Council Regular Meeting

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING CITY OF MONTEREY Tuesday, January 21, 2020 4:00 PM 7:00 PM MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Councilmembers Present: Albert, Haffa, Smith, Williamson, Roberson Absent: None City Staff City Manager, Assistant City Manager, City Attorney, Community Present: Development Director, Public Works Director, Police Chief, Finance Director, Fire Chief, Human Resources Director, Parks and Recreation Director, Acting City Clerk, Dir. of Information Resources/City Clerk, Property Manager, Principal Engineer, Administrative Analyst (Housing), Parks Operations Manager, Associate Planner, Library Director, Police Lieutenant, Associate Civil Engineer, Senior Engineer, Environmental Regulations Manager, Harbormaster, Assistant Fire Chief, Division Chief ***Afternoon Session Agenda *** CALL TO ORDER Mayor Roberson called the meeting to order at 4:02 p.m. PRESENTATIONS 1. Presentation on the Purpose and Objective of the Housing Coalition (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378, and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Received presentation, Discussed Jeff Baron, Carmel-by-the-Sea Councilmember, gave the presentation together with Wendy Root Askew, Monterey Peninsula Unified School DistrictTrustee, and answered Councilmembers' questions. The Council discussed the presentation. The topic of a potential Joint Powers Agency on housing issues was discussed. It was suggested that the staff of the region's municipalities share more information and data between each other about actions being taken to address the housing challenge. It was suggested that municipalities could join together to apply for grants and/or loans. It was stated that housing is a regional issue and the decisions of cities affect the entire region. Mr. Baron encouraged the Council to focus on policy-making, not administration. On the subject of water and its impact on housing issues, it was noted that the Water Management District will be reconvening its Policy Advisory Committee. It was suggested that the coalition reach out to regional agencies such as Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) and Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG). Mayor Roberson opened public comments. Esther Malkin urged the Council to understand the regionality of the housing problem and think creatively. Mark Poehner shared concerns about landlords' behavior and stressed the need to be proactive. Rick Heuer said that the Council, not the Water Management District, is responsible for determining land use in the City. Tom Rowley, during Item 2, said that Council should bring back its Water Update section of its regular agendas and suggested using the Monterey County Association of Realtors as a resource for housing discussions.  City Council Minutes January 21, 2020 2. Recognize the Retirement of Principal Engineer Jeff Krebs for 36 Years of Service (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Recognized Principal Engineer Krebs Public Works Director Wittry gave the presentation honoring Principal Engineer Krebs and his years of service. Mr. Krebs shared stories and thoughts about his career with the City. Mayor Roberson opened public comments. Tom Rowley, Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program (NCIP) representative, said that Mr. Krebs is irreplaceable. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mayor Roberson opened public comments on non-agendized matters. Jeana Jett shared concerns about the Wireless Ordinance and urged Council to take action similar to what she stated Bend, OR, Carmel, IN, and Greendale, WI have undertaken to protest 5G wireless equipment deployment. Rich the Poet echoed concerns about 5G, and asked for flashing crosswalk lights for safety at the intersection at the corner outside of Denny's. P.K. Diffenbaugh said that Monterey Peninsula Unified School District is accepting applications to fill a vacancy on the Board of Trustees. Barbara Meister, Monterey Bay Aquarium, said that the Monterey Bay Fisheries Trust is reintroducing groundfish to the community through "Get Hooked Restaurant Week" and invited all to dine out and try groundfish. Esther Malkin shared concerns about going into the new NCIP cycle without Jeff Krebs' experience and knowledge, and urged Council to raise Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) to address current fiscal concerns. On negotiations agendized as Item cs5 on the closed session agenda, the following individuals spoke: Scott Fosmark in favor of Lusamerica Foods, Inc.; and Robbie Torrise, Robbie's Ocean Fresh Seafood, in favor of his proposal. PUBLIC APPEARANCE 3. Adopt a Resolution Supporting the Be SMART Educational Campaign on Responsible Firearm Storage (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 20-001 C.S. Police Chief Hober and Susan Meister gave the presentation urging all to: Secure guns, Model responsible behavior around guns, Ask about the presence of unsecured guns in other homes, Recognize the role of guns in suicide, and Tell peers to be SMART. Mayor Roberson opened public comments and received none. On a motion by Councilmember Albert, seconded by Councilmember Williamson, and carried by the following vote, , the City Council adopted Resolution No. 20-001 to support the Be SMART educational campaign on responsible firearm storage: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Albert, Haffa, Smith, Williamson, Roberson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) 2  City Council Minutes January 21, 2020 Mayor Roberson said that Item 4 would be heard in the evening session. The Council recessed at 5:28 p.m. and reconvened at 7:02 p.m. ***Evening Session *** 4. Provide Guidance Concerning 2020 Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program Plan Objectives ***NCIP*** (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Provided direction to staff by sharing priorities as follows: Fire safety and greenbelt maintenance; Parks including Old Capitol Site and a Tot Lot in Oak Grove; Projects that would help traffic flow through neighborhoods; Getting information to neighbors on NCIP project status; A sidewalk on Mark Thomas Drive between Josselyn Canyon and Santa Catalina; Projects that amplify the Multi Modal Plan and increase bicycle lanes; Sports Center maintenance; Fire station and police station; Housing program such as emergency fund for renters; Safety for pedestrians in neighborhoods; Improved senior access for places like the Library, Sports Center, and Senior Center, such as parking, handrails, signage; Increasing access for pickleball players that doesn't conflict with tennis and other park use; Possible starter funds to kick off Old Capitol Site master planning Public Works Director Wittry gave the staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions. He introduced Senior Engineer Harty, whom he said would take on the Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program (NCIP) following Principal Engineer Krebs' departure, and asked Council for guidance. Curt Tipton and Duane Peterson, NCIP Committee representatives, shared their concern that the "N" for neighborhood may be removed from this year's program. Rick Heuer, NCIP Spokesperson, asked Council to take this opportunity to provide guidance about the types of projects they would like to see from NCIP this year. Esther Malkin said that NCIP is directly funded by TOT, which has not increased in 34 years. Mayor Roberson spoke about the history of the NCIP program and said that the program always serves a combination of neighborhood and community. He suggested a surcharge on fees for maintenance and capitalization. He spoke about changes in 2019 and cited the opportunity to look at the program with fresh eyes. He said that it will be interesting to see what projects are proposed by neighborhoods and invidiuals regarding the Old Capitol Site and Sports Center. Mr. Heuer spoke in favor of a subcommittee to address the backlog. The Council discussed the matter. Priorities that were shared were: Fire safety and greenbelt maintenance; Parks including Old Capitol Site and a Tot Lot in Oak Grove; Projects that would help traffic flow through neighborhoods; Getting information to neighbors on project status; A sidewalk on Mark Thomas Drive between Josselyn Canyon and Santa Catalina; Projects that amplify the Multi Modal Plan and increase bicycle lanes; Sports Center maintenance; Fire station and police station; Housing program such as emergency fund for renters; Safety for pedestrians in neighborhoods; Improved senior access for places like the Library, Sports Center, and Senior Center, such as parking, handrails, signage; Increasing access for pickleball players that doesn't conflict with tennis and other park use; Regarding Old Capitol Site, it was suggested by Council to consider plans as they relate to expectations. It was mentioned that there is a possibility for revenue generation but that a Master Plan should go before the Parks and Recreation Commission, and opportunities should 3  City Council Minutes January 21, 2020 be considered. It was stated that Council may ask NCIP for starter funds to kick off master planning for the Old Capitol Site. Regarding the backlog, it was questioned whether the backlog could be addressed through an ongoing construction contract. CONSENT ITEMS Mayor Roberson said there had been a request to continue Item 8 to the next meeting (February 4, 2020). Regarding Item 12, Council requested to learn more from staff about the work being done by ECHO Housing. Public Works Director Wittry and Community Development Director Cole answered Councilmembers' questions regarding Item 14. Mayor Roberson opened public comments on the Consent agenda and received none. On a motion by Mayor Roberson, seconded by Councilmember Haffa, and carried by the following vote, the City Council approved the CONSENT ITEMS except Item 8 which was continued to a future meeting: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Albert, Haffa, Smith, Williamson, Roberson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) Approval of Minutes 5. December 17, 2019 Minutes (Not a project under CEQA per Article 20 Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Approved Award of Construction Contracts 6. Authorize an Appropriation of FY2019/20 Measure S Funds and De-Appropriation of FY2020/21 Measure S Funds in the Amount of $2,939,109.81, Respectively and Award a Construction Contract in the Amount of $5,881,890.00 to Teichert Construction for the Citywide Road Surface Repair Project, Phase 2 Project as Part of the Measure S Street Repair Program (Exempt from CEQA Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1) ***Measure S*** Action: Adopted Resolution No. 20-002 C.S. 7. Approve Transfer and Appropriation of $164,000 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds and Award a Construction Contract for $293,330 to Tyman Construction, Inc. for the Montecito Park Improvements, Phase 4 and Laguna Grande Park Improvements Project ***NCIP/CDBG*** (Exempt from CEQA Requirements Per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 20-003 C.S. Ordinances 8. Second Reading of an Ordinance to Add Chapter 32, Article 8 Encroachments by Communication Facilities (Exempt from CEQA Article 19, Section 15305, Class 5) Action: Continued to February 4, 2020 4  City Council Minutes January 21, 2020 Resolutions 9. De-appropriate $275,169.91 of Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program Funds from Completed Projects to the NCIP Ending Balance Project Account and Appropriate $367,000.00 to the NCIP FY 2019-20 Cut Off Projects (Deappropriation and Appropriation: Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061; Cut Off Projects:Exempt from CEQA per Resolution 19-166) ***NCIP*** Action: Adopted Resolution No. 20-004 C.S. 10. Authorize Submittal of an Application to CalRecycle for the Rubberized Pavement Grant Program and Authorize the City Manager to Execute all Agreements to Secure Grant Funds (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 20-005 C.S. 11. Accept Safe Streets Pilot Program Funds from the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) in the Amount of $200,000 and Authorize FY19/20 Budget Amendment to Increase Revenue and Appropriation by $200,000 for the Casa Verde/Helvic/McNear/Portola Intersection Improvements Project ***NCIP*** (Mitigated Negative Declaration Adopted) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 20-006 C.S. 12. Authorize City Manager to Enter Into a License Agreement with Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and General Rule Article 5 Section 15061) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 20-007 C.S. 13. Authorize City Manager to Execute an Amendment to the Paramedic Service Provider Agreement with Monterey County to Extend the Agreement (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 20-008 C.S. 14. Adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration for Monterey Municipal Wharves I and II Structural Maintenance Program Action: Adopted Resolution No. 20-009 C.S. 15. Authorize the Purchase of One (1) Type 1 Replacement Fire Engine at a Cost Not to Exceed $705,000, the City Manager to Execute a Purchase Agreement with Golden State Fire Apparatus for $682,416.75, and Appropriate an Additional $130,000 from the Equipment Replacement Fund for this Purchase (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 20-010 C.S. *** End of Consent Agenda *** PUBLIC HEARING (EVE) 16. Approve Appeal AP 19-0419 Overturning the Planning Commission Decision that Operation of a Cannabis Testing Lab is a Principally Permitted Use Under the City’s Zoning Ordinance; Appellant: Hans Uslar, City Manager, City of Monterey; Applicant: Scott Willard and Joseph Headley; Property Owner: Arturo and Rochelle Sepulveda; Industrial, Administration and Research (IR) Zoning District; Industrial General Plan Land Use Designation (Exempt from CEQA: CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3, Article 20, Section 15378 and Section 15061) 5 City Council Minutes January 21, 2020 Action: Denied the appeal; Directed staff to amend the ordinance to permit cannabis testing through a use permit with certain conditions of approval relating to security and control of the substance; and Directed staff to bring back a temporary moratorium to prohibit marijuana testing laboratories while code amendments and use permit conditions are studied and implemented to allow such use (4-1, Councilmember Smith voting no) Councilmember Haffa left the Chamber at 7:51 p.m. Mayor Roberson asked the City Council if they had any ex parte contacts to disclose. Councilmember Haffa returned to the chamber at 7:53 p.m. Councilmember Smith said that he met with Joe Headley and heard an overview of the process and learned more about the manufacturing process. The remaining Councilmembers affirmed that they had no ex parte contacts to disclose. Community Development Director Cole gave the staff presentation, explaining staff's recommendation to adopt a resolution approving the City Manager's appeal to overturn the Planning Commission's determination that operation of cannabis is principally permitted. Mayor Roberson left the Chamber at 7:55 p.m. Community Development Director Cole continued, explaining the Planning Commission's recommendation that the use is principally permitted and the business could open without a code amendment. She shared the background of events that led to the appeal. Mayor Roberson returned to the Chamber at 7:57 p.m. Community Development Director Cole continued, citing the Monterey City Code language on offenses and nuisances that relate to marijuana, and explaining that the City's Zoning Code states that principally permitted uses, if not expressly listed, are prohibited by Code. She cited the Zoning Code's provision about "non-nuisance production" and reiterated that the City Code cites marijuana as a nuisance. She said that the Planning Commission found that lab testing is a required part of production and sales for cannabis products. She reminded Council that staff's recommendation was to overturn the Planning Commission's decision. Community Development Director Cole continued, describing a path forward by which the applicant could apply for a Zoning Code amendment. On question, she said that process would start with a City Code amendment to redefine language about offenses and nuisances, and said that staff would likely do a survey of best practices emerging throughout the state, including what security measures and regulations should be in place. She said that any change to the Zoning Code would require a public hearing at Planning Commission and an environmental document that would go to City Council. City Attorney Davi clarified that staff could also bring forward a Code amendment at the Council's pleasure. On question, City Attorney Davi explained the background said that the City's existing ordinance was adopted prior to Proposition 64, but the ordinance addressed recreational marijuana and medical use of marijuana, and the State then requested cities to provide evidence to Bureau of Cannabis Control whether or not these items outlined in the business and professions code, for commercial not medical marijuana, if they are prohibited. The City indicated yes these are prohibited under our existing Code. A License cannot be issued by State bureau as long as City has a policy prohibiting it. She clarified that staff's view is that laboratory testing is "engaging in any operation for this purpose," which the City Code defines as a nuisance. On question, she confirmed that in 2017, staff understood Council, in their approval of the ordinance, to have interpreted any marijuana-related purpose as a nuisance. Councilmember Williamson left the chamber at 8:07 p.m. Applicant Scott Willard, Coverton Labs, began the applicant presentation with a brief history of the project and stated that the intent of the presentation was to highlight how Coverton Labs conducts its testing. Councilmember Williamson returned to the Chamber at 8:09 p.m. Mr. Willard said that the application was required because the Bureau of Cannabis Control requires 6 City Council Minutes January 21, 2020 it. He shared information about his company's testing work in the cannabis and non-cannabis markets. He explained the work that Coverton Labs does and doesn't do, and described chain of custody and his company's business practices for cannabis testing. He showed the proposed plan for the facility and described all steps in the process. He answered Councilmembers' questions and listed the regulatory organizations overseeing his operation. He said that the proposal is to test agricultural products, not just cannabis. He said that early projections are to have forty samples per day at about 3.5 grams per sample. Mayor Roberson left the Council Chamber at 8:20 p.m. On question, Mr. Willard said that the marijuana being tested could come from a farmer's grow site or a distribution center containing multiple types of marijuana products. He said that his company could test marijuana at numerous stages of production. Mayor Roberson returned to the Council Chamber at 8:22 p.m. and stated he had been listening. On question, Mr. Willard said that a manifest requires certain information including license information for both the lab and the customer. Mark Blum, Horan Lloyd, on behalf of the property owners, said that Mr. Willard was authorized by the owner to make this application. He said that despite the staff report's stating that existing City policy prohibits all commercial cannabis activity, it does not. He said that the Council is being asked to determine whether the testing of marijuana is for the purpose of sale, exchange, and distribution. He referred to the use classification "specialized manufacturing organizations" and stated that this lab is not involved in production, distribution, or storage of goods. He said that in this IR district, the code prohibits uses that may be objectionable, by reason of specific types of nuisance. He asked what if it is another type of nuisance, and said that it is not all nuisances covered by this language. Mr. Blum continued, stating that every year the lab will need to come to the City for an affidavit, and attest to the State that it is operating as an approved use in Monterey, so if Council determines it is an allowed use, and in the future adopts additional restrictions are adopted, this lab will be thusly restricted. He spoke about other professions that service the cannabis industry in various ways. He said that the nuisance code prohibits numerous things, and handling of nuisance materials, but stated that many businesses in the City handle those materials but aren't considered nuisances just because the material going into their facilities contains a nuisance. He noted that medical labs existing in the City are already handling nuisance materials such as bodily fluids. He said no evidence is given in the staff report for testing facilities being targets for crime. He said that the opportunity would open for other uses for a year. He said that this lab would create economic, employment, and revenue opportunities and was the type of business that Council asked for when they specified biotechnology use for Ryan Ranch. Pam Silkwood, Horan Lloyd, on behalf of the property owners, said that the discussion should be about the principally permitted uses, which she said broadly includes laboratories, including those that test bodily fluids or hazardous wastes which are considered nuisances under the City Code. She said that the Code prohibits delivery of medical marijuana, and that staff's interpretation would prohibit delivery of medical marijuana to hospices, which she said is otherwise allowed. She said that the Code does not distringuish between types of labs allowed and not allowed. In order to avoid discriminatory conduct, she said that should this appeal be granted, you would be saying you can deliver, distribute, and use medical marijuana in clinics and hospices but you can't test to make sure they're safe for use. She said she did not believe this was Council's intent, and asked them to deny the appeal, treat the lab as any other lab, and allow the lab to come provide high tech jobs and needed revenue to Monterey. Maureen Wruck, associated with the owner of the building, spoke about the potential employment of around 30 people, most of whom would have advanced degrees. She said that 7 City Council Minutes January 21, 2020 the City is asking for money by putting a half cent sales tax on the ballot, when this lab could bring in over a million dollars to the City in over a three year period. Mayor Roberson opened public comments. Joe Headley, Monterey resident, displayed a flow chart showing required supply chain support businesses that he said were never under consideration with the original ordinance but would be touched by staff's current interpretation. He said that in 2011, the discussion was under the guise of medical cannabis, and that since then local election results have shown residents vote 2-to-1 in favor of recreational marijuana. Chris Ryan, Covington Labs, said that his main concerns were children and safety, and said that denial would be a win for the black market. He said that the lab could help identify illegal vape cartridges that would otherwise contribute to the lung poisoning epidemic. He shared information about what safety mechanisms would be in place in the lab. Joel Panzer, Maureen Wruck Planning Consultants, shared a letter from Mayor Roberson and said that it states that only dispensaries, sales, and deliveries are prohibited. Terry Latasa, Planning Commission Chair, shared that the Planning Commission's staff report packet for this item was six pages long. He said that the discussion was lengthy and resulted in a six to one vote in favor of overturning staff's denial. He said that laboratories are an allowed use in the IR zone. He said that City Code Section 22-39 is about marijuana dispensaries, defined as a facility where it is grown, sold, exchanged, or distributed. He said since the testing lab is not a dispensary and doesn't grow, sell, exchange, or distribute, it was quite clear to the Planning Commission that the use would be allowed. He said that the Council staff report has an error on p. 253 stating that the Planning Commission specifically found that lab testing is a required part of the production and sales process for cannabis products. He said that this was not an accurate reflection of the language in the Planning Commission's resolution. Alison Goss, Mahoney & Associates Commercial Real Estate, said that she has facilitated the sale, production, and manufacture of marijuana by allowing for the sales and leases of cannabis properties in California. Dan Silverie asked the City to take serious consideration of the health impacts that marijuana use can lead to. Mayor Roberson closed public comments. Mayor Roberson provided Mr. Blum the opportunity for a rebuttal and Mr. Blum declined to speak. The Council recessed at 8:56 p.m. and reconvened at 9:13 p.m. The Council discussed the matter. On question, Community Development Director Cole said that a principally permitted use would provide no regulation and would be allowed to operate as a laboratory. She provided an example of a safeguard failing and said that the City would have no ability to enforce it. It was suggested that City staff update the City Code to allow this use using regulatory best practices. Comments made in favor of the Planning Commission's decision included a statement that the City's ordinance is overly broad and ambiguous and may have been arbitrarily applied by staff, possibly because this use was not imagined when the language was drafted. Examples were given of businesses that engage with cannabis operators to provide professional services. It was stated that public safety concerns associated with the existing ordinance did not seem to apply in this situation. Potential benefits to the lab were cited including economic and employment benefits. It was stated that the City's residents voted overwhelmingly for legalization of recreational marijuana, so approving the appeal would seem to be out of alignment with what residents want. It was suggested to deny the appeal, and direct staff to come back and revisit cannabis ordinance and consider broader legalization. 8 City Council Minutes January 21, 2020 Comments made in favor of approving the appeal included the observation that a hospice could get their testing done outside of Monterey. It was stated that cannabis is a complex issue and a changing issue, but the Code is well defined and considers it a nuisance. It was stated that navigating around that violates the spirit of what was spelled out by a previous Council. It was stated that it would be useful to have a robust discussion about whether the lab could become a principally permitted use and how to regulate it if so, but to consider it under these circumstances compromises the integrity of the entire Chapter 22 of the Monterey City Code. It was stated that cannabis is a nuisance, and there is a distinction between medical and recreational. It was stated that a decision should not be made due to revenue considerations if it conflicts with one's value system. On question, City Attorney Davi and Community Development Director Cole said that tradespeople such as architects, real estate agents, or attorneys working on cannabis issues are purely office uses, without cannabis itself in their facility. The applicant was questioned by Council regarding his ability to wait if the City were to look at the ordinance and try to incorporate a permit process. It was agreed that the landscape with regard to cannabis had changed, and that perhaps this type of use could be worked in without having other marijuana uses allowed. In response, Mr. Willard said that he is working on a Plan B with City of Seaside. On question, he said that he would not bring products in to test until the Bureau of Cannabis Control gives him the green light, and listed aspects to the project that contributed to an estimate of eight months before he could begin operations. He said that at opening, he anticipated testing about 50/50 agricultural products to cannabis products. He said that cannabis revenue would be more profitable. Further comments made by Council in favor of the Planning Commission's decision included that it was clear that a cannabis testing lab is not part of the sale or distribution, and that supporting science, research and development isn't just about the money and revenue, it's about creating opportunities in a diverse industry field. Language from City Code was cited, giving specific descriptions of nuisances, and it was stated that the nuisance language does not fit with this use. Further comments made by Council in favor of approving the appeal included stating that the Planning Commission's conversation was robust, but they missed this because they blew past the language in the code that says marijuana is a nuisance, citing the language "engage in any operation for this purpose" and "participate in any operation for this purpose." It was stated that Council's original intent had been no marijuana of any kind, and while the word testing is missing, the Code still prohibits it. It was stated that the matter should be brought forward as a potential principally permitted use through the usual method, not getting it approved through the back door. A motion was introduced by Councilmember Haffa, and seconded by Councilmember Williamson, for the City Council to deny the appeal and direct staff to amend the ordinance to permit cannabis testing through a use permit with certain conditions of approval relating to security and control of the substance. The Council discussed the motion. The legality of the proposed action was discussed. A statement was made that the proposed use is not currently allowed. In answer, it was stated the motion aligns with the interpretation of the law that the proposed laboratory testing is allowed and that is why the Council would deny the appeal. On question, City Attorney Davi said that permitting this use would probably be analogous to massage, where operators renew permits annually with no vested right, but said staff will need 9  City Council Minutes January 21, 2020 to research more. She said that if the motion passes, staff would bring forward amendments to the nuisance section of the Code to allow lab testing, and to the Zoning Code to state that cannabis lab testing is an enumerated use. It was stated by Council in support of the Planning Commission Decision that the goal is not as much revenue but bringing good jobs to the City and adding a level of safety for something that's already legal in the State. It was cautioned by Council, in support of the appeal, that another company could have a different nuance and problems could result. City Attorney Davi said that there could be a grandfathering argument. City Manager Uslar suggested that if Council approves the motion, a temporary moratorium could be declared to prevent any other labs. It was stated that transportation would be allowed per this motion even though it is not allowed in the code. Counclimember Haffa amended his motion to include directing staff to bring back a temporary moratorium to prohibit marijuana testing laboratories while code amendments and use permit conditions are studied and implemented to allow such use. The seconder approved the amendment. The motion carried, as amended, by the following vote: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Albert, Haffa, Williamson, Roberson NOES: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Smith ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) PUBLIC APPEARANCE (EVE) 17. Receive Report on Affordable Housing Site Analysis and Adopt Resolution 1) Requesting that the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Allocate Water for Development of Affordable Housing; and, 2) Authorizing Staff to Solicit Developer Proposals to Partner with the City to Develop City Sites and Pursue State Funding for the Development of the Sites for Affordable Housing. (Exempt from CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 20-011 C.S., and Directed staff to stipulate in the RFP that the City is looking for 100% affordability with a preference for Monterey residents, Monterey workers, and Monterey students It was noted by Council that discussions of the sites have been held on a few previous occasions. It was stated that all of the sites merit a look. Positions were shared that 417 Figueroa Street has fewer problems than some of the other sites; that the parking lot site at 442 Adams Street should remain a parking lot; that the 438 Calle Principal parking garage is a last priority and least attractive due to complications related to the build, loss of parking, water transfer, and environmental conditions, and; and that the site at Madison and Van Buren looks like an option with possible potential. It was suggested to give staff direction that would group the sites into two priority groups, so staff will be clear about Council's preferences. Councilmember Smith noted that he would have to recuse himself from decisions regarding 438 Calle Principal because his office is within 500 feet. On question, Community Development Director Cole said that discontinuing use of 438 Calle Principal as a public parking garage would cost the City about a quarter of $1 million dollars in repayments. 10 City Council Minutes January 21, 2020 Mayor Roberson opened public comments. Kevin Dayton, Monterey Peninsula Chamber of Commerce, said that the lack of affordable housing continues to be the number one concern of businesses, and urged the Council to go for it and use Monterey Bay Economic Partnership (MBEP)'s ideas in a Request for Proposals (RFP). Barbara Meister, Monterey Bay Aquarium, shared statistics about how housing density can help increase use of alternate transportation methods and urged Council to take advantage of these four properties and move toward walkable housing. Gary Cursio, Monterey County Hospitality Association (MCHA), said that MCHA supports one and two parts of the resolution, and asked Council to be very specific and cautious about what they are asking for from the water district. Esther Malkin spoke about the housing crisis and said that the projects should house the people who are here now. City Manager Uslar spoke about the urgent need for water and said that the District's General Manager has stated there may be water to allocate for affordable housing. Community Development Director Cole said she would be able to bring the number of water credits remaining for City use to Council at a future meeting. The Council discussed water issues, the City's remaining water credits, impacts related to Assembly Bill 1763, and potential funding opportunities, and the question of whether the City incorporating preferences for housing people who work in the City into a housing applicaiton could impact funding opportunities. Community Development Director Cole and City Attorney Davi answered Councilmembers' questions. It was stated by Council that the water district should not be in the business of determining land use or conditions for the use of water. City Manager Uslar noted that the district controls how much water is available and this naturally controls use. He answered Councilmembers' questions about potential partnerships with neighboring developers and confirmed that staff would tailor an RFP to indicate that housing on City property should be 100% affordable. Housing Analyst Leonard corrected the agenda report, stating that the site at Madison and Van Buren is a half acre. The Council discussed the RFP and the concept of being bold with density. It was argued that this boldness was the right thing to do for the 64% of Monterey residents who are renters. It was stated that the City should not commit to an RFP with open-ended density requirements that will waste developers' time. It was stated that the City should release an RFP with general guidelines and see what is proposed, and then the process would play out through negotiation between the Architectural Review Committee, neighbors, and others. The Council discussed balance between the need for affordable housing and quality of life for existing residents. On a motion by Councilmember Haffa, seconded by Councilmember Albert, and carried by the following vote, the City Council approved the staff recommendation, with the additional stipulation for the RFP that the City is looking for 100% affordability with a preference for Monterey residents, Monterey workers, and Monterey students: Councilmember Williamson offered two friendly amendments: to add a preference for Monterey residents, Monterey workers, Monterey students, and to relax the current density requirements. The first amendment was approved by the mover and seconder. The mover and seconder did not adopt the second amendment and it was noted that developers can request increased density already through a permit process. The motion carried, as amended, by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Albert, Haffa, Smith, Williamson, Roberson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) 11 City Council Minutes January 21, 2020 COUNCIL COMMENTS Not heard due to the lateness of the hour. CITY MANAGER REPORTS Not heard due to the lateness of the hour. *** Adjourn to Closed Session (See additional agenda) *** The Council adjourned to closed session at 10:51 p.m. ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM CLOSED SESSION cs1. Public Employee Performance Evaluation (City Attorney) pursuant to Government Code section 54957(b)(1) (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Not heard due to the lateness of the hour cs2. Conference with Labor Negotiator Pursuant to Government Code section 54957.6 – Agency Negotiator: Allyson Hauck; Unrepresented Employee: City Attorney (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Not heard due to the lateness of the hour cs3. Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(1) Name of Case: Jimmy Nunes v. City of Monterey (Workers' Compensation Appeals Board) (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: On a unanimous roll call vote, the City Council gave confidential direction to their legal counsel cs4. Conference with Labor Negotiators Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 Agency Negotiators: Allyson Hauck, Nat Rojanasathira, Gina Russo; Employee Organizations: General Employees of Monterey (GEM), Monterey Police Association (MPA), Monterey Fire Fighters' Association (MFFA) (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Not heard cs5. Closed Session Conference with Real Property Negotiators Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 Property: Wharf II Warehouse and North Pump House Agency Negotiators: Kimberly Cole and Janna Aldrete; Negotiating Parties: Del Mar Seafoods (Joe Cappuccio and Joe Roggio); Lusamerica Foods, Inc. (Fernando Frederico and Ana Frederico); Royal Seafoods, LLC (Robert Zuanich); Carmel Canyon Spot Prawns (John Aliotti); Monterey Abalone (Art Seavey and Trevor Fay); Ocean Fresh Seafood (Robbie Torrise) and Southern Cal Seafood, Inc. (Pete Guglielmo) Under Negotiation: Terms and Conditions for New Leases (Not a Project Under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: On a unanimous roll call vote, the City Council gave confidential direction to their real property negotiators 12  City Council Minutes January 21, 2020 cs6. Conference with Legal Counsel, Existing Litigation Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(1): 1. Burlingame Investments, LLC v. City (Monterey County Superior Court Case No. 19CV002850) 2. Custom House, LP (Portola Hotel) v. City (Monterey County Superior Court Case No. 19CV001743) 3. Discovery Charters, Inc. v. City of Monterey (Monterey County Superior Court Case No. 19CV004935) 4. Haferman v. City (Monterey County Superior Court Case NO. 19CV003737) 4. Morgan v. City (Monterey County Superior Court Case No. 18CV004527) 5. Stronghold Engineering v. City (Santa Clara Superior Court Case No. 18CV329015) 6. In re: Pedro Becerra Marquez (Workers' Compensation Appeals Board and Division of Occupational Safety and Health matters) 7. City v. State Water Resources Control Board (In re: Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board Notice of Violation and Enforcement Order Issued June 21, 2019 - 3 27M2000068) (Not a Project Under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Not heard due to the lateness of the hour ADJOURNMENT The Council adjourned at 11:21 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Clementine Bonner Klein Clyde Roberson Acting City Clerk Mayor 13