MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
CITY OF MONTEREY
Wednesday, May 27, 2026
4:00 PM
COUNCIL CHAMBER, 580 PACIFIC ST.
MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
Councilmembers
Present: Barber (left at 6:26 p.m.), Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson
Absent: None
City Staff
Present:
City Manager, City Attorney, Assistant City Manager, Finance Director, Public Works Director, City Clerk, Deputy Public Works Director/City Engineer, Engineering Assistant, Recreation Manager
AFTERNOON SESSION
Pledge of Allegiance
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.
Afternoon Session Items
Public Appearance (Afternoon)
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)
Action: Directed staff to prepare: 1) Adapted Brown Act-compliant process for agendizing (full details outlined in text of motion, below), 2) Further information for discussion about meeting efficiency options relating to ceremonial items and outside group presentations; and 3) Materials to add a third regular meeting (5-0 for motion components #1 and #2, 3-2 for motion component #3 with Councilmembers Barber and Smith voting no)
Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira and City Clerk Klein gave the staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions with additional input provided by City Manager Hall. It was noted that the Council could opt to use the policy allowed in the Brown Act. Suggestions were made to improve the current agendizing process by: A) Requiring the Councilmember to consult first with the City Manager; B) Requiring that an agendization request include a staff estimate on timing and impact; C) Changing the approval requirement from two members to a majority of the Council; and/or D) Requiring a status update be provided on a quarterly basis. Options offered that could improve meeting efficiency were: A) Call special meetings as needed; B) Consolidate public comments into one session instead of two; C) Start meetings earlier; D) Meet at another time for closed session; E) Move ceremonial items to the consent calendar; and/or F) Reduce or eliminate presentations form outside groups. During the discussion, Mayor Williamson left the Chamber from 4:26 p.m. to 4:26 p.m. Just before public comment, Councilmember Garcia left the Chamber from 4:35 p.m. to 4:37 p.m.
Public comment was received from: Daniel Armandariz, who spoke against option B for meeting efficiency and said that the Council needed to maintain set meeting times; Rick Heuer, who spoke City Council Minutes May 27, 2026
2 in favor of agendizing options A, B, and D but against C, and in favor of meeting efficiency options E and F and against B; Marta Kraftzeck, who spoke against agendizing option C and in favor of meeting efficiency option Er; Tom Reeves, who spoke in favor of agendizing options A and B, and against C, and against meeting efficiency option B; Catherine Chen, Meredith Tibbey, and Robin Domiter, who all discussed the desire for the City to address traffic safety improvements at the Skyline Forest and Highway 68 intersection, a previously agendized Council topic; Adam Pinterits, who spoke against agendizing option C; Lori Mazzuca, who spoke against agendizing option C, and against meeting efficiency option B; and Esther Malkin, who spoke against agendizing option C, and said that public safety related agenda items should be prioritized.
The Council recessed at 5:03 p.m. to address a technological issue with poor sound quality in the Zoom connection. City staff and broadcasting provider reset the connection to the Zoom webinar.
The Council reconvened at 5:10 p.m.
On question from the Council, Public Works Director Renny provided brief context on the Skyline Forest and Highway 68 intersection issue and City Manager Hall said that he would work with staff to provide a full update on the matter. On question from the Council, City Clerk Klein and City Attorney Davi said that the majority approval had been recommended to avoid Brown Act concerns around pre-meeting discussions between two members. City Manager Hall said that it also helped staff know that resources should be spent to research and prepare an item.
The Council discussed the matter.
In favor of agendizing option A, requiring the Councilmember to consult first with the City Manager requiring a consultation with the City Manager before making an agendizing request, it was noted that this would be a collaborative process that would help ensure agenda items fit with staff workload and Council goals. It was noted that the written summary prepared by the requesting Councilmember was transparent and helped to prevent ambiguity and allow staff to fully understand the request. It was noted the agendizing process helped Councilmembers meet the need to represent their districts. In favor of agendizing option B, requiring that an agendization request include a staff estimate on timing and impact, it was stated that this would help set expectations. In opposition to agendizing option C, changing the approval requirement from two members to a majority of the Council, comments were made stressing the importance of keeping a two-vote approval to avoid marginalizing a minority position at the dais. In favor of agendizing option D, requiring that a status update on pending items be provided on a quarterly basis, support was expressed, and it was noted that updates should be regular but did not have to be exactly quarterly.
Regarding meeting efficiency option A, calling special meetings as needed, support was expressed. On the other hand, interest was expressed in adding a regular meeting each month, stating that there were concerns heard from the public relating to the 24-hour notice required for special meetings versus the 72-hour notice required for regular meetings. It was acknowledged that adding another regular meeting would be burdensome to staff. In opposition to meeting efficiency option B, consolidating public comments into one session instead of two, it was stated that the public should always have access. Regarding meeting efficiency option C, starting meetings earlier, and meeting efficiency option D, meeting at another time for closed session, in opoosition it was stated that these suggestions were not equitable and could deter working people from serving on the Council. On the other hand, acceptance was expressed for considering different meeting times. It was also stated that occasionally for a special reason it could be acceptable to meet at 3 p.m. instead of 4 p.m. In favor of meeting efficiency option E, moving ceremonial items to the consent calendar, and meeting efficiency option F, reducing or eliminating presentations from outside groups, support was expressed. It was noted that Councilmembers could pull presentations of significance from the Consent Agenda for discussion, and it was stated City Council Minutes May 27, 2026
3 that those that set the agenda should have discretion in how to agendize presentations. It was stated that there should be criteria for determining what groups could present.
In favor of using the Brown Act policy, it was stressed that it would be more efficient due to avoiding unnecessary debate. It was emphasized that members would need to avoid pre-meeting discussion.
A motion was introduced by Mayor Williamson, and seconded by Councilmember Rasch, to direct staff to:
1) Prepare an update to the Council's governance policy to switch to a Brown Act-compliant process for agendizing, whereby a Councilmember makes a verbal agendizing request during Council Comments, which must be approved by another member at the meeting in order to pass, with the following enhancements:
A) The Councilmember must first submit a written, internal request to, and consult with, the City Manager, 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 explain the need for fast-tracking. If the Council agrees to move forward with an urgent, resource-heavy item, staff will return at a later meeting with a re-prioritization plan for Council approval before work begins;
B) The City Manager will provide a verbal estimate on timing and impact for staff’s work program in response to the Councilmember’s agendization request; this requires Council’s written, internal 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 a specific meeting, but rather a timeframe, i.e. “within 60 days,” with an explanation describing the level of work that would be required; and
D Status updates on pending approved agenda items will be provided to the Council on a quarterly basis;
2) Bring the following meeting efficiency options back to the Council for discussion of a more defined protocol:
E) moving ceremonial items (e.g. national heritage months) to the consent calendar instead of presentations), and
F) reducing or eliminating requests for presentations to Council from outside groups, shifting 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); and 3) Prepare and bring forward the materials required to add a third regular council meeting.
The motion carried by the following vote, with Councilmembers Barber and Smith registering a “no vote” for part 3 of the motion as indicated below:
For parts 1 and 2 of the motion:
AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
For part 3 of the motion:
AYES: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Garcia, Williamson, Rasch
NOES: 2 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Smith
City Council Minutes May 27, 2026
4 Councilmember Barber left the Chamber at 6:26 p.m.
Requests from Councilmembers to Agendize New Matters
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)
Action: Request not heard; public comments received
A motion was introduced by Mayor Williamson, and seconded by Councilmember Garcia, to continue the item to the June 2, 2026 meeting.
Public comment was received from: Daniel Armandariz, who said that decorative sidewalks should not be approved due to safety concerns; and Tom Reeves, an unidentified person, and Lori Mazzuca, who all spoke in support of agendizing the matter.
The motion failed by the following vote:
AYES: 2 COUNCILMEMBERS: Garcia, Williamson
NOES: 2 COUNCILMEMBERS: Rasch, Smith
ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber
Adjournment
The Council adjourned at 6:37 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted, Approved,
Clementine Bonner Klein Tyller Williamson
City Clerk Mayor