Council Regular Meeting

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING CITY OF MONTEREY Tuesday, August 5, 2025 4:00 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, Finance Director, Present: Community Development Director, Police Chief, Fire Chief, Human Resources Director, Library & Museums Director, Public Works Director, City Clerk, Deputy Public Works Director/City Engineer, Capital Programs Coordinator, Planning Manager, Acting Assistant Fire Chief, Recreation Manager, Sustainability Coordinator, Senior Engineer, Police Lieutenant, Principal Planner, Housing Manager, Firefighters (2) AFTERNOON SESSION (4:00 p.m.) Call to Order Mayor Williamson called the meeting to order at 4:02 p.m. City Clerk Klein called the roll with the Council present as indicated above. General Public Comments Public comment on non-agendized matters was received from: John Tilley of Monterey Commercial Property Owners Association, Anthony Mitchell, Mira Nissim, and Daniel Armendariz. Consent Agenda Mayor Williamson noted that members of the public had requested to pull Items 3 and 7 from Consent. He asked if the public would like to request any further items be pulled, and no request was made. On a motion by Councilmember Smith, seconded by Councilmember Barber, and carried by the following vote, the City Council approved the Consent Agenda, except Items 3 and 7: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) Consent: Approval of Minutes 1. July 15, 2025 Regular Meeting (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Approved 2. July 23, 2025 Special Meeting (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Approved  City Council Minutes August 5, 2025 Consent: Ordinances 3. 2nd 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) Action: Pulled from Consent; Adopted Ordinance No. 3708 C.S. Planning Manager Hill gave a brief verbal presentation. Based on the number of people desiring to comment, Mayor Williamson limited the time per speaker to two minutes. Public comment was received was received from vendors Mira Nissim, India Weeks, Jim Burns, Brian, Marina, Liz Grijalva, an unidentified person, and Daniel Armendariz, all in opposition to the ordinance. Comments made included speakers expressing disappointment with the proposed ordinance; disputing the factual basis of statements made by Anthony Lombardo at the July 15, 2025 meeting; alleging that the ordinance was designed to drive vendors out of business; alleging that there was no supportive health or safety data to back up the ordinance; alleging that the Council had been fed false information; stating that the health and safety concerns that had been presented were not objective and accounted to economic animus; stating that the vendors were a draw for visitors to come to Monterey; stating that an accident was imminent were "absurd"; alleging that the Wharf's Whalefest had blocked pedestrian passage; alleging prejudice against street vendors who were being used as scapegoats for broader health and safety concerns relating to the Wharf; sharing information on a recent e-bike collision on the Recreation Trail; expressing concern that the regulations would push out vendors and stop them from providing for their families; asserting that the decision would be challenged and was illegal and morally wrong; stating that the reduction of space size was unfair; and stating that the numbers given regarding emergency vehicle clearance were not adding up. On question from the Council, Planning Manager Hill provided the rough number of square feet (416 sq. ft.) that would be available for street vending at the Wharf under the new regulations. The Council discussed the matter. It was stressed that the Council was not prejudiced against street vendors and that the proposed ordinance was not intended to attack any group but rather to bring clarity to the vendor regulations. The difficulty of the conversation was acknowledged but it was stated that the ordinance was supported citing the importance of safety and navigation in busy areas, noting that the crowded state of the area was different dependent on the time that a photo was taken but stressing that the Council had made personal observations of congestion in the area. The emergency vehicle issue was intended to make sure there was space for an emergency vehicle to respond in an emergency. It was stated that it was disappointing that there had not been a greater opportunity to collaborate and find common ground. The Council expressed that it was sensitive to the vendors' needi to succeed in their businesses but it was noted that allowing larger vendor spaces would reduce the number of vendors and it was stressed that the ordinance presented a balanced compromise for the limited space available. It was stated that many individuals had been heard on the matter. The Council agreed to move forward with the ordinance while remaining open to evaluating its effectiveness after implementation. On a motion by Mayor Williamson, seconded by Councilmember Barber, and carried by the following vote, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 3708 C.S.: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) 2  City Council Minutes August 5, 2025 Consent: Resolutions 4. Adopt Resolution Certifying Compliance with State Law with Respect to Levying Assessments and Special Taxes; and Approve the Agreement with Monterey County (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 25-077 C.S. 5. Award Professional Services Contract for Independent Audit Services to CliftonLarsonAllen Wealth Advisors, LLP and Authorize the City Manager to Execute the Agreement. (Not a Project Under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 25-078 C.S. 6. Award a Professional Services Agreement to Hinderliter, de Llamas and Associates for Transient Occupancy Tax Audit Services (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 25-079 C.S. 7. Close and Defund Four (4) Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program (NCIP) Projects, Approve Funding to Cut-Off Projects from the Approved FY2024/25 NCIP Project List, and Authorize the Finance Director to Appropriate Funding (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Pulled from Consent; Adopted Resolution No. 25-080 C.S. as amended to add a Tier II seismic evaluation of Fire Station 12 Public comment was received from: Tom Reeves, who said that his concern about a deck had been addressed as the deck in question was no longer part of the scope, and urged that the Council refer the matter of Fire Station 12 to the NCIP Committee to approve expansion of the project scope to include a rigorous seismic analysis. On question from the Council, City Engineer/Deputy Public Works Director Easterling provided further details regarding the history of the scope of the Fire Station 12 project, which was described as originally addressing immediate needs but had expanded as the project progressed due to increased costs and the discovery of additional structural repair needs. He said that City staff was trying to stay within a reasonable budget and stay within the immediate needs that had come forward, but that the scope could be adjusted at the pleasure of the Council. He explained that at a high level there was not an imminent concern about seismic risk to the Fire Station 12 building, but that a Tier II seismic analysis would cost approximately $15,000 and could give more confidence moving forward and provide insight into potentially needed seismic improvements. On question from the Council, Senior Engineer Paulding reported to the Council on the reason for recommending closure of the Mar Vista Reconstruction Design project, explaining that there was not neighborhood support because of resident concerns about lost parking and safety. He explained that it was the NCIP process that required the full agreement of the neighborhood, not the Council's, and agreed with the Council that if directed, the City could proceed with the project despite lack of neighborhood support. He provided insight into the process of moving funds to the undergrounding project and assured the Council that the funds would be used for undergrounding purposes. He discussed NCIP project completion rates, which he said was roughly 12 projects completed annually, while he noted that the Council had approved 33 projects and that the list continued to grow. The Council expressed interest in looking into potentially revising the NCIP process that currently required full neighborhood support for a project to move forward. 3  City Council Minutes August 5, 2025 On question from the Council, Matt Frantz, structural engineer with ZFA, explained that the project scope for the Fire Station 12 building already included voluntary seismic strengthening work, and provided insight into what the Tier II seismic analysis could add to the scope of the project at additional cost. The Council discussed the matter. Support was expressed for the staff recommendation and it was stated that spending $15,000 for the tier two seismic evaluation would be a logical, diligent thing to do. A motion was introduced by Councilmember Smith, and seconded by Councilmember Rasch, tp adopt Resolution No. 25-080 C.S., as amended to add a Tier II seismic evaluation of Fire Station 12. The Council discussed the motion. It was stated that the Council should revisit the NCIP process to consider potential refinements such as ensuring that projects with significant public benefit could move forward without 100% neighborhood consensus, and to address staff capacity and the ability to timely complete projects. Overall it was stressed that the NCIP should do the right thing by the general public. The topic of what it would involve to revive a project included discussion of the "Casanova Ave, 500 Block Sidewalk" project in relation to upcoming development, and timing considerations for NCIP projects in relation to development concerns. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) 8. Authorize the City of Monterey Cemetery El Encinal to Buy Back Cemetery Lot 9 in Block 268 for $2,872.75 Payable to Mr. Ron Cota (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 25-081 C.S. End of Consent Agenda Afternoon Session Items Public Appearance (Afternoon) 9. Receive an Update and Provide Direction to Staff on the Development of 2025 Climate Action Plan (CAP) (Not a Project Under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Approved and accepted report, provided feedback This item was heard after Item 10. Sustainability Manager Terrasas gave the staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions. During the presentation, Councilmember Barber left the Chamber from 6:26 p.m. to 6:28 p.m. Public comment was received from: Esther Malkin, who highlighted the need to incorporate renters in the plan and asked how landlords could be incentivized in a way that would not pass along the costs to renters; and Laura Davis of LandWatch Monterey County, who spoke in support of the City's efforts, and specifically requested that the vehicle miles traveled ("VMT") analysis uses an origin destination model and direct the consultants to include an evaluation of whether building more housing to address the jobs/housing imbalance would help reduce VMT and to what extent, in line with the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocation ("RHNA") allocation and Housing Element. 4  City Council Minutes August 5, 2025 A motion was introduced by Councilmember Smith, and seconded by Councilmember Barber, to approve and accept the report. The Council discussed the matter. Interest was expressed in looking into the points brought up by LandWatch and Ms. Malkin. The importance was stressed of engaging with the community and interest was expressed in learning about staff's plan for outreach to low-income and disadvantaged community members. It was suggested that staff contact organizations that specifically represent those parts of the community. Interest was expressed in receiving a timeline showing the work status of all the different elements of the Climate Action Plan. It was urged that the City develop a policy to disincentivize the use of natural gas. It was requested to prioritize the walking and bicycling goal. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) 10. Authorize the Mayor to Sign a Letter and Submit Public Comment to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to Reconsider the Long-Term Water Demand Forecasts in the Proposed Decision for Application 21-11-024 (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) -- continued from July 23, 2025 Action: Approved letter (4-1, Councilmember Smith voting no) Based on the number of attendees who expressed that they were attending the meeting for this item, this item was heard first of the afternoon public appearances. Mayor Williamson gave a brief verbal presentation. Councilmember Smith left the Chamber from 5:35 p.m. to 5:37 p.m. Public comment in support of the letter stated: that there would be plenty of water available in the near future; that the estimates of California-American Water ("Cal Am") were very inaccurate, that Cal Am had no track record of producing any water through any alternate water project, and that they made a point to obstruct innovative water projects; that the community used less water than projected; that this was a justice issue because access to water complicated the building of affordable housing in the area; and was received from Pat Venza, Sylvia Shih, Alice Ann Glenn, Melodie Chrislock of Public Water Now, Margaret-Anne Coppernoll, and Laura Davis of LandWatch Monterey County. Public comment opposing the letter referred to a statement attributed to the Monterey County Water Resource Agency that recommended caution regarding cities making land use decisions based on perception of future water supply; discussed the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and asserted that Pure Water Monterey was never meant to provide the majority of water, stating it would be a serious problem if Monterey One Water (M1W) were to lose a few sources of water; expressed concern about water supply during any future drought; asserted that the traditional three-pronged approach was required to ensure the area gets the water it needs long- term; expressed concern that the City Council was getting involved in something that should be left to experts; expressed disappointment that the letter had been sent on City letterhead without public discourse; asserted that water demand numbers were hard to pin down and that the key issue moving forward was supply, not demand; and was received from: John Tilley of the Monterey Commercial Property Owners Association, Carol Chorbajian, Rick Aldinger and Gary Cursio of the Monterey County Hospitality Association, Christopher Bunn of the Monterey County Farm Bureau, and Adam Pinterits. 5  City Council Minutes August 5, 2025 During public comments, Councilmember Garcia left the Chamber from 5:55 to 5:57 p.m. The Council discussed the matter. In opposition to the letter, it was expressed that the Council should not be taking a City position because they were not privy to the details, that the numbers were under dispute and that informed members of the public and the staff of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) had vouched for the higher number. It was noted that the matter had been postponed by a lot of initiative from the political side. Concern was expressed about having only one voice advocate to a state agency on a matter on which the community was divided. In support of the letter, it was stated that taking a position on the water issue was an appropriate municipal interest and that the water supply issues impacted residents' quality of life. The need was emphasized for affordable and sustainable water solutions and the importance was stressed of addressing water supply issues to enable housing development for the community. It was noted that farmers had had the opportunity to develop their own recycled water plant for many years but had not done so due to the high cost and because one already existed in the region. The unaffordable and unsustainable water rates were referenced and it was expressed that time after time, Cal Am had acted against the interest of its customers and that the letter would send a message to the community that there was an alternative and that members of the community were advocating for change. It was stated that the the Council should base its actions on facts and trust experts, and that many studies had been done, and that federal and state agencies would not have approved a project that did not have reliable source water. It was expressed that if the community kept arguing over the matter it would muddy the waters for the conversation that needed to happen with the State Water Resources Control Board. It was stressed that the City needed housing now. Regarding the use of City letterhead for the letter before receiving Council approval, concern was expressed about the breach in the Council's governance process. It was suggested that the governance resolution should be reviewed to ensure proper following of procedures in the future. On a motion by Councilmember Barber, seconded by Councilmember Garcia, and carried by the following vote, the City Council authorized the letter AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Williamson NOES: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Smith 11. Provide Direction to Staff on the Executive Recruitment for City Manager (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20 Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5 Section 15061) Action: On consensus, directed staff to issue a Request for Proposals for an executive recruitment firm and bring the top three proposals back to the Council This item was heard at the beginning of the evening session after the recess. Human Resources Director Neal gave a verbal presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions. On question, City Manager Uslar explained the recruitment process that had been used in 2018 to fill the position, following which he was appointed. Public comment was received from: Nelson Vega and Lori Mazzuca, who both spoke in favor of employing a recruiting firm for a full external executive search; and Ross Pounds of the Monterey Firefighter Association, who spoke in favor of appointing Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira to the role of City Manager. 6  City Council Minutes August 5, 2025 The Council discussed the matter. It was stressed that while it was an important process to do a full and robust executive search, qualified internal candidates were encouraged to apply. It was stressed that there must be outreach to community stakeholders, including residents, the employee unions, and the business community, to build a profile of what the City wants from its City Manager. In order to keep the process fair, structured, and streamlined it was agreed that utilizing an executive recruitment firm for a full recruitment would be the appropriate and most professional choice. It was expressed that it would be ideal to have a replacement selected before City Manager Uslar's retirement. On consensus, the Council directed staff to issue a Request for Proposals ("RFP") for an executive recruitment firm and to bring the top three proposals back to the Council to make a selection. 12. Update the Governance Policy to Provide for a Mayor/Vice Mayor Subcommittee to Interview and Nominate Applicants to Boards, Commissions, and Committees, and Update the Council’s 2025 Appointments Chart (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 25-082 C.S. as amended to offer two interview times and 15 minute interviews; and determined that the Council would send proposed application questions to staff to incorporate into a revised boards, commissions, and committees application This item was heard second after Item 11, at the beginning of the evening session after the recess. City Clerk Klein gave a verbal staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions. It was noted by the Council that the Governance Policy currently in place did not allow for the use of City letterhead by individual Councilmembers for policy purposes. Regarding the subcommittee developing standards such as interview questions, it was asserted by the Council that these should come to the full body for approval, because otherwise other members who were not on the subcommittee would not have a voice in the matter. Public comment was received from: Tom Reeves, who said that the subcommittee standards should come before the Council for review and approval; and Lori Mazzuca, who referred to Governance Policy Section K (Letterhead Use by Councilmembers) and described the letter to the CPUC having been sent prior to receiving Council approval as a breach of public policy (item 10 on this agenda). During public comment, Councilmember Smith left the Chamber from 8:05 p.m. to 8:07 p.m. The Council discussed the matter. Regarding subcommittee standards and guidelines, such as interview questions to be asked of applicants, some concern was expressed about the lack of participation from non-subcommittee members in the initial process. It was suggested that the subcommittee bring back its guidelines and standards to the full Council for approval, and the Council discussed how involved the full Council should be considering that the subcommittee's recommendations would come to the Council for review and for the full Council's action. In the interest of maintaining efficiency, it was noted that anything that the Council wanted to dictate to the subcommittee could be done in advance at this meeting. It was suggested that the Council add to the policy to offer two interview times to each applicant in the interest of flexibility, and that interviews be 15 minutes each. It was suggested that part of the concern around interview questions could be resolved by having the boards, commissions, and committees application be more robust with questions specific to each advisory body. Application questions preferred by the Council included asking applicants whether they had attended a meeting of the 7  City Council Minutes August 5, 2025 body to which they wished to be appointed, to describe their background in the specific matter of that body, and whether there was something in that body in which they hold a specific interest or something specific that they were interested in accomplishing. The Council agreed that they would send additional questions to the City Clerk. It was stated that with robust body-specific answers in the application, the subcommittee could be flexible and ask more open-ended questions in the interview to get a better sense of the applicants and their ability to communicate and respond on the spot. A motion was introduced by Councilmember Barber, and seconded by Councilmember Garcia, to adopt Resolution No. 25-082 C.S., as amended to offer two interview times and 15 minute interviews, and determined that the Council would send proposed application questions to staff to incorporate into a revised boards, commissions, and committees application. Regarding the use of City Council letterhead, the Council revisited its Governance Policy on the subject, due to a concern raised about a letter sent by the Mayor (agenda item 10), which was deemed a violation of the policy. Mayor Williamson acknowledged the issue, took responsibility, and stated that the matter could be addressed in a future agenda item. Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira clarified that the error was made with staff's erroneous approval, and City Attorney Davi noted that the public comment submitted to the CPUC in the official docket did not appear to include City letterhead. It was resolved that the Council would agendize the item. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) Adjourn to Closed Session Public comment on the closed session was not received. Closed Session (Afternoon) 13. (A) Conference with Legal Counsel, Existing Litigation Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(1) -- continued from July 23, 2025: 1. City of Monterey v. Marianne McNicol (Monterey County Superior Court Case No. 23CV001205) 2. City of Monterey v. Leslie J. Flores, Trustee (Monterey County Superior Court Case No. 24CV000750) 3. Ashley Ellcessor v. City of Monterey (Monterey County Superior Court Case No. 24CV000649) 4. Francisca Moralez v. City of Monterey et al. (United States District Court Northern District of California Case No. 22-CV-07540) 5. Richard Rosendale v. City of Monterey (Monterey County Superior Court Case No. 23CV000879) 6. Ronald Rogers v. City of Monterey (Monterey County Superior Court Case No. 23CV003206) 7. Pacific Western Bank v. City and Stronghold Engineering, Inc. (San Bernardino Superior Court Case No. CIVSB2212212; Fourth District Court of Appeal Case No. E082907) 8. Stronghold Engineering, Inc. v. City of Monterey (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 18CV329015) 9. Stronghold Engineering, Inc. v City of Monterey (Riverside County Superior Court Case No. CVR12103427) 8  City Council Minutes August 5, 2025 10. Save Tarpy Flats v. City of Monterey (Monterey County Superior Court Case No. 24 CV005125) 11. Ruttschow v. City of Monterey (Workers' Compensation Appeals Board Case Nos. ADJ17283108, ADJ1491826) 12. Silva v. City of Monterey (Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board Case No. Case No. ADJ17523531) (B) Conference with Legal Counsel, Existing Litigation Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(2): 1. Alexiou, Workers Compensation Claim No. 21MON056 2. Woltman, Workers Compensation Claim No. 24MON001 (Not a Project Under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: In the matter of Ruttschow v. City of Monterey, confidential direction was given on a unanimous roll call vote to legal counsel; In the matter of Silva v. City of Monterey, confidential direction was given on a unanimous roll call vote to legal counsel; In the matter of Alexiou, confidential direction was given on a unanimous roll call vote to legal counsel; and in the matter of Woltman, confidential direction was given on a unanimous roll call vote to legal counsel; The remaining matters were not heard 14. Conference with Legal Counsel, Existing Litigation Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(1): Joseph Barboa v. City of Monterey (CRD Case No. 202403-23873807) (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 Council gave confidential direction to legal counsel Recess The Council recessed at 7:08 p.m. and reconvened at 7:17 p.m. Reconvene EVENING SESSION AGENDA (Approximately 7:00 p.m.) Pledge of Allegiance Councilmember Garcia led the Pledge. General Public Comments, Continued Public comment on non-agendized matters was received from Esther Malkin and Nina Beety. Announcements from Closed Session Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira reported out from the closed session as indicated in the actions recorded for closed session items 13 and 14 above. Evening Session Items 9  City Council Minutes August 5, 2025 Public Hearing (Evening) 15. Adopt the Planning Commission Recommendation and Approve a 1st Reading of Ordinances Amending Chapter 33 and Chapter 38 of the Monterey City Code to Implement the Provisions of California Senate Bill 9 and Housing Element Program I-J Allowing for Ministerial Approval of Qualifying Residential Developments and Lot Splits (Not a Project under Division 13, Commencing with Section 21000, of the Public Resources Code) Action: Passed two ordinances to second readings (3-2, Councilmembers Rasch and Smith voting no) Principal Planner Roveri gave the staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions. During the question period, Councilmember Barber left the Chamber from 8:52 p.m. to 8:55 p.m. Councilmember Garcia left the Chamber from 9:02 p.m. to 9:03 p.m. Based on the number of individuals wishing to comment, Mayor Williamson limited the time per speaker to two minutes. Public comments opposing or expressing concern regarding the ordinances: stressed anticipated impacts on infrastructure, water supply, parking, fire safety, and the effects of increased density, traffic, noise, and pollution on neighborhood character; questioned who would pay for the changes; expressed concerns about Monterey's car dependency; asserted that the City's housing problem was the result of years of neglectful housing policy and should be addressed with zoning; suggested the Council consider reducing the cost of issuing permits; asserted that they would not guarantee housing affordability; asked about the source for increased water needs; encouraged the City to undertake or join in on legal action against Senate Bill 9 ("SB9") and emphasized its impact on R1 neighborhoods; suggested the Council postpone action until external litigation regarding compliance by charter cities was resolved, or if the ordinances were adopted but litigation later showed that charter cities did not have to comply, that it come back for reevaluation; described SB9 as overreach by the state; suggested the City develop restrictive objective standards for housing units to minimize impacts on neighborhoods; encouraged the Council to adopt only the four units per parcel that were mandated by the state, not six; urged the Council to avoid rushing the implementation of SB9, citing the lack of urgency as no SB9 projects had yet been built in Monterey; criticized the lack of public outreach and said the public needed more time to grapple with the issue; and was received from: Char Carter, Nancy Soule, Marta Kraftzeck, Cecilia Moreno, Nelson Vega, Tom Reeves, Adam Pinterits, Nina Beety, and Lori Mazzuca. Public comments in favor of the ordinances, or expressing that compliance was a requirement of law: criticized the public for not opposing SB9 earlier at the State level; acknowledged the inevitability of SB9 but questioned the lack of parking requirements; suggested adding affordability requirements to the four-unit option; argued that the ordinances would alleviate the housing crisis by increasing density and affordability through faster and cheaper permitting; supported SB9 as a way to create affordable homeownership opportunities for local workers; emphasized the importance of gentle density and compliance with safety and parking requirements; and was received from: Esther Malkin, Laura Davis of Landwatch, Gabriel Sanders of the Monterey Opportunity Housing Trust. During public comments, Councilmember Smith left the Chamber from 9:13 p.m. to 9:15 p.m. A motion was introduced by Mayor Williamson, and seconded by Councilmember Garcia, to pass the ordinances to second readings. Council discussed the matter and the motion. 10  City Council Minutes August 5, 2025 In support of the ordinances, it was stated that any kind of zoning law change resulted in voices expressing "not in my backyard" sentiments, but it was stressed that there was a significant housing crisis in California and that the current lack of affordable housing was a quality of life issue, and if the City of Monterey did not do its part to help address the issue, it would only add to the problem. The need was emphasized to comply with state requirements and to do what the City could to move in the direction of more affordable housing. In opposition, it was stated that the State was making a mistake in intruding on land use. It was stated that the Council had alternatives beyond approving the ordinances through for adoption. Opposition was expressed for allowing six units on one parcel, citing concerns about over- densification, affordability, and community pushback. It was argued that the Council should delay action until pending litigation and Supreme Court decisions provided greater clarity about SB9's ability to dictate action to charter cities. Councilmember Rasch a proposed friendly amendment that would remove incentives for six units and instead limit the number of units per lot to four. The mover declined the friendly amendment, stating that the City had already taken a position and approved the Housing Element, and needed to move forward with it. It was stated that changing the number would put more strain on the City's planning staff who were already struggling to meet statutory deadlines. On the other hand, it was expressed that there had not been sufficient public outreach and that the matter of six units had not been transparent at the time of the Housing Element's adoption or the public would have disagreed with it then. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Williamson NOES: 2 COUNCILMEMBERS: Rasch, Smith Public Appearance (Evening) 16. Approve Changes to Rental Assistance Program (RAP) Guidelines (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15601) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 25-083 C.S. and directed staff to clearly exempt medical debt in the Excessive Debt section of the Guidelines, and change Unit Eligibility language to remove the term "too expensive" so that it referred only to the specific cost burden limit Housing and Community Development Coordinator Verania gave the staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions. During the presentation, Councilmember Smith left the Chamber from 9:48 p.m. to 9:50 p.m. and Councilmember Rasch left the Chamber from 9:59 p.m. to 10:0 p.m. Council interested in prioritizing children, requiring assessment with a financial advisor. Public comment was received from: Elouise Shim, who objected to characterization of some people as perpetually low-income; Adam Pinterits, who spoke in support of the program and of refining the process; and Esther Malkin, who said that the program was supposed to help people who earned too much to qualify for programs for very low income individuals. During public comments, Councilmember Barber left the Chamber from 10:05 p.m. to 10:07 p.m. A motion was introduced by Councilmember Garcia, and seconded by Councilmember Rasch, to approved Resolution No. 25-083 C.S. 11  City Council Minutes August 5, 2025 The Council discussed potential further changes to the guidelines, such as to limit assistance to one month instead of denying eligibility or to define a qualifying event that would allow an unapproved program applicant to become eligible, or to prioritize applicants dealing with medical conditions, domestic abuse, or who are seniors or have children. On question, Housing Manager Wyatt provided clarity on what was meant by excessive debt and provided an example of $50,000 in credit card debt. Mayor Williamson introduced a friendly amendment, which was approved by the mover and seconder, to direct staff to clearly exempt medical debt in the Excessive Debt section of the Guidelines, and change Unit Eligibility language to remove the term "too expensive" so that it referred only to the specific cost burden limit. The Council suggested that City staff bring a status report back to the Council at the mid-year point. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) Council Comments Councilmember Garcia thanked the Villa Del Monte Neighborhood Association for an enjoyable barbecue that he attended with the Mayor. Councilmember Smith reported on a recent meeting he had attended of the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) Rail Committee meeting and gave details of an upcoming board meeting for Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST). He remarked on the success of the recent NTT IndyCar event at Laguna Seca, and alerted all that the Monterey Peninsula Unified School District (MPUSD) schools were about to begin the new school year. Mayor Williamson led the room in singing "Happy Birthday" to Councilmember Garcia. City Manager Reports City Manager Uslar shared details of the successful end-of-summer celebration event at Jacks Park, and notified the Council that the Monterey Fire Department had sent fire personnel and a wildfire engine to Gifford Fire in Santa Maria. Adjournment The Council adjourned at 10:35 p.m. in memory of Monterey residents James Vincent and Jamie Lee Tabscott, and Salinas resident Steve Eugene Clatterbuck, victims of the Pacific Grove plane crash. The Mayor announced that the remaining closed session topics would not be heard at this meeting. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Clementine Bonner Klein Tyller Williamson City Clerk Mayor 12