MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
CITY OF MONTEREY
Tuesday, November 4, 2025
4:00 PM
COUNCIL CHAMBER, 580 PACIFIC ST.
MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
Councilmembers
Present: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson
Absent: None
City Staff
Present:
City Manager, Assistant City Manager, City Attorney, Police Chief, Human Resources Director, Public Works Director, City Clerk, Recreation Manager, Deputy Public Works Director/City Engineer, Parking Superintendent, Division Chief, Assistant Fire Chief, Engineering Assistant, Planning Manager, Associate Planner, Assistant Human Resources Director, Police Lieutenant, Senior Associate Planner
AFTERNOON SESSION
Call to Order
Mayor Williamson called the meeting to order at 4:01 p.m.
Presentations (Afternoon)
1. Recognition of Defense Language Institute Quarterly Joint Service Awards Fourth Quarter FY25 (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Recognized awardees
The Council recognized Sergeant Paul Kauranen, from the U.S. Marine Corps; Lance Corporal Avarose Quinn, from the U.S. Marine Corps; and Sergeant Leon Zak, from the U.S. Army. Each awardee made brief remarks.
Public comment on this item was received from Bryan Rosen, who spoke against the recognition.
2. Recognize November 2025 as Native American Heritage Month (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Recognized Native American Heritage Month
Mayor Williamson presented the proclamation and spoke about the importance of recognizing Native American heritage. Public comment on the matter was not received.
General Public Comments
Public comment on non-agendized matters was limited to two minutes per speaker based on the number of individuals wishing to speak, and was received from: Janice Russo; Noa Daniels of Access Monterey Peninsula; Maiaika Velazquez, LeShun Coleman, Tiffany Quarles, Chris, and Audra Walton of California Reparations & Reparative Justice for American Freedmen (CJEC); Gina Sessions; and Colin Callagher.
City Council Minutes November 4, 2025
2 Consent Agenda
Mayor Williamson said that Items 10 and 11 had been requested to be pulled. He noted that he had a financial conflict of interest with agenda Item 7, stemming from the proximity of his personal residence, that disqualified him from participating in that vote, and stated that he would therefore be noted as disqualified on Item 7.
On a motion by Councilmember Smith, seconded by Councilmember Barber, and carried by the following vote, the City Council approved the Consent Agenda, except for Items 10 and 11, and noting Mayor Williamson's disqualification from voting on Item 7:
AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
Consent: Approval of Minutes
3. October 13, 2025 Special Meeting (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Approved
4. October 21, 2025 Regular Meeting (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Approved
Consent: Ordinances
5. 2nd Reading of an Ordinance Adopting Parts of the 2025 California Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24), Including Local Amendments, and the 2024 International Property Maintenance Code (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and General Rule Article 5 Section 15061) Action: Adopted Ordinance No. 3712 C.S.
6. 2nd Reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 38, Section 38-112.5 of the Monterey City Code to Establish Local Density Incentives for Qualifying Housing Projects (CEQA:
Certified Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2023080034), Article 11, Section 15168(c))
Action: Adopted Ordinance No. 3713 C.S.
Consent: Resolutions
7. Authorize the Finance Director to Close the Larkin Park Swings Installation Project and Transfer Remaining Funds in the Amount of $58,401.74 to the Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program (NCIP) End Balance Account; and to Appropriate Funding in the Amount of $30,000.00 from the NCIP Contingency Account to the Deer Flats Park Fencing and Benches Project ***NCIP*** (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 25-106 C.S. (4-0-1, Mayor Williamson disqualified due to financial conflict of interest)
8. Approve Agreement with Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, for Financial Services and Authorize City Manager to Execute the Agreement (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Adopted Resolution No. 25-107 C.S.
City Council Minutes November 4, 2025
3 9. Adopt Resolution of Intention 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)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 25-108 C.S.
10. Authorize an Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with G7ei Inc. for the Storm Drain Master Plan and Stormwater Utility Rate Study to increase the not-to-exceed amount from $561,912 to $673,366 (Exempt from CEQA, Article 19, Section 15306, Class 6)
Action: Pulled from Consent; Adopted Resolution No. 25-109 C.S.
Deputy Public Works Director/City Engineer Easterling gave a brief verbal presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions.
Public comment was received from: Nelson Vega, who expressed concern about items being placed on the Consent agenda given the City's current fiscal challenges.
On a motion by Mayor Williamson, seconded by Councilmember Barber, and carried by the following vote, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 25-109 C.S.:
AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
11. Authorize Agreement with AMS.NET, LLC for Citywide Safety and Security Camera Replacement in the Amount of $1,808,626.75 (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Pulled from Consent; Adopted Resolution No. 25-110 C.S.
Chief Information Officer Blake gave a brief verbal presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions.
Public comment was received from Nelson Vega, who objected to the Council's process for expense prioritization.
On question from the Council, City Manager Uslar said that this item was already in the current budget.
The Council discussed the matter. It was stressed how crucial security footage was for the City and it was noted that this was an essential expense that paid for itself by providing for the health and safety of Monterey residents and staff. It was agreed that transparency was important and it was highlighted that the Council was making sound decisions and scrutinized expenses with due diligence.
On question from the Council, Chief Information Officer Blake said that placing security cameras at City Hall would be a Phase II item, pending budget availability.
On a motion by Councilmember Barber, seconded by Councilmember Smith, and carried by the following vote, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 25-110 C.S.:
AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
City Council Minutes November 4, 2025
4 12. Amend Agreement with Dell, Inc. to Increase the Not to Exceed Amount by $55,000 for Additional Microsoft Software Licensing (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 25-111 C.S.
End of Consent Agenda
Afternoon Session Items
Public Hearing (Afternoon)
13. Adopt the Planning Commission Recommendation and Approve 1st Reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 38 of the Monterey City Code to Establish Regulations and Development Standards for Firearms and Ammunition Retail Sales Uses and Amending the Home Occupation Permit Procedures (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Held public hearing; Passed Ordinance to a second reading (4-1, Councilmember Smith voting no)
Planning Manager Hill gave the staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions with additional input from City Attorney Davi.
Public comment was received from: an unidentified man, Rebecca Sumners, Colin Gallagher, Lori Mazzuca, who all spoke in opposition to the ordinance; and Duncan Emmons, who shared that it was challenging for Monterey residents to purchase firearms and ammunition needed to keep their professional skills sharp. Comments made in opposition to the ordinance included stating there was good law enforcement access to the L&B Firearms location at 301 Ocean Avenue, stressing that L&B Firemarms had followed all the rules in place at the time of receiving its business license and should be grandfathered in, alleging that the ordinance was unconstitutional, stating that the City should be more permissive and welcoming to businesses, and noting that two Planning Commissioners had voted against the recommendation due to concerns about harming small businesses.
The Council discussed the matter.
In opposition to the ordinance as written, the Council expressed concern about the investment that L&B Firearms had already put into their current business model and location, and said that if the ordinance passed as-is, it would introduce risk for the business and could cause the business owner to reconsider any further investment in the location because it would be only on a temporary basis due to the three-year amortization period. It was stressed that L&B Firearms had complied with the law and zoning in place at the time and it was asserted that it should be grandfathered in and not impacted by any new zoning restrictions.
In support of the ordinance, the Council acknowledged that the situation was difficult in that the business owners did everything right according to laws in place at the time, and it was noted that the Council was trying to find the right balance in trying to find other areas that could work for the business owners. It was stressed that the Council needed to find balance and must consider all of the other public comment that had been expressed through this process. It was asserted that the Council was not anti-business and it was noted that guns were a politically charged topic generally. It was stated that statistics showed that increased numbers of guns in a community increased odds of suicide and homicide, and that this decision was not anti-gun but rather was about protecting life. It was noted that the community had spoken loudly about their concerns City Council Minutes November 4, 2025
5 about a firearms business being in the Oak Grove neighborhood, and it was stressed that residents must come first. As a solution instead of grandfathering, it was suggested that the Council could consider giving a longer amortization period than the three years written in the current version of the ordinance.
A motion was introduced by Mayor Williamson, and seconded by Councilmember Garcia, to pass the ordinance to a second reading.
A substitute motion was introduced by Councilmember Smith, and seconded by Councilmember Barber, to carve out the ability for L&B Firearms to execute their permit at the 301 Ocean location for a period of 5 years, at which time it would revert to there being no ability to operate a gun store at that location because it was in the wrong zone.
The Council discussed the substitute motion. In support of the substitute motion, it was stated that while there could be limitations in public policy, L&B Firearms was legally zoned at the time of application and would need time to become successful, and that five years would give the business the ability to find a more successful location.
On question from the Council, City Attorney Davi provided clarification that the ordinance as written would amortize the business for a period of three years and that a timely application for Planning Commission review of the amortization period could result in a different amount of time.
She discussed the substitute motion with its mover and explained the due process issue recommended to ensure that L&B Firearms would be able to amortize the expenses invested into the business.
The seconder to the substitute motion rescinded her second, and the substitute motion then died due to a lack of second.
Regarding the original motion, it was noted by the Council that the Planning Commission had voted in favor of this process. For the benefit of the public it was reiterated that within 10 days of the ordinance's potential adoption, the property owner and/or the operator of the nonconforming firearms retail sales business could provide supporting evidence and apply to the Planning Commission to review the reasonableness of the three-year amortization period, following which it would go to the Council.
Mayor Williamson’s motion passed by the following vote:
AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Williamson NOES: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Smith
The Council determined on consensus to postpone Item 14 until the evening session, and moved forward with taking public comment for the closed session items.
Public Appearance (Afternoon)
14. Adopt the Residential Parking Permit Program Framework, Including Updates to Special Permit Areas and Approve the Proposed Fee Structure Effective January 1, 2026 (Exempt from CEQA, Article 19, Section 15306, Class 6)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 25-112 C.S., with the framework amended to:
reduce the petition threshold to 70%; and to grandfather in Cannery Row addresses already participating in the existing program, pursuant to an annual review (3-2, Councilmembers Rasch and Smith voting no)
City Council Minutes November 4, 2025
6 This item was heard first in the evening session, following general public comments.
Parking Superintendent Steffy and consultant Julie Dixon of Dixon Resources Unlimited gave the staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions. During Council questions, Councilmember Smith left the Chamber from 8:14 p.m. to 8:15 p.m.
Public comment was limited to two minutes per speaker based on the number of individuals wishing to speak, and was received from: Mike Brassfield, who expressed concern about residents being responsible for providing temporary parking passes to their contractors and other hired workers; Rich Wilson, who asked the Council to consider allowing Cannery Row residents to keep their parking spaces, citing safety concerns; Luis Osorio, who asked that attention be paid to nonrestricted parking spaces on the block of Del Monte Boulevard between Pacific and Van Buren Streets; Dan Gerritt of Bay Service Automotive, who asked the City to keep a dialogue open with business owners on 10th Street regarding parking issues; Pete deMaria, who expressed concern about illegal parking during fairground events and recreational vehicle (RV) parking issues; Monique Kaldy, who said that residential passes should not phase out on change of ownership or tenancy; an unidentified woman, who advocated for the continuation of event based parking program in the Casanova Oak Knoll neighborhood; Marta Kraftzeck, who expressed concern that the 80% participation threshold for the petition process could be burdensome to residents; Lori Mazzuca, who described parking issues in the Del Monte Beach neighborhood; Colin Gallagher, who asked for details about the petition process and proof of residency requirements; Tom Reeves, who said that in New Monterey the program would unfairly burden people in multi-family neighborhoods; and Richard Ruccello, who expressed concern about the impact of the program on the success of any potential tax measure.
On question from the Council, Ms. Dixon provided information on contractor paking permits, commercial plates, and guest passes. In response to numerous public comments she noted that at the present time, prior to the institution of the new proposed program, there were only so many public parking spaces and no guarantee of parking. Regarding outreach she explained that mailers would be sent to households, and a detailed orientation meeting would be held. She confirmed that the City's intention was to work with the neighborhoods on the petition process.
Parking Superintendent Steffy said that double citations in the Fairground area were in the City Code and could be reviewed. Ms. Dixon confirmed that in the Del Monte Beach neighborhood the program would be subject to Coastal Commission approvals. She stressed that this effort was meant to determine where there was truly a need for the administration of a parking program in any given neighborhood and to address those needs.
The Council discussed the matter.
It was stressed that the goal was for all residents to have access to needed parking places.
Concern was expressed that if a new resident moved into the Cannery Row neighborhood and did not have access to parking this could be an equity issue.
Ms. Dixon and the Council discussed second cars, with Council expressing that drivers should be able to have permits for more than one car, and Ms. Dixon noting that the program was designed around ensuring there were parking spaces for licensed drivers because there were only so many parking spaces in the City.
Concern was expressed about the 80% petition threshold, which was stated to be potentially onerous to residents wishing to use a parking program. On question, City Manager Uslar noted that the threshold was designed to ensure the feasibility of implementing the plan but that the percentage could be adjusted.
City Council Minutes November 4, 2025
7 Support was expressed for the program framework, noting that current parking challenges could impact the character of a neighborhood and stressing that a residential parking permit program could improve quality of life for residents. It was stated that the Parking Division had done a good job with outreach and that the framework was designed to be organic, with the opportunity to conduct annual reviews, collaborate with neighborhoods, and refine the program. It was stressed that the point of the program was not to take away rights but to find solutions to make quality of life better for all.
The Council summarized their unaddressed concerns as revolving around the petition threshold number and logistics regarding the Cannery Row area. On question, Ms. Dixon said that if the Council wished to stipulate grandfathering in the 50 currently eligible Cannery Row addresses, she would suggest adding language stating that the program would be subject to annual review.
She allowed that the petition threshold could go down to 70%, noting the significant administrative burden that City staff would take on, and said the threshold was also something that could be subject to future review and consideration.
A motion was introduced by Mayor Williamson, and seconded by Councilmember Rasch, to adopt Resolution No. 25-112 C.S., with the framework amended to: reduce the petition threshold to 70%; and to grandfather in Cannery Row addresses already participating in the existing program, pursuant to an annual review.
In brief discussion of the motion, it was stated that the 70% was still too high for a petition threshold.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Garcia, Rasch, Williamson
NOES: 2 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Smith
Adjourn to Closed Session
Public comment on the closed session was received from Colin Gallagher, who commented regarding the City Manager recruitment, saying that the City needed to look at its process and how to engage with people.
The Council adjourned to closed session at 6:01 p.m.
Closed Session (Afternoon)
15. Conference with Legal Counsel, Existing Litigation Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(2):
1. Ashley Ellcessor v. City of Monterey (Monterey County Superior Court Case No. 24CV000649)
2. Ronald Rogers v. City of Monterey (Monterey County Superior Court Case No. 23CV003206)
(Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: In the matter of Ashley Elcessor v. City of Monterey, no reportable action was taken; In the matter of Ronald Rogers v. City of Monterey, on a unanimous roll call vote the Council gave confidential direction to its legal counsel City Council Minutes November 4, 2025
8 16. Public Employment Pursuant to Government Code section 54957(b)(1) - Unrepresented Employee: City Manager Recruitment (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: No reportable action taken
Recess
The Council recessed at 7:04 p.m. and reconvened at 7:10 p.m.
Reconvene
EVENING SESSION AGENDA
Pledge of Allegiance
Councilmember Barber led the Pledge.
General Public Comments, Continued
Public comment on non-agendized matters was limited to two minutes to remain consistent with the afternoon general public comments session, and was received from an unidentified woman, Bryan Rosen, and Lorna Moffat.
Announcements from Closed Session
City Attorney Davi reported out from the closed session as indicated in the actions recorded for closed session items 15 and 16, above.
Councilmember Rasch left the Chamber from 9:24 p.m. to 9:26 p.m.
Evening Session Items
Public Hearing (Evening)
17. Uphold Planning Commission’s Decision to Deny Use Permit Application for a Day Care, General, Use at 2400 Garden Road; Application AP-25-0236; Use Permit Application UP25-0013; Appellant Henry Ruhnke, Wald, Ruhnke and Dost Architects LLP; Property Owner W R MONT LLC; Industrial, Administration, and Research, Religious Assembly Overlay, Emergency Shelter Overlay, Multi-Family Residential Overlay (I-R-130-RA-ESMF1) Zoning District; Employment General Plan Designation (Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1 and Section 15303, Class 3) Action: Held public hearing; Directed staff to return with findings to override the Airport Land Use Commission inconsistency determination with the intention to allow the use permit
This item was heard after Item 14.
Mayor Williamson asked the Council to disclose ex parte contacts. Councilmember Smith said that he had heard from friends that they hoped the application would be approved, but that the friends in question were not party to the decision. Councilmember Rasch said that the matter had been discussed at the recent Monterey Vista Neighborhood Association meeting and that a noninvolved person had asked a question about why an apartment complex would allow children as close to the airport as the proposed daycare center.
City Council Minutes November 4, 2025
9 Planning Manager Hill gave the staff presentation recommending that the Council uphold the Planning Commission's decision, and answered Councilmembers' questions.
Appellant Henry Ruhnke of Wald, Ruhnke and Dost Architects, presented to the Council regarding his request for approval of the application to receive a use permit for a Montessori daycare at the location on 2400 Garden Road, which he said was a few doors down from his architecture firm.
He said he had been working with the Tersy family, who currently operated a Montessori school in Scotts Valley, on their plan to run a similar location in Monterey. He said staff had been supportive throughout most of the process and that the Tersy family had purchased the property based on their understanding that their project would be feasible in the proposed location. He explained that the project had been scheduled for a hering before the Planning Commission when they had received notice from City staff about new correspondence received from the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) regarding the project being located within the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP)'s relatively new Airport Influence Area (Safety Zone 7, or "Zone 7") of the Monterey Regional Airport. He noted that the Shoreline Church was located about two doors down from 2400 Garden Road and had a preschool, and had not been subject to the ALUC. He showed the Council a map of Zone 7 and noted that it consumed most of the City and part of Seaside, and explained that the ALUC had designated that vulnerable populations should not be concentrated within 6,000 ft. of the sides of the airport's runway or 10,000 ft. from either end of the runway. He listed existing facilities within Zone 7 that did have concentrations of vulnerable populations such as Santa Catalina School, Shoreline Church, the daycare at Shoreline Church, Ryan Ranch Daycare, the Ohana Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health, and others would be considered noncompliant with the ALUCP's Zone 7 and never be able to be developed in the present day. He noted that the City was established long before the airport and that the City's proximity to the airport was unavoidable. He noted that at one time, staff had supported his client's project, noting that Zone 7 encompassed a substantial portion of the City and that prohibiting this type of development would be a hardship. He said that the County staff had also recommended approval, but the ALUC unanimously denied the project. He said that the Council had the ability to overturn the ALUC's determination. He noted that the City's Housing Element incuded a lot of housing on Garden Road, including housing for teachers who could have children, and referring to the number of new housing units he posited that there would be 624 vulnerable occupants in the area, and stressed that the idea that this was not possible within Zone 7 was unrealistic. He concluded that putting a Montessori school in the proposed location was reasonable and needed.
During Mr. Ruhnke's presentation, Councilmember Barber left the Chamber from 9:40 p.m. to 9:41 p.m.
Hansen Reed, legal counsel to the applicant, continued the appellant presentation, referencing a letter he had sent in outlining his arguments. He stated that there was a problem for Monterey in that the airport is right in the middle of the City. He discussed the concept of calculated risk, citing a report on airport safety handbook that said the most dangerous parts of an airport were at both ends, not adjacent to the sides of the runway, and stressing that dangers must be weighed against rewards. He said that while proximity to the airport did introduce some level of risk, the area off to the side of the runway where the daycare would be located was a safer area within Zone 7 than the ends of the runway. He said that the ALUC had decided that this was a big issue but that the City staff and Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) staff had recommended the project, noting an exception in the Zone 7 regulations about vulnerable populations for situations when there is no other feasible place. He said that he lives and exercises near the airport and feels safe in the area. He said he had not seen any facts documented in any staff report about risk and that the ALUC had also stated that the sides of the airport were safer than the ends. He offered to help come up with findings if the City wanted to decide that this project should be approved, in order to override the ALUC decision.
City Council Minutes November 4, 2025
10 The Council asked questions of Mr. Reed.
On question about references to the improper contact by ALUC staff of the California Department of Transportation's Division of Aeronautics, Mr. Reed explained that Division of Aeronautics had no jurisdiction over this project because the project was not a school but a daycare. He explained that the Division of Aeronautics was required to be consulted about whether a proposed school within two miles of an airport was allowable, but the ALUC staff contacted them about a potential daycare when they had no jurisdiction on that subject, and he stressed that having this information brought up in public hearings was prejudicial and had influenced the decisions of the ALUC and the City's Planning Commission.
On question about why there seemed not to be the same depth of discussion about children residing in Garden Road apartments while the daycare center was under such scrutiny, Mr. Reed stated he couldn't answer that question because he would ask the same thing. He said that based on the ALUC's finding that the application was inconsistent with the ALUCP, the Council was always going to have to decide on the matter. He noted that the ALUC's Airport Influence Area (Safety Zone 7, or "Zone 7") of the Monterey Regional Airport did not go into effect until 2019 and that it encompassed the vast majority of Monterey. He said that his clients had looked for other places to put the daycare but that every possible location was within the "Tylenol pill," as he said he referred to the long oval-shaped inner area of the map of Zone 7. He said that the Council would have issues going forward approving land use decisions if the ALUC was able to continue making these determinations, and he suggested that the City should have its own autonomy with land use decisions and not defer to an agency that was hyper-sensitive to accidents and risk. He explained that 80-90% of airplane accidents occurred in the starting and ending areas of runways, not off to the sides. He stressed that his client cared about children and would not be pursuing the application if they thought there was a major risk.
On question from the Council, City Attorney Davi addressed questions about risk, stating that ordinarily there would not be personal risk to Councilmembers when the Council was acting on behalf of the City in its legislative capacity. As far as risk to the City, she said it was more complicated and would depend on what the incident and its causation might be. Mr. Reed added to this discussion that his client would be willing to enter into an indemnification agreement with the City.
On question from the Council, City Attorney Davi said that the ALUC's vote determining ALUCP inconsistency had been unanimous.
On question from the Council regarding the acute need for childcare and how soon the project could begin construction, Mr. Ruhnke said that there was an active building permit from before this ALUCP issue arose, and that if they were to receive approval they could begin construction by January 1, 2026.
On question from the Council, Mr. Reed said that no parental concerns had been expressed about safety regarding the proposed location.
On question from the Council about crash incidents within Zone 7, Planning Manager Hill noted that Zone 7 covered a considerable area of the City and said there had been a number of incidents throughout the years in the zone, the most recent which he said was at the far end of the "Tylenol pill" that extended over the water, as well as some to the sides such as a collision near Jacks Peak. Mr. Reed added that there had been a crash in Monterra in the 10,000 ft. zone and that these were all small craft accidents.
City Council Minutes November 4, 2025
11 On question from the Council regarding the housing development project on Garden Road, Planning Manager Hill said that the ALUC had approved the multifamily overlay in 2019 that allowed for the housing development, and that they had approached the vulnerable persons issue by looking at concentrations of vulnerable occupants.
Public comment was limited to two minutes per speaker and was received from: Luis Osorio, Bill Tershy of Montessori Community School, Madelynn Van Den Heuvel of Montessori Community School, Matthew Van Den Heuvel, Ernest Lostrum, Aurora Tershy of Montessori Community School, Melissa Kopp of Montessori Community School, Alex Swartz, Lori Mazzuca, Zoë Doran of Montessori Community School, and Colin Gallagher, who all spoke in favor of allowing the use permit. Comments included: questioning the definition of "vulnerable people," noting competing priorities of the Airport Board and the City, stressing the pent up demand and serious need for childcare in the community, asserting that parents should be able to decide what is safe for their own families, noting that a housing development planned for the Garden Road might allow for more vulnerable occupants, asserting that the Planning Commission's denial was based on irrational fears, stating the improbability of an airplane accident, stating that if the airport area was so dangerous the City should revisit its Housing Element and General Plan, and suggesting that the City explore how to legally preempt Airport Land Use Commission decisions in the future.
The Council took up discussion of the matter. Mayor Williamson noted that overruling the ALUC's inconsistency determination would require a supermajority vote of four members of the Council.
Based on support expressed for overturning the Planning Commission's decision, City Attorney Davi advised that the Council make findings if it intended to override the Airport Land Use Commission inconsistency determination.
The Council outlined its findings. It was noted the Airport Influence Area (Safety Zone 7) of the Monterey Regional Airport was very large and that seven of the ten existing daycare centers in Monterey were already situated within the zone. It was stressed that the business owner had already searched for other locations and could not locate a single suitable location outside of Zone
7. It was stated that the decision to override would be a pro-business action on the part of the Council and would support families as well as provide training for teachers. It was stated that the daycare industry was compatible with the business character of Garden Road. It was noted that the daycare would be compatible with the IR zoning district which allowed for daycare uses.
Regarding risk, it was acknowledged, but it was stressed that it was a very apparent risk in which everyone knows planes are present at the airport, and that the parents are on notice and can make their own decisions about the kind of risks they want to take for their families. It was noted that the location in question was not at the landing end or the takeoff end of the airport, but to the side, and were surrounded by other businesses associated with vulternable people. It was stated that the Council, in assessing the risk, did not believe that a daycare at the location in question would put children in any greater risk than other identified businesses already in existence, and that the risk was mitigated by the acute need for childcare. It was also noted that the area had been studied quite extensively for housing overlay purposes and that there were multiple businesses and uses that also had an association with children and vulnerable people. The Council found that this proposed use would not put vulnerable people at any greater risk.
The lack of daycare spots was stressed, noting that 15,000 daycare spots were needed in the County and that there were only 9,000 at the present time, and that approving this daycare was important because it would provide 105 spots. It was asserted that public health, safety, and welfare factors all leaned in the direction of favoring more and adequate daycare, with knowledgeable parents who could weigh risk and make their own decisions for their family. It was stated that ultimately the responsibility rested with the parents, who would ultimately determine the success of the daycare facility.
City Council Minutes November 4, 2025
12 It was stressed by the Council that the staff of the Airport Land Use Commission and of the City's Planning Division had both previously written convincing reports making the case for why the daycare should be approved, and that the findings in those recommendations were apt and well founded in addition to the findings identified verbally during this meeting by the City Council.
A motion was introduced by Mayor Williamson, and seconded by Councilmember Barber, to direct staff to return with findings to override the Airport Land Use Commission inconsistency determination with the intention to allow the use permit.
On question, City Attorney Davi explained that if the motion were successful, the matter would come back to the City Council to adopt findings, adopt a resolution of intention to override the ALUC inconsistency determination, which would then be submitted to the Department of Transportation and the ALUC, following which it would return to the City Council for a final hearing.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
Requests from Councilmembers to Agendize New Matters
18. Mayor Williamson’s Request to Agendize a Discussion Regarding Regulation of Temporary Noncommercial Signs on Private Property (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Approved for a future City Council agenda
Mayor Williamson gave a brief verbal presentation pursuant to the Council's agendizing policy (Resolution No. 25-082 C.S. on governance) and answered Councilmembers' questions together with input provided by City Clerk Klein on Council's request.
Public comment was limited to two minutes per speaker and was received from: Monique Kaldy and Colin Gallagher, who said that if agendized this matter should be put off until the Council had fully addressed the structural budget deficit; Esther Malkin, in favor of agendizing, stating that billboard-like signs were eyesores; and Lori Mazzuca, who opposed agendizing, stating that signs are protected speech.
The Council discussed the matter.
In opposition to agendizing, it was stated that the discussion was not necessary and was a waste of time, and that there were other matters the Council should be reviewing first, including prior successful Council agendizing requests.
In favor of agendizing, it was stated that there was currently ambiguity that it would be good to clarify by agendizing the issue. It was stated that the suggested change would create fairness and should be addressed prior to active campaign season. In response to public comments it was noted that the Council was addressing the budget deficit and agreed that budget issues were first and foremost.
On consensus of more than two Councilmembers, the Council agreed to agendize the matter on a future agenda.
City Council Minutes November 4, 2025
13 The Council discussed in what form the matter would return to the Council. It was agreed that there was some ambiguity in the Governance Policy that dictated the Council agendizing process.
On question, City Attorney Davi said that the code amendment would be a minor edit.
Council Comments
Councilmember Smith reported positively about the recent Association of Defense Communities conference and said that City Manager Uslar excelled in hosting.
City Manager Reports
City Manager Uslar reported that Assistant Fire Chief Pat Moore would become the City's new Fire Chief effective December 31, 2025.
Adjournment
The Council adjourned at 11:10 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted, Approved,
Clementine Bonner Klein Tyller Williamson
City Clerk Mayor