Council Chamber
580 Pacific St.
Monterey, California
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Council Special Meeting
Wednesday, May 27, 2026
4:00 PM
Mayor
Tyller Williamson
Councilmembers
Kim Barber, District 1
Ed Smith, District 2
Jean Rasch, District 3
Gino Garcia, District 4
City Manager
Dante G. Hall
City Attorney
M. Christine Davi
HOW TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING:
• In-Person: At the meeting location listed above.
• Remotely via ZoomGov webinar:
o On a computer or smartphone: https://monterey-org.zoomgov.com/j/1613733318 Zoom software must be up-to-date. For help, please use our Zoom Meeting Instructions. o By telephone dial 833-568-8864 (Toll Free), 669-254-5252 (CA) or 646-828-7666 (NY). If one number doesn’t work, please try another. Enter Webinar ID: 161 373 3318 # If asked for participant ID, press #. To raise your hand (or lower it), dial *9. Once called upon, dial *6 to unmute.
• This meeting will also stream live for viewing only on youtube.com/cityofmonterey (~10 second delay) and on Comcast Channel 25 (up to 90 second delay). • Written comment: Emailed comments to [email protected] sent no later than ½ hour before the start of the meeting (sooner preferred) are not read aloud but are made available to the Council and public at monterey.gov/submitted-comments.
PUBLIC COMMENT PROCEDURES AND TIME LIMITS:
The total amount of time allocated for public comment on a particular issue and for each individual speaker is generally as follows:
1. Up to three minutes per speaker.
2. For regular City Council meetings, there are two 15-minute public comment periods, one in the afternoon and one in the evening. Speakers may only comment during one session.
3. The total time allocated for public comment:
a. 30 minutes per item – Public Appearance and Public Hearing items b. 15 minutes per item – All other items (including, but not limited to, Consent, Closed Session, Presentations, and Requests to Agendize)
At the time an item is considered, the Mayor will ask those attending the meeting in person to line up at the podium or raise their hands, and for remote participants to use *9 on the telephone or the “raise hand” function in Zoom, if they wish to address the City Council. The maximum amount of time for each person to speak and the total amount of time allotted for each item will be determined based on the number of people indicating an interest in speaking and the amount of business to be conducted on the agenda. In exceptional circumstances and when necessary to ensure a full opportunity for public input, the Mayor may, with the legislative body’s consent, adjust the amount of time allowed for public input and/or the time allotted for each speaker.
CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION DISCLOSURE: Pursuant to the Levine Act (Govt. Code §84308), any party to a permit, license, contract, or other entitlement before the Council is required to disclose on the record any contribution, including aggregated contributions, of more than $500 made by the party or the party's agents within the preceding 12 months to any City official. Participants and agents are requested to make this disclosure as well. The disclosure must include the name of the party, participant, or agent, and any other person making the contribution; the name of the recipient, the amount of the contribution, and the date the contribution was made. 5/27/2026 4:00:00 PM
2 AFTERNOON SESSION: 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Pledge of Allegiance
Call to Order
Afternoon Session Items
Public Appearance (Afternoon)
Public Appearance items are on non-routine issues that might stimulate public interest and comments.
1. Review and Provide Guidance on Council Governance Policy: Agendizing Process and Meeting Efficiency (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Requests from Councilmembers to Agendize New Matters
Councilmembers may request to agendize a matter of business on a future agenda. The sole issue to be determined is whether the substantive issue warrants being heard at a future date.
A majority vote is not required, instead, the motion will pass with two “yes” votes.
2. Councilmember Smith’s Request to Agendize a Discussion Regarding City’s Decorative Crosswalk Policy and to Review a Request by Local Community Members for a Patriotic Crosswalk (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Adjournment
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on these matters within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, are available at: monterey.gov/submitted-comments and in the City Manager’s Office at 580 Pacific St., Room 1, Monterey, CA 93940 during regular business hours. All comments and materials provided to the Council become part of the public record. Members of the public who comment in any fashion on an agenda item may be subject to the Levine Act which requires disclosure of campaign contributions of more than $500 to an officer of the City within the preceding 12 months.
INTERPRETATION: The Monterey City Council invites and encourages public participation at its meetings.
Requests for language interpretation may be made by contacting the City Clerk at [email protected] or 831-646-3935. The City Clerk will make every effort to accommodate requests for interpreter assistance.
Requests should be made as soon as possible in advance of any meeting of the City Council. The City is committed to addressing language interpretation requests swiftly in order to maximize public participation.
ACCESSIBILITY: The City of Monterey is committed to including people with disabilities in all of its services, programs and activities. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, including to coordinate the use of a hearing device, please contact [email protected] or (831) 646-3935. Notification 30+ hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting [28 CFR 35.102-
35.104 ADA Title II]. Later requests will be accommodated to the extent feasible. For communication-related assistance, dial 711 to use the California Relay Service (CRS) to speak to City offices. CRS offers free text-tospeech, speech-to-speech, and Spanish-language services 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
CITY OF MONTEREY 24-HOUR SUGGESTION HOTLINES: (831) 646-3799 or [email protected] Upcoming city meetings are listed at monterey.gov/agendas For more information, call (831) 646-3935 Council
Agenda Report
№12/25
FROM: Nat Rojanasathira, Assistant City Manager
Clementine Bonner Klein, City Clerk
SUBJECT: Review and Provide Guidance on Council Governance Policy: Agendizing Process and Meeting Efficiency (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council review and provide guidance on
the governance matters of the agendizing process and
meeting efficiency.
VALUE DRIVERS:
Foster a local government that is transparent and
collaborative; and solicits, welcomes and appreciates
input from all.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
It is within the Council’s purview to review and direct revisions to its Governance policy.
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE
ACT) APPLIES: No.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
There are no fiscal impacts to reviewing or revising the policy.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
The City of Monterey determined that the proposed
action is not a project as defined by the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14,
Chapter 3 (CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section
15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061
includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to
activities which have the potential for causing a
significant effect on the environment. Where it can be
seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to
Agenda Report Highlights
• At the request of the City Council,
this report provides a review and
options for modifying the Council's
governance policy regarding
agendizing items and improving
meeting efficiency.
• Staff views the current written
agendization request process as
transparent and efficient but
recommends improvements,
including requiring prior consultation
with the City Manager.
• Recommended enhancements also
include changing the required
approval from two councilmembers
to a majority vote and requiring at
least two weeks' notice for requests.
• Staff also suggests potential
efficiency improvements such as
calling special meetings and starting
regular sessions earlier.
• Additional meeting efficiency options
include consolidating public
comment sessions and moving
ceremonial items or outside
presentations to the consent
calendar.
Date: 5/27/2026
Item No.: 1.
Council Special Meeting, 5/27/2026, Item No. 1., Item Page 1, Packet Page 3 №12/25
CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:
The Council could elect not to discuss the matter, but this is not recommended.
DISCUSSION:
Background
At the Council meeting of May 5, 2026, the Council discussed and approved a request to agendize a review of the Council’s Governance Policy relating to the agendizing process and meeting efficiency. This agenda report provides an overview of current practice and options for the City Council’s consideration.
Agendizing of City Council Items by Individual Councilmembers Current Policy
The current policy, adopted by the City Council on November 7, 2023 following direction given on August 15, 2023, is as follows:
1. A Councilmember may submit an agenda report to the City Clerk’s Office outlining a request to agendize a matter of business on a future agenda. This agenda report should, in 350 words or less, describe what, how, and why the matter of business should be considered by the City Council. The City Clerk’s Office will add the item to an upcoming agenda.
2. At the Council Meeting where the request is considered, the Councilmember who submitted the request will deliver a verbal report consistent with the agenda report. This verbal report should not exceed three minutes. The City Council may ask questions pertaining to whether the item should be agendized (e.g., the required amount of staff time, the priority level to be assigned to the item, etc.).
3. Public comment will be received.
4. In deliberating the request, the sole issue to be determined is whether the substantive issue warrants being heard at a future date. A majority vote is not required, instead, the motion will pass with two “yes” votes.
The policy offers several benefits:
• Transparency to the public and other members of the Council about a potential future agenda item
• Allows for discussion by the full Council on whether to agendize and spend both Council and staff time to discuss merits of agendizing, expectations of staff, and staffing resources required or available
• Ensures at least two Councilmembers support the item being discussed at a future Council meeting and not just one Councilmember with a sole interest Council Special Meeting, 5/27/2026, Item No. 1., Item Page 2, Packet Page 4 №12/25
• Allows staff to anticipate a request to agendize and prepare for questions about staff impacts and timing if the item were to be approved for an agenda • Provides staff with a clear understanding of the scope of the request, and confirmation that the item has sufficient support to warrant spending time conducting research and preparing materials for the eventual agenda item
Pain points identified as part of this policy include:
• Possible lack of clarity regarding the timeline and availability of staff to work on bringing forward already-approved Council-agendized items
• It may be tempting to start discussing the subject matter when the discussion is intended to be limited to the merits of agendizing the item
• This step often requires more time of the Council to discuss merits of discussing the topic and public comment that comes with it (but may save time in the long run if an item doesn’t move forward for full discussion)
The practice is commonly used in other California cities, where these items are also referred to as “Council referrals,” and examples of variants are included as Attachment 1.
Brown Act Policy
Without the current policy, members of the Council could instead verbally request a new item be agendized during the Council Comments portion of a regular meeting agenda, consistent with a provision of the Brown Act.0F
1 In addition, Council could adopt a policy requiring support from a consensus of the Council before an item is agendized, as opposed to having only one Councilmember request it.
Benefits of the verbal agendizing method could include:
• A more spontaneous, less formal process
• Bringing the item to an agenda could be faster (depending on the subject matter) because there is no public comment on Council Comments
Pain points of the verbal agendizing method could be:
• The public would not have the ability to provide public comment on whether agendization was warranted
• Could spark discussion by multiple members
• Staff may lack clarity on how much amount of work and time should be spent to research and prepare an agenda item that was requested by one person, or staff may not be prepared to answer questions from staff about feasibility and timeframe when a request to agendize is abruptly requested
1 California Government Code section 54954.2(a)(3) provides that “a member of a legislative body, or the body itself, subject to rules or procedures of the legislative body, may . . . take action to direct staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda.”
Council Special Meeting, 5/27/2026, Item No. 1., Item Page 3, Packet Page 5 №12/25
• Potential disconnect between Councilmembers’ expectation of staff preparation work in advance of the item compared to what staff could deliver Which is more efficient?
While the Brown Act policy may seem at a glance to be a faster route to placing a fully fleshedout item on a Council agenda, both methods are multi-step processes.
Current process:
1. Meeting #1: Full Council discusses written request and decides if the item has merit.
2. Meeting #2: Staff brings forward a fully-fledged agenda item. Full Council holds actual discussion and may provide any direction on the matter.
3. Meeting #3 (if needed): Full Council considers further documents for adoption, etc.
Brown Act process:
1. Meeting #1: Individual member makes verbal request. Full Council cannot deliberate.
2. Meeting #2: Staff brings forward a minimally researched “agenda report light.” Full Council holds initial discussion and may provide further direction.
3. Meeting #3: Staff brings forward a fully-fledged agenda item. Full Council holds actual discussion and may provide any direction on the matter.
4. Meeting #4 (if needed): Full Council considers further documents for adoption, etc.
Staff recommendation: Improve the current policy
In staff’s view, the City’s current practice of using a written agendization request, followed by public discussion of the request, is transparent and efficient. That said, there are improvements that could improve the process. Staff recommends that the Council consider directing staff to prepare an amendment to the Governance Resolution that adapts the current policy by incorporating any or all of the following enhancements, which are used successfully in other California cities:
A. Highly recommended: Require that Councilmember consult with the City Manager prior to making the request to ensure that the proposed business item fits within the City’s operational authority, current budgets, and existing staff priorities. If the request exceeds these limitations, it will be deferred to the next mid-year or budget discussion. However, if the matter is urgent, the member may submit a written request for the next feasible meeting explaining the need for fast-tracking. If a majority of the Council agrees to move forward with an urgent, resource-heavy item, staff will return at a later meeting with a reprioritization plan for Council approval before work begins.
B. Highly recommended: Require that staff provide an estimate on timing and impact for staff’s work program in the report included with the agendization request; this would require Council’s written requests to be submitted no later than two weeks prior to the meeting (the same timeframe required of staff). Estimates given by staff would not target Council Special Meeting, 5/27/2026, Item No. 1., Item Page 4, Packet Page 6 №12/25
a specific meeting, but rather a timeframe, i.e. “within 60 days,” with an explanation describing the level of work that would be required.
C. Highly recommended: Change the approval requirement from two members (requester plus one supporter) to a majority (requester plus two supporters) of the Council.
D. For consideration: Require that status updates on pending approved agenda items be provided to the Council on a quarterly basis.
Meeting Efficiency
Discussion
Some cities use Rosenberg’s Rules of Order or customized parliamentary procedures; however, not all aspects of Rosenberg’s Rules seem like they would be an easy, or needed, fit in the City.
If the Council is interested in pursuing adopting formal parliamentary procedures, it is within their purview to direct staff to provide further input. However, Monterey’s standard-practice parliamentary procedure, which while not formally adopted, is fairly consistent and standardized.
Rather, the pain points for Monterey City Council meeting efficiency seem to be timing and meeting flow.
Staff recommendation: Improve the current process
Staff recommends that the Council consider directing any or all of the following potential enhancements for meeting efficiency:
A. Call special meetings as needed to more effectively bring forward business items B. Consolidate opportunities for public comments on non-agendized matters from 4:00 p.m. (afternoon) and 7:00 p.m. (evening) sessions to only one session.
C. Start meetings earlier (e.g., 3:00 p.m. instead of 4:00 p.m.) D. Identify an alternative meeting time for closed sessions (such as 9:00 a.m., which is when the Monterey County Board of Supervisors meets)
E. Move ceremonial items (e.g. national heritage months) to the consent calendar instead of presentations
F. Reduce or eliminate requests for presentations to Council from outside groups. Shift these requests to written reports or pre-recorded presentations and videos that can be shared with the Council and public as part of the Consent Calendar NR/cbk
Attachments: 1. Council agendization practices in other California cities Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Special Meeting, 5/27/2026, Item No. 1., Item Page 5, Packet Page 7 ATTACHMENT 1
Council agendization practices in other California cities The Council may find inspiration in some of the variations and methods used by their colleagues across the state.
• Numerous other cities in California use a similar process to Monterey’s current policy (often called a “Council referral”), with some variants noted:
o In Palo Alto, “prior to preparing an agendization request, Councilmember should consult with the City Manager to determine whether the City Manager is able to address the issue as part of their operational authority and within current budgeted resources. The request should include a section drafted by the City Manager that identifies any potential staffing or fiscal impacts of the contemplated action.” This can reduce the need to have a “Request to Agendize” if staff can address the issue within their operational authority and budgeted resources, and for items that require Council approval, provides clarity around staff work and timing required to bring the matter forward. o In Coronado, a majority (i.e., three or more members of the Council) must vote to approve the agendization of an item.
o In Manteca, the requesting Councilmember must make their request verbally during a regular meeting, following which their agendization request item is placed on a future meeting to determine whether or not the item should be agendized. This process is similar to Monterey’s but takes one meeting longer to accomplish.
o In National City, status updates are provided to the Council every 60 days. • Some cities use the verbal (Brown Act) agendizing method of proposing a potential agenda item, with some variants noted:
o In Cotati, a Councilmember must discuss proposed items with the City Manager in advance to evaluate staff capacity and impacts on existing priorities. Nonurgent, resource-heavy items will be deferred to mid-year or budget discussions, while urgent items may be requested immediately at a City Council meeting. If a majority of the Council agrees to pursue an item that threatens current priorities, staff will return at a subsequent meeting with a re-prioritization plan for Council approval before work begins.
o In Foster City, a Councilmember must first discuss their proposed item with the City Manager, then may request the item during a meeting, at which point a majority vote is required to move the item forward; if it fails to receive a majority vote, it may not be requested again for at least six months. o In Brea, at least one other member must support the verbal request for it to be placed on a future agenda.
Council Special Meeting, 5/27/2026, Item No. 1., Item Page 6, Packet Page 8 Council
Agenda Report
№11/25
FROM: Ed Smith, Councilmember, District 2
SUBJECT: Councilmember Smith’s Request to Agendize a Discussion Regarding City’s Decorative Crosswalk Policy and to Review a Request by Local Community Members for a Patriotic Crosswalk (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) RECOMMENDATION: Direct staff on whether to agendize the discussion.
VALUE DRIVERS: As provided in the attached request.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The City Council’s Governance Policy (Resolution No. 25-082 C.S.) provides:
Agendizing of City Council Items by Individual Councilmembers.
1. A Councilmember may submit an agenda report to the City Clerk’s Office outlining a request to agendize a matter of business on a future agenda. This agenda report should, in 350 words or less, describe what, how, and why the matter of business should be considered by the City Council. The City Clerk’s Office will add the item to an upcoming agenda.
2. At the Council Meeting where the request is considered, the Councilmember who submitted the request will deliver a verbal report consistent with the agenda report. This verbal report should not exceed three minutes. The City Council may ask questions pertaining to whether the item should be agendized (e.g., the required amount of staff time, the priority level to be assigned to the item, etc.).
3. Public comment will be received.
4. In deliberating the request, the sole issue to be determined is whether the substantive issue warrants being heard at a future date. A majority vote is not required, instead, the motion will pass with two “yes” votes.
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: Agendizing a matter does not have a fiscal implication. Fiscal implications of the suggested changes will be included in the future agenda item, if agendized.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
The City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to Date: 5/27/2026
Item No.: 2.
Council Special Meeting, 5/27/2026, Item No. 2., Item Page 1, Packet Page 9 №11/25
CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED: The Council could choose not to agendize the matter.
DISCUSSION:
On May 20, 2026, Councilmember Smith provided a written request to agendize, which is attached as Attachment 1.
At its meeting on May 27, 2026, the City Council will consider whether this item should be added to a future City Council meeting agenda. Consistent with the City Council’s Governance Policy, the member of Council who submitted the request will deliver a verbal report consistent with the agenda report. This verbal report should not exceed three minutes. The City Council may ask questions pertaining to whether the item should be agendized (e.g., the required amount of staff time, the priority level to be assigned to the item, etc.). Public comment will then be received. In deliberating the request, the sole issue to be determined is whether the substantive issue warrants being heard at a future date. A majority vote is not required, instead, the motion will pass with two “yes” votes.
ES/cbk
Attachments: 1. Request
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Special Meeting, 5/27/2026, Item No. 2., Item Page 2, Packet Page 10 ATTACHMENT 1
May 20, 2026
Subject:
Requests to Agendize City’s Crosswalk Policy and to review a request by local community members for a patriotic crosswalk.
Requestor: Ed Smith, Councilmember District 2
Discuss options to allow a new applicant to have a painted crosswalk in Red, White and Blue in support of July 4th and to honor and recognize the countries 250th celebration. I have received a request from several individuals. The cost would be at no cost to the city to be a temporary painted crosswalk. The location requested is the head of Alvardo Street.
My request is for the City Council to discuss supporting the request for a painted crosswalk. Since the current Monterey Pride Crosswalk has been present since May 2025, and through time the painted crosswalk has been painted and repainted several times to maintain its condition in violation of the approved Crosswalk Policy. The maintenance of this crosswalk has been at city cost and not in alignment with what was approved by council in 2025. A formal discussion by the Council would provide an opportunity to clarify the City’s Crosswalk Policy, which appears not to be clear about whether the original painted crosswalk in May 2025 is permanent or was intended to be temporary. Can they be the only applicant year after year. Who else can now have a painted crosswalk?
The City Council should have an opportunity to evaluate whether the patriotic theme colors would be an expression the City Council could affirm as being within City Values. The agenda provided by staff on May 23, 2025 stated: “The Crosswalk Policy serves as a guide to consistently and transparently determine the appropriateness of a creative crosswalk application.” Let us now consider another applicant.
This second application for a new painted crosswalk of Red, White and Blue markings would be to honor the United States of America’s 250th celebration and considered before the OMBA annual July 4th parade.
Council Special Meeting, 5/27/2026, Item No. 2., Item Page 3, Packet Page 11