Council Regular Meeting

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING CITY OF MONTEREY Tuesday, March 15, 2022 4:00 PM 7:00 PM ZOOM TELECONFERENCE 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, Parks and Recreation Director, Human Resources Director, City Clerk, Interim Recreation and Community Services Manager, Senior Engineer ***Afternoon Session Agenda *** This meeting was held with teleconference attendance only, pursuant to the Ralph M. Brown Act, Calif. Government Code section 54953(e)(1)(C) and Resolution No. 22-015 C.S. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Roberson called the meeting to order at 4:01 p.m. City Clerk Klein explained to the public how to participate in the meeting virtually. She called the roll with Councilmembers Albert, Smith, and Williamson, and Mayor Roberson. Councilmember Haffa had been at the meeting but was temporarily absent at roll call due to technical issues. Councilmember Haffa rejoined the meeting at 4:05 p.m. PRESENTATIONS 1. Recognize City Employees for Milestone Anniversaries and Retirements for 1st Quarter 2022 (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Recognized City employees and retirees for their service City Manager Uslar gave a brief verbal presentation recognizing Thomas Enea (retired Park Maintenance Worker) for 37 years of service, and Whalen Rawlinson (Senior Craftsworker), Louie Marcuzzo (Park Operation Manager), Kimberly Cole (Community Development Director), and Michael Gentry (Senior Streets Maintenance Worker) for 40, 30, 25, and 25 years of service, respectively. The Council made complimentary comments about City staff's responsiveness. Public comment was not received. PUBLIC COMMENTS Public comment on non-agendized matters was received from An McDowell, Anthony Munoz, and Kent Glenzer.  City Council Minutes March 15, 2022 CONSENT ITEMS On a motion by Mayor Roberson, seconded by Councilmember Smith, and carried by the following vote, which was conducted by roll call, the City Council approved the CONSENT ITEMS: 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 2. February 23, 2022 (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and General Rule Article 5 Section 15061) Action: Approved 3. March 1, 2022 (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and General Rule Article 5 Section 15061) Action: Approved Award of Construction Contracts 4. Award a Construction Contract in the Amount of $1,212,000 to The Don Chapin Company, Inc. for the Presidio of Monterey 200,000 Gallon Water Tank and Pipe Improvement Project ***PMSA*** (Project reviewed per NEPA in the Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment for the Presidio of Monterey Integrated Water Sustainability Concept Plan (PEA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FNSI), Nov 2018) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 22-019 C.S. 5. Authorize an Appropriation of FY2022/23 Measure S Funds in the Amount of $1,115,104 and Award Construction Contract in the Amount of $959,185 to Precision Grade, Inc. for Citywide Road Rehabilitation Project, Phase 3, Authorize the City Manager to Enter into an Agreement with the President and Fellows of Middlebury College, a Vermont domestic non-profit corporation, and Authorize an Increase in FY22 Revenue and Appropriation of $247,813 to the Measure S Fund (Exempt from CEQA Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1) ***Measure S*** Action: Adopted Resolution No. 22-020 C.S. Ordinances 6. 2nd Reading by Title Only of an Ordinance to Amend Monterey City Code Section 28-14(d) to Add Services Performed by the State-Recognized Destination Marketing Organization for the Monterey Region as a Sole Source Exception to Competitive Procurement Requirements (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Adopted Ordinance No. 3648 C.S. Resolutions 7. Order Engineer’s Report for Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Alvarado Street Maintenance District No. 85-1 (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 22-021 C.S. 2  City Council Minutes March 15, 2022 8. Order Engineer’s Report for Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Calle Principal Maintenance District 00-1 (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 22-022 C.S. Other 9. Authorize the Mayor to Sign a Letter on Behalf of the City of Monterey Supporting Establishment of a CalVet Veterans Home in Monterey County (Not a Project Under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Authorized *** End of Consent Agenda *** PUBLIC APPEARANCE 10. Authorize Remote Teleconference Meetings of the City Council and Boards, Commissions, and Committees for the Period March 16, 2022 through April 14, 2022 Pursuant to AB361 Ralph M. Brown Act Provisions (Not a project under CEQA per Article 20 Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5 Section 15061) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 22-023 C.S. City Clerk Klein gave the staff presentation and answered Councilmembers’ questions. Public comment was not received. On a motion by Councilmember Smith, seconded by Mayor Roberson, and carried by the following vote, which was conducted by roll call, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 22- 013 C.S. to Authorize Remote Teleconference Meetings of the City Council and Boards, Commissions, and Committees for the Period March 16, 2022 through April 14, 2022 Pursuant to AB361 Ralph M. Brown Act Provisions: 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. Amend and Restate Resolution 21-127, the Master Fee Schedule, to Adjust the Parks and Recreation Department Fee Schedule (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 22-024 C.S. Parks and Recreation Director Larson gave the staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions together with City Manager Uslar. Public comment was received from Bob Faulis, who said that people would be more willing to commit to annual memberships if they felt confident about what would happen with their memberships during any periods of closure due to the pandemic. Parks and Recreation Director Larson confirmed that memberships would be paused for disaster or pandemic-related reasons. 3 City Council Minutes March 15, 2022 The Council discussed the matter. It was stressed that the City's programs do not fully pay for themselves, that recreation and sports are appropriate for City governments to provide to the community, and that residents should be able to enjoy the City's programs with fees at a reasonable rate. It was stated that the proposed higher fees are appropriate as long as the City invests in the programs and keep them high-quality. On a motion by Councilmember Albert, seconded by Councilmember Williamson, and carried by the following vote, which was conducted by roll call, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 22-014 C.S. to Amend and Restate Resolution 21-127, the Master Fee Schedule, to Adjust the Parks and Recreation Department Fee Schedule: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Albert, Haffa, Smith, Williamson, Roberson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) *** Adjourn to Closed Session (See additional agenda) *** Public comment on the closed session was not received. The Council adjourned to closed session at 4:54 p.m. RECESS The Council recessed at 5:58 p.m. RECONVENE The Council reconvened at 7:00 p.m. *** Evening Session Agenda *** PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Roberson led the Pledge. City Clerk Klein explained to the public how to participate in the meeting virtually. She called the roll with the full Council present. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENTS Public comment on non-agendized matters was received from Craig Downer, Nina Beety, Lorna Moffat, and Esther Malkin. ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM CLOSED SESSION City Clerk Klein announced: 1. Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Government Code 54956.9(d)(2), (e)(2) one case. The facts and circumstances that might result in litigation are as follows: The City has received a development application to replace an existing hotel and restaurant at 2101 North Fremont Street with a new 42-unit hotel. The City has received letters and comments on the project from legal counsel and 4  City Council Minutes March 15, 2022 representatives of the owners of the adjacent apartment complex that indicate that the owners of the apartment complex might sue the City if this project is approved. Action: On a roll call vote of 4-1, Councilmember Haffa voting no, the Council gave confidential direction to its legal counsel 2. Conference with Labor Negotiators Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 Agency Negotiators: Allyson Hauck and Gina Russo; General Employees of Monterey (GEM), Management Employees' Association (MEA), Monterey Police Association (MPA), Police Lieutenants' Management Association (PLMA), Monterey Fire Fighters' Association (MFFA), Monterey Fire Chief Officers' Association (MFCOA), Monterey Executive Management Employees' Association (MEMEA) Action: Not held PRESENTATIONS (EVE) 12. Recognition of March 2022 as American Red Cross Month (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Received presentation, Proclaimed March 2022 as American Red Cross Month John Cromwell and Dan Ripke, Central Coast Chapter of American Red Cross, shared highlights of community assistance carried out by the organization during the past year and urged community members to donate blood and volunteer. PUBLIC APPEARANCE (EVE) 13. Receive a Presentation on the City's Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability/Pension Obligation Strategies (Not a Project Under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Received presentation Finance Director King introduced John Bartel, of the firm Bartel Associates, who presented to the Council and answered Councilmembers' questions. Public comment was not received. The Council discussed the matter. It was stated that there is uncertainty and instability that may not even be fully known at this time. On question, Mr. Bartel indicated that he did not believe the State legislature would help public agencies with unfunded pension liabillities. It was stated by the Council that another discussion would be appropriate in conjunction with discussing and adopting the next budget, to consider some strategy which could be exercised with one-time monies. Comments were made against pension bonds, citing that the obligation to employees is not something to bet on. It was stated that the CIty should plan on the unpredictable, manage its funds, and manage risk so there is flexibility for the future. Comments were made expressing interest in utilizing an irrevocable trust as part of the City's approach. The Council recessed at 8:55 p.m. and reconvened at 9:08 p.m. 14. Authorize Letters to the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, Monterey One Water, Governor of the State of California, State Water Resources Control Board, California Department of Housing and Community Development, and Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments Regarding the City’s Water Supply Needs for New Housing (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and General Rule Article 5 Section 15061) Action: Authorized letters 5  City Council Minutes March 15, 2022 Community Development Director Cole gave the staff presentation. Public comment was received from Vanessa Diffenbaugh, MidPen Housing, who spoke in favor of sending the letters and said that the City is uniquely positioned to receive tax credits for low- income housing. On question from Council, Community Development Director Cole said that she consulted with the Water District on the calculations in the letters. It was noted by the Council that there is an existing Value Driver to "champion regional and local efforts to secure adequate, affordable, and sustainable water sources for the city, now and into the future" and it was stated that the timing was right for a bold approach such as sending the letters. On a motion by Councilmember Albert, seconded by Councilmember Haffa, and carried by the following vote, which was conducted by roll call, the City Council Authorized Letters to the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, Monterey One Water, State Water Resources Control Board and Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Albert, Haffa, Smith, Williamson, Roberson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) 15. City Manager’s Update on COVID-19 Response Efforts (Not a project under CEQA per Article 20 Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5 Section 15061) Action: Received update City Manager Uslar gave a brief staff presentation. Public comment was not received. PUBLIC HEARING (EVE) 16. Deny Appeal and Uphold Planning Commission Decision to Deny Variance Application for Fencing Along the Front and Side Property Lines and Fencing for a Trash Enclosure at 301 Casa Verde Way that Exceeds the 4-Foot Height Limit for this Reverse Corner Lot; Applicant Steve Mickel with Mickel Construction Inc; Property Owner Thomas Cutino; Residential Medium Density Multifamily Dwelling (R-3) Zoning District; Medium Density Residential General Plan Designation (Exempt from CEQA Requirements per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 22-025 C.S. as amended to uphold the appeal with findings, and to require correction to the trash enclosure (3-2, Councilmembers Haffa and Williamson voting no) Mayor Roberson outlined the process for the appeal: 1. Mayor introduces item and process; 2. Council discloses ex parte communications; 3. Staff presentation; 4. Council can ask questions of staff; 5. Applicant/appellant presentation; 6. Council can ask questions of applicant/appellant; 7. Public comments; 8. Appellant's closing remarks; 9. Council discussion and deliberation; 10. Council vote. Prompted to disclose any ex parte communications, Mayor Roberson said that he didn't speak to anyone but did drive by and look at the site on his own; Councilmember Smith said that he 6 City Council Minutes March 15, 2022 drove by the site and had received an email, letter, and phone call from the applicant but did not respond; and Councilmember Albert said that he had done the same as Councilmember Smith. Community Development Director Cole gave the staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions. Steve Mickel, applicant/appellant on behalf of property owner Thomas Cutino, presented. He stated that he did not build the fence. He shared that there had been issues with thefts, homeless, and camping including a bonfire, on the property. He said the variance should be granted for the following reasons: tenant safety and security, fence height is typical for the neighborhood and does not affect visibility for traffic at the four-way stop, the lattice at top allows visibility for law enforcement if needed, and the fence helps somewhat to reduce loud traffic/engine noise. He shared a letter from a tenant who had a bike stolen and found a homeless individual in the dumpster. He stated that traffic visibility is not impacted by the fence's height and said that the Engineering Department had approved the fence due to lack of safety concern. He said that there were noise concerns, homeless concerns, and public safety concerns relating to human waste. He cited City of Monterey fence height standards and said that fence variances should be considered when at least one of the conditions exists: significant traffic and noise, and the property adjourns or is across from a commercially zoned property (he stated that the site is kitty-corner to an auto repair business and Bi-Rite Market). In addition he stated that both of the following requirements are met and apply to the situation: vehicle sight distance is not obstructed, and fence height and location are compatible of the character of the adjacent neighborhood. Mr. Mickel continued, reading aloud a portion of the "Analysis" section of the staff report by Associate Planner Sabdo that was presented to the Planning Commission on this matter. He read the language beginning with "Due to the location of the subject property" through the following phrase: "granting the fence height variance is not consistent with the purposes of Monterey's Zoning Ordinance and would consitute a grant of special privilege." He asked the Council, "since when is privacy and safety not a special privilege?" He said that Mr. Cutino wants to protect his tenants and his property and likes to keep the place clean and safe for tenants. Public comment was received from Jean Rasch, who asked the Council to uphold the Planning Commission's determination and the existing codes, which she said took work from the staff and community. She stated that there were no special circumstances present in this scenario and that code compliance, not higher fences, is the answer; Tammy Jennings said that this property is right off one of the highway offramps and that the intersection in question has a traffic problem, and because it is a multi-family dwelling it's a different situation from a single- family home. She urged the Council to let them keep the fence, saying it doesn't hurt anyone and it looks nice. Mayor Roberson invited Mr. Mickel to make any last statements and he said he had nothing to add. On question from Council about the offramp and traffic, Community Development Director Cole said that the Planning Commision's vote was a close one but they determined it would be a special privilege. She said there are a few neighborhoods with freeway offramps but not many. The Council posed the idea that four-way stops close to an off-ramp could be allowed higher fences. Community Development Director Cole confirmed that the Council could direct staff to revisit the fence ordinance. She said that if Council wants to uphold the appeal they will need to make findings. 7 City Council Minutes March 15, 2022 It was stated by Council that it seemed the Planning Commission had been stuck with having to go with the letter of the law because it was what the ordinance said. It was stated that it might be appropriate to make findings. In opposition, it was stated by Council that grounds for a variance had not been heard. It was stated that the presentation was not persuasive and had been offensive to homeless people. It was stated that there's a reason for the existing ordinance, and that a city with front sidewalks with large walls and fences was not desirable. It was stated that the Planning Commission made the right decision and that upholiding the appeal would be a grant of special privilege. It was stated by Council that even if direction was given to City staff to take another look at the City's policies regarding fences, a public input process would be necessary before the Council would make a decision. For this reason it was stated that it was hard to consider it fair to consider making changes for one property and not have it apply to the City Code. The Council echoed a prior comment and confirmed that "we are a country of laws" and noted that people speed in Monterey's neighborhoods and that other properties also have fences higher than the allowed limit. It was stated that if the Council upholds this appeal, the City will need to go tell all of the other residences with too-high fences. A motion was introduced by Mayor Roberson, and seconded by Councilmember Smith, that the Council uphold the appeal and require correction to the trash enclosure, with the following findings: State Law required findings 1. Special circumstances or conditions applicable to property: Location near an off-ramp and on-ramp; and 2. Application is not detrimental to property: It is on a busy street, and City staff has corroborated that the higher fence doesn't impact anyone; and 3. It is not a special privilege because of its location next to a freeway offramp; and City required findings: 1. Property is across from commercial area; and 2. It is not a visual barrier; and 3. It doesn't create a hardship with the location of the structure. The seconder added to the location portion of the findings, relating to the property’s proximity to the freeway, and referencing Casa Verde being a main arterial route down the block from N. Fremont with gas stations and commercial properties at both ends, and being a street that is a feeder for a high volume of traffic. The Council discussed the motion. In opposition to it, it was stated that while the Council is empathetic about the situation, the conditions that the Council was considering were not unique to the property, but rather unique to the neighborhood and the streets that surround the off- and on-ramps, and that in an instance like that it would be appropriate to consider a change to the City Code with a public participation process. Without that process it was stated that allowing the variance would not feel fair to the community and neighbors, and would be a special privilege. In favor of the motion, it was stated that the nearby offramp was a condition specific to the property. It was questioned whether everyone could now build a six-foot fence. It was stated that the Council was "putting the cart before the horse" and that the City should change the ordinance first and pause on making the owner tear down the fence until such changes were made. 8  City Council Minutes March 15, 2022 City Manager Uslar stated that there is not a demand for higher fences and that neighbors will want to keep the four foot height limit. Following up on comments made about the spirit of law and its enforcement, it was stated by Council that there was justification for this variance due to the proximity to the freeway. City Attorney Davi reflected that she had heard statements of concern regarding too broad of an application based on the current proposed findings, and concerns about the existing situation, and informed the Council that there might be a way to tighten up what they were trying to achieve. She said it sounded like Council felt it was appropriate because the property was within X number of feet of an off-ramp, or of a 4-way stop. She said that the more specific the findings in this case, the more narrowly it can be applied in the future. City Manager Uslar suggested that the fact that the property was multi-family housing could be a potential portion of the findings. The mover stated that the findings in the motion were explicit and sufficient. The motion carried by the following roll-call vote: AYES: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Albert, Smith, Roberson NOES: 2 COUNCILMEMBERS: Haffa, Williamson ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) RECUSED: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) COUNCIL COMMENTS None made CITY MANAGER REPORTS None made. Adjourn to Ocean View Community Services District Meeting The Council adjourned to the Ocean View Community Services District meeting at 10:48 p.m. Ocean View Community Services District CONSENT ITEMS 17. Receive Ocean View Community Services District Quarterly Report (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article, 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Received report City Attorney Davi said that the update was included in the written report. Ocean View Community Services District PUBLIC APPEARANCE 18. Select a Candidate for the Election of a LAFCO Commissioner – Independent Special District Regular Member and Authorize the Board President to Submit a Ballot (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Granted Director Roberson discretion to select the candidate City Manager Uslar gave a brief verbal presentation stating that the candidates were: 9 City Council Minutes March 15, 2022 David Kong (Greenfield Public Recreation District and Greenfield Cemetery District), Mary Ann Leffel (Monterey Peninsula Airport District), and Gail Morton (Marina Coast Water District). Public comment was not received. It was commented by the Board of Directors that one option in the staff report was to defer the decision to Director Roberson. On a motion by Director Williamson, seconded by Director Haffa, and carried by the following vote, the Community Services District Board of Directors granted Director Roberson the discretion to select the candidate: AYES: 5 DIRECTORS: Albert, Haffa, Smith, Williamson, Roberson NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: (None) ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: (None) ABSTAIN: 0 DIRECTORS: (None) RECUSED: 0 DIRECTORS: (None) Adjourn to City Council Meeting The Ocean View Community Services District Board of Directors adjourned to the City Council meeting. ADJOURNMENT The Council adjourned at 10:50 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Clementine Bonner Klein Clyde Roberson City Clerk Mayor 10