Council Regular Meeting

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING CITY OF MONTEREY Tuesday, April 15, 2025 4:00 PM 7:00 PM COUNCIL CHAMBER, 580 PACIFIC ST. MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Councilmembers Present: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson Absent: None City Staff City Manager, Assistant City Manager, City Attorney, Community Present: Development Director, Parks and Recreation Director, Human Resources Director, Public Works Director, City Clerk, Assistant Police Chief, Assistant Human Resources Director, Recreation Manager, Sustainability Coordinator, Deputy Public Works Director/City Engineer, Associate Civil Engineer, Police Officer, Acting Harbormaster AFTERNOON SESSION: 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Call to Order Mayor Williamson called the meeting to order at 4:01 p.m. City Clerk Klein called the roll as indicated above. General Public Comments In the interest of time and due to the numbers of speakers, public comment on non-agendized matters was limited to two minutes per person and was received from: Mira Nissim, Lorna Moffat, Jim Burns, India Weeks, Judie Henderson, Robbie Torrise, and Bryan Rosen. Consent Agenda The Council expressed interest in removing Item 3 from the Consent Agenda. Public comment on the Consent Agenda was not received. On a motion by Councilmember Rasch, seconded by Councilmember Barber, and carried by the following vote, the City Council approved the Consent Agenda except for Item 3: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) Consent: Approval of Minutes 1. March 26, 2025 Special Meeting (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20 Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5 Section 15061) Action: Approved 2. April 1, 2025 Regular Meeting (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20 Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5 Section 15061) Action: Approved  City Council Minutes April 15, 2025 Consent: Other 3. Authorize Police Records Management System (RMS) Data Sharing Agreement Between the City of Monterey and the Cities of Pacific Grove, Marina, and Salinas (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Pulled from Consent, Authorized the agreement Assistant Police Chief Bruno gave a brief verbal report and answered Councilmembers' questions. Public comment was not received. The Council discussed the matter. The balance between justice and security was discussed. It was reiterated that the Records Management System was safe and secure with a robust audit trail of system access history, and worked better with multiple agencies participating, and that for these reasons the Council felt comfortable approving the agreement. On a motion by Mayor Williamson, seconded by Councilmember Smith, and carried by the following vote, the City Council authorized the agreement: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) End of Consent Agenda Afternoon Session Items Public Hearing (Afternoon) 4. City Council Adopt the Planning Commission Recommendation to Adopt a 1st Reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 38 of the Monterey City Code to Require New Businesses and Existing Businesses that are Changing the Type of Use or Location Obtain a Zoning Clearance Permit (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Held public hearing; Passed draft Ordinance to a second reading Planning Manager Hill gave the staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions. Public comment was received from: Mike Patel, who asked how the proposed regulations would apply to dually-owned parking lots; Julie Gorman, who asserted that there would be no way to appeal the Community Development Director's determinations regarding zoning clearances; and Esther Malkin, who asked City staff to be proactive and thorough in reviewing the City Code to find other outmoded regulations to update. On question from the Council, Planning Manager Hill explained Mr. Patel's condition of approval and why it required a shared parking agreement, and said that the City would not be part of the process of resolving the issue. He noted that an error had been made in his slide regarding the affected City Code sections and said that the correct section was 38-150. City Attorney Davi addressed the concern about appeals, explaining that there was an entire section of City Code Chapter 38 outlining appeals processes and provisions. On a motion by Councilmember Barber, seconded by Councilmember Smith, and carried by the following vote, the City Council passed the draft Ordinance to a second reading: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) 2  City Council Minutes April 15, 2025 5. Uphold Planning Commission’s Decision to Deny Driveway Variance Application for 548 Mar Vista Drive; Application AP-25-0031; Variance Permit Application VA-24-0240; Appellants Desiree Albert and Michael Atteridge; Property Owner Albert Desiree Trust; R-1-15 Zoning District (Residential Single-Family District); Low Density Residential General Plan Land Use Designation (Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1) Action: Held public hearing; Adopted Resolution No. 25-024 C.S. (4-1, Mayor Williamson voting no) Mayor Williamson introduced the item. He asked the Councilmembers if they had any ex parte disclosures to announce, and no disclosures were made. Planning Manager Hill was given 10 minutes to make the staff presentation in favor of upholding the Planning Commission's decision to deny the variance application. He gave the staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions. On question, he stated that there had been a lot of conversation at the Planning Commission meeting about different potential remedies and how the 548 Mar Vista Drive property could potentially be brought back into compliance, but he stressed that the three-foot strip of pavers abutting the property line was out of compliance and that a variance would still be required based on the clear language in the Zoning Code. On question, he provided context on the definition of landscaping in the Code, and said that the three- foot strip needed to consist of planted material unless a variance was approved. On question, he said that he could see an argument made for the three-foot strip having some type of pavers that would not be driven on and that would resist erosion and allow for vegetation. Appellant Michael Atteridge was given 10 minutes to present on behalf of appellant Desiree Albert, requesting that the Council reverse the Planning Commission’s decision and allow the variance application, stating that Ms. Albert felt she met the necessary criteria for a variance. He explained that he had prepared a slideshow to illustrate the location and context of the property, and he presented the slides. He said that the driveway of the property sloped considerably and explained that three-and-a-half to four years prior, Ms. Albert had remodeled her driveway due to several issues: a tree that impacted the sewer line, drainage problems caused by the slope, and water runoff from the street washing dirt onto her property. To address these issues, he said that pavers had been installed along the property line. He said that Ms. Albert's property was sited on a slope and was one of the larger lots in the area but he emphasized that the size of the lot was irrelevant to the variance criteria or to code enforcement standards. He displayed photographs of the property that he said had been taken during the previous week, and highlighted the slope of the driveway, the pavers in question, and a small retaining wall about eight inches high that he said was already in place to hold back soil. He said that the tree and a planter box had been removed during the remodel. He pointed out native landscaping on one side of the property, which he said was maintained by a gardener. Mr. Atteridge continued, sharing images and noting what he described as similar conditions without the required three-foot landscaping strip at the property line, and with pavers or paving extending to the property line, at numerous other addresses that he said were within a half-hour walking radius of Ms. Albert's home and which were labeled as being on Dry Creek Road, Via Del Pinar, Via Ladera, Toda Vista, Mar Vista Drive, Via Gayuba, Via Encina, Via Descanso, Soledad Drive, San Bernabe Drive, Alameda Street, and Lomita Street. He said that in some cases, it appeared that residents had later filled in the required three-foot area with concrete or pavers, possibly after initial construction. He said that Ms. Albert’s pavers were permeable and set in sand, unlike many of the concrete driveways he showed in other properties, which were non- permeable. He argued that the neighboring properties he was showing had either not been held to the same standards and enforcement had been inconsistent, or they had been permitted under similar circumstances or variances had been granted. Further, he noted that some of the other properties did not have the same drainage challenges as Ms. Albert’s but still had paving up to the 3  City Council Minutes April 15, 2025 property line. He pointed out similarities in zoning and physical characteristics and argued that her situation was not unique in the neighborhood. He described one property that had a small retaining wall and paving similar to Ms. Albert’s, despite not being on a slope. He concluded his visual presentation by showing more examples of concrete, asphalt, and pavers that extended to what he said were the edges of property lines, including areas in disrepair. Mr. Atteridge stated that his client's situation fit the requirements for a variance. He said that Ms. Albert had done her best and that her improvements had been necessary due to root damage in her sewer line and significant drainage issues. He said that she had two drains at the front of her property that were always causing dirt to come onto her property. He said that no permit had been required to install the driveway, although a permit had been obtained for the sewer line repair. He concluded by saying that Ms. Albert was not requesting anything excessive, that her property was consistent with the neighborhood standard, and that the quality of her improvements met or exceeded those of surrounding properties. The Council had the opportunity to ask questions of Mr. Atteridge. On question, he explained that the pavers had been in place for at least three years and said that he was unsure whether the matter had come up in the present day due to code enforcement, zoning concerns, or something else. He said that the issues with Ms. Albert's property began during the COVID-19 pandemic when she had experienced a failure in her sewer line and problems with a planter box. He said that in response, she had removed the planter, replaced the sewer line, and installed the pavers. On question from the Council regarding whether his client could remove the pavers and replace them with landscaping, Mr. Atteridge said he believed it was fundamentally a matter of equity and consistency with neighborhood standards. He argued that Ms. Albert would not receive any special consideration if allowed to keep the pavers, as he stated that similar driveways were common in the neighborhood. He said that it had been easy to go through the neighborhood and find the photographs of the properties shown in his presentation. He noted that his client maintained attractive vegetation and stated that her pavers were well-maintained, aesthetically consistent with the neighborhood, did not present privacy issues, and were not in disrepair. He said that in his view, requiring her to remove them would be inequitable. On question from the Council regarding drainage concerns and how they had been resolved by the pavers being installed, Mr. Atteridge described how stormwater from the street would sometimes flow onto Ms. Albert’s property, and due to the slope of her driveway could direct water toward her home and bring with it mud from the old planter box. He said that she had removed the planter box and had installed a French drain and a sump pump to manage drainage. Mr. Atteridge stated that these improvements had eliminated the mud issue and allowed the property to better handle runoff. On question regarding whether Mr. Atteridge was suggesting selective enforcement based on his presentation of similar noncompliant driveways, Mr. Atteridge clarified that he was not making an accusation of selective enforcement but rather wanted to point out the broader context required for a variance, i.e. whether the situation was unusual or if the property would be receiving special consideration. He argued that Ms. Albert’s requested variance was in keeping with what already existed in the neighborhood, was conducive to the neighborhood, and would not interfere with anyone else if she received it. He reiterated that the properties he had shown were all within a half-hour walk of Ms. Albert’s home and that this was a snapshot of her immediate neighborhood, not the entire City. Finally, on question, Mr. Atteridge stated he was not familiar with the former tree's condition or any code issues regarding the removal of the tree, and confirmed that the pavers had been installed by a contractor and that the sewer line had been completed by a contractor with a permit. 4  City Council Minutes April 15, 2025 Public comment was received from: a resident at 555 Mar Vista Drive, who said that he saw the driveway every day and liked it, noted that if Ms. Albert received the variance he felt he deserved one too, and asserted that the code should be revisited and updated for safety and the benefit of the community; and Tom Reeves, who spoke in support of the appeal, citing the neighboring properties with similar conditions, and said that the City's code enforcement should be consistent. Mr. Atteridge was provided the opportunity to respond to public comments, and declined to do so. The Council directed questions to Planning Manager Hill in response to the appellant's presentation and the public comments received. On question regarding the other properties shown in the appellant's presentation, Planning Manager Hill explained that it was difficult to ascertain precisely where the property lines lay in the photos and that it was not a guarantee that any property line was where pavement stopped or the topography changed. He said that the City employed a code enforcement team of one and did not have the resources to patrol proactively looking for noncompliant driveways. He said that the matter had been brought to the Code Enforcement Coordinator's attention via a complaint received. He added that the three-foot requirement appeared to have been put in place by an ordinance adopted in 2004, noting that one could assume that it could have been in response to many of the driveways that were being paved right up to the property line, thus creating issues with aesthetics and runoff. He said that in the photos it appeared that in many instances the three-foot buffer had in fact been provided and later been filled without going through necessary permitting and approval processes. He stressed that when considering variances, it was always necessary to see whether the required findings could be made for the specific property instead of comparing it with other properties with features that may not have been permitted or properly approved. He said that the findings must include what was special or unique about this specific property that it could not meet the requirements of its zone, and whether it would be detrimental or injurious to a neighboring property, and whether if it were to be approved it would be a grant of special privilege. He said that the Planning Commission had been unable to make the first required finding that the property was special or unique in a way that prevented the owner from fully complying with the Zoning Code or created a hardship, because the previous driveway before the remodel had been in full compliance. Regarding whether the staff would consider revisiting the ordinance, Planning Manager Hill agreed that they would if there were majority Council opinion in this direction, but upon further question he explained that in general in the Planning industry it was inadvisable to have driveways or paved surfaces all the way to the property line, and that it created runoff issues and instigated property disputes to have permanent developments that close to the property line. He said that setbacks for structures were designed to prevent those types of instances from occurring and that a necessary buffer was expected with single family residential lots. He stated that City staff was in favor of having that additional three-foot landscaping strip requirement, both for the aesthetic of the streetscape as well as to provide a buffer between residences. The Council discussed the matter. It was stated that residents in District 3 were concerned with a lack of code compliance and it was stated that the Council would be hesitant to move in a direction that would change the Code. Support was expressed for the Code requirement in its current form, stating that the photos displayed by the appellant did not represent what was desired, and that landscaping between homes for purposes of privacy, aesthetics, and aeration was desired by both the Council and the community. Noting that the matter had come forward due to a complaint, it was stated that someone had cared enough about the existing Code requirement to contact the City to request it be followed. It was stated that the remediation would be fairly simple, in that the three feet of pavers could be pulled up and replaced with landscaping. Citing many code compliance issues, it was stated that the Council did not want a precedent of pavers extending to the property line. Expressing concern about mandatory allowances for Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs and JADUs), it was stated that R-1 zoning was under assault and that threats to the beauty of the Mar Vista area were real. It was 5  City Council Minutes April 15, 2025 stressed that master planning and community effort and many hours of work had gone into the Zoning Code, and that the appeal had taken the Planning Commission's time and now the Council's time. It was stated that the Council supported the Code and that the requested variance could not be supported. City Attorney Davi advised that the Council should not deliberate until the appellant had been given the opportunity to have the last word. Mr. Atteridge said that his client, the applicant, qualified for a variance. He said that she had come to ask for the variance, not just to ask that it be reconsidered, and that she had had the work done because of mud and drainage interference and tree growth interference with her sewer line. He said she had done her due diligence to fix the situation. He said that not one neighbor had responded to the public notice by coming to speak against the variance and that in fact a neighbor had supported the driveway and said it looked nice. He said that Ms. Albert receiving the variance would not be special treatment and that he did not believe the City would experience a flood of people applying for their own variances but that if they did they had the right to do so. He reiterated that Ms. Albert qualified for a variance, stating that what was there before was a tree and a planter box and that now all she had to do is deal with the sump pump. He said he did not believe that the driveway was anything out of the ordinary that would ruin the neighborhood. The Council discussed the matter. In support of the staff recommendation and Planning Commission decision, it was noted that the Planning Commission had faced the same dilemma that the Council also was experiencing, which was not being able to make the required finding of a special circumstance. It was stated that the argument about other neighboring homes was not persuasive, citing that this was not how complaint-based code enforcement worked. It was noted that the requirement for the three-foot setback was not outdated but a relatively modern provision added in the early 2000s. It was stated that the variance could not be supported and that the Council had not made any findings that would cause them to overturn the Planning Commission's decision. It was suggested that City staff look at older ordinances for potential updates. The Council expressed sympathy for Ms. Albert's investment and her desire to maintain her home and its curb appeal, but it was stated that it still was not clear to the Council how the pavers had been a solution to correct runoff issues. It was stated that the solution to bringing the property into compliance would not be too costly. In support of the appellant, it was stated that while staff had good intentions it was also a priority to support property owners' rights to do what they wanted with their properties, and it was stated that the driveway and landscaping was attractive. It was questioned how it would impact the property's curb appeal to add the required three-foot strip of landscaping. It was expressed that the Council understood the issue of soil going into the sump pump and sympathy was expressed for the applicant. It was stated that it had been a struggle to try to find a way to the variance findings but that there did not appear to be support from the Council to do so. On a motion by Councilmember Smith, seconded by Councilmember Rasch, and carried by the following vote, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 25-024 C.S. upholding the PC's decision to deny the driveway variance: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith NOES: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Williamson Public Appearance (Afternoon) 6. 1st Reading of the Sidewalk Vending Ordinance Update (Monterey City Code Chapter 32, Article 1, Section 3)(Exempt from CEQA Article 19, Section 15305, Class 5) 6  City Council Minutes April 15, 2025 Action: Passed draft Ordinance to a second reading, as amended to change the required distance between sidewalk vendors in Section 13(a) from 15 feet to 10 feet, and to grant staff ministerial approval over determining the vendor registration process for the spaces at the mouth of the Wharf Planning Manager Hill gave the staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions. Councilmember Smith left the Chamber at 6:08 p.m. and returned at 6:10 p.m. In the interest of time and due to the number of speakers wishing to speak, public comment was limited to two minutes per person. Public comment was received from: Rafael Zenizo, a vendor, who said he had not witnessed any safety incidents and that City officials were not enforcing code violations and seemed to side with the business associations and businesses; Mira Nissim, a vendor, who asked the City to enforce existing permits and contracts before adopting new regulations and said that safety hazards should be reviewed in a factual way instead of anecdotally; Keith Simone, a vendor, who said safety had not been an issue in his experience and that the regulations would drastically reduce the space available to vendors; India Weeks, a vendor, who alleged that much of the proposed ordinance violated State law and attempted to rig the local economy; Judie Henderson, a resident, who said there was a safety issue and that self- policing was not enough, and recounted issues with vendors including alleged threats; Wendy Brickman of the Fisherman's Wharf Association, who spoke in support of the ordinance and encouraged the Council to pass it to a second reading; Sherry Tuioti, a wharf business owner, who said that self-policing was not fair to all vendors and was not a safe way to address issues, and spoke in favor of staff’s recommendation; Rick Aldinger of the Monterey County Hospitality Association, who said that the Wharf area was heavily used and became chaotic at times even without vending, and spoke in favor of staff’s recommendation; Jim Burns, a vendor, who alleged that the proposed ordinance did not have legal standing due to a test case of State Senate Bill 946 (SB 946) in Los Angeles; Scott, a vendor, who said he had never seen a bike accident involve a vendor, and that each vendor should have an equal amount of space with only three-foot buffers instead of the recommended 15 feet; Marina, a vendor, who said there had been no accidents in the vendor area and that street vending encouraged economic activity and a vibrant community; Athena Zenizo, a vendor, who said that almost every complaint had been from the businesses and alleged that it was harassment; Julia Esdaile, a vendor, who suggested there had not been any proactive effort to enforce current rules and said that the area in question was a public space and the economy was supposed to be based on competition; Anthony Lombardo, who spoke in favor of staff's proposal which he said was legal, stating that the proposed standards came from jurisdictions that had not been challenged or overturned; Thomas Sims, a vendor, who spoke against the proposed restrictions, asking to whose benefit they would be; Lorna Moffat, who shared appreciation for the vendors and said that compassion was needed; Gary Cursio of the Monterey County Hospitality Association, who spoke in support of the ordinance, saying that there were existing safety issues that needed to be addressed which he said were not the vendors' fault but due to the configuration of the area; Lance Koehler of the Cannery Row Business Association, who spoke in support of the ordinance, saying it would allow visitors and residents to enjoy the City safely and responsibly; and Monica Lal of the Monterey Peninsula Chamber of Commerce, who spoke in support of the ordinance, citing viewshed issues, and asked the City to step up its enforcement efforts to help the vendor entrepreneurs. During public comments, Councilmember Garcia left the Chamber at 6:19 p.m. and returned at 6:20 p.m., Councilmember Barber left the Chamber at 6:48 p.m. and returned at 6:51 p.m., and Mayor Williamson left the Chamber for approximately half a minute at 6:50 p.m. On question from the Council, Planning Manager Hill explained provisions in the draft ordinance including size and height limits, setup and takedown times, and said that if the ordinance were to be adopted, City staff planned to review vendor space limitations and administratively formalize a process for vendor space allotments and check-ins. On question, he said that the Wharf location 7  City Council Minutes April 15, 2025 was a vendor preference and that other locations were also available to vendors. He explained that the City's jurisdiction was limited in the Wharf area. He provided information on additional regulations that would ensure that space would be available for emergency vehicles to access Fisherman's Wharf. On question from the Council, City Manager Uslar provided context on code compliance, how it was achieved, and how it could be scaled up or down. On question about whether a 10-foot distance between vendors would work, Planning Manager Hill said that the 15- foot recommendation had come from other jurisdictions and was designed to allow for a safe flow, and that 10 feet would not be a drastic change and would allow for more vendors. On question about the potential to prioritize local vendors, Planning Manager Hill said that this would be an additional barrier to the issuance of a sidewalk vendor permit and that the idea behind the State law was to have a low barrier to entry. City Attorney Davi said that the concept would require further research and that she agreed with Planning Manager Hill's initial assessment. The Council discussed the matter. It was stated that nobody in the City was conducting a witch hunt. It was stated that everyone liked the vendors and that the overabundance of activity was indeed a safety risk and the ordinance was needed. It was stated that with 33 vendors it would be ideal to find 33 spaces throughout tourist-visited places in the City where vendor spaces could be distributed equitably. It was stressed that the space sizes should be standardized so that all vendors would have the same opportunity. A discussion between the Council and City staff centered around how to determine which vendors would get spaces at the Wharf area. It was stated by the Council that the registration process should ensure that vendors wouldn't arrive to set up only to find that all available spots were already taken, and a lottery system was proposed to alleviate the chaos that could result from City staff determining who got space. City Attorney Davi said that if Council wished to be specific about the number of spaces and how they were selected, those requirements would need to be codified. The Council discussed whether San Carlos Park was a potential vending space and if it would have room for vendors at the 50-foot distance required in parks. This idea was placed on hold for the time being with the expressed intention that the Council would be open to potential modifications to the ordinance in the future. A motion was introduced by Mayor Williamson, seconded by Councilmember Barber, and carried by the following vote, to pass the draft Ordinance to a second reading, as amended to:  change the required distance between sidewalk vendors in Section 13(a) from 15 feet to 10 feet, and  grant staff ministerial approval over determining the vendor registration process for the spaces at the mouth of the Wharf. AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) The Council recessed at 7:37 p.m. and reconvened at 7:53 p.m. Following this recess, the Council took up the Evening Session items, then returned to Afternoon Session items 7, 8, and 9 at the end of the evening. 7. Presentation of a Proposed Ordinance Amendment, Including Findings Demonstrating Need, to Increase Compensation for the Mayor and City Councilmembers (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Received presentation and discussed This matter was heard in the evening session, following item 10. City Manager Uslar gave the staff presentation. City Attorney Davi explained the amendment she had provided at the dais that 8  City Council Minutes April 15, 2025 would be brought forward for a first reading. She and City Manager Uslar answered Councilmembers' questions. In the interest of time and due to the number of speakers wishing to speak, public comment was limited to two minutes per person. Public comment was received from: Daniel Armendariz, who commended the Council for their hard work; Bryan Rosen, who suggested that Council compensation be tied to a general welfare index; Pat Venza, who said that the stipend itself was well-earned but that she was concerned about the benefits package and a lack of transparency around it; Nina Beety, who echoed Ms. Venza's remarks on Council benefits; Lorna Moffat, who suggested that the proposed increase go instead toward efforts to combat global warming; Lori Mazzuca, who spoke against the proposed increase, citing the City's budget issues; and Esther Malkin, who spoke in favor of the proposed increase, citing the number of hours spent by the elected officials, and noted that members not in favor could opt out. The Council discussed the matter. In opposition to the proposed increase, it was stated that being an elected official in Monterey was more about service than compensation. It was stated that the current composition of the Council showed that a pay increase was not needed to achieve diversity of representation or to have high quality, well qualified people on the dais. It was stated that the argument that the compensation increase was needed missed the fact that candidates did not get elected unless they had already been devoting a lot of pro bono time to the community. It was stated that it felt self-serving and looked wrong to ask for higher compensation. It was stated that the Council would need to ask the community to support the City with financial necessities such as future tax measures and that the community needed to be able to trust the Council. In support of the proposed increase, it was stated that serving as Mayor or Councilmember was not a cushy position and that the elected members gave to the community every day and would not be in these roles if they did not. It was noted that the proposed increase would not go into effect until 2027 and stated that it was important to maintain continuity beyond the tenure of the current Council. It was stated that modest cost-of-living increases made sense and that the City's provision of such increases was a cost of doing business. It was stated that this process was uncomfortable for the Council but necessary. It was stated that along with valuing City staff, it was right to value the Mayor and Council. It was detailed how much time was involved in performing well as a Councilmember, and noted that in addition to Council meetings, there was also a lot of research and many community interactions and other board meetings that took time and transportation, and that even dry cleaning was involved. It was stressed that the Council stipend helped members execute their responsibilities and asserted that the opportunity to participate should be extended to people who were not as privileged but who wanted to represent their community. It was noted that the total annual increase associated with the proposed ordinance would be around $6,400 which was noted to be minimal compared with the City's annual budget. Regarding the Council's receipt of benefits, on the one hand it was stated that it did not make sense that a part-time Councilmember should receive the benefit package of a full-time employee, and that if members needed a health plan they could pay for it. On the other hand, it was stated that if members had another coverage they could opt out, but if they did not have coverage they should be able to access it. 8. Authorize the Mayor to Execute an Amendment to City Manager Employment Agreement to Implement a 4% Cost of Living Increase and Authorize the Finance Director to Administratively Update the Salary Schedule (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 19, Section 15061) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 25-025 C.S. This matter was heard in the evening session, following Item 7. Human Resources Director Neal gave a brief verbal staff presentation. 9  City Council Minutes April 15, 2025 In the interest of time, public comment was limited to two minutes per person. Public comment was received from: Daniel Armendariz, who said that along with an increase in compensation should come an increase in skills; Pat Venza, who referred to negotiations between the City and the General Employees of Monterey (GEM), stating that taking care of lower-paid employees was beneficial to all and that she hoped future negotiations with GEM would be less hostile; Bryan Rosen, who noted that there were prominent federal and state positions that earned less than the City Manager salary and said it would be better to concentrate on lower-income people who were being hit harder by the economy; Lorna Moffat, who said that with the current state of the economy the City should pull back on many expenses; and Nina Beety, who spoke against the increase and what she called disappointing City leadership, and stated that the City's across-the- board 4% cost-of-living increase percentage did not benefit lower-paid employees at the same level that it did for higher-paid City executives. During public comments, Councilmember Smith left the Chamber from 9:56 p.m. to 9:58 p.m. The Council briefly discussed the matter. It was noted that this subject always inflamed emotions due to varying perspectives and economics. It was argued that City Manager Uslar earned his high salary with his management of hundreds of employees and a complex city. On a motion by Mayor Williamson, seconded by Councilmember Smith, and carried by the following vote, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 25-025 C.S.: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) 9. Authorize the Mayor to Execute the Third Amendment to City Attorney Employment Agreement to Implement a 4% Cost of Living Increase and Authorize the Finance Director to Administratively Update the Salary Schedule (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 19, Section 15061) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 25-026 C.S. This matter was heard in the evening session, following Item 8. Human Resources Director Neal gave a brief verbal staff presentation. In the interest of time, public comment was limited to two minutes per person. Public comment was received from Nina Beety, who spoke against the increase, stating that she was disappointed by and had allegedly been discriminated against by City leadership. The Council made comments of appreciation for the City Manager and City Attorney for their work. It was stressed that these increases were cost-of-living adjustments. On a motion by Mayor Williamson, seconded by Councilmember Garcia, and carried by the following vote, the City Council the City Council adopted Resolution No. 25-026 C.S.: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) EVENING SESSION AGENDA: 7 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. Pledge of Allegiance Councilmember Barber led the Pledge. 10  City Council Minutes April 15, 2025 General Public Comments, Continued Continued public comment on non-agendized matters was received from: Larry Wesley, Daniel Armendariz, and Nina Beety. Evening Session Items Presentations (Evening) 10. Receive a Presentation from COWI North America, Inc. on the Municipal Wharf 2 – Maintenance Strategy and Lifespan (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Received presentation Senior Engineer Rieser introduced Jack Gerwick and Jacob Shaw of COWI North America, Inc., who gave the staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions together with Public Works Director Renny. Public comment was received from: Daniel Armendariz, who encouraged growth of the City's wharves, citing economic benefits; Bryan Rosen, who urged the City to keep the wharves' historic character; and Esther Malkin, who said the City should keep its wharf and diversify its economy. The Council thanked the staff for trying to balance the City's infrastructure issues and the consultants for their work. Following this item, the Council returned to the Afternoon Session agenda for items 7, 8, and 9. Public Appearance (Evening) 11. Provide Direction to Staff on the Development of the 2025 Climate Action Plan (CAP) (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Received presentation and provided direction to staff This matter was heard following item 9. Sustainability Manager Terrasas gave the staff presentation on the Climate Action Plan (CAP) and answered Councilmembers' questions with additional input from Erica Linard of Rincon Consultants. In the interest of time, public comment was limited to two minutes per person. Public comment was received from: Bryan Rosen, who spoke of the importance of focusing on rail and other alternative forms of transportation; Esther Malkin, who raised the concern that many renters could not participate in sustainability initiatives due to lack of infrastructure or support from property owners; Daniel Armendariz, who expressed concern about solar installations, citing related health and environmental concerns; Nina Beety, who expressed disappointment in the City's hiring of Rincon Consultants, and said she hoped 3CE could spearhead removal of smart electrical and gas meters; and Lorna Moffat, who said the importance of trees was missing from the CAP and that trees had a crucial role as regulators within the Earth's water, energy, and carbon cycles. On question, Sustainability Manager Terrasas provided information on the organic waste capture process and related outreach efforts. The Council discussed the CAP. The desire was expressed for Monterey to play a leadership role in sustainability efforts. It was stressed that transportation should be a major focus, including expanding electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure across the city and incentivizing business owners to be part of the solution. It was encouraged to work on establishing policy to incentivize 11  City Council Minutes April 15, 2025 the electrification of buildings. Housing was discussed, both in terms of the connection of increased affordable housing to the reduction of vehicle miles traveled and also in how to encourage property owners of rental units to increase tenants' access to sustainable improvements. Improving infrastructure for walking and biking was identified as a priority, with the Council requesting better pedestrian safety and more walking and/or biking lanes. Regarding community engagement in climate action, it was discussed how to motivate people to complete the City's 2025 Climate Action Plan survey. City staff was encouraged to work with the school district, and it was suggested that students could help separate food waste in school kitchens. Suggestions were made regarding outreach methods. The need for broad, diverse community input in the Climate Action Plan development process was discussed and it was stressed that the City should conduct intentional outreach to underrepresented groups, such as the Japanese American Citizens League, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (AACP), and League of Latin American Citizens (LULAC), to ensure more inclusive engagement and hear from voices not typically involved in climate planning discussions. It was recognized that progress was being made by Monterey One Water (M1W) in partnership with ReGen Monterey to capture methane gas and reuse it as energy, reducing dependence on Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). Concern was expressed that Central Coast Community Energy (3CE) rates had not remained competitive, noting that regulatory policy had resulted in higher costs for community energy customers compared to investor-owned utilities. Council Comments None made, in the interest of time. City Manager Reports City Manager Uslar announced that the City Focus newsletter was publishing soon, and that Carl’s Jr. would be rebuilt in the same location where the restaurant had recently burned down. Adjournment The Council adjourned at 11:08 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Clementine Bonner Klein Tyller Williamson City Clerk Mayor 12