to share a brief update on your local health care system and reinforce that Montage Health is committed to being a community partner, not just a health care provider.

Uh let me see, doisible this work.

All right, next slide.

Yeah.

So uh uh, let's see.

So moving backwards to go forwards a bit, I thought it might be helpful to give you a brief background on me and what brought me here to Montage Health.

Uh, before coming here, I led a nonprofit community-based health system in Fredericksburg, Virginia, called Mary Washington Healthcare.

Like Montage Health, it was independent, locally governed, and deeply rooted in its region for more than a century.

And that matters to me because uh being a community-based health care nonprofit means that our decisions are made here locally.

It means our resources are reinvested here in our community, and it means that we're accountable first and foremost to the people that we serve.

And that model is something that I deeply believe in, and it's one of the reasons I chose to come here to the Monterey Peninsula and to Montage Health.

Next slide.

And today I want to focus on three issues that I know matter to all of us.

One is access to care.

Number two, ensuring that this remains a thriving place for people to live and work, and thirdly, uh working together for the benefit of our community.

Next slide.

Access to care, it's one of the most important issues facing our community.

It's one of the things I've heard most in my year of listening to the community, and it's a priority for us at Montage Health.

Today, we operate at more than 20 locations across the Monterey Peninsula.

That includes community hospital, of course, but just as importantly, it also includes primary, specialty, and urgent care offices, including those right here in Monterey, which are helping people stay well, and so they hopefully won't need hospital care in the first place.

Our Montage Medical Group now includes more than a hundred and ten physicians and advanced practice providers across offices in Marina, Carmel, and Monterey.

Last year alone, they provided more than 230 ambulatory patient visits.

Our MOGO urgent care centers in Marina, Carmel, and Monterey, saw nearly 50,000 visits in 2025, giving residents timely care for minor injuries and illnesses, often at significantly lower cost than an emergency department visit.

And most recently, when two local orthopedic practices in our community, Monterey Spine and Joint and Monterey and Peninsula Sport Physical Therapy in Carmel, when they were at risk of closing, we stepped in by creating Montage Orthopedics and Sports Medicine.

We helped ensure that more than 120,000 patients' visits each year could continue without disruption.

And more importantly, staff at both locations were offered the opportunity to stay in their roles, supporting continuity of patient care and stability of our local health care workforce.

We know that access to care remains a real challenge here and across the country.

There is more work to do ahead, and we are committed to doing that work for the people who live and work in this community.

Next slide.

That one uh an advancement care we're bringing to Monterey County for the first time, and that's our new thrombectomy program for stroke care.

When somebody is having a severe stroke, minutes matter, and historically, patients have often needed to be transferred out of our community to receive that level of care, wasting precious time.

Through a partnership with the University of California San Francisco, Montage Health is now able to provide this life-saving treatment here locally at community hospital so patients can get the right care at the right time closer to home.

We are the first and the only hospital in Monterey County to offer this level of care.

This is not something something that you typically see in a smaller community, and we're proud to be able to bring this to our local community here.

This here is a picture of our biplane hybrid operating room where these thrombectomy procedures are performed.

Many of these programs, including this provo this program, are enabled by the philanthropic generosity of members of our community.

Next slide.

Building talent from within our own community.

And so through our grow our own programs, we provide high school and college students with pathways into health care careers.

In 2025 alone, we provided more than one million dollars in scholarships to local students.

We're also partnering with MPC and CSUMB to strengthen the local nursing pipeline, including our recent 15 million dollar investment to establish the Montage Health Helen Bazookie School of Nursing at CSUMB and expand the number of nurses with bachelor's degrees entering the workforce.

In addition, we launched a clinical careers program that allows select Montage Health employees to return to school full time while continuing to receive their full pay and benefits to train for critical, hard-to-fill clinical roles that we need right here in our health care system.

So these efforts are not only about meeting our health care needs, they're about creating stable career opportunities, strengthening our local workforce, and supporting the long-term health and resilience of our community.

Next slide.

Lastly, I'd like to highlight our work out in the community, much of which we do in partnership with local organizations.

Every three years, we conduct a community health needs assessment to hear directly from our residents about their most pressing issues and health challenges.

And consistently, a few issues rise to the top, including diabetes, nutrition, and mental health, including substance use prevention.

In response, we intentionally focus our community investments in these areas.

And here in Monterey, that means partnering with local schools, nonprofits, and public agencies to bring free, accessible programming directly to residents.

Just last week, for example, our OHANA Center for Youth Mental Health, together with MPUSD and the Drug-Free Communities Coalition, hosted a youth substance use symposium at our Ohana campus here in Monterey.

The event brought together students, educators, community leaders, and public health experts to focus on prevention and early intervention for Monterey County youth.

All of all of this work, it is grounded in what our community has told us that they need and in our shared commitment to working collaboratively to support health and well-being of Monterey residents.

Next slide.

And I'll close with this.

Thank you for the presentation, Mike.

Um because you function in a lot of ways like a business, but you are a nonprofit, and so you have to, there's a lot of balancing that goes on there.

And we've had some conversations, and I appreciate you keeping a relationship going with the city of Monterey.

Um and I I have full faith that that through your leadership, we'll we'll be able to continue to foster that relationship.

Um just to highlight a few things that I appreciate about the work and and the relationship with our police department.

Montage participates in the M.T.

and the multidisciplinary outreach team as one of the elements associated with helping to protect our our most vulnerable residents and and the homeless population.

Um also the the collaboration and support of organizations like Monterey Peninsula Pi that host events here in town to help um bring awareness and um services to the LGBTQ community, um, and again our our ongoing discussion.

So I just wanted to to give some gratitude and appreciate you coming to provide an update in regards to to what's going on and a lot more to come, obviously.

So thank you, Mike, for for your partnership and and congratulations on your one year anniversary.

Yeah, thank you.

Thank you.

Anybody else in the council?

Please.

Um, so you you did tell us where you came from, Doctor, and it was Mary Washington Healthcare, but I missed the state.

It's in Fredericksburg, Virginia.

So your accent's doing real well after one year, so you almost sound like a local now.

Okay, good.

I'll I'll take that as a compliment.

So welcome.

Um, and so, you know, Chomp has a long history.

Um, many of the residents you're gonna run into are gonna tell you, well, their children were born there.

Yeah, and uh that's the case with both of my children and one of my grandchildren.

And so it's always been a place that we know number one, it's gonna be great care.

It has a different feel.

It doesn't almost feel like a hospital at times.

And so it is a place that people look forward to going because the food is great, but they always look forward to getting great care and they know they're gonna get it there.

So I just want to say thank you, welcome aboard.

Anything we can ever do to collaborate with you and help you out.

Uh you were indeed going to be a partner, and uh you're not very far away from you know just getting getting the help you need.

You you you wouldn't believe the number of times I've heard in my first year, people say to me, I was born at Chomp.

And uh I take that uh that statement as a statement of pride, right?

They're proud of that hospital, they're proud of the hospital that's been here serving this community for almost a hundred years, and there is certainly a very deep connection between this community and the health system, and then the members of our health system team that show up to work every day caring for the community, uh that connection back to the community.

So I feel really lucky to be a part of the team here.

Absolutely.

Uh, and I was gonna say I'm old enough to say that I was born here, but before that was built, it was under construction.

But I was born at the old Carmel hospital down the hill.

But uh you have a fabulous campus facility and spread across Monterey.

So thank you very much for everything that you've done for the community.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anybody else?

Please.

So I so appreciate uh the work that you do.

It's a hard time, and uh folks don't really understand that when the medical reimbursements are slashed and the requirements for applying twice a year instead of once a year, mean that people drop off.

Um it doesn't mean that they don't get care.

It means that the hospitals provide it for free.

And so um what you have to absorb is intense, and I realize your commitment remains with providing the care, and I thank you for that.

Yeah, I mean, we do have headwinds coming our way with uh with what you described, and it's gonna take all of us coming together to help to help solve some of those issues.

I will say, you know, one of the and we we will care for every member of this community regardless of their ability to pay.

We're we're proud to do that.

It's when, you know, uh Mayor Williamson, you mentioned being a nonprofit hospital, but still being a business, and this is one of the things that really resonates with me, and that's a difference between not-for-profit health care systems and for-profit health care systems, is that we are a business and we need to be successful so that we can make future investments for improved care here in our community.

But everything that we are that hospital on the hill, all of our assets, they're not owned by any shareholders or by any person.

They're actually owned by this community, right?

And they're overseen by a board of trustees that looks at those assets and says, how can we use them to improve the health of the people here in Monterey, right?

I love that mission.

I would only be part of a mission of a health system that had that mission.

And we do want to be strong uh as a health care system, but everything we do is to benefit health care here in Monterey.

And we're gonna have to all work together in the coming years uh to help solve some of these headwinds that we have coming our way.

Thank you, Barbara.

Uh thank you for your report.

Uh I can just applaud you for the community aspect.

I'd like to hear um what you're talking about as far as your connection and you're partnering with the community, uh, even with the MPC and C S UMB, uh, have that education background and the business background, so that's important for me to hear.

Um, and then the act and being aware of the access to care uh being a very important and vital for our community, especially at this time.

And so I think to hear that is is something that is a um a message that you want to make very clear.

I think that's important, and to knowing that you're talking about partnering and being locally governed.

I think that's important to hear.

Um, I also um I know where Fredericksburg, Virginia is.

My mom's from Richmond, Virginia.

Okay, yeah.

Welcome again.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Just reinforces that we're thinking we're focused on a lot of the right things.

Thank you.

So um my family has used also uh various facilities in the area.

My my daughter, she's an athlete, so we visited MOGO a few mogos several times.

Um and um great service and and really appreciate all the work that you do.

Something that um I I also wanted to highlight uh kind of along the lines of uh what council member Rash just shared.

Uh what I hear from uh some residents um is that even if they have coverage and and I uh I'll I acknowledge that this is not a monterey challenge, but statewide nationally as well.

Um the affordability piece, right?

Even with coverage, uh there are um services that are just uh a little bit out of reach for some of our residents.

So I hear of folks going outside of the peninsula to seek those services for that same reason.

So anything that um Montage can do, um, to continue that advocacy, right, to bring costs down for our residents, um, and also to share information of what resources are available to our residents.

I think is is uh something that I personally would appreciate as well.

But um aside from that, thank you for the work you do.

Yeah, we hear you and we are focused on affordability uh as a health system.

Like you said, it's uh um probably not a unique challenge, but it is there are some specifics here in Monterey that we need to address, and we're we're focused on working on that.

Thank you.

Awesome.

Well, thank you for the presentation.

We'll now open it up for public comments.

So if you want to stick around for a few minutes to see if there's anybody that wants to add some flavor to the conversation, we'll um open it up for folks on Zoom.

You can use the raise hand function.

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

Anybody that wish to speak on this item, just ask that you stand to the left of the podium.

I am not seeing any takers in the chamber, so we'll go ahead and cut it off in the chamber.

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 leave it to two minutes.

We'll go to our zoom colors.

Our first speaker is Esther.

Good afternoon, everybody.

Um I wanted to echo the comments that council member Garcia made about the affordability issue.

I've been here over 25 years as a resident, and I've had to use Chomp a couple of times, and I've been very lucky to have had really good insurance through my employer, but I'm uh gonna give away my age and say I am about to go on Medicare and I'm extremely concerned about um the Medicare cuts and how that's going to affect so many of the residents of this city, particularly seniors.

We know that we have a very growing senior population here, and um Medicare is gonna be vital for us to make sure that we can maintain support for that.

Um and now I'm gonna speak as the president of the Laguna Grande Neighborhood Association and ask Montage to partner with us on creating a senior workout area at the Laguna Grande Park through your foundation.

Um this is the low-income side of the city, and a lot of seniors cannot afford to go to the sports center.

And with the growing senior population that we do have, it's important for us to be able to try and do whatever we can to maintain senior health.

So hopefully in the near future we can partner on making that project happen because we have the space and we have the need, and hopefully you guys will have the funds that we don't.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker is Laurie.

Um, good evening, Mayor Council.

Uh so thank you for the presentation.

Um, and nice to meet you virtually.

Uh I appreciate the health care services that Montage provides, just as all the others have spoken about tonight.

I echo that.

Um, very important to the community.

And I also recognize that Monterey has other major nonprofit institutions like the Monterey Bay Aquarium, so not alone when I'm gonna make the comments I'm about to make, that operate with substantial tax advantages in the city as well.

Um so tonight's presentation to me also highlights sort of an uncomfortable reality.

This city continues telling residents we have to you know accept higher taxes, higher fees, stormwater charges, sales tax increases, and even transfers from voter protected NCIP funds because Monterey faces this structural budget deficit and you know, same kind of the same in into future years.

Meanwhile, the city's own report describes Montage as the largest nonprofit tax exempt landowner in Monterey.

Um so I think residents are justified in kind of asking what does this partnership really mean?

And Montage, you know, I know just announced a $15 million contribution to CSUNB for nursing.

That's awesome.

I told a friend of mine's daughter who was trying to get in a nursing program.

Um that's very generous and commendable.

And I'm just wondering if Montage can contribute 50 million externally.

Has the city ever explored voluntary contributions, infrastructure partnerships, or public safety cost sharing to help relieve some of the burden on Monterey taxpayers.

Um and maybe some of these are talks are going on behind the scenes, but I'm just asking really because I don't know the answer if that can be done or if it's being explored.

Um but especially the city's report itself and acknowledges the extensive coordination and support provided by Monterey PD and fire services.

Anyway, thank you very much and again appreciate your contribution to the community.

Thank you.

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

You can unmute and then start speaking.

Good evening.

This is Nina Pete.

Many people in this community aren't happy with Montage or Community Hospital, and it's urgent that you listen to them and the council listens to them.

My family found understaffing at the hospital recently, including no one responding when a monitor alarm went off because no one was at the nursing desk.

The alarm was for low oxygen levels because staff forgot to reconnect the patient's oxygen tube.

This is dangerous.

What's worse the administration installed microwave cellular antennas on the hospital, creating an unsafe environment despite decades of international research and warnings from medical doctors and scientists on the toxicity of this radiation, especially to children and babies.

These antennas radiate into the rooms of ill people, the central court, and impact the birthing center.

Montage also installed public industrial grade microwave Wi-Fi, despite this being completely unnecessary.

This radiation is a carcinogen, it damages DNA, the brain, the immune system, the blood, the heart, the cells in our bodies.

It dysregulates, sickens, and it kills.

It's linked to stroke, heart attacks, seizures, electromagnetic sensitivity, and other life-threatening conditions.

And how many have had health complications because of this radiation exposure, including stroke at the hospital?

5G seems especially toxic.

The Army said in 1989 that microwave in the range of one to five gigahertz penetrates all organ systems of the body and thus puts every organ system at risk.

Newborns and babies are especially vulnerable to injury and death from this radiation, but also children, pregnant women, and the seriously ill.

The antennas harm staff, the nursing home next door, and the homes around the hospital, including mine.

This violates the Hippocratic Oath.

Your hospital is unsafe, and I don't have access to community hospital anymore because I'm disabled by electromagnetic sensitivity, like a growing number of the community.

Montage Health also required employees to have COVID vaccines, despite the evidence of high numbers of health problems and deaths from the vaccines.

International physicians and researchers warning about the components and side effects, safe and inexpensive treatments that we're working and saving lives, and the high-sorry, your time is up.

All right, thank you to our public speakers.

Um Mike, thanks again for coming to present.

Do you have any closing remarks before we very much?

All right, awesome.

Thank you again for presenting today.

All right, and with that, we're gonna go ahead and move to general public comments.

Um, this is for an opportunity for the public to speak on non-agendized items.

So if it's on tonight's agenda, this is not the time to speak.

This is general public comment for non-agendized items.

I'm gonna go ahead and start with folks on Zoom.

If you can work your way to the raise hand function as you're navigating your way there, I'll check in the chamber.

Anybody in the chamber wishes to speak for a general public comment?

Just ask that you stand up to the left of the podium.

I see three.

I see three speakers.

Anybody else in the chamber?

All right, we'll cut off to the three in the chamber.

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

There's nobody on Zoom, so we'll go ahead and start in the chamber.

Good evening or afternoon, as the case may be.

Dan Turner, Monterey Fisherman's Flats, and welcome to, I believe it's chapter six of the sidewalk saga, the story of one man's efforts to get the sidewalk two doors up from him fixed.

I left for the Sports Center at 8 30 yesterday morning.

And when I got home at about three, oh Mr.

Hall, I was speaking to Bill Rothschild, he's the director of the Sports Center last week, and I told him that I had met you, and he said he hadn't met you.

I really encourage you if you haven't been over there, give Bill a call, go over and meet him.

Nice fellow, and see the Sports Center.

It really should be called a sports palace.

Maybe you guys could change the name to the Monterey Sports Palace.

But anyway, back to my story.

I get home at three o'clock yesterday, and my wife says, You should have heard the noise out there this morning.

And I said, Well, what was it?

She said, I went outside and they were grinding on the sidewalk, two doors up.

So I must admit that at times I almost lost faith that it would happen.

But there it is, it's nice and smooth.

If anyone falls there, it's their own damn fault.

And I I really appreciate it.

And this being public works week or month or year or whatever it is, even though it's a private contract who does it's still it wouldn't happen without Billy and the rest of the people up there.

So thank you very much.

And uh I uh I'll miss you guys, but but uh but at least at least you won't have to look at my ugly mug anymore.

I was literally gonna ask you, is there gonna be a seventh series?

So thank you for your public comments.

And to our broadcast team, we have something coming up on our um document camera.

If you could make sure to show that, please.

Um, I suppose you might recognize the I suppose you might recognize that's the configuration of the uh trolley.

Um I have a concern about the trolley, uh, which and the stakeholders are just the city and the aquarium.

Um I realize if you if you look at it, you'll see that it doesn't go anywhere near the historic area.

Um, either at the end of Alvarado Street, far end at the uh convention center, uh, the whaling uh the whaling station.

Um, and I'm just I I looked at it to see if it might be adjusted so that it took in more of Monterey.

Um, and so this route actually, the existing one is blue.

I don't know if you can see the yellow very well, uh, but that is the idea of of and not the yellow dots uh so much but uh running either with the existing route or independent of it going down Pacific Street for instance um and then coming down um and crossing uh passing through uh on much of the city route, coming down to uh Washington and going into the the large parking lot, um, running along towards the whaling station and coming out in an area um on Scott Street, which is now closed, but if there were a bus going through there, people would just have a sudden aha about how wonderful how much history there is there, and it is still accessible uh to Fisherman's Wharf.

The blue line just right there, you can see it's rather convoluted, it takes a lot of going, and this route that I'm proposing um is actually a little bit shorter than the blue route, and it would run on the same schedule, um, uh the same timing, so that it seems that it would be probably the major expense would be providing some kind of stickers to put on the existing maps to show a difference of um approach.

You have a minute left.

Oh, uh well, I'm not sure what else to say.

I I I hadn't really prepared very uh very well.

There are the yellow dots which show the uh places where people pick up the bus, and most of them would still be um this most of them would still be valid.

Um I have a couple of copies if uh if anybody's interested in um in asking me for one, and if there are any questions, I'd really appreciate it.

I would like the city council to take up this matter.

It does it is under the city council and the aquarium to make a decision like this.

Thank you for the presentation.

Thank you.

All right, uh good afternoon, Mayor and Council members.

Uh I wanted to take a moment and introduce an important visitor that we have, um, Mary Dotson, who's visiting the city as part of a fellowship program through ICMA.

Uh this program is designed to link senior military employees through local cities and look at breakdown silos between our two organizations to further our understanding of each other's scope of work, challenges, strengths, opportunities, and so much more.

Uh Miss Mary Donson uh was assigned as uh Chief of Public Works and Logistics MCOM directorate over sustainment in March of 2020.

In this position, she is responsible for the execution installation management programs for 32 active US Army installations and joint bases supporting Army Material Command, Army Futures Command, and Military District of Washington.

Uh Miss Dotson provides expert public works advice to garrison teams, the support of over 650,000 service members, family members, retirees, and civilians.

She oversees the public works engineering construction, master planning, municipal services, utilities, and energy portfolio through an annual billion dollar plus operating budget.

She provides regional governance, business transformation, strategic communication, technical engineering, and logistics guidance to assigned army installations made up of 72,000 army facilities, consisting over 150 million square feet with the plant replacement value of 230 billion.

So quite a big job.

We are super happy to host her, and we're excited to teach her all about the city of Monterey and the vast history that we have and help further our partnership between us uh and the military.

So awesome.

Well, thank you.

Welcome.

Enjoy all the best.

When do you leave?

Friday.

Okay.

All right, it's a quick one.

Absolutely.

So Mayor Council, thank you for hosting me in your beautiful city to the residents um and to the team, sir.

Again, you're just in a quick couple of days.

The professionalism, uh, the passion for service and you know, passion for collaboration comes uh comes through.

So thank you.

But on top of it all, you get to enjoy uh some beautiful weather that we have here in Monterey.

So you thank you, thank you for it.

Come back any time.

And say say again where you live.

Uh Redstone Arsenal, Huntsville, Alabama.

Okay.

And so were you at ADC?

Uh yes.

Uh, okay.

Good.

I just didn't pick you out of the crowd of 800 people.

I was not at AC this year.

No, sir.

Oh, okay.

Okay.

Well, you'll bring her all up to speed on that one.

Yeah.

Okay, good.

Awesome.

Thank you.

Um with that, because there was none online, correct?

That's right.

So we'll go ahead and close general public comment.

And at this time we're going to transition over to consent agenda.

Um I haven't received a report of a request to pull anything.

Council, do you wish to pull anything?

Uh 11.

Yeah.

All right.

11.

Anything else?

Okay.

Staff just want to reaffirm there's been nothing else since the.

Okay.

All right.

So we're gonna go ahead and pull 11 at this time.

We're gonna open up for public comment.

This is an opportunity for folks to speak on um consent items unless you request to pull an item um other than 11, because we're gonna go ahead and pull eleven.

Um, so this is an opportunity for you to let us know.

So we'll start with folks on Zoom.

If you're on Zoom, you can use the raise hand function.

While you're navigating your way there, I'll check in the chamber.

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

You can stay there.

You're good.

You're good.

Anybody else?

And then all items.

This is consent specifically.

Or maybe just give them the numbers.

Yeah, items one through 12.

I'm sorry, not one through twelve.

Three through twelve, um, with the exception of eleven.

If that's helpful at all.

I don't know.

Okay.

All right.

I'm only seeing one taker in the chamber.

So go ahead and cut off to the one taker and I'll do a countdown for folks on Zoom to five, four, three, two, one.

Nobody on Zoom.

We'll go ahead and start with our speaker in the chamber.

Good afternoon.

Uh, request to pull as uh considering a jangle number uh number nine.

Number nine, okay.

We'll go ahead and pull that and you'll be able to come up separately to speak on that one.

Great, thank you.

Awesome.

Yes, sir.

And actually, you may want to stay right there because we're gonna jump right to that here after we do this vote.

So, bring it back to the council.

Is there motion?

I'll make a motion that we approve uh everything except for nine and eleven.

Second, as it moved and seconded.

Any other discussion?

All right, all those in favor, aye, any opposed.

Motion passes unanimously.

With that, we'll move to item number nine.

Give me one second here.

Item nine is to accept the traffic signal warrant evaluation and approve the removal of the traffic signal at Prescott Avenue and Taylor Street.

Um what we'll do is we'll go ahead and start with uh public comment just to kind of get a good sense of what direction you're looking for here.

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

Um anybody else in the chamber wish to speak on item nine.

All right, not seeing any.

I'll cut it off to the one speaker and I'll do a countdown for folks on Zoom to five, four, three, two, one.

Nobody on Zoom, so we'll go ahead and start in the chamber.

Good afternoon.

Um I'm sure you guys don't know me.

Uh, name is Steve Wilson.

Um I've been a resident of Monterey since 1966, which is 60 years of being a property owner in New Monterey since 1971.

First house is at the corner of Prescott.

I mean, I'm sorry.

Side person Irving, and then I moved down to Prescott and Pine.

Uh I think everybody in the audience would probably know that house if I described it.

Anyway, I've been there for a long time.

I'm also a um a civil engineer, you know, licensed land surveyor.

Um I've had an engineering license in California for 50 years.

Um, my first engineering job was from 1965 through 67, the city of Monterey.

That worked up there.

Awesome.

Anyway, uh, what I'm here is to.

We're recruiting, by the way.

Pardon me?

We're recruiting.

Sorry, continue, please.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Um I'm I I'm here really to to urge you not to make a mistake by approving that uh that resolution.

Uh I I I brought with me a report uh that was done for the city of Pleasanton.

Um, it's uh focused on multi-way stop signs.

That's four-way stop signs.

And it makes a lot of sense.

Um, and I don't know if you I brought copies for everybody.

I don't know if we have the time resource to to read that, but we it's it's very uh very helpful.

Um the the problem here is that uh Taylor Street used to be one of the presidio entrances, and as such had a warrant for traffic signals, traffic signal, yeah.

Remy closed off, uh closed off that street.

So Prescott, I mean Taylor now does nothing more than any of the other side streets that uh uh that basically serve residential area.

And to put a stop sign uh on Prescott is really counterproductive to good traffic management.

It doesn't make sense from an economic standpoint uh to to do that.

It's gonna cost uh the citizens of people that use that street uh uh a waste of time, waste of money.

Uh and it uh it it just doesn't make sense to make everybody stop uh at Prescott.

You're inconveniencing a lot of people.

The problem that we have is there was a neighborhood meeting, 20 people show up, almost everybody that in fact everybody without exception that said they wanted a four-way stop sign, mentioned the word speed in conjunction with a four-way stop.

A stop sign is not a speed control device, it should not be.

So I again I think it would be a big mistake to approve this.

And I would urge you to uh uh to take the time to do a little further study.

Thank you, sir, for your public comment.

Alright, with that, we'll go ahead and close public comment, and I'll ask staff to come up and um provide a response if uh in their in their choosing based off of the public comment.

Please, but they might also do a mini presentation because since we pulled it.

I've got a few slides if you're ready.

Um here's the good evening or good afternoon, uh mayor and council members.

Um so this item is not the approval of any sort of construction.

So this is really to provide staff direction um on the path forward.

So when we started this project, it's an existing um uh signalized intersection, and we had the opportunity to upgrade the signal, um, go with an all-way stop control or a side street stop control, and that's where Taylor Street would be the only side that's stopping.

At this time, staff is recommending an all-way stop control as it is a logical step down from a signalized intersections in many circumstances as you move towards um signalizing an intersection, you'll go from side street to an all-way stop to a signal.

So we're um saying at this point in time, let's go reverse.

Um by choosing to go with an all-way stop at this time, you're not precluding yourself from doing a side street stop.

Um, as our staff has been discussing a lot, is we will be designing this in a way that should we decide that an all-way stop is no longer suitable, we can do that step down to an side street stop and put in an RRFB at an appropriate location at that time.

Um we do need direction from you today because we do need to move forward in order to have this implemented by April 2029, um, which we have to meet a few settlement agreement deadlines.

Um, but when we made the decision to do an all-way stop, speed was not a factor that we looked at.

We looked at it as a logical step down in terms of um knowing who had right-away at the intersection, and the major uh focus was pedestrians due to the quantity of pedestrians that exit from the Taylor Street Gate to Campagna's local neighborhood deli.

So, and I will turn it back to you.

Thank you for the quick presentation.

Questions, comments from the council, please.

Yeah, thank you very much.

And looking at the map, and I'm familiar with that intersection, um two two corners are offset.

Yes, so do you anticipate that if we did go to uh at some point in the future just a two-way stop with Prescott being a through traffic?

Do you think that this will require any adjustment to the curb sides that are offset?

So we actually are looking at kind of to create a bigger landing area and taking back some of that space with the current conceptual design.

Um we have not done any sort of final design, so that's still up for discussion, but um it would not be an issue.

We're we're essentially designing it today so that it would work in either circumstance in the future.

Okay, and and of course you have to study it, and we know that we have pedestrians and standards change for corners, ADA.

Is it currently in compliance with ADA?

It is currently not in compliance with ADA, which is why we have that um strict deadline of April 2029.

Um, another reason why we really strongly recommended against upgrading the signal was if we were to go with that option, it would be a sizable improvement.

I'm I'm sure you've been to the sports center, uh, the sports palace, I guess.

Um, and so those signals are very, very large, and those would be the type of signals that you could expect to see at that intersection.

And so it doesn't really fit within the character of a neighborhood like that.

The other uh reason why we recommended against it is if we went with a traffic signal, which would not be supported by the volume of traffic, we would have to take right away, and that's something that we really did not want to do.

So, okay, great.

Thanks for the additional information.

Um, so is there a cost difference between the uh allway stop and the side street stop as far as what what is that cost difference?

So if I can recall uh right off the top of my head, it's around the 70 to 80,000 dollar mark.

It's actually more expensive to do the side street stop control because the RRFB is an electrical device, and so that's the expense cost.

Um, so versus an all-way stop, it's just a poll and a sign.

So it's actually a cheaper option.

Uh, we but we are definitely considering if that's something we want to do in the future or if that's something we want to do right now, we can we will have the option.

Okay, thank you.

And so because I know that it it does get busy at lunchtime because of the the deli.

Um, so that's why I was curious about that part, but you're saying it's $70,000 more to do the to do the side street.

Is that correct?

Yes, it's approximately that much.

Okay, all right, thank you.

So you mentioned that uh the logical progression would be going from signalized to an always stop.

Um in terms of risk, what would be that risk from going to from a signalized to only a side street stop?

So there's uh benefits and drawbacks with either option.

So one of the um issues that sometimes can happen is I believe with signalized intersections, and Andrew, I might pull you in on this one, is that when it's unwarranted, the amount of people that run the red light, because they're especially on the side street waiting for it.

Um so with an all-way stop, it's gonna more directly and quickly serve.

Um we're not seeing the quantity of volume that we saw when the base was open, and we examined it both while the base was active and while it was shut down and saw about an 80% drop in traffic on the Taylor Street, the side serving the um actual gate.

So you're with an all-way stop, it actually serves pedestrians a lot more quickly because they're not having to wait.

So, I'll just jump in real quick.

So, in terms of risk, I really don't want to speculate on collision potential, different intersectional configurations.

There are trade-offs and what types of collisions you might see.

But as Marissa was saying in our presentation, the step down from a signal operations right now, it's in flashing red.

Um, so drivers are kind of used to and accustomed to stopping at the intersection, a step down to an uh standard stop signs is what drivers are already used to and comfortable.

So we could continue to evaluate it in the future.

We come back, you know, six months from now, once people uh acclimated to the all-way stop configuration and say, you know, hey, people are really stopping, we don't have the side street volumes uh that really justify that all-way stop configuration.

We could come back at a later time and say, okay, now that people have gotten used to the signal being removed, uh, we would want to recommend a two-way stop.

So in terms of risk management, we're just thinking this is the natural progression.

Uh it's not to say that would preclude us from the future coming back and saying we want to, you know, uh remove the stop signs from Prescott and just have a two-way stop patrol in Taylor.

Um, so this this could just be like an interim solution.

Yeah, no, thank you.

And that's exactly where I was headed because I've seen I and I've experienced um not in Monterey, uh another city where that happened.

Folks were used to uh seeing a signal, and uh and then when it went away, uh they were still stopping, right?

Because there was some lineage or lineage, right?

Some lines drawn out in the intersection.

People were still stopping when they had the the right-of-way.

So just kind of thinking through that.

So thank you.

It made sense to me when I read it.

Uh, you're going from a signal to uh a four-way stop, which just makes a lot of sense for the pedestrians, and it doesn't preclude the the great comment from the from the uh member of the public that we could still go down to to two later when and you're continuing to train everybody to stop and and that safe and we're on the right track.

I'm in support.

All right, well, it's still with the council, so is anybody want to try to make a motion?

Um you want to make a motion?

I make a motion.

We accept the traffic signal warrant evaluation as is.

Sorry.

Did you want to say all right?

So moving to second in any other discussion.

All right, all those in favor?

Aye, any opposed?

Motion passes unanimously.

With that, move on to item 11 is to approve installation of public trash.

I'm sorry, yes, approved installation of public trash receptacle are on fisherman's wharf.

With that, I'll pass this to Don Safer Staff presentation.

Actually, I'm sorry.

Let me start with Ed.

Ed, you requested this to be pulled.

What's which what are you looking at here?

Uh a very brief presentation and overview because I think the public will be very interested about why we're doing this.

Thank you, Mayor.

Another time for the city manager to introduce uh Brian Edwards.

Thank you.

And I'll turn it over to Brian Airwards to provide a pretty brief presentation answer your questions.

Thank you, sure.

Um, thank you, council members, and thank you, Mayor.

Sorry, but getting my voice back.

Um, yeah, so we are looking at got contacted with the fisherman's wharf association.

We're looking at wrapping the kind of we have the plain trash cans all around um Fisherman's Wharf, and this is a beautification project that would be coming from the Tidelands Trust.

And the Tidelands Trust is all of the tenants on there.

They are paying into Tide Lands Trusts for repairs, maintenance all along the wharf area.

So this would use historic art from cannery labels, and we would put them on a rolled aluminum.

So it would be something that's um, you know, high quality and something that was just be a good product to put to kind of beautify that site all along, and there's a thank you, Nat for that.

That's an example of one of the trash cans right there, the portroll.

So it's highlighting our local fishing industry with different um labels from this region all along there.

And this is just an example of different labels, yeah.

Right over there that we have.

We have seven different labels that we've looked at right now with uh Bob Wecker and um Wendy Brickman is in here, and the I'll say the business owners are very interested on the wharf.

They're very interested in having this as a beautification on those nine trash cans that we have currently on that wharf property.

But we also had them create a map currently of where the trash cans are along there, and it's just a beautification project for our one of our most traveled sites here in Monterey.

Happy to answer any questions on it too.

Yeah, I've got just one question.

Um, I think that the labels are great, it's a slice of our history.

I'm not really in love with the one that's got L Carmel, because I don't want to advertise our competition.

Uh, but I understand it's a piece of our uh our former uh packing companies.

Uh I just want to give a little background um about this, and I'm glad that you were here to represent this because I think the connection between the historical significance of this is great.

One question.

How long do you think this will take to roll out?

I know what's displayed on or was displayed up there was a pilot that was produced originally by the Wharf Association.

How long do you think it'll take to get this underway and get all of our cans wrapped?

Um I don't know if Wendy might know on that.

I thought we were looking at it was a pretty quick turnaround when I talked to when we were on the on the phone with the designer of it.

Um I think one thing I want to look at prior to us doing the install is just like a we just want to make sure we've got our city logo on it, you know, just putting on some kind of language and getting making sure we get all of that approved internally, so people know it's not just a can, it's also, you know, that's a garbage can.

Like, you know, we want to make sure that people's like keep Monterey Bay plastic free or some kind of language like that.

We'll get that work worked out, and with the vendor, hopefully we can get it done within two to three months.

That was kind of yeah.

Just right on the heels of uh summer starting, it'd be great to be able to launch that before we get into the the heart of uh you know the consumers walking by it.

Yeah, yeah.

Thank you.

That's the only questions I have.

Any other questions?

All right, we'll open up for public comment.

Anyone on Zoom, you can use a raise hand function.

Anybody in the chamber wish to speak on this item?

See one ticker.

Anybody else?

All right.

So we'll cut it off to the one speaker, and I'll do a countdown for folks on Zoom to five, four, three, two, one.

And we have one on Zoom.

We'll go ahead and start in the chamber.

Hi, Wendy.

Hi, good afternoon, everyone, and thank you for the opportunity to speak on this topic.

I'm Wendy Brickman, president of Fisherman's Wharf Association.

And on behalf of the association, I would like to express our strong support for the proposed public trash receptacle art project on Old Fisherman's Wharf.

We believe it's very creative and culturally appropriate.

It's a project that celebrates Monterey's rich history and fishing and cannery history through colorful and educational historic sardine label artwork.

Not only will the project enhance the visual appeal of old fisherman's wharf, but it will also encourage visitors to properly dispose of trash by making the receptacles much more noticeable and inviting.

It's a thoughtful way to combine public art, local history, and practical improvements for residents and visitors alike.

We also appreciate that this project will utilize Tide Lands Trust funds, which are specifically intended to improve the waterfront area.

Finally, we want to thank Brian Edwards, the city's library and museum director, along with everyone involved in bringing this idea forward and collaborating with Wharf stakeholders throughout the process.

And I would just say I spoke to somebody from Mountain View today, and I said, Oh, you know, so excited about the Islav.

He didn't know anything.

So this will be a way to educate our visitors.

He grew up in Mountain View, knew nothing about sardine canneries.

So we're proud to support this initiative and hope you will do the same.

Thank you.

Alright, with that, we'll go to our caller in Zoom.

Esther, you can go ahead.

Thank you.

Good afternoon again.

Um, this is wonderful.

I think that they they look fabulous, and there's absolutely no reason why we haven't had this this already.

It's kind of a no-brainer.

Um, but uh I want to just comment on the public art part of it.

Um I see that this is going to be paid for by funds, you know, the Tide Lands funds, but the public art in this city should not be limited to the areas that tourists visit only.

I have been for years trying to get something similar to what is on all the electrical boxes, downtown Monterey.

There are some uh marine uh themed paintings that were done by, I don't know if the art council was involved or not, but I've been trying for years to get that expanded into our neighborhoods, particularly Villa Del Monte and my neighborhood.

And the previous city manager kept putting us off and said that it was, you know, gonna happen, and here we are with nothing.

And they're they're really ugly.

And while I'm thrilled to see you guys concentrate on expanding the public art that you have going on downtown and in Cantery Row or anywhere else that tourists are, that shouldn't only be the areas that get this kind of attention.

So I'm not sure who would be the one to have taken this over and what conversations the previous city manager had had with who, but I believe that the rest of the city deserves the same attention when it comes to public art and beautifying our our streets.

So hopefully that will be something that can be addressed.

Thank you.

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

I'll make a uh motion if I could with a comment first.

It's been mo it's been moved.

Is there a second?

All right, Ed, please.

Yeah, just briefly thank you, Wendy and the Wharf Association for coming up with the idea to do something about this.

And I want to give kudos to the city manager's office uh before Dante arrived.

This was sort of in the folder and assigned to Brian.

But I think it's a great approach with a great idea, and I see no reason why this couldn't expand to other parts of the city.

Uh and but funding is always the case, and we're lucky that we have the the natural funding here.

Maybe this is the model in the pilot that we can look to other parts of the community as well.

But I wanted to say uh appreciations to uh two of our uh police partners on the wharf that really sat down and said we got to do something, and that's Chris Shake, and that was Dominica uh uh Cafe Fiend and Domenico's um Dominic McCurio.

So kudos to those because they recognized that there was a need here and uh brought it to uh Lou uh Bauman to be able to get this to Brian and then Brian to move it along rather quickly.

So thank you all for the idea and moving this ahead.

So with that, wait for the vote.

All right, any other comments?

All right, all those in favor?

Aye, any opposed?

Motion passes unanimously.

With that, we'll go to our public hearing items 13 on the agenda is adopt city fee schedule.

That'll pass it to Dante for staff presentation.

Thank you, Mayor and City Council.

Um tonight the council is being asked to adopt a new master fee schedule.

Um, and it's based on a comprehensive study to ensure that the fees reflect the true cost of services that are being provided.

Um, and the fee adjustments are uh designed to achieve cost recovery um as much as we can.

So the action tonight, um, after council receives the presentation, we're asking to approve the resolution to adopt the county uh citywide master fee schedule effective for this next fiscal year.

Um our um director of finance, um Dr.

Director King, I keep saying Dr.

King.

It's Director King, um, has been working hard on this, and I believe uh she will say a few words and also uh introduce um someone to provide a presentation for us.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council.

Not to give me about two years, maybe three.

Be Dr.

King.

Create the reality, right?

Okay, so Dante has said pretty much what I wanted to say.

I just want you to know so every year we update the master fee schedule.

Um we do an internal val evaluation of all the fees.

Um, we bring it to you around this time in May every year before we adopt the budget.

Best practices is that we do internal annually and that we do um a comprehensive study um by professional firm every five years.

It's been the last time we did one, it was 2013.

So we have writed that um that date and got it updated.

We engage Will Dan to conduct the comprehensive user fee study, and they're going to be presenting on their methodology and results.

Um like Dante said, we are recommending the acceptance of the report and the adoption of the master the new master fee schedule effective July one, and just um cost-wise, we're looking at an increase in charges and fee studies of maybe about six percent, which would equate to about maybe 1.2 to one point five million.

We did have staff when we did um our normal projections kind of give modest updates of what they thought it was gonna be, but this is prior to um the completion of the study.

So with that, I would like to turn it over to Priti Patel, who should be online.

Can you have a presentation?

I just want to do a quick check-in.

Do we know how long the present their presentation is?

I asked for 15 minutes.

Yeah, can we reduce that?

That's a long presentation.

Is there a way that we can what's the person's name?

Pretty.

Come on.

If you just have a methodology, hi.

Is it possible for you to give us a truncated version of your presentation?

I apologize for we're just running a little bit tight on our agenda here and want to make sure that we move along pretty quickly.

Sounds good.

We'll pass it to you to go ahead and lead off your presentation.

Okay.

Uh good afternoon, Mayor and Council members.

Uh next slide, please.

So what are user fees?

User fees apply to voluntary services providing a private benefit.

State law requires fees to be reasonable and proportionate to cost.

User fee levels are established through city council adoption and are intended to recover the cost of services provided.

These do not include taxes, utility rates, or impact fees.

Next slide, please.

Why update user fees?

When user fees do not recover the full cost of providing a service, the general fund subsidizes those services.

This reduces available funding for broader community priorities, such as public safety, community programs, and special events.

Over time, continued subsidies can impact service levels and responsiveness.

Updating the user fees allow the city to better understand cost recovery, plan for future service delivery, and ensure compliance with state law.

Next slide, please.

The objective of the study is to determine the full cost of providing city services and evaluate whether current fees align with those costs.

This includes reviewing existing fee schedules, identifying outdated obsolete fees, and evaluating whether new fees should be added.

The study also incorporates policy direction by identifying appropriate levels of cost recovery, recognizes the subsidies may be appropriate in certain cases.

All recommended fees are structured to remain legally compliant and consistent with city goals.

Next slide, please.

The study evaluates services and fees across multiple departments and divisions that are listed on the slide.

Each develop or each department was reviewed individually to ensure that the unique nature of its services and operations were accurately reflected in this analysis.

Next slide, please.

The analysis relied on detailed financial and operation data provided by the city.

This included expenditure data, staffing levels, indirect and overhead costs, productive billable hours, and estimated time required to complete tasks.

City staff participation was critical throughout the process to validate assumptions, confirm workflows, and ensure accuracy.

This collaborative approach helps ensure the results reflect how services are actually delivered.

Next slide, please.

This slide summarizes the overall methodology used in the user fee study.

The study followed a structured process beginning with building the user fee study model.

Then we met up with staff to review and update fee schedules.

We then calculated the full cost of delivery using fully burdened costs and time inputs from staff.

These calculated costs were then compared to the existing fee amounts to determine whether services are undercovering, fully recovering, or over recovering costs.

Finally, fee recommendations were developed based on the cost analysis, city policies and applicable state law with final adoption decisions reserved for city council.

Next slide, please.

This slide describes how user fees are structured and calculated as part of the study.

Fee structures vary depending on the type of service provided.

Some fees are flat based and calculated using fully burdened hourly rates, while others are valuation, deposit or actual cost base.

Next slide, please.

This slide illustrates the components that make up the full cost of a service.

Costs include not only salaries and benefits, but also services and supplies, indirect support, and system and maintenance costs.

Accounting for all the cost components ensures that fees reflect the true cost of service delivery and comply with state requirements.

Next slide, please.

Fully burdened rates are the foundation of the cost analysis used in this study.

These rates account for direct work time as well as indirect support.

Using fully burdened rates ensures that all resources involved in delivering as services are captured even when multiple departments are involved.

And then the next few slides just show um each of the analysis for all of the uh departments.

So we can just kind of skip through these to the last one.

Well, while these are going through, I'll just share with folks that the slides are available online.

So if you want to take a deeper look at those, those are available publicly to you.

So it's a general principle.

Services that provide a private benefit should recover 100% of their cost.

However, subsidies can be effective policy tool in certain situations, such as encouraging participation, ensuring compliance, or maintaining access for residents.

It is recommended that the city consider an annual inflation factor to fee, such as C uh CPI to avoid large future increases.

A comprehensive fee study is also recommended every five years to ensure continued alignment with costs and policy objectives.

And that's the end of the slide.

Thank you for your flexibility there in shortening that.

You did an amazing job.

Um council questions.

Please, Dr.

Barber.

Uh yes, thank you so much for uh the report.

Just a quick uh question.

Uh the comp study that you were talking about for every five years.

We did one this time, and then is so the next one would be the next five years.

Is that what my understanding?

Yes, that's correct.

Okay, thank you.

And did you have something that you wanted to jump in there on?

Yes, um, I'm just looking at the uh delineated under uh parking permits, but a parking permit is different than a parking citation.

So I wanted to call out.

I think there was a summary page, and I don't remember where I saw that.

Is there an increase on a parking fine?

Pretty much that portion is just to codify what was approved by council last November.

Okay, so currently, if uh I get a parking ticket for overtime downtown, it's forty-eight dollars.

Is this causing that to increase beyond the 48 dollars?

I'd have to look at the actual citation part.

So, yeah, I'm just I can't remember where I saw it, but I think it said with the exception of a parking parking citation.

Is anybody know?

No, we've all three more five.

Okay.

Yeah, maybe we just go on to other council members' questions and we can come back to that.

Chrissy will know.

Please, Stepy.

Yes.

I was just gonna add to that that that one is the master fee schedule for our permits uh rate and also our fees, but the um citations fall under the administrative find schedule, which is a separate schedule, okay.

And that schedule is not tonight.

That's it.

All right, thank you.

That answered it.

Any other questions?

Please.

Hi.

There were some areas where I looked where there could have been full cost recovery where there wasn't like certification of documents and the flash drives and the notaries.

Is there a reason that we didn't increase those to full cost?

I'm gonna have I think some of those um I know it's a hassle.

I mean, there's a hassle factor to it.

You can answer on the notary, the notary fee is limited by state law.

We can't charge more than $15 per signature.

But we oh we are charging 15.

Thank you.

Do you have any other questions?

Oh well, yeah.

So we could go the certification of documents cost 20.

So why are we why aren't we charging 20?

I mean when we're looking for money.

We bought it for yeah.

What packet page are you looking at?

I'm on page one ninety three, sorry.

And then the it looks like we're given the flash drive away, which the flash drive should be at at cost.

So the the same amount that the city pays for the flash drive is what we would have them pay.

Okay, oh okay.

So some of these are drived by the city code.

Okay, okay.

So that's presuming that that's passed on then.

Got it.

Okay.

So we're we're still at the certification of documents.

Current fee is a dollar, full cost is 20.

We're subsidizing it 95% when I think we could get more.

I'm just looking for more money.

Because what I really want to say is um the appeals hearing boards, disabled access appeals boards, and buildings, housing appeals boards stayed the same at 881.

But to get to the appeal from planning to city council, went up to 4180, which makes me uncomfortable to get from the appeals from the staff, zoning administration to planning commission is 2511.

That doesn't bother me as much as getting to city council.

Um, I don't have to pay $4,000 to get an appointment with Jimmy Panetta as a normal person, not as an elected, to tell him I have a problem.

Um I just feel our our residents should be able to get an appeal to city council for less than $4,100.

Um, and I'm trying to find extra money to pack in there.

Maybe we could um raise the 881 for the appeals to uh boards, raise that someone somewhat and bring the cost of getting to our city council down to to where it has been.

I'm I'm just uncomfortable charging so much for the public to have access to um their elected representatives.

Councilman Rush, I think that we're getting more into the debate of the topic, and so maybe we can pick this up when we come back from public comment.

Did you have any other questions for staff at this time?

No, uh, no.

Okay, all right.

Thank you.

With that, we're gonna go ahead and open up for public comment for folks on Zoom.

You can use a raise hand function.

Anybody in the chamber wish to speak on this item is asking up to the left of the podium.

I see one taker.

Anybody else?

We'll cut it off to the one.

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

And there's one on Zoom.

We'll go ahead and start in the chamber.

I agree with uh council member Ash's comment about the appeal amount, too.

I think that's it's it's almost like a poll tax in a way to to charge people that much money for an appeal.

But my my major observation was when I was going through this in the in the foundational numbers that support all these are the hourly rates, the burden, what they call the fully burdened hourly rates, which in my opinion really aren't fully burdened because it doesn't include the amortization of the buildings that people are in, the utilities.

If you're a private enterprise, you have to pay the lease, you have to pay the cam charges, you have to pay the insurance on the building, you've got all these other overheads.

So I called around to some local engineering firms.

City engineer fully burden rate $328 an hour.

Principal for a private engineering firm, $290 an hour.

That's their fully burden rate.

That pays their leases, their insurance, the whole enchilada.

Uh senior engineer at the city of Monterey, $303 an hour.

Private sector $225.

It's 35% higher here in the city than it is for the private sector.

And it goes on.

The associate civil engineer 257 at the city 205 for the private sector.

But I think when it comes to your budget deliberations that are upcoming, you need to circle back to this and look at grounding hourly rates, or at least checking in with the private sector to say how are we comparing with the private sector?

And why is it that we're so much higher?

Is it the overhead?

My my sense is that it's not the engineers who are coming home with a bunch of money in their pocket.

I know that's not the case.

So it's the overburden.

It's the accountants, it's the Dante, it's the city attorney, it's all the other adds to that.

Um so an observation, another observation I had is uh having worked upstairs, there's a thing called a certificate of compliance that we would regularly process, and then there's a lot merger process.

Well, for some reason, the certificate of compliance is double the cost of a lot merger.

Yet it's the same actually.

I would say that the uh certificate of compliance takes almost as much time because you have to go through the title report.

You have to see what kind of exceptions there are to the title, if there's any non-conformances, because even though it's called a certificate of compliance, you have to list all the non-compliances on the parcel.

So I know it you sound you're probably thinking, well, you're picking it nits here, Tom, but it it shows me that if that one data point is off a bit, the whole process might be a little bit suspect and take a closer look at those things.

Thank you.

Thank you.

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

Yes, we've got Lori.

Laura, you can unmute and go ahead.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

Um, yeah, after reviewing the fee study and proposed schedule, I think that we need to all understand this isn't simply routine administrative update, at least not how I saw it, this whole aggressive policy movement toward full cost recovery across city services and continued shifting all operational costs onto residents, businesses, and applicants, and property owners.

Um the report repeatedly references reducing the general funds subsidy subsidization and the maximizing cost recovery.

And some of these increases are substantial.

It stated that uh administrative service fees increased on average by 98%, building division fees increased on average by 139%, 38 planning division fees increased.

And at the time the resolution authorizes these future CPI fee increase administratively.

And yeah, and I'm gonna get on that.

Jean talked a little bit about it, but I was I'm directly affected by this because we just had a situation in our neighborhood.

Um, for me, one of the most concerning aspects was this appeal fee.

Uh, the proposed fee is for the planning commission to go to city councils now over $4,000.

And uh a home a couple doors down for me, set up for demolition, a rebuild project, the two-story house, rooftop deck, large basement, thousand square foot basement, a removal of Monterey Cypress tree, and I'll probably kill the one right next door in the property line.

Um we have we appealed as neighbors or tried to pool our resources, but the appeal cost was already three thousand dollars, and we couldn't even afford to pool our resources to do it.

Um so we just couldn't afford it.

So therefore, we did not directly have any ability to get to you and uh participate in the city appeal process, and that's concerning, and it should be a concerning for everybody because those are just um all everybody's right to try to participate and transparency and accountability and local government.

So if they become so high that only developers and corporations and wealthy people and realistic that they can only realistically have access, then ordinary residents lose meaningful access to review these important local divisions, uh local decisions that are gonna affect all of us, and also it uh, you know, these updated these increased fees reduce the demand for services.

Uh they make it so that a lot of people don't you want to they don't just don't do permits uh already there's a lot of neighbors around me over the last couple weeks that have put in sliding glass doors, replaced all their windows, um poured a new driveway, demoed their driveway, and there's no permits, and they're all doing it on the weekends because they want to avoid these fees, and I'm thinking that's even gonna be more the case if these fees keep going up.

Anyway, I'm out of time.

So I wrote a letter, you can go see it in the comments folder.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

We're going to close public comment.

Thank you to our two public commenters, bring it back to the council for motion and deliberation.

Well, just start us off.

Please so uh I'm I'm trying to make sure that I'm on the the exact page that there everybody is talking about dealing with the appeal because on page uh 194 in the packet for our the appeals for a hearing board where the current fee is uh that eight eighty one uh eight eight hundred and eighty one dollars fifty one cent, and then at the the death that fee eight hundred and eighty-one dollars and fifty-one cent, which is the full recovery, and then if you look at the um the building and how then appeals board appeals the same price, and if the death that's saying price and the recovery being a hundred percent.

Is there something different that you guys are talking about with appeals?

No.

Okay, so not with those.

Chrissy, did you want to jump in?

Uh if I may, um, just to clarify, so appeals before the appeals hearing board generally might be um uh denial of a permit to remove a tree, for example.

And I believe the appeals that council member rash is talking about are um appeal of a denial of a use permit before the planning commission would then come to the city council.

Um so it's a different type of an appeal, different levels of work are involved, and that's why there's such a difference in the cost.

All of the appeals, so that's specific appeal.

Correct.

Okay.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

You want me to say it again?

You don't have to re repeat yourself, but if you want to continue with where you were, that's right.

Well, I'll just say that going from the two thousand nine hundred and seventy-seven, which is the full cost, I understand that to get to the city council appealing uh the planning commission and going to 4180.

I I am uncomfortable.

Um I would like to see it stay at least the same.

I I want people to have access to the council.

Um, we're the elected officials.

I get all the other levels of permitting and um the other levels of appeals, and maybe we can offset it somewhere, but I want it accessible.

So I wouldn't I would make motion to keep number 47th, um number um 48, the appeals of decisions of planning commission to the city council just keep it at 2,977 and accept the rest of the recommendation.

Uh could you give me the page number that you have?

Yes, one ninety nine.

Okay.

Uh I think we're all kind of jumping around on the charts that are in it's a very extensive list.

So uh if the public can uh bear with us here, um the reason I mentioned the 881 is i i if if there was any appetite to raise that a little bit to offset keeping the appeal to city council lower, but I'm that's not the issue.

The issue is not the eight eighty-one, eight hundred and eighty one dollars for the lower appeals.

It's to get to city council for four four thousand one hundred and eighty dollars bothers me.

Could we have maybe somebody from the playing team, maybe Kim kind of describe why we're seeing such a larger increase there?

That might be helpful to have some context.

So as she's coming forward, uh I'll just take pick up come coming forward, Kim.

Um these are user fees, right?

And the council obviously has within your purview, you can subsidize as much as you want.

Um, you know, I I guess the philosophical question is for these user fees, should the public subsidize um those requests or fees for someone who wants to appeal a project of self-interest.

Again, um we cannot charge more than it cost us essentially.

So if it's at 100%, we can't go above 100% recovery.

But if we're subsidized, we can't go up to 100%.

But with that, I'll let um our directors talk a little bit more.

So I think that's a a great overview.

Um, right now we're proposing to recover 100% of the fee of the cost of um providing that service, and um it does get more complicated when you go from the planning commission to the city council, there's um typically significant legal review, staff time responding to all the comments, the reports get more complicated.

Um, and so I think it shows the complexity as we go up through the appellate process.

Um, in contrast, as uh Ms.

Dobby explained, when you go to the appeals hearing board and it's a single topic like a tree removal, it tends to be more focused with less public input.

Thank you for that.

Thank you both.

Um, and if if I recall correctly, the council dealt with this in the past where it was lower, and I think part of the problem we were seeing was maybe a little bit of an abuse of of that system, and and we were getting a lot of of appeals for the council to just basically uphold the decisions that were made.

Um, if I'm recalling that correctly, um, I guess I would describe it in the past.

There's a section of our municipal code that describes recovery, um, and in the past, appeal fees were subsidized by the city of Monterey.

And I don't remember the exact date, it's somewhere probably in the last five years.

The city council made the decision to change that recovery rate to a hundred percent to reflect the true cost.

Once again, looking at how to fund services in our community.

So I uh that's how I would characterize it is the city council made a policy choice to recover 100%.

Okay, awesome.

Thank you.

Thank you for that clarification.

Ed did you have any additional input.

There's a motion on the table, so I just wanted to kind of make sure we get to the motion that's been presented to us.

Yeah, and I'm gonna second I'll second so I can clean up so we can discuss.

Um, so I'm looking at packet page 199, which is I believe item number 40 uh permits extensions, and then it delineates, then talks about Jean, what you're talking about is the current appeal of a decision of the planning commission to get to the city council is currently a 29% recovery at 2,977.

The recommendation is to move to 4,180 to be fully covered.

Um I would like to compromise in there somewhere.

I think it I can't see us staying at the 29% subsidized.

I know it's a lot.

I'm just thinking back of the number of appeals that actually came to the council, so I I think that that number I could sustain and and I guess accept less than a hundred percent for that one only because I think that one does have a fundamental last rights of uh readdress, um, and certainly there is an encumbered cost for that appeal to come to the council, but there are other things that because it's already gone through the process through the city, I think there are more opportunities where it's not going to actually be a hundred percent that we need to recover.

Now, staff is probably going to be able to argue that, but I don't think we have that many, and I I would counter that instead of a hundred percent uh recovery, close the gap.

We're at twenty nine percent now.

I'd say I would be okay if we were at least collecting the 75%, that would make that uh less than the forty-one eighty, but more than the current just less than three.

There's a figure in there somewhere that I think it's like seventy-five percent, I'd be okay with on recovery.

I'd accept that friendly amendment, we can make it 3500.

Um, city manager, your comment if we made the recovery less than the hundred percent, but if we set that figure at say thirty, five hundred, and that's the item number 48 appeals of a decision of planning commission to get to the city council.

Yes, that's within council's purview.

Okay.

Um, Jean, was there anything else on your page?

Um, I want to go to page 193.

Um, and it there was something that stood out to me, and I just have to make sure I cover it.

Um if I'm I'm looking at the agenda packet subscription service council per year, and it's currently costing an individual who wants to get an email of the packet 238 dollars, and the proposal is because we are subsidizing 92 percent.

The proposal is three thousand eighty-seven dollars.

You can answer a question about that.

Well, let me ask the question.

The question is how many are we sending it?

How many how many participate in that as an annual?

And and then that fee I understand is a huge increase, but help me out understanding the increase.

Well, I do want to clarify that is not for emails.

Um we send emails for free.

We send them to hundreds and hundreds of people every single time we make a packet.

This is for mailing it, okay printing and mailing it.

And um, we have had some very large packets, and I did some pretty careful calculations on this one, and I know that fee looks really high, but that is the actual cost.

Okay.

So you're actually mailing a packet, yes, a box, boxes, to someone who needs it in a paper version.

Correct.

And it is free on our website, and we send those emails for free too.

So, if someone did want us to be printing all of that and spending the staff time in the paper and all of the postage and everything involved, then that is the actual cost.

Okay, and I appreciate the clarification because it's free for email.

Correct.

Okay.

Good.

Covered.

Okay.

Anybody else?

Um, what is the cost difference?

I don't mask.

If we go from 100% to 75% for the appeal.

Um what I think the proposal in the motion was a seven uh to cost of no set it at 3500.

35%.

Oh, I apologize.

I completely overlooked that.

What is this?

What is the 75% though?

30% or something like that.

I think it's a good one.

Yeah, 75% is 3135.

And if it's set at 3500, then that's at an 83.7% cost recovery.

And the make motion maker said she was okay with 3500.

Yeah.

Either one.

I just need some kind of some kind of give to improve access, arguably.

I I think the challenge I'm I I don't want to spend too much time on this.

I it it almost doesn't make too big of a difference in my mind.

And but my point is either way, like if somebody is lower income paying thirty-one hundred dollars for an appeal to me doesn't feel like much better than for forty-one hundred dollars.

So I don't know what we're trying to achieve by giving an appearance that we're trying to be more open.

Um, the process is open.

It it they go to through a public hearing through this through the planning commission.

The planning commission is eager to take on more work, they're all eager to help the city, and um I trust our planning commission to make um appropriate decisions.

Um I'm just throwing that out there.

Um I wrote a note here.

Oh, I wanted to go back to Tom's point.

Um he was referencing the these other fees associated with um the full cost recovery.

And so I just wanted to see if staff could answer that question.

Uh is are we truly looking at full burden cost burden um including the facilities and all the other things associated with running city business?

So the fully burdened rate includes direct and indirect cost, which includes you know part of like the IT cost, like uh the city attorney's office cost, everything, you know, that is indirectly related to other than the salaries and benefits.

Okay, so does it include facilities as well?

Yes.

Okay, so it does include all those things.

Yes, okay.

That's correct.

Okay, thank you for that.

Yeah, and then um, I can't understand my notes.

I was trying to can we go back to the first thing you started with?

Uh let me give me one second, yeah.

We I'll pass it to you after I'm done here.

Oh, um, the the fees, us increasing the fees.

How much is that how much do we anticipate that increasing our revenues?

Just trying to think about this in the context of our budget deficit, gotcha.

So the message that went to all departments, you know, is to conservatively uh include part of the revenue, and we are expecting six percent out of the fees and uh charges, and that's that totals about like six hundred and fifty thousand.

And this is on the low side of the revenue projection.

Okay, what is the high side?

Uh I would say eight percent, and that makes another like three hundred and fifty, so almost a million.

Okay.

Yeah.

Okay.

And that is is that figure included in what was presented to us during the study?

Correct to the study session?

Correct, the six percent is.

It was already included.

Yes, okay.

That is correct.

Okay.

Um, please add thank you for that.

Yeah, cool.

So you were starting to go down a uh chain of thought on those that are challenged, possibly lower income that went through a planning commission and want to get to the council free redress.

Um I don't know that it's necessarily meriting to carve out a different bracket based on income levels because most of the time a planning commission application is either remodeling, building land use.

I mean, I don't know.

I've never really heard of anything that's coming to the planning commission where folks are saying, well, never mind, I can't afford it.

I don't know if it's something that qualifies.

I'd be open for staff if it if they think there's merit there to allow public access to an appeal to the city council, but I don't get a sense that that's really necessary.

I I could be convinced otherwise, but I I think that setting it at 3500 at least lessens that sting for those appeals, but I don't know how many appeals I've seen in the last two years.

I guess I'm confused because I thought you were your thought process seemed to align with what I was saying, which is I haven't seen a situation where there's been somebody of low income doing this that is has created a barrier.

I haven't heard that being an issue in in the community.

So then why are we doing so so why we're not?

We're having this conversation.

So they thought you were leaning in towards saying that we should have some income based accommodation, but I just wanted to make sure that we were covering that and that we were satisfied that a $3,500 level to get to an appeal to the city council was something that we were comfortable with.

Um I guess I would ask staff is an income-driven fee something that is even legally sufficient for us to consider.

I don't know about the legality.

We might want to ask our expert um who provided the report.

Um, but you know, if with i if you're talking about a system where we have to do additional work at qualifying, that's more cost, right?

More time.

Totally.

Um, but I don't know if our um consultant at Will Dan has any any comments on that on the legality.

Um I do see some cities that do have that in their fee schedule.

Um, that it's up to the community development director to subsidize fees if needed, so um, but you would have to probably look in your municipal code and what's written in the cost recovery policy.

Is there is there a um a process?

I I know that there's a process already established in the city that I'm hoping that maybe we could look at just tying it to um to make the facilitation of that a little bit easier, so I I would need to research that a little bit more.

Um, I know for example, when we've looked at um fees for garbage service, and there was a desire to have a discount for certain groups of people, and then that was determined to not be appropriate because then the rest of the public is subsidizing certain individuals, and that was determined not to be um lawful, but I haven't evaluated it in this context.

What we do have in place right now is um if you're issued an administrative citation in our code, it requires that you deposit the amount of the penalty before you can get your appeal.

We do have a hardship waiver for that advanced deposit process.

It doesn't waive your obligation if you're found, you know, liable for the citation to pay it later, but we do have that process in place for that system, and we do not allow people that own property to um apply for the waiver to be eligible.

So it's something we could certainly look at.

Um, but I I can't say right now that um I could recommend it today.

Okay, no, thank you for that.

I um I'm I'm I'm hesitant to create a blanket um drop in the fee, subsidy subsidization subsidization of the fee.

Um I'm open to addressing the concern as it relates to low-income individuals.

Um, but my hope would be that the council could consider approving this because my understanding is that if we change it um we the motion will need to include a different effective date and um yeah, so if I could just touch on that.

So we we do have a city code that puts in there the amount of cost recovery um as a matter of policy, and right now for appeals it says 100%, and as we've discussed, we're gonna reduce that maybe to 87.5% or 75%, and so that will take two readings of an ordinance before that could become effective.

Um so we might have some tiering of fees, which is completely doable tonight if you want to.

So most fees will go into effect July 1st.

Um planning, building, and other fees will go into effect July 20th because there's a different timeline under the government code, and then if we're changing the appeal fees, I would suggest maybe September 1st, which will give us time to come to you with a first and second reading of an ordinance to change the policy in the city code to a different level of subsidy.

Um, there is a motion on the table.

Any other comments?

All right, all those in favor?

Aye, aye.

Any opposed?

Motion passes unanimously.

All right.

With that, we're gonna move to 14.

Receive a report on compliance with assembly bill 2561 government code section 3502.3 regarding vacancies, recruitment, and retention efforts.

Sorry, I apologize.

Did was that clear included in the motion in the last one?

Did I jump too quickly?

It wasn't clear to me.

Um I apologize.

Did we just realize I'm processing that in my head?

Can you read back the motion, please?

Yeah, so that what I've thought is that everything was approved except that the um the one fee for the appeals of planning commission decisions to the city council will be 3500, but that would need to be starting in September 1st, I'm imagining because of the need to go through this ordinance.

Okay.

Okay.

I think we're all on the same page there.

Is that good?

Okay.

All right.

We'll be coming back with the appeal fee.

And everything else will move forward.

Thank you.

My my brain was doing a uh some some weird stuff there.

Um, so I've I've read the title to 14, so I'll pass it to Don Tafer staff presentation, hoping we can keep this pretty brief.

Yes, we can keep this uh this is uh City Bill 2561.

Um, city clerk is working on this, or just like I'm gonna sit back down.

This is uh with uh proposing off status and vacancies and recruitments in our city.

Um, we have our resource director who will be providing uh certainly.

Uh good evening, mayor and council members.

Uh Brett Nell, your human resources director.

Um I provided a very detailed report, and I know we want to keep this brief, so I'm just gonna go over some highlights.

I do want to point out the legislation does allow for labor groups to to speak as well.

So I'll keep my presentation as brief as possible.

Um, AB 2561 became effective in January 25.

Uh the goal of that was to provide transparency uh regarding staffing levels and hiring conditions.

Um as you can see here, there's some things listed out that we have to report on.

Uh, if there is a bargaining group that has a vacancy rate of 20 per 20%, we um have to give additional reporting and our MEA group, our management group uh was over 20%.

So we'll give some additional data for them.

Okay.

Citywide vacancy overview.

We have 476 budgeted full-time equivalent employees.

Um vacant full-time employees, we have 65.5.

That number's incorrect on the screen.

So uh the actual number is 65.5, and as of uh May 1st, we had 27 recruitments going, and those 27 recruitments are at various phases stages in their process.

Uh average vacancy rate over the last year.

Um, as I mentioned, MEA or management group, they're above 20%, 20.58.

I just wanted to show you the three highest.

Um our police association is 17.71 percent, um, general employees at 13.5.

All of our other groups are below 10%.

Um strategies, we you know, expanding our recruitment advertising and outreach.

Um, we do continuous recruitments.

What that means is for police, we would run the recruitment always.

So as soon as police come in, we we you know send that information over, and our recruitment uh officer will work with the police department.

So we've started doing that with some other departments and other um high profile recruitments where we're trying to get people in the house.

Um also I wanted to point out that we had 67 recruitments done uh over the last reporting period.

We had 28 percent of those recruitments were filled with internal uh promotions.

Um as far as retention, I've mentioned a few things here.

You know, we're trying to do competitive compensation reviews, uh professional development, wellness and flexible work schedules.

Our retention rate in our city is 90 percent.

Again, this outlines some of the recruitment challenges.

I won't go too far in detail with their that slide.

Um so with the additional reporting for MEA or management group, um, they do have 10 vacancies out of uh 58 that are in their group.

Oh, sorry, 10 vacancies.

Um we have two recruitments going for them right now.

Um we've received 31 applications, and the average time uh from posting to higher is a hundred and seventeen days for them.

Uh some opportunities that we can look at with them as we're working on a joint wage study with that bargaining group.

Um, my office we partner with organizations to you know try to partner with them in direct sourcing also to fill some of those positions.

Ah, already at questions.

Thank you for the presentation.

Questions from the council, please.

Yeah, and I think I know what you mean by direct sourcing, so could you explain that?

Um, so uh for instance when we use NeoGov, there's some features in there that instead of you know, we put off the fly uh flyer and wait for people to apply, we're going out and sort of sourcing, looking at applicants and trying to find people.

Go be more active instead of waiting for them to come to us.

Right, right.

Okay.

Any other questions from you said?

No.

Actually along the same lines, um, then what is direct outreach?

Excuse me.

Or sorry, sorry, targeted outreach.

Um it would be the same.

So I'm looking at um, we you know, in ACP, LULAC, we're you know, trying to go to university, CSU and B, MPC, the colleges, so just making sure we outreach to groups in our community instead of just again posting on NeoGov uh GovJobs.com or indeed.

We're trying to find the sources here, specialized um uh groups.

So, uh and I can't think of the names off the top of them.

I probably have it here, but I can figure your engineering, right?

We'll work with the department head, and there'll be club uh organizations that they're a part of.

So then we target that organization, pay the extra money of uh advertised there, as opposed to again like NND.com, and then you just wait for people to come.

Uh so this is also kind of reflective of the um proposed partial resolution um or the structural deficit as well, you know, as far as when we're talking about uh some of the proposed freezing, did that notice that in the report of some positions that were either frozen or either proposed to be frozen.

So this is all uh part of that particular um proposed partial resolution.

So um this was a report on vacancies.

And so I went into more detail, a little more detail in terms of where those vacancies are and you know kind of how they're treated as opposed to why we aren't recruiting for them.

So there are some in the report that was more detailed in terms of they were either uh frozen last year or they may be proposed depending on council's um decision in the future.

But if you have a more clear in in this i i it's in the report, yes.

That's why I'm saying that is inclusive of that particular proposed resolution that we've been talking about.

Um that impacts that it's structural deficit.

Yes, okay.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

All right.

With that, we'll go ahead and open it for public comment for folks on Zoom.

You can use a raise hand function.

Anybody in the chamber wishes to speak on this item?

Seeing two takers, anybody else?

All right, we'll cut it off to the two.

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

Nobody on Zoom will go ahead and start in the chamber.

Good afternoon.

Um I name Shay Balasteri, I'm the chairman for the general employees Monterey, and um uh Jim has a few concerns about which positions are filled within the city and why and how the city decides to select which positions to fill.

Um, we recently got a list of the vacant positions within GEM, but there are many positions that I've not been filled in many years, some of which are not even recognized as frozen despite the numerous years of vacancy, with no recruitment being done to them.

Uh these include uh eight vacancies in the building maintenance division, including an administration assistant position that has been vacant for two and a half years, a facilities maintenance coordinator that has been vacant for over two years, a building maintenance worker that has been vacant for over five years.

These positions are funded by the Army contract and therefore do not even have an impact on the general fund.

Uh the positions are also not recognized as even being frozen.

The city has not run a recruitment for the vacant building maintenance worker positions since it became vacant in March of 2021.

Uh the city also is proposing to contract out some of the workload associated with these positions at a great cost to expense to the city.

There are three vacancies in the parking division, including a parking services coordinator vacant since August of 2023.

These do not impact the general fund.

Two of these are proposed to be frozen, even though they're not general fund positions.

An assistant planner position that was put on the budget in 2024 and has never had a recruitment done for it.

This is a position that's not recognized as frozen.

A plans examiner position that the city is currently proposing to contract out for work rather than to raise the pay to a competitive amount.

There are five vacancies in the parks division, while the city continues to employ outside contractors to do the exact same workload as the city employees within the division.

There's an automotive mechanic position that has sat vacant for over a year with no recruitment being done.

The city continues to control, excuse me, the city continues to contract out work that this position could be doing at an exorbitant cost to the city.

With a fire truck mechanic contract out at an hourly rate that is more than four times the hourly labor rate of a city mechanic.

City mechanics have saved the city significantly more money than the cost by allowing work to be done in-house at a major discount.

There are many positions that could be filled as promotional opportunities for current employees, which could help with retention.

There are also more positions that the city has not made an effort to fill.

We would like to see more internal only promotional opportunities in order to retain employees.

And we would also like to see non-general fund positions remain unfrozen as they don't impact the general fund and leaving them vacant causes overtime and cost contracting out costs.

We definitely like to see the city consider increasing wages for recruitments that fail to attract good and qualified candidates.

And that's our position on the topic today.

Thanks.

Good evening, Mayor and Council members.

I'm Chris Dwight.

I serve as the president for Management Employees Association, also known as MEA.

I'm speaking tonight on behalf of our members.

But we feel that it's time to reach out and communicate more to express our concerns and strains that our team has encountered.

First, I want to acknowledge the difficult budget situation our city is facing and thank council, the budget committee, and the city manager's office for the work being done to address it.

We understand that these are challenging decisions and we do not take them lightly.

MEA employees are often the people residents interact with every day.

We answer questions, support boards and commissions, organize community meetings, implement council priorities, and help keep city services moving forward.

In many ways, we are the connection between the city organization and the community that we serve.

I also want to bring the conversation back to one of the city's own stated priorities as part of the council's vision under value drivers and strategic priorities, recognizing that our workforce is our greatest resource.

Right now, MEA represents over 59 employees, and we are operating with over a 20% vacancy rate.

Of the 30 proposed staff reductions citywide, 7% are MEA positions or 23%.

Yet we represent only a little over 10% of the city staff.

That has a real impact on people doing the work and on the city's ability to maintain maintain services over time.

There has also been discussion about employee compensation as part of our city's financial challenges.

I think it's important to remember that recent salary adjustments were not designated to put employees above market.

They were intended to help the city stay competitive, retain qualified staff, and stabilize a workforce that has already been stretched thin.

In fact, the city's compensation philosophy is consistently targeted salaries below median to comparable cities.

MEA employees are expected to be the experienced professionals and subject matter experts who help move projects forward, improve operations, and serve this community at a high level.

At the same time, the city's own strategic priorities speak to providing fair and competitive compensation.

Our concern tonight is not only about positions being reduced, it is about a sustainability.

Services and expectations continue to grow while vacancies remain difficult to fill.

Workloads have increased and additional reductions are now being proposed.

Many employees are doing everything they can to maintain the level of service Monterey residents expect, but burnout is becoming very real.

At the end of the day, our members care deeply about the city and this community.

We want Monterey to succeed, and we remain committed to providing excellent public service.

Thank you.

All right.

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

There's no motion, but any last minute comments.

Nobody?

Please, please.

So I just really just have a quick question.

Have you looked at working with housing agencies as far as um it's part of your um I guess uh services to offer to potential recruits that would come into the area?

Like working with different housing agencies to see about trying to help them define that.

Not you personally, but working referring them and saying, Hey, we are partnering with this particular housing agency that might be able to help you define housing in the area.

I'm just saying that because I know CSUMB does that, but of course they have housing on the property, but they don't do it themselves.

They actually partner with the property management group that helps to find that.

So and it's not guaranteed, but it's the service that they offer to approve.

And I was just curious as whether that's something that we're doing.

I am not doing that, and it's an excellent idea.

So I'm taking note.

Yeah, we don't do that, but we will.

That's a good idea.

Um I don't have a question.

I just will make a general statement, so you don't have to stay at the podium there.

Um I do have some questions regarding some of the comments that were made from both of uh labor representatives.

Um I think what it begs is a deeper conversation around um what does all this mean as it relates to our budget?

So I'm not gonna go too much into this today, but I I hear you both.

I recognize um the message that you send, and and the message that I'm making here is more for the broader community when it relates to the structural budget deficit, as we make these really complicated and tough decisions.

Um, we're already starting to see like we haven't made those decisions yet, and we're already starting to see some of the rub that's being created with our workforce and the implications associated with that.

And so I don't take the comments lightly.

Um, I see this as a sign for a worsening to come and really challenging decisions that um need to be made by the council, but also the the community at large.

Um I'm just gonna use this as an opportunity to reiterate if measure D doesn't pass, that's four and a half million dollars.

So you set aside that four and a half million.

Even if it does pass, that's what an additional eight million that we have to figure out where we're gonna cut that.

I'm eager to hear from folks that um don't think we need to increase our revenues regards to which programs are we gonna cut in the city of Monterey.

And it's not as easy as just saying we're gonna get rid of a program because a lot of the programs that you would propose to cut can oftentimes be revenue generating.

Um, sometimes there's cross collaboration amongst departments.

It's it's a really complicated process.

Um, and so um it's gonna be tough.

And if we and if it doesn't pass, that's another four and a half million.

We're looking at the full twelve and a half million that's being proposed.

So we have some really tough challenges ahead.

I truly appreciate our workforce.

I stand by the values that um the council has approved and passed.

Um I I hope that we can live up to um that, and that's gonna be the challenge for for us on the council and and for the community at large.

Um, so with that, we're gonna go ahead and jump to our public appearance item.

I know that time is getting tight and we still have to get to closed session.

Um, but I I'm gonna try to get us to knock this one out.

So thank you all for the discussion on that topic.

Public appearance item number 15 is to amend restate resolution 25-112 to adopt refined residential parking permit program framework and with that I'll pass it to Dante for staff presentation.

Thank you, Mayor.

This item like you said is a staff recommended refinement to our residential parking program.

We have our parking supervisor Chrissy Stuffy who's going to be coming up and providing a presentation for us and council's being asked to adopt a resolution the attached resolution implementing some of the changes to the program.

With that I'll turn it over to Steph.

Alright thank you Dante so good afternoon mayor and council members my name is Christy Steffi and I serve as the parking superintendent.

Also here with me today is Lee Bradley and she is our assistant parking superintendent and then also online I'd like to mention that we have um Julie Dixon and Elliot Holt who are with Dixon Resources Unlimited and they are our parking consultant.

So today's presentation is about the residential parking permit program or RPP as I'll refer to it.

Following council approval in November 2025 staff began rollout of the new program framework in January as the rollout moved forward staff identified a few key areas where refinements are now recommended.

And then the next slide are you doing okay do I have the clicker okay so I'll move to the purpose of the RPP program.

So before discussing the refinements I wanted to briefly touch base on the purpose of the RPP program.

Why is this program needed the RPP program is used in residential neighborhoods where outside parking demand limits parking availability for residents at its core the program helps manage limited on street parking in areas where residents are competing with nearby business schools employee visitor and visitor parking the program uses parking time limits and resident permits to help create parking availability for residents and the quality and equity for all as it is a public street.

Although this is a solution it comes with compromises and trade-offs to balance limited parking next slide perfect now for a bit of the background the RPP program has been in place in Monterey since 1985 and currently includes more than 2000 residential addresses across 18 permit zones.

I want to emphasize that all the existing permit zones were previously established through resident petition neighborhood parking review and council approval as you can see by the map over time the program has continued to grow and become somewhat of a patchwork puzzle stretching across the city with different rules and permit structures as a result the city identified the need to modernize and update how the program was managed as you can imagine updating and rolling out a program of this size required extensive outreach and coordination beginning in 2021 the city started evaluating opportunities to improve consistency simplify administration of the program.

That effort included community meetings resident surveys and review of similar programs before ultimately resulting in the updated framework that was adopted by council this past November.

Throughout 2025 staff worked with the community through surveys neighborhood meetings public outreach council discussions and ongoing engagement through have your say moderate following council approval this past November rollout of the updated program began in January of this year.

This was a significant transition for an existing program serving more than 2000 residential addresses across several neighborhoods throughout the city the rollout moved a program from an outdated paper based system that relied on decals and paper permits to a new virtual permit system and also introduced permit fees to help support the program's sustainability long term.

Because of the size of the transition, staff used a phased rollout approach, which continued approach which continued outreach and communication throughout the process.

This included several mailed notices, neighborhood QA sessions, in-person registration support, online resources, and ongoing outreach to help walk residents through the changes.

Throughout the rollout, more than 600 residents have registered in the new online system.

As the updated program rollout continued, staff also received a wide range of feedback and identified five key themes that were refinements that we are now recommending.

The five key areas we recommend refinements to the program include existing permit areas, opt-out thresholds, guest pass fee structure, owner landlord permits, and cannery row eligibility criteria.

I'll walk through each of these refinements in more detail, starting with a requalification process for existing permit areas.

Under the adopted framework, existing permit areas were required to requalify during the rollout of the updated program.

As with any parking program, parking needs and resident perspectives vary throughout the community.

Some residents strongly supported keeping the program in place, but were concerned that the existing permit areas had to requalify again and viewed the process as a barrier to keeping the RPP program.

On the other hand, some residents had concerns about the program changes or simply did not want the program.

Staff also recognized that relying on registration levels alone could unintentionally remove existing RPP programs from neighborhoods where outside parking impacts still exist.

When it comes to requalification, it's important to recognize that these permit areas were already established through resident petition and council approval.

Essentially, these programs have been in place for more than 40 years, and the requalification requirement meant these neighborhoods needed to petition two times.

As a result, staff is recommending removing the requalification requirement for existing permit areas.

If a neighborhood does not want the program, there is an opt-out option to request to remove the program.

Which that leads us into our next refinement.

Under the adopted framework, the requirement for establishing a new permit area was reduced from 80% to 70%.

Staff is recommending reducing the opt-out threshold from 80% to 70% as well, so the program requirements remain consistent.

Under this approach, existing permit areas would remain in place unless residents choose to move forward with the opt-out process.

And the next refinement relates to guest passes.

Under the adopted framework, the first 25 guest passes are free with additional guest passes available through a tiered pricing structure.

During rollout, an opportunity was identified to simplify the fee structure.

The recommended change would keep the first 25 passes free and replace the tiered pricing structure with a flat rate of $25%.

And now related to owner landlord permits under the adopted framework.

Owner landlord permits counted toward the for permit maximum for an address.

During rollout, staff identified an opportunity to manage owner landlord permits separately.

Staff is recommending a separate category for owner landlord permits so they no longer count towards the resident for permit maximum.

And for the final refinement, it relates to the Canary Row permit area.

It's specific to the Cantery Row permit area under the adopted framework.

Available parking spaces on private property such as garages and driveways counted against the four permit limit for the address.

During rollout, staff identified that accounting for those spaces added complexity and was difficult to apply consistently.

Staff is recommending that parking spaces on private property are no longer considered part of the RPP program eligibility.

All right.

Overall, the recommended refinements are intended to simplify the rollout of the updated program while maintaining the overall framework previously adopted by council.

During rollout, staff received both support for the program and concerns related to different parts of the updated framework.

The core purpose of the RPP program remains the same: helping manage limited on-street parking in neighborhoods with parking impacts from outside demand.

At the same time, parking needs and resident views can vary across the community, and no parking management system will work perfectly for every situation.

However, the purpose of the program remains straightforward, helping neighborhoods manage parking demand where available curb space is limited.

With that said, staff has been working on this program update for over five years.

It is complicated, it does involve a lot of changes, but the goal has always been to have a program that serves the city well.

I want to close by saying this is not the last time we will be talking about parking, as it is always evolving and adapting.

And so with that, I'll close and Lee and I are available for any questions you may have.

Awesome.

Thank you.

Questions, please.

Yes.

Um, so this relieves the concerns of the folks that live on Van Buren.

They're they're gonna go back to the way it was and and they're gonna have their parking program.

Meaning that it would remove the requalification and the new program would be move forward, correct?

Right, right.

So okay.

So um and you know, under um under the housing element one J, we we can now go R1 to R6.

When that happens, I mean, when when we have increased densification, we can look at the landlord tenant limit of four.

If that gets outdated, we can just adjust it then.

Sure, we can review that yeah.

Um uh do you think this is gonna in Canary Row?

Um, it's it's includes no expansion of the eligibility.

And is um are you hearing that that that's gonna meet the residents' needs around Canary Row, or or should we be should we be expanding it to the residents to have more parking?

So Cantery Row is a unique area, and the fact that it is a commercial district, it is competing with businesses, visitors, and residents.

So the programs there um what we did is we rolled every address over that was already in the established program.

So that's what's meant by not expanding that, is keeping those properties that were in the program in the program in the new program, and then it wouldn't be our recommendation to expand to more addresses that just because it is more of a commercial district and there is off-street parking.

So, like similar to someone living downtown or in an urban environment where the parking isn't I um necessarily on street, it is off-street in those situations.

And and according to what you're hearing, the feedback you're getting that will meet the needs of those residents.

I I I'm not personally real familiar with the stressors they're under.

It's not my district, but I I guess I should ask you know do you think it's gonna be meeting your residents' needs?

Uh, what we found out during the time that we had the residents to gather and have an open session uh when they could come, we didn't find that to be an issue.

The issue was more of the requirement where the eligibility was tied to uh the individual and not the person, and so that was already resolved where that requirement was removed.

Okay, so because of that, it helps because as new renters come in, they still can be able to get parking, and that that was the main okay thing.

Great.

That that reassures me.

Uh, correct.

So all everything I've heard from from my constituents has been has been met, especially especially the the ones along Madison.

I have a few on Madison near Van Buren.

Perfect.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Please.

So quick questions.

Uh, two, um, so for the guest passes, I know that it's been refined to the first 25 or free and the additional passes, um, that's up to 25 or 25 dollars per set, and then you have up to 100 annually.

So that makes sense from a residential uh point of view if you're talking about single family.

But if it you're talking about renters, if you have renters because you have a lot of people because of the price of housing, that you may have five renters and uh individual renters, not family, and so for five individual renters that are in a home there, and you're talking about 25, um, how would that um uh actually pan out because then if you have 25 that are free and you have five renters, immediately you're just talking about five um guess passes that they're getting for that year without going into paying additional.

Or is there anything that is to resolve anything that would help with the renters having to to have more passes or how that would be, and I know that that'd be cumbersome for for that to be uh tracked, but I was just curious as to uh whether that was taken into consideration.

Okay, thank you.

Um so that one would uh the each of the residents would be eligible for the pass for themselves, but the household would be eligible for the hundred guest passes, so that would be shared by the address.

Right.

Um so the first twenty-five would be free, and then they can get up to a hundred for the year.

So basically it would still end up being like really five individual because where they're not family, they're just renting a room in the house, um, it would basically 55 per year that would be free for them.

If you had five people that were in the house that were renting, they tracking that one right?

I think I turned this on.

Um yes, what you're what you're saying is correct.

Right now or the previous program, you only got two guest passes for a household, regardless, irregardless of how many people or different people live there, and it was up to the people who live there to figure out how to divide them up.

So it would be a similar where it would be within the household, they would need to decide how to divide them up.

Okay, and the other one, um dealing with the I know you have an opt-out process, uh, but in and that happens every three years, like you can't do a reapplication um until three years if you opt out, but how about um if someone is uh what would that be as far as reviewing if someone is already uh in the program, but they want to be able to get out those if you sell if you have different people that come in into the neighborhood and the people that were there before previously were part of the the residential parking um permit program, but then a lot of the people that their house is sold or however it it looks and they come in they really don't want to be a part of it, they would have to wait for that three years and then be able to try to get out, or is there a time limit process for being able to actually get out of the program if you're already in it and you're buying into it?

Great.

Um the opt-out process is where we're asking that 70% of the residents would come together saying they no longer want their program on their street, and if the program is removed, then it would be a three-year waiting period before the program could be re-implemented.

If a new program is implemented, we ask that the program remain in the in there active for a year before it can ask to be removed.

Okay, that's what I wanted to know.

A year.

Thank you so much.

You're welcome.

Yeah, I wanna I don't want to duplicate what was already answered about a number of residents.

So if you have a two-bedroom apartment and you have four people living in it, those four people can contact you and all be registered for their vehicles for four people.

Correct.

That are residents.

Correct.

And I think the question that Dr.

Barber had was more about the guests.

So I just want to clarify that the number of residents to the apartment, if they have proof of their residency, they're able to get correct.

A registered.

Your registration is still gonna be by um vehicle license.

Correct.

The biggest thing I heard is some folks don't have a computer, don't want to use a computer, don't have an iPhone, use a text phone or have a flip phone, and they have no way to uh manipulate the form.

Can a resident go to your office and you assist if they bring you proof registration, proof of residency, and you'll help fulfill that number put into your system?

Absolutely.

Our in-person office support does not go away.

The online system just increases access and allows residents to manage their own account, but our in-person support does not go away.

Good.

Just want to make sure the public hears that.

The other thing is if we have a current and we'll use the Van Buren area, um, and if someone vacates an apartment and there's a new resident who comes in, that is a current program, all they have to do is work with their property manager who tells them here's where the parking office is.

Here's the link, go on to it, register their new vehicle, and they then are covered under that current program.

Correct, yes.

They would be eligible, yes.

Okay, and so as part of an outreach, would it be possible that we update this new information with some communications with our well-known top 25 property managers, where they would then be able to resolve the mystique of what we were gonna do, but now what we are doing, so we can bridge the gap on the education piece.

So that'd be possible that you could communicate with any to every property manager you could find, and they would then be able to pass on to their new tenants what the rules of the parking program are.

That's a great recommendation, yes.

Okay, great.

Mayor, that's all I had.

Quick question.

What um what privilege does a guest parking permit give me?

So if somebody's using a guest pass, it's good for 24 hours.

Got it.

Thank you.

Alrighty.

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

Thank you for the presentation.

For folks on Zoom, you can reuse the raise hand function.

I see there's already a line formed.

Um, anybody else want to join in the chamber?

Right.

So we'll cut it off to the five, and then we'll do a countdown for folks on Zoom to five, four, three, two, one.

We have one online.

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

Hi, uh, my name is Karen O'Neill.

I live in the 600 block of Van Buren.

And um I'm getting a lot of emails from city and so forth where this program is on, it's not quite on, it's kind of in between.

So one of the issues that we have that's very special, it's a short block at 600 Van Buren.

It goes from Madison, it's a dead end street.

And there, those two parking lanes, one of them is a one-hour, the other is a 72 hour, it encompasses and covers five apartment buildings, approximately 12 homes, and a new build happening at the end.

Consequently, we have numbers of FedEx, UPS, Amazon deliveries.

We have for the 699 building, which is low-income, uh disabled people.

We have uh meals on wheels, uh VA, uh we have medical traffic, we have the fire department uh for emergency services, and they're there probably uh I would say roughly four or five times per month.

So if the one hour signs are removed based on this new program, we're gonna have a problem on that street.

Um during the day are all the deliveries that additionally across the street where it is the 72 hours, we do have city employees that park there all day.

We have one Trader Joe employee that parks there all day.

Now that's because this is open and free to them to do.

When those signs come down, we are gonna have no parking on that street.

Madison is parking only on the downside of the hill, and they can't double their trucks and so forth along there.

So they come and they park on Van Buren.

So I want all of you to consider that when you're talking about taking out the one-hour parking signs.

Same thing applies to Madison going up the hill.

That's all I have for you.

Thank you.

So it's uh often said that people only come to council for parking tickets and puholes, so hello.

Uh haven't done this since high school.

So uh my contention today is uh regarding the requalification part of the RPP.

Uh I live on Watson Street, which is a few blocks up from Van Buren.

The way I see it is it's kind of like a little exponential leveling off curve that uh the Van Buren is at that like exponential part of the slope, but each block you go up incrementally.

Uh there's fewer people, fewer tourists that are willing to uh uh park there.

So, for example, the block up for me, Monroe, no uh parking permit.

Uh other side of Watson Street cross Franklin, no parking permit.

Uh the side street on Franklin South of me, no parking permit.

Up for me, no parking permit.

So I think I'm not opposed to the RPP at all.

No argument whatsoever.

It's a good government to kind of have that uh financial sustainability, but I also think it's a good idea to see if these permit zones are even necessary.

As we said before, you know, this program was established in 1985.

Four years have gone by.

Monterey's changed, misses changing.

So I don't think it's a bad idea to kind of refresh ourselves to find out is this program even necessary.

The business case for it would be uh the fewer neighborhoods that opt into this program that want to be a part of the new parking program.

Uh the fewer that there are, the lower administrative cost, the lower bandwidth that the uh parking uh department has to consume themselves with uh yield my time.

Thank you so much.

Hi, I have been a resident, a voting resident of Monterey since 1993 with a brief hiatus into Pacific Grove for about eight years, and I've recently become a resident.

Um in one of the restricted parking areas.

My first response is that um I think the citizens should have been offered a third choice in this program, which is to keep the system as it is.

Yes, it is old.

It old does not mean outdated.

It is very simple.

It's low maintenance, it doesn't need to be reprogrammed, it's never going to be hacked, and management by after 40 years, they should have it down fairly well.

Um I do have issue with the fact that we were notified that 51% of the residents in our area would need to register with the program.

Oh, that's what that is.

I don't go to these meetings much.

Um, in order for the program to be implemented, and then the fear of Fury was put into us by saying if you don't qualify, all the signs are going to be taken down.

Of course, the city would be shooting themselves in the foot by doing that, because those restricted parking signs, especially up the hill from Lighthouse, herd visitors and potential residential shoppers alike into the paid parking areas of the metered parking and the parking garages.

So if you take that away, what's to keep them from parking in our neighborhood and foregoing the metered parking and garages?

Wouldn't make sense.

This new program, I know it's modern, and I have nothing against modern.

I love it, but modern does not necessarily mean better.

And the residents, at least in my parking area, have expressed that they do not want any change at all.

Sometimes that's not a bad thing.

Change is good.

But oh, is that it?

That's it.

Yep.

Goes by fast.

Thank you for listening.

Thank you for your public comment.

Good afternoon, Mayor Williamson and Council members.

I'm here today to speak on behalf of my neighbors who live on the 600 block of Larkin Street.

This is just up the street at the stop sign on Madison, and head south for one block dead ending into the main entrance of Monterey High School.

In November 2024, residents submitted a completed petition for residential permit parking.

This block has parking problems, not only from the students of the school during the day and evening, but some of the homes do not even have driveways.

Residents were told in February 2025 that the parking department was targeting approval at the March City Council meeting.

This was delayed to April and has been on indefinite hold for over a year now.

Consequently, consequently, this block has no signage.

I hope council will requalify all previously approved residential parking blocks.

Currently, over half of the 101 blocks in the program have not reached the requalification level of participation set by parking.

However, according to parking, with their delays to install signage on the 600 block of Larkin, this block will be the only block forced to resurvey residents to requalify and participate.

In discussions on the city's budget, it appears that the parking department is currently profitable, taking in roughly three million dollars above their annual expenses.

Sadly, this money does not appear to be transferable to the city general fund to help with the structural deficit.

Previously, residential parking permits were free.

Now a yearly fee of $25.

Although I was unable to determine the total number of residents who's participating in the program, New Monterey and Old Town account for 1250.

If parking received fees received from those 1250 residents, it would equal 31,000, equivalent to just one percent of the parking department's profits.

Parking could absorb the modest cost for this city program and help residents cope with the increased parking pressure in their residential neighborhoods.

Please simplify the residential parking program for all qualified residents, including the 600 block of Larkin, and help residents find parking on the streets near their homes.

Thank you.

Oh, that was impeccable.

On time.

Hi, my name is Liline Chu, and I live on the 300 block of Watson Street.

Um so I voted no by not registering, and I was disappointed with the update to say that now my vote doesn't count, and there's a new threshold.

So I actually have been engaged with the parking department since I realized that I was being swept into the program I voted no for, and just for according to the statistics, my block watching has like 23% that registered.

So I'm not sure the people on my block actually want it.

I've spoken to one of my neighbors next door who doesn't want the program, but only because he wants the old program, which I understand is not necessarily an option.

One guy who really likes it, another person who's busy, so you've got a mix of a no-no, I'm busy, and yes on my block.

So I I understand that a lot of people feel like oh, well, we petitioned earlier, but I also believe that this program is different enough from the original program that the 70% threshold is a little bit unfair.

Um, and my main concerns uh oh, okay.

With um with the program, a lot of them actually have been addressed by talking to the parking department and all the work they've done.

So I like a shout out to Lee Bradley because she's been super awesome.

Um, but um, but and actually one of the things I was going to talk about was the calendar day versus the 25 hour day, but it sounds like they changed it to 20 hour days, so that's not an issue anymore.

But the other other main issue that I have, um, is I'm a little bit concerned about this whole sort of what I would call a surveillance state feeling thing because now you have an automated system that is sending queries back to say if this license plate is valid.

And while I understand once again, a lot of details from Lee about the 90 day limit on data holds.

I don't actually know what data is sitting there for 90 days.

So, for example, if if every time you know the parking tenant comes by and it says this license plate at this time at this location is here, and that query has to get sent back to say, okay, that license is good continue.

How long does that specific information get held?

And so one of my I'm still no vote, but I appreciate all the work, but uh I would want that information to resolve before I'd be okay with that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I think we had one on Zoom.

Laurie, you can go ahead.

Uh, good evening.

Um, okay.

First of all, I appreciate the staff that brought this item back after the concern and confusion uh for the original rollout and implementation.

I think um it's clear that many of those earlier concerns were valid and uh that the programs kinks are being worked out, so that's good.

Um, however, I'm gonna beat this drum again.

I'm concerned about sort of the fairness and consistency across neighborhoods and what the city's plan is for neighborhoods that have been waiting for years for parking management discussions of their own.

And one of those is the one I live in, a high-density Del Monty Beach neighborhood, a small three-block uh beach neighborhood that experiences significant parking impacts year-round, not only from uh visitors' tourism.

We have oversized commercial surf business vehicles that work out of their neighborhood.

Um, they're stored on public streets, RVs, boats, excessive vehicle storage, and nighttime activity along Tide Avenue, even though there's no parking prohibited or parking's prohibited after sunset.

Um, so for actual residents, parking's becoming more difficult.

Google Maps frequently drops visitors here now into the neighborhood instead of toward the designated beach and downtown parking garage areas, and importantly, because uh Monterey still doesn't have a local certified uh local coastal program, a plan with the California Coastal Commission, the Del Monte Beach neighborhood is effectively been excluded from participating in these residential parking permit discussions or programs.

So residents in my neighborhood have now waited for more than a decade for the ability to be able to have these discussions.

Uh we I contacted the parking division to talk about if we could have uh that talk, and they said we couldn't even have discussions with your neighborhood until 2027.

So we've really like to know a couple things.

Um where is the LCP certification process, and where might we be able to have those discussions for this neighborhood in the future, okay?

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

You'd like to start us off.

Well, these um new new proposals, I think um, meet 80 to 90 percent of the complaints that I heard.

So I'm real happy with that.

Um it would be great if um somehow Larkin could get an opt-in or something, you know, if Marta could talk with Christy and fix that.

Um, the other, I think we're real close.

Um, so I'm I'm for it.

I I'm hearing it's not exactly perfect, and maybe we can continue to work on it, but it's a huge improvement.

And someday, uh, when we have a little bit more time, I'd like to talk about if if Christy, as the expert, the subject matter expert, do you think there was a way we could have ended up here without all the pain to the residents?

I mean, I I can't find we did something wrong, but I I can't find what it was.

Um I heard Miss Dixon's uh presentation, and I can remember thinking there's a really smart lady.

I I know you guys worked forever and ever.

I know we received it.

I know I had very I now chide myself, I had very few questions because this doesn't really except for Madison, doesn't hit my community that much.

But I wonder if someday we can talk about where we did we miss the boat or was it inevitable that those five years were complicated and we had to put our residents through this or or not, but I think it's great improvement.

Is it a motion?

I gladly would make the motion.

We have to find it.

Oh, okay.

Make a motion to amend and restate her um staff recommendation.

Second, it's been moved and seconded.

Any other discussion?

Yeah, just please.

Uh I really appreciate what's uh staff at parking has done because there was a big there's phase one, and it was the shock, and I think you addressed it, Chrissy, the shock and awe, and then we got attention, and a lot of folks are paying attention now to the adaptation and the flexibility to really get us to a place where I think we can live with this.

Um there's always gonna be folks that really want a third option, a fourth option, but you know, we we've got to manage what was it, 1200, 2000, was what was the number of parking spots we thought we had in this parking program?

Um, there's uh for the parking division and manages about 3,000 on-street spaces, not all of those are in residential areas, though.

But the residential number of parking, I mean, I don't know if there is a number that we know of how many available parking spots there are in each of these uh approved programs.

But the other part is I heard from a few people that have those sort of weird residential, like an ADA, what with an address that is not in our system.

So, if someone is giving you the registration or the license plate, you're going off of proof of residency based on a PGE bill, a CalAMP bill, a lease agreement, something.

I would suspect that there will be some adjustment on those addresses.

So we get to it's the 454, you know, A1 or B2, but that might not be in our GO system.

Do you have the ability to to have IT put an address in as you need it?

So I heard a case of somebody said, I live here, here's my proof, but I can't register it because it's not in your system.

So that's just one case I heard.

Is that a possibility that you're able to get them registered, even though they might have one of those obscure addresses?

Yes, we have reach out to planning department.

They'll help us identify those addresses, and we absolutely add them if they're in the zone.

Yeah, good.

And as we're talking about a geo file, and so you just need to update it and put the a new address in.

Correct.

Yeah, good.

Thank you.

Um we have a motion on the floor.

I just want to say thank you for the hard work and also um the democratic process worked in this case where you did outreach, we heard from folks, you heard from folks.

As difficult as it is, having to touch something 17 times to get to a a final uh is one of the things that I treasure most about this community is the ability to finally figure it out, be patient, keep figuring it out, and I think we have um a program that's uh much more refined and much more welcoming program that we can move forward.

So I I agree with the motion, and I think you did good.

You and your staff have done great, and you've had to endure a lot.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, anybody else?

All right.

I I'll just end with I I agree um with Councilmember Rash's comments.

It fulfills a large part of of what the concerns were.

I hear there's still some concerns out there, and um I think what I would say is sometimes it's not this often that we look at the parking program.

So, of course, we're there's like not an ability for us to create a process where we grease our wheels because when's the next time this is gonna happen.

Probably none of us are gonna be here.

So somebody's new is gonna have to go through that experience for the first time.

So there is some growing pains to that experience, and I appreciate the community working with the city and staff being responsive to the residents and expressing their concerns, and hopefully we can try to do some additional tweaks if they're needed.

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

All those in favor, aye, any opposed.

Motion passes unanimously.

With that, we're gonna go ahead and go to public comment on closed session agenda items.

There's two items on the agenda.

Um closed session item sixteen is conference at legal council um reg uh regarding a case with Frank Russo workers' compensation appeals board case, and then 17 is conference at legal counsel regarding stronghold engineering inc versus city of Monterey.

Um, open it up for public comment.

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

Anybody in the chamber wish to speak on closed session agenda items?

If you can just clearly raise your hand, because there's a lot of people moving around right now.

All right, I'm not seeing any in the chamber.

So I'm gonna cut it off in the chamber.

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

Okay, no public comment.

Um, I'm gonna ask us to I'm gonna ask to give us an additional fifteen, twenty-ish minutes before we start the evening session because we're behind.

We haven't even got into our our closed session yet.

So I'm gonna ask everybody to quickly transition out of the chamber so that we can go into closed session, and we'll be back here around quarter after.

Thank you.

Yeah, okay.

So is your fair grounds area?

Can we get parking?

Yeah, because we've got a lot of money.

How do we give us a h do we give us a h do we give us a h do we give us a h do we give us a h do we give us a hug Yes, eh, yes.

Today's council meeting.

It is May nineteenth, twenty twenty-six.

Going to go ahead and um reconvene here, and I'm going to pass it to Councilmember Smith to kick us off with the Pledge of Allegiance.

Please join us.

Thank you.

All right.

And with that, we will do continued general public comment.

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

And just to remind everybody, the process in order to speak during public comment, we identify the public speakers at the beginning of the public comment period.

And then once those speakers are identified, we close it off, and then only those people will be able to speak.

So if you want to speak later, you we won't be able to allow that.

You have to identify yourself at the beginning of the public comment period.

So I'll start with folks on Zoom.

You can navigate your way to the raise hand function.

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

Anybody in the chamber wishes speak for non-agendized items.

All right, I'll cut it off to the two.

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

And there's one on Zoom, so we'll go ahead and start in the chamber.

Yes, sir.

Well, originally on the agenda where I had saw was the staffing level report for the city council.

So my uh comments are related to the city staffing level.

Um, I apologize.

If if it's uh related to an item that's on today's agenda, this isn't the time to speak about it.

I checked the agenda.

It looks like it's been changed, and there is no staffing level report today.

There was a discussion earlier in the afternoon session regarding our our vag vacancies in the position.

Okay.

Um, so that was on the agenda in the in the afternoon session.

Well, when I originally looked, it was scheduled for seven o'clock.

Yeah.

It was it's on the agenda for the four o'clock session.

So I can't speak about it.

Uh, unfortunately, not because we would we would have to consider it under that item.

And in fact, we've already um had that unfortunately.

So I apologize.

If you would like, maybe as an alternative, you can email the council your comments so that we can read those.

So to who which representative if you want to connect with Nat here, he can get you kind connected with that.

All right.

Yeah, please comment up.

Hello?

Hope we can hear you.

Hello, Mayor.

Hello, staff.

Um, I wasn't expecting to speak so quick, but um kind of once again unresolved issues, just like the guy that complained about his sidewalk not getting fixed, and it took them about more than a few times.

Um I speak as a business owner, as a person that feels it's not fair to do business in the city of Monterey, where an association um management team, a group of people created the restrictions that allowed my business to be affected in a way that's been very um my established business has just practically failed over the fact that um based upon people's opinions and having business um the original comment that I spoke for the first time was when the business association said I did not as a business owner, a sidewalk vendor belong in an area that now is restricted down to um 320 square feet.

Um promised before over a year ago was enough spaces, I believe up to 15 spaces for vendors.

I've tried to go to planning department, I've tried to access and be allowed as ADA certified, there's I don't want to bring in um accommodations because that's on the next another item, but as part of the ADA, I feel like the street vendors should have a space, and there's even a tree area where originally in the original blueprint of the area where they mapped out, I feel like there could be an ADA space under the tree to make it a little bit more comfortable than being um uh a more relaxed area and um once again the city removes so many so many restrictions like I received a ticket when the guy gave the ticket, he said it was for being within 25 feet of another vendor.

However, when I go to the appeals hearing, in the appearance hearing, I argue the fact that there's a number missing in the ticket, and in that ticket, um I proved in that meeting that the person who wrote the ticket, he admitted he made a mistake on the ticket.

And and sitting right there during that meeting, I had to stand.

They didn't provide a place for me to sit down, but yet I proved my ticket was incorrect.

They said it incorrect, and then the appeals hearing person because once again the seat works like a monarchy.

And having that person without any reference other than from a city manager uh um city attorney saying um it's okay, it's acceptable when really it was unacceptable.

And um, I'd like the city to look into um looking into street vending and helping.

Thank you.

All right, we'll go to our caller on Zoom.

Yes, this is our telephone caller.

You can go ahead.

Good evening, this is Nina Beattie.

First, I'd like to note and protest that once again the city held an unnoticed public meeting.

This time it was May 13th on a forest plan.

It was not on iSearch.

There was no legal notice in the Herald.

I didn't see an ad in the weekly.

I understand it wasn't even posted on next door, and that the council may not have been initially notified.

City administration has done this on other issues, including ADA.

Please stop this practice by long-term staff, Mr.

Hall.

This lack of transparency and special mailing lists for events has to stop.

Secondly, ATG has been pressuring legislators, the CPUC and the FCC to get rid of copper line landlines and ATT's Kohler status.

Kohler means carrier of last resort.

ATG cannot discriminate currently and must provide telephone service to everyone.

But ATC doesn't want that obligation any longer.

It also wants to eliminate landlines despite opposition by public officials.

CPUC has a technology neutral policy on phone service right now and claims there are equivalent alternatives despite major differences.

Voice over internet protocol or VoIP and wireless require batteries to function.

They are not functionally equivalent or appropriate replacement to copper line landlines.

In a power outage or disaster, essential phone service must work 24-7 for 911 and emergency access, which they cannot.

In contrast, landlines are resilient and dependable in most emergencies and extended power outages.

Landlines are powered from a central office.

When you pick up the phone, there's a dial tone.

But with VoIP and wireless, when the batteries run out, you have no service.

Let me repeat when batteries run out, you have no way of dialing out, and no one can reach you.

That means loved ones, doctors, 911, children for evacuation notices, et cetera.

Landlines also provide pinpoint location information to emergency responders to reach you when every second counts.

The voice quality is superior, and they don't drop calls.

In addition, landlines provide internet service.

Landlines are superior.

Rural or urban areas, landlines provide reliable service and without the microwave radiation exposure.

What ATT wants endangers the public and discriminates against the public.

Thank you.

Okay, with that bring it back to the council, and pass it to, I believe, Chrissy for report out of close session.

Thank you, Mayor.

The first item was conference with legal counsel, existing litigation pertaining to a workers' compensation matter.

On a unanimous roll call vote, confidential direction was given to legal counsel.

The second item was conference with legal counsel existing litigation pertaining to the stronghold engineering versus the city of Monterey Matter on a unanimous roll call vote.

Awesome.

Thank you, Chrissy.

And with that, we'll go into our presentation item for the evening.

Item 18 is to recognize May 2026 as Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month.

And I will pass it to Dante, who will then pass it to somebody else.

I won't say I won't give it away for you.

I won't do your job.

Okay, to you to do.

Thank you, Mayor.

Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders have made significant contributions, not only to our city but our region and our country.

And so this is a proclamation on the Heritage Month to celebrate those contributions.

Not our assistant city manager will provide the presentation in this item.

Thank you so much, Mr.

Hall.

Just a very brief presentation.

I know we've shared some of this information with council before, but uh reiterating Asian American and the Pacific Islander Heritage Month and specific relevance to the City of Monterey and Monterey's history, as uh many of you have heard actually last uh week we had a presentation from Hopkins Marine Station.

The largest Chinese settlement in the United States in the 1860s was at Point Olympi's, uh just outside of Monterey in Pacific Grove.

And uh we have uh a lot of uh Asian American history that uh goes back to the 1800s, 18 eighteen fifties.

A lot of it tied to the canneries, the first Japanese settlement established in 1869.

And uh the first cannery on Canary Row was established uh by a Japanese-American uh Oto Saburo Noda uh in 1902.

And uh the Japanese women and uh and others uh were part of the canneries uh at not only on Canary Row but also as part of the wharf in the 1930s as well.

And so uh in by 1920 there were nine Japanese abalone operated companies operating from the wharf.

There were more Japanese-owned businesses on the wharf than any other in any other group uh on on the wharf.

And uh here are some photos that Brian uh Edwards collected, and he actually wrote a recent blog for C Monterey about uh the history of the Japanese in Monterey in Monterey specifically.

Uh this is the baseball team, the Monterey Manatos in 1924 that often played at Jack's ball field, which was uh right across from the Japanese American Civic League Hall, JCL Hall, which just celebrated this month a hundred years here in the city of Monterey, which is pretty astounding.

Uh the oldest uh Japanese American Civic uh League Hall in the United States of America.

Pretty pretty interesting.

So uh I know we've shared this before, so just so interesting to see the uh Monterey's what's known as Japan Town or Nihon Mashi, uh, that uh was on Adams Street, uh Washington Street, uh a lot of uh Japanese uh businesses from churches to laundry shops, barbershops.

It was a true Japan town here in our city.

And of course, a lot of that changed after World War II and the internment of Japanese.

Uh and uh they were certainly welcomed back, and it was actually pretty rare after uh World War II and after the internments ended by the US government, the uh Japanese Americans were welcomed back by Montereyans and saying we we want to welcome you back and uh where that wasn't the case necessarily in a lot of communities in in the US uh but was the case here.

John Steinbeck and Ed Ricketts actually put in a uh newspaper uh ad welcoming them back uh along with 300 other Monterey residents who who uh did the same.

Uh, this is a photo uh going back uh to uh the Monterey Peninsula chapter of the JACL Hall, which still sits on at 424 Adam Street uh today.

And we were part of uh with Brian and our museums team and others, uh part of the uh events uh celebrating the hundredth uh year anniversary of the JCL Hall earlier this month.

Um this is in 1908, uh the photo of the Japanese association members uh here in our city, and then um other communities, of course, uh of interest uh within the AAPI uh group, uh Filipino community has a strong uh presence here with uh Filipino Hall, just right on uh Pearl Street, just uh one block from uh from the tennis center.

So uh this is actually one of the floats from the July 4th parade from the Filipino uh community of Monterey Peninsula.

Those are pretty amazing floats back then.

So uh and you can you can tell the influence too uh on a variety of communities.

Uh DLI, which has uh been part of our community for many, many years.

The Defense Language Institute, you can see over the years this just gives you a history of between 1963 and 2018, all the various uh Asian languages that have that have been taught at DLI and then the influence on culture here uh here in the city.

Here's a photo of uh Larry Oda.

He is a former uh past president of the JCL nationwide and lives right here in Monterey and is active with the Japanese American Civic League.

He does uh tours at the exhibit museum that they actually have on Adams Street at the hall, and uh a couple years ago he helped host uh Japanese mayors from uh and from a variety of towns and villages when they visited uh our community and we spent the day with with them and uh enjoyed uh sharing stories about our resiliency, what we do to address uh earthquakes and uh disasters as our friends in Japan uh experienced the same thing.

So that's an overview and uh happy to answer any questions you have.

Awesome opening up to the council.

Questions, comments?

Uh I'll just say I was honored to be able to join um um Jackal at their 100th anniversary event.

Um and it was great to to be able to celebrate that with them and and learn more about their history.

And I and I think just to add a little bit of flavor to your presentation, Nat, I think one of the things that um came from that is this kind of enduring um desire to maintain that culture and history, um, so much so that there's um a lot of programs integrated at Middlebury Umstitute.

It uh it also led to the formation of the sister city relationship with Nanao Japan, and I believe it was two years ago now.

They um uh our sister city in Japan suffered, they were in the center of of an earthquake and um are still recovering from that.

And so we developed a partnership with um the community foundation and created a fund that helps support some relief efforts for them, um, which is what sister city relationships are all about.

And so I I'm I'm honored um to that that the city of Monterey is continuing to celebrate that community.

Um, and I also think it's an opportunity for us to make sure that we're we're looking at this through a lens of the work that still needs to be done.

So um thank you, Nat, for that for that presentation.

And with that, I'll go ahead and open it up for public comment.

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

Anybody in the chamber wishes to speak on this item.

All right, I'll c close it off in the chamber.

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

Go ahead and take that caller.

Esther, you can go ahead and speak.

Good evening, everybody.

Nice presentation, Nat.

I'm just um curious as to how these national months um, I don't even know what to call them because there seems like there's every month has 10 or 15 different things at their national.

So just to bring that point across, May is also uh older Americans month, national military appreciation month, mental health awareness month, clean air month, bike month, golf month month, Haitian Heritage, American, Jewish American Heritage Month.

So I I understand the historical connection that's being drawn here between the this particular segment that's been chosen out of all of these months' uh honorable, you know, uh topics, and I've I know we've done previous ones for Black History Month and we've done um Hispanic Heritage, but you know, I'm just curious what criteria has to be met for the council to take on a resolution like this because in particular the Jewish American Heritage Month, while we have all this anti-Semitism dramatically globally.

Um I just want to understand how it is that the choices are made to honor these groups um in general.

That's it.

Thanks.

All right, and with that, we'll bring it back to the council.

Um happy to connect with you more offline, Esther, as it relates to um inclusion of of other groups.

I don't think there's much of a criteria.

I think pretty much how this was established was the desire to focus on the diverse communities that exist within our communities, particularly those that are um underserved and and deal with um historic discrimination.

So happy to connect more offline.

There was one other point that I wanted to make that I didn't reference earlier, which is almost a little bit of a public service announcement.

If you haven't already heard, um, but speaking of the continuation of of the work, um, I'm sure everybody is aware that Middlebury um was planning on closing, um, but this this past week there news came out that there's um contract discussions going on with um SOCA University of America down in Viejo.

Um so seems pretty optimistic for things to be able to transition there.

Not all the programs are transitioning, so what that footprint looks like on campus is still to be determined, but um the fact is is that we're gonna be able to maintain it and endure some of that cultural references um associated with the institution.

So excited for that to occur as well.

All right.

Oh, and with that, um there is a um proclamation that we have, and I'm gonna ask staff to um see if we can get this presented to Jackal so that we can rightfully appreciate the work that they're doing in our community to celebrate the Asian American community.

All right, and thanks to Brian for the great pictures.

Yes, absolutely, absolutely.

So thank you for that.

All right, with that, we'll move on to our public hearing items, item 19 on the agenda is to adopt the planning commission recommendation to adopt a first reading of ordinance to prohibit roosters.

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

Great, and uh I'm I'm gonna pass it to our planning manager uh Lee Wah Heel, but um, you know, this is an ordinance uh that that staff is proposing to explicitly prohibit roosters uh within the city, and so um, like the mayor said it was a planning commission recommendation, and it's here for city council to consider adopting the first reading of an ordinance.

So I'll turn it over to Levi.

Thank you, Mr.

Hall.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

Uh as the city manager mentioned, the item before you is a amendment to the Monterey City Code, both uh chapter six and thirty-eight, uh, specifically dealing with the regulations for roosters, uh, and a little bit of background on this item.

Uh between 2020 and 2026, the city did receive approximately 10 complaints uh pertaining to the keeping of roosters.

Uh and as I mentioned earlier, there's two different sections of the city code that regulate chickens, the keeping of chickens generally, uh, and neither make any distinction between the uh terms roosters, hens, or chickens.

So the purpose of this amendment is to provide that clarity and add that language that would clarify uh and essentially have the effect of uh prohibiting roosters.

Um so as mentioned um everything right now just references chickens in the code and the proposed changes, uh, and as an example here, uh the change in chapter 38 would replace that term chickens, that's very general, and replace it with the more distinct term hens, uh, providing that clarity.

Um and with that uh city staff is recommending approval of an amendment uh and recommends the city council hold the public hearing and adopt the first reading to prohibit roosters.

Um there was one question from a member of the public about the hundred per 100 feet setback for for the chickens for the for the hens, I should say, I guess.

Um it has it always been 100 feet?

That's correct.

So there's no changes proposed in the current ordinance that deal with the actual regulation specifically dealing with tens or any type of keeping, it's just adding that clarifying language for the term hens rather than chickens.

Okay.

So you need a rather big piece of property if you were.

That's that's the idea.

That's correct.

Okay.

Okay, no, thank you for the presentation.

We'll go ahead and go to public comment.

Anyone on Zoom, you can be raised in function for those in the chamber if you wouldn't mind coming up to get in the left podium.

See there's two vote takers already.

Anybody else in the chamber wish to speak on this item?

Okay, so we'll go ahead and cut it off to the two.

And then I will do a are all three of you gonna speak.

Okay, so we'll cut it off three, and I'll do a countdown for folks on Zoom five, four, three, two, one.

There's one on Zoom.

I have a clear indication, I have a pretty solid indication where this is going.

So I'm gonna keep them comments brief because I think it's gonna be supported by the council.

I'm making an assumption here, but I'm gonna keep it at two minutes.

So we'll go ahead and start in the chamber.

Hello, Mayor and Council members.

I just want to say I'm in favor of the rooster band as written.

Thank you to Congressmember Garcia, Mayor Williamson, the whole council, city planning, all the administrators, and everyone involved in trying to coordinate and get this added to the agenda.

Thank you.

I know it takes a village.

Um, I just have a couple questions.

If it passes, how will it be enforced?

And will there be any outreach to animal feed stores to let them know that roosters are not permitted in Monterey?

And how it will be enforced, will they be using any notices or fines or confensate confisc confiscations?

I can't say that word.

Um, or will it be confiscated?

So I just had questions about that.

And then the other thing was the 100 feet.

Is that only for?

Because I know it was in the in the written portion, it talked about um four hens or fowl, rabbits and so on, permitted fowls are fine.

Um they're an ex- I think they're an accepted accessory um to a home.

But the question was for the hundred feet, is that only for the five or more?

So I wanted to understand, even if you have four or fewer acceptable rabbits, does that need to be a hundred feet?

Thank you.

I agree with the previous speaker, and I believe that we need to have a clearer and more responsible law involved in this, and I'm hoping that the public will take care of the enforcement.

Good evening, mayor, thank you, council members.

Uh my name is Christopher.

I'm a monitor resident.

I am in favor of the rooster pan.

Uh I would like to see further clarification on the education and enforcement for the ordinance.

Um, I also am curious about the hundred feet limit.

Um I used to live in a different city and it was passed at Dina, and at the time we were interested in raising hens, that was not allowed by city code at the time.

So my family and others got together and proposed a new ordinance based on a model ordinance.

Uh that ordinance allowed specifically for hens, not roosters, uh roosters.

Uh the setback in that case was 35 feet from neighboring dwellings.

Um, and so I just wanted to uh reiterate I'm in favor of the rooster ban and the clarification for hens.

Um and then I'm glad that this ordinance would still allow the keeping of chickens and hens at home.

Nothing like those fresh eggs.

Thank you very much.

That we'll go to our public commentary on Zoom.

Esther, you can on you can go ahead.

Yes, thank you.

I just want to make a comment as president of the Laguna Grande neighborhood.

I personally am not affected by this, but completely understand the um rationale and why it's needed.

Um thank you to staff for fast tracking this.

Frankly, I really don't recall anything being done this quickly before when a neighborhood is or something resident related needed to be addressed.

Um I have had a number of residents come to me as president about this, so I'm sure they're all gonna be happy to see that this is gonna go through.

So thank you for getting to this as quickly as you have.

Okay, with that we'll go ahead and close general public comment, and uh I'll go ahead and make a motion to approve staff recommendation.

Any other discussion on this item?

All those in oh, I apologize.

I apologize, I'm running too quickly here.

Well, what I'm hearing.

Oh, there were some questions.

Yes.

Yes.

I'm what I'm hearing is an interest on the part of the public, I think, and I got some feedback also, that reducing the hundred feet setback to forty was 35 or 40 was suggested.

Is there any interest in that from the council?

Or I would yeah, I would I would ask staff, is there any reason to not reduce that that you came upon in your research?

So that was not really analyzed as a part of this amendment.

This amendment was really geared towards just applying that distinction between hens and roosters, so staff has not analyzed any changes to the setbacks that are in the code today.

There were some questions too, and I and I apologize, I was I took note of them and glazed over.

Um enforcement was a question, animal feed stores, and then there was the 10 feet was it the hundred feet for five or more or so those are the three questions that I captured.

So I'll start with the the your last question there.

The 100 feet applies to all, so uh anything that's more than uh five or more would require a use permit, and that use permit was set forth the regulations for those chickens that exceed that four limit.

Uh as far as enforcement, we would be utilizing our city's code enforcement division to uh, you know, uh sure that that's uh properly enforced, primarily on a complaint basis, as most things in the city are.

Um, and we have not really explored uh education and outreach beyond uh what's already um not yeah.

Perfect.

Thank you for answering those questions.

Can I just clarify?

So if you had three chickens, is there a setback?

There is.

Yes, so that's 40 feet from the dwelling on the property and 100 feet from the property line or or places used for humanity.

Even if you had under the five.

Correct.

Um, thank you.

Um just wanted to make uh a comment.

Uh I'm personally also not impacted by roosters on my block, but I really appreciated residents who are impacted, came together.

Some of them spoke this evening, came together, coordinated, organized, do did their uh due diligence and got signatures and and all that.

So seeing the uh the support that they garnered, I'd very happy to support them in their action, and uh here we are tonight.

So thank you for doing that.

All right.

Oh, please.

Uh just one quick clarification because there's so much conversation going on, and I just had a chance to reread this.

So the um use permit and the 40 feet from a dwelling and the 100 feet from other habitation, uh the setbacks require to more than four.

Um so if you have more than four, then those those regulations kick in.

Less than four.

I don't know, we'd have to read through the code to see if there's some other regulation, but pretty much all we're doing today is changing it so it's chickens to hens and that clarifies so it removes roosters.

So I'm gonna go ahead and call the question.

All those in favor, aye.

Any opposed?

Motion passes unanimously.

Yes.

Um, Betty falls from the sky.

All right.

With that, we're gonna move to item 20, adopt the planning commission recommendation to adopt the first reading of ordinance to clarify the city's reasonable accommodation regulations.

That's the Dante for staff introduction.

And I'll turn it over to Director Cole.

Um, thank you very much, Mr.

Hall.

Um, this afternoon or evening, you'll we'll be considering an amendment to our zoning code regarding a concept called reasonable accommodations, and that's really born in state law.

State law requires that cities adopt um regulations allowing flexibility for persons with disabilities to zoning regulations so they can have equal um access to housing.

And in fact, our existing code has a procedure for reasonable accommodations.

We receive on average about one to two applications a year.

Um typical applications can include an ADA ramp into a house, maybe a lift.

They may not meet setback requirements, um, locational requirements, and so it our existing code has an administrative process to provide flexibility.

And I don't think you've ever received a complaint on this.

This is just something that happens in our regular business.

What occurred is with the housing element adoption, um cities are required to adopt programs for fair housing, and all our code is sort of scrutinized, and one of the issues that was brought up is that we could actually improve our regulations for um for this area, and there were two points made um in the housing element.

The first is that there was not a clear appeal process for disagreements about reasonable accommodations, and so we spoke earlier tonight, or you had a discussion about fees and appeals, so this fits well well with that discussion.

The proposed uh amendment establishes that any appeal of a staff decision would go to the disabled access appeals board so they could consider that focused item.

Um it also requires us to um provide assistance to appellants and help them through that process if they're filing an appeal of a staff denial.

Um there it in our existing code.

If the proposed um application is also with a discretionary project, it requires the accommodation to be reviewed by the planning commit today, the planning commission.

And um best practices is that those are really bifurcated, that the reasonable accommodation um application will stand on its own.

You don't have to go to the Planning commission or the city council on appeal for that reasonable accommodation.

So in summary, um there's two recommendations um before you in the proposed ordinance.

One is is it creates an appeal process, and the second part is that it eliminates the requirement that requires sort of this layering of review, and with that, we recommend approval.

Awesome.

Thank you for the presentation.

Any questions from the council?

Um I just had one.

Uh uh Kim, and that's um uh the B under Section 4B.

If an individual needs assistance in filing an appeal, the jurisdiction will provide assistance to ensure the appeal process is accessible.

So how does that work for us?

Um so for example, if we have um an appellant, maybe they're having difficulty filling out their forms.

Maybe they're having a difficult time understanding how to craft an argument in this particular area.

We'll go ahead and help them.

You know, we'll work with them, understand their concern and help them complete the paperwork and file the appeal and um so they can have their fair hearing in front of the disabled development staff.

Yes, or just our staff.

Thank you.

Anything else?

Any other questions?

All right.

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

Anyone on Zoom, you can use the raise hand function.

Anybody in the chamber wishes to speak on this item.

You can come on up.

All right, we just have the one, so we'll cut it off to the one.

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

We have one on Zoom, so we'll go ahead and start in the chamber.

Um can I have more than two minutes?

Um it's three minutes.

Thank you.

Yeah, see.

I I'm glad to see that the city's recognizing the fact that this thing about reasonable accommodations is a very important issue for disabled people.

I've only spoken about it about seven or eight, nine, ten times.

I'm sure the city's kind of finally recognizing like what is this guy talking about?

What is it got and it's not fair for in this situation where basically they're changing some of their roles and actually consolidating um their agreement right now is to get you to agree to um consolidating reasonable accommodations to a single person who just spoke as being the director instead of having a council, and uh the reason because I have a personal reason with the fact that when it comes to an appeals hearing, it's better to have a peers rather than a single person, an organizer who created the document, and also for me it's it's a conflict of interest because that same person was a witness against me when I tried to appeal mine based upon ADA using the lines of ADA.

So it's unfair for me as a person who has been discriminated against with ADA in the same room more than one time, and even when I asked for several times, even the first time when I stepped into this office, I walked in and I tried to go with the fact that can I have reasonable accommodations?

I've even several times asked the person who's supposed to be in charge of um disabled people.

Um I've submitted documents, I've submitted paperwork, even from last year when I had a complaint against a city, someone from the city manager's office, and that argument related to ADA again was never heard.

It's unfair to consolidate everything into uh more like a um excuse me.

Um once again, I know I appreciate the board and I I don't feel it's fair to um in this situation consolidate it to a single person.

It needs to be open to a group of people that can have that um discussion and not centered on a single um person to make decisions or something that involves more than I mean for me it's upsetting because I've brought up the subject numerous times and I'm glad it came up the subject matter came up, but it's unfair for someone with a disability to struggle and make such an effort to be included, and I I feel the city should look at it and manage it in a little better way than just allowing one person to be in charge of that area.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Alright, with that, we'll go to our caller on Zoom.

Miss Beattie, you can go ahead.

This is Nina Beattie.

Um the city administration, former city managers, assistant city manager, city attorney, community development director, ADA coordinator, former library directors, planning staff have consistently and unlawfully denied reasonable ADA accommodation to me going back to 2009.

This includes housing impacts.

The disabled access appeals board has been unwilling to address accommodations for me.

Adding the board to this ordinance is meaningless and will have no effect.

At one hearing of the board, when the need was presented for reduced bed height in some hotel rooms for disabled persons, that person's very reasonable request for action, even to make that request to the hospitality industry, was denied.

Apparently, Monterey doesn't want disabled visitors to stay in its hotels and pay TOT.

The reason I cannot attend city council meetings like tonight in person is because former city manager Fred Muir had Wi-Fi installed in the council chambers, knowing I'm disabled by electromagnetic sensitivity, and that wireless radiation is an access barrier for me.

The city held sham disabled access appeals board hearings in 2017 and 2018 on multiple disabled accommodation requests by me and refused all of them, though most were no cost or low cost.

A present planning commissioner was chair of the board, and he refused to give me time to rebut staff assertions and correct the record.

When Verizon planned to install 13 small cell towers on utility poles in Monterey, staff, your staff recommended three.

Two of them were in front of my house and another person, both of us disabled by EMS, and who had asked for denial on the basis of our disability and fair housing.

Well, the city denied there were any ADA issues associated with those placements.

During the recent ADA transition plan, I provided disabled information and history to the city and its consultant for its plan, but my recommendations and information were not included.

The city administration has acted repeatedly to block accommodations for electromagnetic sensitivity.

The city may write ordinances and put language in them as if they were complying with state and federal laws, but I've seen no evidence of complying with ADA or ADAA, Fair Housing Administration Act, and Fair Housing Amendments Act, and equivalent state laws for me or having knowledge of those laws.

They do know how to install very expensive curb changes for the mobility impaired, but that's pretty much it.

Thank you.

Okay.

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

Um I will make a point in regards to the concerns of I'm assuming a city staff member discriminating members of our community.

If there are complaints in the state of California, complaints can be made to the Civil Rights Department.

So that could be investigated outside of our jurisdiction.

So I just wanted to pass that your way in case that was a resource that you wanted to be able to access.

Um to the council for motion and deliberation.

I'll make a motion for approval.

So moved and seconded.

Any other discussion?

All right, all those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion passes unanimously.

Thank you, Kim and Team for that one.

And with that, move on to 21 is to adopt the planning commission recommendation to adopt a first reading of ordinance amending the Monterey City Code to prohibit vehicle storage on properties with both industrial administration research, or known as an IR, multi-residential family, known as MF zoning.

And with that, I'll pass it to Dante for staff introduction.

Thanks.

And Lee Bahill, our planning manager will uh take this presentation.

Thank you, Mr.

Hall.

So as mentioned, the item before you now is a uh uh amendment to the city's zoning code uh which would prohibit vehicle storage as a permitted use in the city's IR, which is our industrial uh zoning that also carries our multifamily overlay zoning.

So specifically, that's that section of our multifamily overlay that I think most of you are familiar with on south side of Garden Road.

Um, as you may recall, in 2024, we did uh the city did adopt uh its housing element, which included a series of uh programs in the housing action plan.

One of those programs was Program 2L, which included at that time was going to be a moratorium on vehicle storage, but had uh also language that uh said that there was going to be a more long-term amendment to prohibit vehicle storage in that area of Garden Road that uh has the multifamily overlay and industrial zoning.

So, as I mentioned, this is uh specifically an amendment to chapter 38, which is our zoning code, and what it would do is uh eliminate the vehicle storage use uh if properties are zoned IR and MF, which is our multifamily overlay.

So, just to show you on a map where these properties are, like said, I think most are familiar, but this is our south side of Garden Road, uh, with the exception of the one uh parcel that is there at the corner of Almstead and Highway 68.

That's actually a VAF zoned property, so that's visor accommodation facilities that is not included in the overlay and therefore is not included in this uh zoning amendment.

With that, uh staff is recommending that the city council hold the public hearing and adopt the first reading of the ordinance prohibiting vehicle storage in the IRMF overlay zoning.

And I don't have to answer any questions.

Thanks for the presentation.

Any questions, please?

Um, Levi, what did you think of the request from the the one resident to be?

I'm I'm not an expert at this, but exempted from the overlay, or in my words, perhaps grandfathered, because he had already had a lot of storage happening on his property and was never going to be a residential property.

What what was your reaction to that?

Is that a possibility?

Sure.

So that's a policy decision for the council.

Uh that is within the discretion of the council.

Um, that property owner is requesting to be excluded from this uh zoning uh to your comments about being grandfathered in.

It's to my knowledge, there's not an existing vehicle storage use there.

There has been in the past as well was provided, it is uh permitted via use permit.

There was a use permit in the 90s.

Uh however, our code requires that if a use is uh approved by use permit and is abandoned for a period of 18 months or more, they lose that non-conforming status.

So that's where that property is, I understand it sits today.

Um, again, I think where staffs uh is on it is the uh is we see this as the continuation of the direction the council provided when they adopted that program of the housing element.

Uh, but it is to this council's discretion if they want to include that property or not.

Well, thank you for that explanation on the on the history.

That's very helpful.

Any other questions?

All right, thanks again, Levi.

Uh, open it up for public comments.

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

Anybody in the chamber wish to speak on this item?

We already have one ticker.

Anybody else?

All right, we'll go ahead and cut it off from the chamber, and I'll do a count for folks on Zoom to five, four, three, two, one, and we have one on Zoom.

We'll go ahead and start in the chamber.

Thank you very much, Mayor.

Council members.

I am that resident that wrote the letter.

I've just given Levi's supplement to that.

Um, I'm coming in late in the game.

I realize that.

Uh I received a notice of this meeting last week.

I was out of town, called Levi.

Levi explained to me what was happening.

I thought, wait a minute, I need to put my two cents in.

Uh you're familiar with the first letter that the council was sent last Friday, and I've just supplemented it.

The property is a corner property.

And I discussed with Levi his concerns and he concerned about a Swiss cheese effect.

It wouldn't be Swiss cheese because we're the uncut.

We're right there at the very corner of Olmsted and Garden across from the airport.

Um the property was built as a factory building.

It was the first building on Garden Road.

My family built it.

We've continued to own it.

We've owned it for almost 70 years.

Uh it's been in continuous operation.

It's not underutilized.

Uh, and uh as a matter of fact, we in 1980 had to get a variance to increase usage from the zone 25% to 29%.

Uh and I have a copy of that if the council's interested.

Uh so I know that what Levi described to me was your desire to increase multifamily housing, and that's great.

We agree with that.

My only concern is uh that that property is really not an appropriate property for that particular use at this time.

It would be very expensive to take it down and to do anything else with it.

We have used it continuously, renting it to small businesses.

The small businesses are very competitive there.

Our rents are low.

They're on a month-to-month basis.

So what we're asking the council to do is to take a look at our particular situation on a case to case basis and exclude us from the overlay prohibiting the vehicle storage and not from the multifamily.

And I understand that this is a three-year term to begin with, anyway.

So if we're not going to sell it, and it's already uh in a position to provide vehicle housing, which it has storage, there's no reason not to go ahead and continue what the past use has been.

As a matter of fact, I have a space of 1600 square feet and was approached today for vehicle storage.

Uh I had to tell the fellow I couldn't do anything about it until we knew what was going to happen.

Now that's not to say I can't come back and get a variance, but I think it would be in everyone's best interest to simply accommodate this.

I think it would be a good move.

If there's any questions, I'm very happy to have answer them.

Um unfortunately we can't engage in in a discussion.

Um we just receive the public comment and then we'll bring it back to the council for deliberation.

All right.

Thank you, sir.

All right, with that, was that the only one?

Was there one on the let's go to the caller engine?

Yes, Ms.

Beattie, you can go ahead.

Yes, this is Nina Beattie.

I'm a little confused about this amendment.

Um are we talking about um motor homes or uh that sort of vehicle that would be prohibited in these zonings, but would not be per would be fine in a single family uh zoning uh district.

Um also if someone was doing uh some sort of commercial business, um, with a business permit from their home, and they lived in multifamily uh zoning area, um, they would not be able to park their vehicle at their house if it was a commercial vehicle.

Um that to me would seem like an income constraint um that would limit their ability to do business when, of course, if they had the income, it would be wonderful if they had a storefront and they had a garage at that storefront and they could park their vehicle, but in these times, especially with expensive real estate, that's not always possible.

Um, and so somebody working from their home but with a commercial vehicle would it sounds like not be allowed to park their vehicle at their home.

So it would just be nice to have some clarification about um what types of vehicles and if single family homes are indeed able to have no restrictions, whereas these other districts um have significant restrictions.

Thank you.

Okay, with that we'll go ahead and close general public to the council for a motion and deliberation.

Um actually first um if staff wanted to clarify anything as related to public comments.

I mean, I'm most interested in the current use of the property and and the point that you made earlier around the permit having expired or been exhausted.

So I anyways, I'll I'll pass it to you, Levi.

Sure.

I think the first point of clarification I'd like to make is that the program language included the three-year limitation that was when it was being proposed as a moratorium.

This ordinance would not have that three-year limitation on it.

So this would be an ordinance amendment uh that we carry forward.

Uh beyond that, is it's it's really what this is looking at is the elimination of the vehicle storage use.

So what that is is and as defined in our code is lots for storage, parking towways, impound yards, and storage lots for automobiles, trucks, buses, and recreational vehicles.

And so that's as a primary use.

Um, so as been talked about as far as ancillary vehicle parking, things like that, other businesses, that's not included in this.

This is for the use of vehicle storage.

Um, so as far as the property uh that's being requested be excluded, um, I would just need it would just depend on whether or not they have legally established vehicle storage uses there, or whether or not the non-conforming section of the code would apply.

Um, as I mentioned, it's permitted by use permit.

Uh, and I it's to my understanding has not been a continuous use since the nineties.

Uh so there's it's likely that it has lost that non-conforming status, but if that has in fact can be documented that there's been a legally established vehicle storage use uh prior to the state that that would the non-conforming section of our code would apply to that use.

Okay, please.

But I'm also hearing I think that if it's a minor use, it would be okay as is now and with this proposal.

It's just if it's the majority use.

So we don't really use the term minor or majority.

So there's primary uses that are permitted uses within the zoning code, and those oftentimes have ancillary things like company vehicles.

So you can think, for instance, say uh a business that has a select few of a fleet vehicles, that would be considered ancillary to that business.

I think uh uh what vehicle storage more as a primary use would look like is a parking lot, a paid for parking lot, commercial lot, or maybe what we're familiar with car condominiums and that kind of thing, where the sole use is for vehicle storage.

Okay, if there's multiple businesses on a lot that are available for lease, and let's say let's say there's five, and only one of them uses this.

Does that would that where does that fall?

If the space is being leased out solely for the purpose of storing of vehicles, it would fall into the use of vehicle storage.

Okay.

Okay.

So it would not be allowed.

Correct.

Under this amendment.

Under this amendment.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Yeah, I'm trying to understand this amendment applies to all zones.

No, sir.

It's just gonna be the that uh south side of Garden Road where the multifamily overlay.

So there's other IR zone properties in the city that this prohibition would not apply to.

Um, okay, so I'm I'm trying to understand what we did with the overlay.

So the overlay uh did not remove.

I'm sorry, let me oh, I'm sorry.

There it goes.

There's more.

So I'm trying to understand the um effects of the overlay because the property that the speaker spoke to us tonight was originally commercial, correct?

Industrial, 2700 2700 garden room.

Yes, it's industrial zone.

So it was industrial.

So had we not done an overlay, would this still be at issue?

It would in the way that so the overlay did was simply expand the permitted uses on those properties to allow multifamily residential.

It didn't remove any uses that would otherwise be allowed under the IR zoning.

Uh so essentially today with the use permit, someone in that area could establish the use of vehicle storage.

This would be removing that ability.

Uh it would maintain the ability to still do multifamily housing and other industrial uses as permitted in the IR, with the exception of vehicle storage.

And I would just clarify that it was it was always not always, but it's it's it was zoned IR, like right in light industrial prior to us adding the multifamily residential.

Yeah, so the policy is for light industrial and multifamily residential.

So it even if we didn't do the zone overlay, it would have it would have still impacted.

Yeah, no, and I I understand that.

So I'm trying to address the problem of unique property in a unique zone that historically has been light industrial.

However, it's currently being used, so what would it be and it sounds like it wouldn't matter what the re the resident owner or the owners of the property try to do?

They would be restricted from storing vehicles at their current location under any circumstance.

As a primary use that that is a primary use.

Correct.

Yes, sir.

So if they try to create some other business and the storage of vehicles wasn't primary, but it was an auxiliary use, that would diminish the value of that property, wouldn't it?

They would still be able to have vehicles ancillary to other permitted uses.

They just wouldn't be able to lease a space out for the sole purpose of vehicle storage or the property as a whole as vehicle storage.

Mm-hmm.

Okay.

So what is wrong with vehicle storage there?

So the I mean, there it makes a case for safety hazard, you know, what's the what's the absolutely so the vulnerability that was identified in 2024 whenever this came about and the program language was added to the housing element was that the council had placed the multifamily overlay uh on these properties to uh incentivize and facilitate multifamily development.

Uh as you know, the city has a uh CDO and a moratorium on the setting of new water meters, uh, which creates a vulnerability for these properties uh for high demand uses like car storage that don't require the same water usage.

So what staff had identified was an instance of where a lot of these properties that have been identified for multifamily housing were at risk of being developed with uses that were non-residential like car storage because of the the um limited use of water that's required.

Um and so that's what the um really what the issue is.

Um I'm I'm I'm kind of torn on this because we have an applicant, uh a property owner that's here and advocating for a use of his property, and I can appreciate that.

Um, however, I think in alignment with our goals in the city, to me, I'm trying to weigh do we want more space, more land use for vehicles, or are we trying to bring priority towards housing and how does that how does that prioritize it prioritization towards vehicles um take us away from that that housing focused goal?

I understand that right now it seems that the property may not pencil out for uh a housing development, um, but how much further are we bringing ourselves away from that by um creating an exception in this space?

And and I'm I've always been kind of hesitant to create exceptions just because of one person's unique situation, um I I would want to do it in a way that made it equitable so that even if people didn't hear about um what was being presented to us that they could also contribute or benefit from that exception that we're making to the rule.

Um so I'm I'm inclined to just support staff's recommendation, but I'm also interested in hearing what the rest of the council has to say.

Well, I what I want to say would need some reply from the appellant, and that's my understanding is right now he's he's fully working, utilizing his property the way he wants to right now under all these conditions.

Like he'll continue to work.

I mean, under the way it is, maybe I can help um with the conversation.

So this policy decisions, as you know, was developed as a part of the housing element to further and facilitate housing.

The law does provide protections when someone has an existing use or an existing business that subsequently becomes illegal.

They're either grandfathered in under the law, or the law requires that you have a very lengthy amortization pro uh period so that they can get back their investment backed expectation.

Um, in this particular situation, based on the facts I've just heard tonight, uh there a yeast permit is required to have the vehicle storage on any property in this area.

There is not a use permit in place on this property right now.

And the law does not give the same um deference to investment based expectations or you know some of this case law says starry eyed hope of doing something but not having done it.

So it's I would say that this particular property without the use permit is in no different um standing or situation than any of the other properties in this in this zone.

But thank you for that because it was kind of where my my brain was at with this you said said it way more eloquently than I could have.

And I think there's this other piece to it too where I wonder I maybe it's marginal maybe it's small but I wonder what this does as it relates to compliance with our housing element as it relates to HCD, right?

By not implementing the program by the way it was approved I I I have some concern there.

So I don't know if staff has thoughts as it relates to that.

Sure.

So there definitely is a area of vulnerability there.

What gets adopted in the housing element is also certified by the state so there is um we did say that we were going to in that in that document that we were going to prohibit vehicle storage in the overlay area.

Okay thank you for that um Mr Reed I I um I appreciate you coming to to make an appeal to to counsel tonight.

I I I feel compelled to stay consistent in regards to similar policies that have come in front of the council that have been difficult and challenging I would say offer even more challenging and I'm speaking specifically to the whole program around SB9 and allowing up to six units.

I mean that was and still is a really contentious issue but the main um argument that I made and and I feel um truly towards that is we had approved our housing element and I don't want to take away from being not in compliance for some reason and then having to pay fees associated to that to to the state um it sounds like there may have been a there might be a compelling space for you to be able to work with staff in clarifying your permit and so hopefully you can work with them on finding that pathway but at this point I'm gonna go ahead and make a a motion to approve staff recommendation.

All right they're moving in seconds say one more thing.

Please please um I you I think you expressed it well I I'm gonna re-express it the way I understand it is I I appreciate your concerns.

What I'm hearing is that right now you really aren't going to suffer damages.

Right right now you're still whole and and what I'm hearing from the attorney is that we can't protect your we can't vest you with future rights to have vehicle storage.

We we aren't going to protect that right so um and we have a a plan in the future so for me given that you are as a business person whole right now and can remain whole I agree with the mayor.

And that's hard.

Sorry I I I we have to be careful just to not engage in too much discussion um because then we'll have to open it back up for public comment.

Anyone else before we call the question yeah I've just um I'm not gonna support it because I just feel that um there's an opportunity to recognize there should and at times there are carve outs and I think given time with the well established building that's been there longer than several others that I think that this is an economic development opportunity to spend some time with the property owner to assist and figure out how there could be a workaround.

Um I never want to see us create a situation where we box a property owner in where the significant piece of we say he probably owns it, he might be able to adapt to some other business model that's not including rental space for cars, but in the mediacy Monday morning, he's gonna lose rental income from the current cars that are there.

I'm I'm hearing there aren't current cars there.

Am I wrong?

Did I miss that there are if we get a nod from the audience?

I won't acknowledge who I'm getting in.

Except that you just said that.

Maybe maybe staff can tell us.

Staff elaborate where is the property currently being used to storage the store vehicles.

That was that was impressive, Dante.

He's trying to ignore me.

So it's it's our understanding there are not cars being stored that would fit the definition of vehicle storage.

There are cars that are maybe ancillary to other uses on the property that are stored but are not classified as legal storage.

Okay, okay.

And if it's discovered that it that there is legally established legal storage uses through documentation, we that the non-conforming section of our code would apply.

Okay.

Um so I'm just gonna on principle I'm gonna I'm gonna not support it.

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

Um, all those in favor?

Aye, any opposed?

No.

Perfect.

Um 4-1, and then we're gonna move on to item 22 on our agenda, which is the only council request to agendize new matters item.

Um, and I'll pass it.

Oh, let me read the item.

Councilmember Garcia's request to agendize a discussion regarding options to support Casanova Oaknole neighborhoods request for an air quality study.

So with that, I'll pass it to Councilman Garcia for a three minutes or less presentation.

Thank you.

Yeah, I'll make it quick.

Um, so this uh again, an example of neighbors uh identifying uh a concern and issue and coordinating, doing their due diligence and uh putting together information um to bring action and then change.

So uh this item came uh from the Casanova Oaknole Neighborhood Association who are concerned about um residents um saying that there's uh maybe uh like uh particles on their vehicles, their solar panels, um soup and uh sometimes fumes that they smell uh prompting the uh request to do a um air quality study.

So as an association, a neighborhood association, uh, and also uh supported by Richard Ricello, the the president of the uh neighborhood association.

They have written a letter to um the uh uh to Ambart, uh the uh local agency who would be uh I believe uh responsible for um this type of study uh requesting that a study be done, um, and then uh gather findings.

So um definitely something that uh I want to support.

Um I think it's uh it's a good move.

And um here I am uh requesting that my colleagues here in council also support um this effort um and looking forward to uh suggestions from staff to see how we can support this uh this effort.

Perfect.

And then at this point, just saying if there's any questions from council, and the questions should be focused on the capacity to provide information for future discussion and time frame.

There are any questions from the council at this time.

It's not a question.

It's a broadening of the topic.

Yeah, yeah.

We'll maybe we'll come back to that after we get back from the.

I don't know if it's a question until I hear it.

I guarantee it's not a question.

That was cute, Ed.

That was really cute.

Alright, we're gonna open up for public comment for folks on Zoom.

You can use a raise hand function.

Anybody in the chamber wishes speak on this item.

We have one taker, you can come up to the mic.

Anybody else?

Alright, we'll cut it off to the one speaker, and I'll do a countdown for folks on Zoom to five, four, three, two, one.

There's three on Zoom.

I'm gonna leave it to two minutes.

Please go ahead and start in the chamber.

Hello, Daniel Madaris again.

Hello, mayor, city council members.

Um, I appreciate this moment here where staff is learning how to agendize projects.

And uh it's nice to see the group working together to um be more successful in um finding important items to um as a group to put forth and um to agenda.

I think it's important that um part of this living process is um very important for this group to manage and work together and find um answers to um everything that comes up to be agendized is very important, and it's nice to see that um the method coming together and being able to agendize where before it seemed like it was more like a um like a monarchy where one person was presenting the ideas of what was going to be agendized and like in the last meeting where you kind of opened it up and allowing the benefit of everyone to express their ideas and how to um bring forth agendized items, and I I appreciate the fact that um the group is growing.

Thank you.

Thank you.

With that, we'll go to our commenters on Zoom.

Yes, first I'm calling on Richard.

Good evening.

Richard Marcello, president of the Casanova Neighborhood Association.

Uh I held a Zoom meeting a couple of months ago, and one of my members mentioned that they had their solar panels cleaned four times as often as the professional cleaner does other areas, is there's a black suit that covers the solar panels.

So all of a sudden, other members started chiming in Fern Street, Euclid, Ralston, Melway, even myself.

Uh there are times we go outside.

The smell of jet fumes is so strong you cannot breathe.

I actually have to go in the house.

It's rare.

It's when the wind blows a certain way.

All we want to do is have air quality testing to find out whether this is safe or not, and then to recede from there, but uh uh the point is it's widespread across the neighborhood, and I did get an answer from the Monterey Bay Resources uh division, and they are gonna come out here next week and take a look.

Uh having the council support us get the air quality testing would be uh uh beneficial to the outcome.

Uh we're not attacking the airport.

We just want to know what is going on with our air quality.

And thank you for your time.

And I'm sure others want to chime in too.

Thank you.

Thanks, Richard.

Our next speaker is Ms.

Beattie.

Um, I support an air study and agendizing the um this very critical issue.

My grandmother lived under the flight path of the airport under um next to Lee Calestero.

The grime that collected on her building and the windows, which had to be frequently cleaned with also what she was breathing.

And what were those chemicals?

No one raised this issue.

Casino open all directly under the flight path and next to the runway.

They're identifying a problem and taking action.

So please agendize this and urge immediate testing, especially in view of the children that live there.

Um, when there's a threat of toxin, the city must be a leader in protecting residents.

And I'm glad the council member Garcia has brought this forward on behalf of the the uh neighborhood association.

Um, I uh council members recently made statements about parents allowing their children to live near the airport as justification to allow Montessori school in the same area, and that's preposterous.

Housing choice is about realities and availability, not real choice or wishes or healthy neighborhoods.

Most residents don't have the opportunity or choice to live in the high income areas of Monterey Vista neighborhood, Alta Mesa, Fisherman's Flat, Skyline Forest, Jocelyn Canyon, et cetera, or to purchase homes.

They're forced to live where and how they can.

But housing is tight near the airport may be the only place to live despite being undesirable from a health standpoint, but it sounds like it's a vibrant neighborhood in the cast of Oaknals from a people standpoint, which is wonderful.

So please um agendize this quickly so there can be a quick uh action to support what these neighbors are doing and I also recommend independent testing.

Um MBARD has fallen far short in the situation with the battery storage facility fire in Moss Landing and they are not, I don't believe to be relied on for um good testing.

I think that um some independent testing would be uh really advised um by someone who doesn't have a conflict of interest.

Thank you.

And the last speaker is Esther.

Good evening as an adjacent neighborhood to Kona we support getting this um study done as they're more affected than we are in Villa Del Monte but obviously all of our neighborhoods on this side of the city have an interest in this so hopefully this will be fast tracked and we can have the results of some study to really just make some decisions.

Thank you.

Okay with that we'll go ahead and close public comment bring it back to the council and again the the discussion is limited to whether the issue warrants being heard at a future date so open it up please well despite those admonitions um I hope we can um include other resources like the Monterey County Health Department just to see how rich we can get the discussion um I we really need to invite the airport uh board and CEO there's been a uh change on the board and uh with the administration where I bet they would be very collaborative and they might have resources they might have grants to look at the air quality so I think we should approach Mary Ann Leffel and Chris Morello and you it sounds like you've already reached out to the Monterey Bay Air Quality Resource Board but they should be included and um we can all do it together and Richard so nice to hear from you Rich Ricello.

Please I think it's a a good topic and I I would be in favor of the discussion to discuss more.

Is that a motion?

Yes.

Okay I'll second.

So there's a motion um anything else I can't think of any reasons why I wouldn't support it and I am also like Jean has expressed I'm sure there's a lot of partners that do this kind of industry for environmental checks that we could learn from what's available.

But I am aware and cognizant that when we ask staff to embark on trying to find the ability to give us report back we do have restrictions in costs so would this will come back with staff we'll get some input but I hope that there's uh solutions out there for us without us having to spend uh a lot of general fund money uh but I am curious to see if we can answer some of the questions that obviously the residents have awesome all right well thank you Councilman Garcia for bringing this forward um we'll obviously discuss this more when it gets reagendized so I'm gonna go ahead and call the question all those in favor aye any opposed motion passes unanimously with that we'll move on to council comments anybody well I I was at the um the uh chamber of commerce meeting today with um our city manager and assistant city manager and their their good news was that um their vacancy rate in the hotels is up and their I think it was three or four percent and their um dollar income is up I think it was by 11%.

It was in the two digits.

So they had that was from C Monterey.

So good news there.

Awesome.

Anybody else uh thank you to um councilmember Rash for attending for me at the MST board meeting, as well as the administrative oversight committee.

And Gino, thank you for attending the uh rail subcommittee in my absence uh I had a wonderful trip to Florida to see the grandkids, and then uh prior to coming home, went up to DC and uh attended the association defense communities.

And if anybody's ever wondering what it is, that banner back in the corner.

Uh and during the show with many of the awards for this year that other cities were getting and many of the events.

Monterey was definitely branded.

Our sign, our previous awards uh were present, and the Monterey model was highlighted several times and referenced, and uh Dante Hall was there.

Got to meet a lot of the folks that uh care about installations, along with our assistant city manager Nat, uh Chris Dwight, as well as Mark Ackerman, and I think we had a very productive time, and we also went to the Capitol and uh Dante and Nat and I visited with uh Congressmember Panetta, and then we're able to visit with staff members of uh Senator Padilla and Senator Schiff's office to be able to lay on their hands some of our high high-end priorities that we have for our installation.

So it was a good time, and also came away with uh handful of other people to continue talking with whenever we can because we shared the floor with council members, mayors, uh installation facility, folks, um anybody and everybody who cares about supporting the military mission and readiness, which includes uh spouses, families, and the soldiers that are housed in our community.

So it was a good good conference to go to.

Awesome.

Anyone else?

Oh, and we should mention that he met the neighborhood in Monterey Visitors Sunday.

And I was hoping he he that Dante would mention it too, but go ahead, please.

Well, um, Dante attended to uh Monterey Vista Neighborhood Association where they invited him to come and meet them, and uh once again he got an A plus and got people who listened to him, and I think there was good questions.

And the weather held up.

Nice, all right.

Well, with that, we'll pass it to Dante for City Manager Reports.

Thanks, Mayor.

I just have a couple of announcements, and yes, that that meeting was great.

Um I'm uh gonna be meeting with some other neighborhood associations and doing the same thing and just kind of getting um the lay of the land and and views from residents, just two announcements.

Uh Memorial Day on the 25th.

Uh, we're having a remember and honor memorial day um uh concert at Colton Hall.

Um at one one o'clock p.m.

Uh we have the Cypress Nairs uh barbershop chorus uh that are going to be performing, and then at 2 p.m., there's the Monterey County Pops Orchestra that's gonna be performing at Colton Hall.

So come on down, enjoy Memorial Day and enjoy some festivities.

Lastly, um for the June second election.

There's a ballot drop box in front of the library, and uh the city is once again hosting locations at Schultz Park Center and El Estero Park Center uh for full uh list of polling uh locations and drop boxes.

Restaurant residents can go to the Monterey County Elections website.

It's Monterey County Elections, which is one word.us.

And residents who are not um registered to go to any polling location on election day, uh, can register to vote and complete a conditional uh ballot at those polling at polling places that are listed.

Um so that completes my announcements and uh thank you very much.

Awesome.

Thank you, Dante.

With that, we'll go ahead and adjourn.

Thank you, everybody.

Have a good evening.

Thank you.

I will have playing.