Council Regular Meeting

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING CITY OF MONTEREY Tuesday, January 20, 2026 4:00 PM COUNCIL CHAMBER, 580 PACIFIC ST. MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Councilmembers Present: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson Absent: None City Staff Interim City Manager, Assistant City Manager, City Attorney, Finance Present: Director, Community Development Director, Police Chief, Assistant Fire Chief, Public Works Director, City Clerk, Senior Associate Planner, General Services Superintendent, Senior Engineer, Recreation Manager, Senior Administrative Analyst (Public Works) AFTERNOON SESSION Call to Order Mayor Williamson called the meeting to order at 4:01 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 Gina Sessions. Consent Agenda On a motion by Councilmember Smith, seconded by Councilmember Barber, and carried by the following vote, the City Council approved the Consent Agenda: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) Public comment on the Consent Items was solicited and not received. Consent: Approval of Minutes 1. December 16, 2025 Regular Meeting (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Approved 2. January 10, 2026 Special Meeting (Adjourned to January 11, 2026) (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Approved Consent: Award of Construction Contracts 3. Award a Construction Contract in the Amount of $212,205.00 to The Don Chapin Co., Inc. for the Via Paraiso and Veterans Park Basketball Courts (Exempt from CEQA Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1, Existing Facilities) ***NCIP*** Action: Adopted Resolution No. 26-002 C.S.  City Council Minutes January 20, 2026 Consent: Resolutions 4. Accept Army Project Awards, Authorize the Finance Director to make Budget Appropriations in the Presidio of Monterey Public Works Fund in the Amount of $999,782.35 and Appropriate Project Budgets, Not Exceeding $350,000 Individually, Through June 30, 2026 ***IGSA*** (NEPA Not a Project, CEQA Not a Project under (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080, subd. (a) and Pub. Resources Code, § 21080, subd. (b)(1))) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 26-003 C.S. 5. Adopt Updated Exhibit A to Monterey City Code Section 2-1.07, "Conflict of Interest Code" (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 26-004 C.S. 6. Amend Resolution 25-088, Changing Position Control List by Adding One Overfill Chief of Inspection Services/Building Official Position in the Building Safety and Appropriate $57,108 One -Time for General Fund to Fund the Position Through May 1, 2026 (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 26-005 C.S. 7. Authorize the Fire Chief to Execute a Memorandum of Agreement with the United States Coast Guard Cutter Hawksbill Regarding Fire Protection and Emergency Services (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 26-006 C.S. 8. Adopt a Resolution Opposing the Department of the Interior's Proposed Program for Offshore Oil and Gas Leases Off the California Coast (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 26-007 C.S. End of Consent Agenda Public Hearing (Afternoon) 9. Resolution to Modify the Monterey County Tourism Improvement District (MCTID) Management District Plan to Add the City of Sand City to the District (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) - Recommended to be Tabled Action: Tabled Public comment was received from Laurelle Whiteley, who requested further information about why the matter was being tabled. Interim City Manager Bauman explained that the matter was being tabled due to a noticing issue with See Monterey's consultant, and would return to Council as soon as possible. On a motion by Councilmember Smith, seconded by Councilmember Garcia, and carried by the following vote, the City Council tabled the matter to allow for proper noticing: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) 2  City Council Minutes January 20, 2026 10. Adopt Proposed Draft Findings and Declare an Intent to Consider Overruling the Monterey County Airport Land Use Commission’s Consistency Determination for Appeal Application AP-25-0236/Use Permit Application UP-25-0013 for a Day Care, General, Use at 2400 Garden Road; Appellant Henry Ruhnke, Wald, Ruhnke and Dost Architects LLP; Property Owner W R MONT LLC; and Directing that Notice Be Provided to the Airport Land Use Commission and the California Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics (Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1 and Section 15303, Class 3) Action: Held public hearing; Adopted Resolution No. 26-008 C.S. Planning Manager Hill gave a verbal staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions. Public comment was received from: Nina Beety, who expressed safety concerns regarding 5G cell towers and microwave radiation. Mayor Williamson stressed that the matter at hand was unrelated to small cell wireless facilities, and that as a separate matter the City had followed all rules regarding small cell wireless facilities. On a motion by Mayor Williamson, seconded by Councilmember Smith, and carried by the following vote, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 26-008 C.S.: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None) 11. 1st Reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 31 of the Monterey City Code to Add a Five-Foot Spacing Requirement Between Temporary Signs on Private Property (Exempt from CEQA Article 19, Section 15303, Class 3) Action: Passed ordinance to a second reading, as amended to remove the second sentence ("The placement of signs next to each other to create the appearance of a single large sign is prohibited") and to increase the distance between signs to 10 feet. Community Development Director Cole gave the staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions. Mayor Williamson added additional context. Public comment was received from: Monique Kaldy, who said that her signs in 2024 had been cut into only two pieces and had not been unsightly; Nina Beety and Lori Mazzuca, who opposed the ordinance, alleging that it infringed on freedom of speech; and Esther Malkin, who spoke in support of the ordinance on behalf of an affected neighborhood that she said did not want billboards. The Council discussed the matter. In opposition to the ordinance, details were provided about the 2024 signs in question and concern was expressed about the proposed change affecting the rights of property owners to express themselves through signs. It was stated that bringing the ordinance forward was not worth staff's time and that staff should not have to involve themselves in the matter. On the other hand, it was expressed that this change was not intended to discourage people to have signs on their property but was a logical policy clean-up to help clear up confusion for campaigns and City staff. It was noted that City staff already had the responsibility to enforce City 3  City Council Minutes January 20, 2026 regulations and that the updated provisions would help to provide further specifics for the job they already were required to perform. A motion was introduced by Councilmember Garcia, and seconded by Councilmember Barber, to pass the ordinance to a second reading. The Council continued to discuss the matter. Concern was expressed that the second sentence of the proposed changes was subjective, treaded into interpretation, and could introduce some risk for a content question. The mover said that the resulting regulations needed to be clear and not open to interpretation. City Attorney Davi suggested eliminating the second proposed sentence. She stressed that the existing ordinance and the proposed amendment did not regulate the content of speech. She noted that the proposed five-foot measurement requirement was not subjective because anyone could measure five feet. During the conversation, Councilmember Barber left the Chamber from 4:48 p.m. to 4:50 p.m. Councilmember Rasch suggested a friendly amendment to remove the second proposed sentence. The mover and seconder did not take up this amendment. Mayor Williamson suggested a friendly amendment that would remove the second proposed sentence ("The placement of signs next to each other to create the appearance of a single large sign is prohibited") and increase the required distance between signs to 10 feet. The mover and seconder agreed with this amendment. The motion, as amended, passed by the following vote: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Williamson NOES: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Smith Presentations (Afternoon) 12. Receive Presentation on the Brown Act (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Received presentation Assistant City Attorney Krattli gave the staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions. Public comment was received from: Daniel Armendariz, who stressed the importance of transparency and expressed concern about his treatment by City staff; and Nina Beety, who alleged that Councilmembers had at times appeared to have violated the Brown Act by conferring by text message with City staff and/or members of the public during public meetings. Council discussed the matter. It was stated that if the Council's actions at the dais had posed a legal concern, the City Attorney would have addressed it. The importance was stressed of sharing the Brown Act rules, and how they applies to the City Council, with the public. It was noted that the Mayor and Vice Mayor met prior to each Council meeting to discuss the agenda, primarily regarding time management of the upcoming meeting. Concern was expressed that this pre- agenda meeting appeared to provide these members with sooner opportunities for adding items to the agenda, compared with other members. On question from the Council, City Attorney Davi said that there was case law allowing a discussion such as takes place in the Mayor and Vice Mayor pre-agenda meeting. She stressed 4  City Council Minutes January 20, 2026 that Brown Act mistakes were easy to remedy and that anyone with concerns about an error should contact the City Attorney's office to help restore transparency. The Council expressed some interest in adding the Mayor and Vice Mayor's pre-agenda planning meeting to the Council's governance policy. Regarding texting at the dais, it was noted that members of the Council had personal lives as well as public lives and that before judging the use of a phone it was important to have all of the facts. On question from the Council, Assistant City Attorney Krattli said that text messages about City business, even on personal phones, were public records. She said the texting would be a violation of the Brown Act if it involved a majority of members of a body. Adjourn to Closed Session Public comment on the closed session, specifically the City Manager recruitment, was received from: Bob Faulis, who spoke about importance of selecting a businessperson who could assist with the structural budget deficit; and Nina Beety, who said that she had requested and continued to request that Councilmembers leave their cell phones and smart watches outside the room in order not to violate confidentiality during recruitment discussions. City Attorney Davi noted that the City Charter required the recording of Council closed sessions. The Council expressed that it would be quite an overstep of California law to record individuals without their knowledge. The Council recessed to closed session at 5:44 p.m. Closed Session (Afternoon) 13. Conference with Legal Counsel, Existing Litigation Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(1): Stronghold Engineering, Inc. v. City of Monterey (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 18CV329015) (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: No reportable action taken 14. Public Employee Appointment Pursuant to Government Code section 54957(b)(1) - City Manager (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) - Continued from January 11, 2026 Action: On a unanimous roll call vote, direction was given to send a conditional offer to a City Manager candidate. Appointment and contract approval anticipated to come to the Council at the February 3, 2026 meeting in open session as a public appearance item. 15. Conference with Labor Negotiator Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6; Unrepresented Employee: Prospective City Manager; Agency Negotiator: Valerie Phillips (Bob Murray & Associates) (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) - Continued from January 11, 2026 Action: No reportable action taken 16. Closed Session Conference with Real Property Negotiators Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 Property: 560-570 Munras Avenue (Trader Joe’s Shopping Center) Agency Negotiators: Kimberly Cole and Janna Aldrete Negotiating Parties: ROIC Monterey, LLC 5  City Council Minutes January 20, 2026 Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment for Consent to Assignment of Ground Lease to ZH Asheville, LLC (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Not heard The Council recessed at 7:00 p.m. and reconvened at 7:05 p.m. EVENING SESSION AGENDA Pledge of Allegiance Councilmember Barber led the Pledge. General Public Comments, Continued Continued public comment on non-agendized matters was received from Rick Heuer of Monterey Peninsula Taxpayers Association, Betsy Wilson, and Daniel Armendariz. Announcements from Closed Session City Attorney Davi reported out from the closed session as indicated in the actions recorded for closed session items 13, 14, 15, and 16, above. Evening Session Items Public Appearance (Evening) 17. Receive Presentation on Round Two of Phase 1 Poll of Likely Voters: Potential Tax Measures to Reduce the City's $10 Million Structural (Annual) Budget Deficit and Provide Direction to Staff (Not a Project Under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Received presentation; Expressed unanimous support for staff to further evaluate a 0.375 cent sales tax measure with a nine year sunset; Expressed consensus support of four members for staff to further evaluate each of the following: a parking tax, a major attraction admissions tax, and a vacant homes tax; Reached consensus to direct staff to continue exploring the potential placement of measures for sales tax, parking tax, and admissions tax on the June 2026 ballot, and to postpone further near-term consideration of a vacancy tax until pending resolution of legal issues in other jurisdictions Lucia Del Puppo of Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates (FM3) gave the staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions with additional clarification provided by Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira. Public comment was received from: Rick Heuer of Monterey Peninsula Taxpayers Association, who suggested that the $10 million structural deficit was actually a $4 million structural deficit if adding to fiscal reserves were to be removed from the equation, and said that the City needed to make difficult decisions first; Lori Mazzuca, who echoed Mr. Heuer's remarks and asked the Council to do the hard work to look at what to get rid of and how to reduce expenses; and Esther Malkin, who stressed that voters need education on what it takes to increase affordable housing and reduce homelessness. 6  City Council Minutes January 20, 2026 The Council discussed the matter. Appreciation was expressed for the work done by the consultant and City staff on the polling. It was stressed that the polled voters were real residents and that it was important to listen and value what they had expressed through the polling. Regarding the potential sales tax, support was expressed for a 0.375% rate based on approval expressed by polled voters, and it was noted that the option for a nine-year sunset had not made a difference in the potential approval of such a sales tax measure. It was expressed that, on principle, and based on accountability, there should be a built-in sunset. It was noted that there were outstanding legal questions regarding a potential admissions tax and/or vacant homes tax. Comments were made expressing interest in a potential admissions tax, and disinterest in a potential vacancy tax. It was stated that more information was needed regarding admissions taxes. On question from the Council, City Attorney Davi provided information about the San Francisco vacancy tax legal case and other related pending matters. Regarding a potential parking tax, support was expressed, stating that it was time to capture income through these means. It was expressed that a parking tax of 10% may be too high, and further information was requested about the potential impact of 5-6% and about parking tax rates in other semi-local jurisdictions. On question from the Council: Ms. Del Puppo said that the "Next Steps for June 2026" slide (slide 27) had an error and that the "yes" percentage for Option B (0.375% sales tax with nine-year sunset) should indicate 54%, not 57%, support; City Attorney Davi confirmed the requirements for placing a sales tax on the ballot; and Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira provided a timeline and estimated revenue for the various tax measures. The Council requested more clarity about what constituted the $10 million budget deficit and how it had developed, and about the current total dollar amount associated with funded unfilled positions and which of them should not be refilled. Regarding fiscal reserves, it was stated that it was prudent to set funding aside but also to figure out how to pay for deferred maintenance. The impact of 1978 Proposition 13 on municipal finances was noted. Support was expressed for City staff working to find ways to cut expenses, and it was noted that this could create difficult conversations. Two programs that were suggested for potential elimination were the rental registry and rental assistance programs, with statements made that the personnel could shift to fill other vacancies. On the other hand, it was stated that the rental inventory program was revenue neutral and that the rental assistance program had not added any City positions, and that eliminating them would not generate a significant difference in the deficit. Interim City Manager Bauman asked the Council for consensus direction with tax measures using the Next Steps for June 2026 slide. Support was expressed as follows: A 0.375 Cent Sales Tax – Until Ended by Voters: 3 yeses, 2 noes B 0.375 Cent Sales Tax – 9 Year Sunset: 5 yeses C 0.5 to 0.875 Cent Sales Tax Extension and Increase – Until Ended by Voters: 0 yeses, 5 noes D 0.5 to 0.875 Cent Sales Tax Extension and Increase – 9 Year Sunset: 1 yes, 4 noes E Parking Tax: 4 yeses, 1 no F Major Attraction Admissions Tax: 4 yeses, 1 no G Vacant Homes Tax: 4 yeses, 1 no Interim City Manager Bauman said that staff would bring further information to Council on the items that received a consensus of members in favor. 7  City Council Minutes January 20, 2026 City Attorney Davi asked for guidance on whether there were some matters that could go forward in November instead of June. The Council agreed on consensus to continue exploring the placement of measures for sales tax, parking tax, and admissions tax on the June 2026 ballot, and to postpone further consideration of a vacancy tax until pending legal issues in other jurisdictions were resolved. On question from the Council, Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira said that renewal of Measure P & S would be scheduled for November 2026, and noted that there could also be discussions about whether there was an appetite for a public safety facility bond measure for November as well. Council Comments Councilmember Rasch praised Police Chief Hober for his work opening the Monterey Sports Center during the power outages over the December holidays. Councilmember Smith spoke about the importance of educating residents about how to be self- sufficient for a period of 36 hours in an emergency situation. He suggested that Communications Manager Huelga speak to the public about what happens behind the scenes at the City during an emergency. Mayor Williamson said that it was important for residents to know that the City website provides updates and assistance during an emergency. He stressed that it was crucial to counteract false narratives that can be spun during these challenging times. It was noted that the City maintains open dialogue and communication with Pacific Gas and Electric ("PG&E") staff. City Manager Reports Interim City Manager Bauman said that he had been impressed with City staff's response during the winter storms and power outages. He said that PG&E staff had shared with City staff the complexity and difficulty of dealing with the falling trees affecting power. He announced that the Monterey Public Library lockers had opened at the Monterey Sports Center and at Montecito Park Fire Station 13, and that the First City Academy Spring cohort application had opened with many applications received already. Adjournment The Council adjourned at 9:01 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Clementine Bonner Klein Tyller Williamson City Clerk Mayor 8