2018 Monterey City Council Candidate LandWatch Questionnaire Responses

In 2018, LandWatch solicited input from candidates for Mayor and City Council in the cities of Monterey . While LandWatch does not support or oppose any particular candidate this information is helpful to our members in understanding how their votes at the ballot box have the potential to influence land use policy locally.

All candidates are in alphabetical order

Land Use Policy - Affordable Housing

Timothy Barrett Ed Smith Tyller Williamson
What is your position on affordable housing? Please be specific with regards to policies you support or oppose. Market forces alone will not provide housing affordable to most working people in our community. therefore I am defending the City of Monterey's 20% inclusionary housing ordinance which is a larger percentage than required by State law.

I also defend the City of Monterey prioritizing allocations of it's limited water reserves to projects that have an affordable housing component. In fact, I successfully resisted an attempt by a commercial interest to overturn the city's policy of prioritizing water for affordable housing projects only. It took a lot of political capital to do so.

I also believe that affordable housing should not be ghettoized or relegated to distant corners of the County. Affordable housing needs to be nearby work, thereby limiting commutes, greenhouse gas emissions and the need for more roads, and affordable housing should be embedded throughout our community to encourage diverse neighborhoods that are inviting to working families with children
My name is Ed Smith and I am currently serving on the Monterey City Council. I am seeking re-election to finish many important top issues  that face this area -- water, transportation, traffic and others -– issues that need to be resolved regionally.
I have participated in various policies changes on the Monterey City Council that have changed previous restrictions to help to create more housing. These include Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU’s), bonus density for more affordable units in a project, utilization of CDGB Block Grants to assist with transitional housing for veterans, and compromises on parking restrictions in zoning for affordable units. 
Monterey has limited available land, but in the last four years the City has added 75 low- or moderate- income housing units to bring our inventory to 550 units within the city limits.
We need more housing stock in our region.  I support smart development that will allow us to take care of those who work and live within the Monterey Peninsula.  I support relaxing regulations that reduce the disincentive to develop.  A mixture of housing development is needed in order to reduce the cost of housing, but we particularly must increase the number of housing units available for those in lower income levels.
Do you support modifying city policies to make it easier and cheaper to build housing? If so, what specific policy changes do you support? Yes, I am strongly advocating a two prong policy. first to maintain a strong inclusionary housing ordinance and second to find ways to lower development costs for projects that are appropriate for a given neighborhood.

One way to lower costs is to have neighborhood specific design guidelines that have been vetted by the community which include density and design guidelines. If developers deliver plans that fall within the pre-approved guidelines, then those projects should have administratively approved provided all environmental determinations have been met. This lowers the administrative costs to develop affordable housing.

I support density bonuses wherein if a project meets affordable housing guidelines then that project may be rewarded by allowing an additional affordable housing unit.
Many of the projects I have seen come before our City Council have been small units, six, and twelve up to twenty-four, but no large-scale projects due to the lack of lot sizes or water restrictions. Many of the projects hinge on the construction costs, developer impact fees and the price of the land for the builder. Labor costs are rising as the recession seemed to quickly end and the construction projects went into a booming period and their skilled labor shortages. The City of Monterey has taken a hold position on the inflation of fees wherever possible, and many others such as school fees, water hookups, sewer permits and other site-specific fees are out of the City’s jurisdiction or authority. I do support modifying city policies to make it easier and cheaper to build housing.  The recommendations in the MBEP Housing White Paper are a good example of policy changes that could be made.  As an example, altering the cost structure of developer fees from per unit to per square foot.  I also support the reduction of commercial space requirements in mixed use development.
Do you support requiring developers to actually build inclusionary units instead of paying an “in lieu” fee? Yes, I have never supported in lieu fees that go to a city's general fund and do not actually create new affordable housing. We need affordable housing. That housing has to be built. I would prefer, whenever possible, that the “in lieu” fee not be forced out as an option. Many times a developer can actually increase the number of low-income/affordable housing units if all options are on the table. Sometimes in makes sense to be flexible if it results in additional units of affordable housing and the more appropriate building sites. In general, I do not support "in lieu" fees.
Do you support requiring that “inclusionary housing” units be made permanently affordable, even upon resale? If not, please explain. Yes I do support that inclusionary housing units be permanently affordable. We need housing for people to live in as opposed to housing for speculation. I have strongly defended deed restrictions. Such deed restricted units can help provide some stability and support cohesion in our community. Yes. If the property is built under some form of enhanced building agreement, such as City water, financing or land deed restrictions should be part of the overall package. Recently the affordable units the City has been involved with have been as a result of our land and financing through some HUD loan mechanism. If there is government money, water or land, I would say yes. If a developer seeks a bonus for density to build more affordable units, then the answer is less clear. Private property versus City property becomes the question to clarify. As a general policy statement, I would agree the owner of the property would not be able to seek relief from deed restrictions unless additional units are replacing what may be removed if a sale is involved. All of the affordable units constructed in the City of Monterey for many years have been deed restricted permanently. Yes.  In considering changes to the job market, though, it may be worth look at changes to the level of income requirement.
Do you support requiring developers of hospitality, commercial and industrial projects that significantly increase demand for already scarce housing resources to also build workforce housing? Yes, Employer sponsored housing is emerging as an opportunity that can be further developed. We are seeing successful employer sponsored housing projects in Monterey County including within the City of Monterey. I'm interested in exploring how we can encourage more employer sponsored housing within the City limits.

MPUSD is having challenges attracting and retaining school teachers for lack of affordable housing. and the City of Monterey should cooperate in the development of such teacher housing. Montage Health also reports challenges in attracting and retaining physicians and other hospital staff. Also, 80% of the jobs in the city of Monterey are filled by workers who live outside the City limits. Engaging with employers for affordable housing across the city's economic sectors within the City will help reduce the need for roads and lower green house gas emissions.
I see this as highly restrictive and impossible to execute in Monterey. With construction costs so high it is unreasonable to expect a business or industry to also be required to build housing for workers. I’m not sure what is meant by “significantly.” Any business or industry that can add jobs means an opportunity for the worker to earn enough so that they do not qualify for affordable housing. I would not want to start saying no to opportunities simply because we are saying housing must also be built alongside of the business enterprise. That premise might drive away job generators. People move in and move out and create a natural vacancy from time to time, and the natural progression of supply and demand is more a factor of what drives cost. This question forces the issue to be discussed: WATER. The region is limited in what can be built due to available water meters because we have been under a cease-and-desist order from the California Water Resources Agency. The short answer is more water needs being available regionally.  Private developers should then see additional housing opportunities. I'm inclined to support any initiative that will create avenues towards affordable housing for our workforce, though, am concerned with tying housing with somebody's employment.  If an individual loses their job, they may also lose their housing.  We must ensure we don't create a worse situation for already at-risk individuals/families.
What other housing policies do you support or oppose? Statistics indicate that 1 in 2 people on the Peninsula are challenged to meet the cost of housing, and nearly 1 in 3 are living at or below poverty level when adjusted for the regional cost of living. I would like to analyze the City of Monterey's annual affordable housing income limits to see if those limits and the rents allowed under those incomes are actually affordable to the people of our area,

For example, The City of Monterey's Moderate Income Housing Limits are  nearly $58,000 for a single occupant. The affordable rent allowed under that income limit is nearly $1,400 per month. We need to understand whether or not, given the region's high cost of living index is the above mentioned rent for the above mentioned income actually affordable. If it is not, then the City's guidelines may need to be amended.
One detraction to possibly adding more housing is creating a negative environment for housing builders. I do not support increasing inclusionary housing beyond 20 percent for building housing units. This would have adverse impacts on projects.

On the Monterey City Council, we have had numerous projects fail to move forward due to the high cost of construction of building affordable housing. A 20 percent inclusionary housing requirement is already a steep threshold to incorporate into the significant local costs of building, given the high cost of land and labor. At the risk of never getting anything built, I would not want to create a policy that dissuades affordable housing construction. Forcing too many below fair market units could drive up the cost of construction because of the HUD restrictions on affordable rental rates. Anything that makes recouping costs of a building project difficult makes the venture less feasible and may drive away opportunity to bring more affordable housing to the area.
Thank You
An example of another policy would be a stance towards pro-ADU production.  I'm in support of any smart policy that allows us to increase our housing stock, while trying to reduce the cost of construction.

Water Supplies

Timothy Barrett Ed Smith Tyller Williamson
What specific proposals do you support to ensure your community can meet its water demands without over-drafting groundwater aquifers or, if you live on the Monterey Peninsula, also the Carmel River? I'm a member of the Monterey One Water Board of Directors, and I strongly support the Pure Water Monterey Project. I would like to see the project expanded to maximize its capacity.

I support water catchment projects such as the Franklin Street Storm Drain Project to reduce street water run off into the Bay and to deliver water to the City's holding pond for eventual delivery as new source water to the Pure Water Monterey Project. Also the David Avenue Reservoir is a potential joint project between the City of Monterey and the City of Pacific Grove. Rehabilitating the David Avenue Reservoir will allow catchment of water run off and provide new park land for neighborhood residents.


Well I think there are strict reporting requirements in place now that requires the water provider and the Regional Water Management District to report to the State. we are under a State Cease and Desist order now so the peninsula is heavily monitored with it's water use. I agree the use of water from the Carmel River must be reduced with alternative water sources. I support recycled water initiatives.  We also need to look at the utilization of greywater reuse and rainwater collection.
Do you support expansion of Pure Water Monterey as an alternative to building a desalination plant? I strongly support expansion of the Pure Water Monterey Project, and I strongly advocated for the expansion as a member of the Pure Water Monterey Board of Directors.

On the Board, I successfully advocated awarding funding for the expansion feasibility study which identified expansion project source waters and which demonstrated the feasibility of the expansion. I also supported advocating approval of the expansion to the PUC, and i advocated for the expansion of the Pure Water Monterey Project in the community at large.

I am confident, that though the PUC did not approve the expansion project at the current time, the planning work that I helped approve as a member of the  Monterey One Water Board of Directors will one day be implemented.
Yes I support the expansion, but even the CUPC noted in their remarks on Sept. 13th that the future production for the peninsula's water needs can not be fulfilled with only Pure Water production. I support a viable Desal project Yes

Sprawl Reduction

Timothy Barrett Ed Smith Tyller Williamson
Do you support the creation of “urban growth boundaries” or expansion of the existing boundary as a way to prevent urban sprawl, and to insure that future growth is compact, efficient, and protective of the environment? If not, what measures would you support to prevent urban sprawl? If yes, will you sponsor an urban growth boundary in the upcoming year, and make it one of your top three priorities I strongly support infill development that is appropriate to a given neighborhood as opposed to policies that enable urban sprawl. The City of Monterey Area Specific Plans encourage and support multi-use development that includes both housing and commercial and also promote human habitat design elements. The City of Monterey is an 11 square mile jurisdiction and I support continued efforts to make the most of the spaces we have through compact, efficient growth that is protective of the environment.  As a representative of the City of Monterey, I will join with advocates and other policy makers to discuss urban growth boundaries and to learn more about the initiative. I do oppose sprawl and support infill development that is appropriate to a given neighborhood. Yes, and the general plans of our City have very carefully designated zones and open space to ensure the City of Monterey has a healthy balance. I do support the creation of "urban growth boundaries" and would sponsor this initiative.

Transportation

Timothy Barrett Ed Smith Tyller Williamson
New commercial developments and hotels create more trips and additional vehicle miles travelled on already overcrowded roads and highways. Both residents and visitors pay the price of delay and increased pollution. What specific traffic congestion relief solutions do you support? As the City of Monterey imports 80% of it's workforce to meet the approximate 35,000 jobs in the City limits, the most impacting traffic relief policy is to collocate workforce housing with jobs. Hands down, in the City of Monterey the workforce housing issue is the number one factor relating to traffic.

I also advocate increased support and expansion of public transit systems. The more frequent and convenient public transit is, the more it will be used. A dedicated corridor either for light rail or commuter buses along highway 1 is overdue.
The City of Monterey has a hotel moratorium and has had since 1987. I don't see that changing. Our City is fairly built out and restricted by our neighbors and the Ocean.
On traffic congestion, the Monterey City Council has directed City staff to without delay bring back to the Council options for Bonding Measure X and more clearly identify the locations of where immediate changes can be made. At the Council meeting of Sept. 11th, we acted to move forward on 4.0 million Adaptive Signal Light Control system on the Del Monte corridor and to seek mutable grants. 
Last week we received the staff briefing on preliminary information. The wheels are in motion to address the congestion issues throughout the community. My priority is first pass Measure “S” in November for completion of the street work we started with Measure “P”.  Depending on the recommendation items and costs through our Traffic Engineer I am in favor of Bonding Measure “X” because collectively our community has identified this as a very high priority. We voted for that last week and are solidly behind improving the congestion in Monterey.


First and foremost, we need to look at where the jobs are and ensure residents can easily travel to and from work/home.  Preferable modes would be biking/walking, but public transit is a healthy alternative.
Do you support roundabouts on Highway 68 and other roads? What other transportation policies or practices have you seen that local governments should incorporate? I do support expanded use of roundabouts. They are proven to work by evening out traffic flow and reducing stop and go traffic which in turn reduces greenhouse gas emissions. As an example, the car-ma-ghetten that was predicted during the highway 68 roundabout on the Holman Highway never materialized. That project, which I approved and which was led by the City of Monterey showed how TAMC and other jurisdiction can effectively cooperate on traffic mitigation projects.

A roundabout at Fremont and Canyon Del Rey would do a lot to reduce traffic on both those streets and highway 68 as well for example. The County has jurisdiction there, and I think the Cities of Monterey and Seaside need to be more aggressive there.

There are a lot of new motorized transportation options such as battery operated scooters, skateboards and bicycles use of which can be expanded within the City limits. I actually use an old fashioned push scooter and I still prefer pedal power to battery operated bikes for my own personal use but all options should be analyzed and incorporated where appropriate. During rush hour, I can scoot or cycle down the bike path at a rate much faster than traffic moves.
Yes. I serve on the TAMC Board and have extensively studied the analysis done through the last several years. I find the recommendations appropriate to address the traffic congestion and safety issues on Hwy 68. As evidenced by the successful Holman Hwy, Carmel Hill Roundabout the use of the same system on Hwy 68 should bring a better traveling experience, reduce serious injury collisions and assist with keeping traffic from becoming stop and go which it frequently now is. As always, with transportation work the down side is the length of time for the work to be completed. Once completed, the driver habits adjust and we will all reap the benefits of an improved Hwy 68 experience. There are lot of cars that must travel each day from the peninsula back and/or back and forth to Salinas and we have no other choice, but to improve this road as well as can be done with various restrictions The improvements on Hwy 68 also include Animal Habitat under crossings to avoid injury and death as the animals try and cross the highway. Roundabouts along Highway 68, or most other roads, does not seem to be the most effective use of taxpayer dollars.  Synching street lights on Lighthouse is something Monterey is pursuing.  I support similar initiatives, though, any way we can reduce the amount of cars on the road is a preferable strategy.

Fort Ord Reuse Authority (FORA)

Timothy Barrett Ed Smith Tyller Williamson
What is your position on the Fort Ord Reuse Authority? Do you believe the Authority has achieved its original goals? If so, what evidence do you cite? I have advocated for FORA to sunset. Many of the goals, such as mitigation of unexploded ordinances have been met. Other goals have not been achieved. A JPA with a more narrowly defined scope to mitigate ongoing costs to municipalities such as the cost of insuring against injury from unexploded ordinances may be appropriate. Partially and I am in favor of an extension or a downsized role of FORA if the City of Monterey is not harmed or our interests placed in jeopardy. Our recent study session on the matter highlighted several lingering issues that must be resolved. Who will complete the unfished projects, transportation, clean, housing and future revenue dispersal or management of developments. Monterey should be an equal partner and not have a limited role on any future representative board. Many issues have yet to be identified and no clear role for the a future new configured group of decision makers for regional transportation and environmental mitigation has been exposed. FORA should not exist forever, however the closeout can not be rushed. There are too many issues to ignore and just close the door on the agency. I'm inclined to support the dissolution of FORA.  Seaside has potential to see $52 million more in property tax revenue.  On the other hand, Monterey has recently evaluated our land at Ford Ord, and can benefit from adding additional housing stock at lower developer fees provided by FORA.
Which do you support: 1) sunsetting the Authority in 2020 as current legislation contemplates or 2) extending the Authority beyond that date? If you support extending it, please explain why. I support sunsetting the authority and instituting a JPA with a much more narrowly defined scope, as mentioned in my prior responsce may be appropriate. Not sure yet, this requires more information, this question is currently the topic of more dialogue and collaboration with the stakeholders, the other Cities and the county, and even our local State representatives. My preference leans towards #1.
What is your position on the Eastside Parkway/Freeway/Road? We don't need any roadways to nowhere. No one has yet presented a definitive argument to me showing that the roadway is important to the City of Monterey. Current I believe that existing traffic issues can be significantly relieved through planned expansions of Hwy 158, potentially the Hwy 68 roundabouts, more comprehensive use of public transport along Hwy 1 and responsible infill development that brings workforce housing closer to work. I support keeping that option open. As long as the Parkway does not harm the campus of CSUMB or other transportation arteries. It could serve as some relief for HWY 68 and the over congested south bound SR 1. I am opposed to the Eastside Parkway. In general, I think all options should be on the table when it comes to alleviating traffic on our roads, but with the limited resources available locally I think we have more pressing matters. I think there's good reason to think that even with the Eastside Parkway, we will still have a huge traffic problem when all those cars hit Gen Jim Moore.

Overall, the biggest benefits of the Eastside Parkway will go to the developers who build it. In my view, FORA has lost all credibility on major infrastructure development projects at this point.

Leadership

Timothy Barrett Ed Smith Tyller Williamson
If you are elected, what will be your top three priorities? 1) Creation of workforce affordable housing
2) Supporting a diverse, sustainable economy that creates livable wage-paying jobs for residents of the City of Monterey
3) Traffic Mitigation in all its flavors
• Transportation and Congestion
• Controlling costs of personnel and impacts to the City budget
• Housing supply and continue finding locations to bring more work force        housing
Water, Housing, Transportation
What land use policies are you willing to champion for the community? Muilti-use infill development that prioritizes workforce affordable housing and encourages livable, walk-able communities that promote a healthy human habitat and protect and sustain our environment. Protection of our neighborhoods, parks and schools. Not to overbuild or to encroach into the peaceful tranquility of our residents. Finding appropriate R-3 locations for expansion and appropriate density, all in balance. Increasing housing density.  I believe Monterey can achieve its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) goal of planning for the development of 650 units by 2023.
What accomplishments in your career or public service are you most proud of? The Responsible banking Ordinance that encourages reinvestment of public dollars into the local economy and empowers the Financial Officer not to contract with banks that have been convicted of crimes

Defending the City's policy of allocating water to affordable housing projects

Supporting closure of the Lapis Sand Mine

Bringing to the Council and passing the Citizen's Climate Lobby Carbon Resolution

Bringing and passing the Healthy Eating Active Living Campaign raising City standards for access to parks, exercise equipment and healthy foods and offering grant funds to achieve those goals.

Adding a senior day care center to the parks and recreation master plan

Founding the Neighborhood Housing Fund for Monterey to remove barriers to access to housing

Bringing the Community Capital conference to the City and having the Peninsula Chamber of Commerce and MBEP adopt approaches that value local workforce and culture as a result of the conference

Helping to found a local branch of Slow Money for investment in environmentally sustainable local businesses that support a healthy food chain

Creating and co-directing the Community Responses to Elder Care Symposium which takes place 9/15

Advocating Monterey's leadership in signing participating in Monterey Bay Community Power

Supporting M1W's development of the Pure Water Monterey Project

Bringing community together to build consensus on development of workforce affordable housing and having amendments to the City's Housing Element approved by the Planning Commission as a result.

and more... it's been a busy four years. I'd like four more to continue the work.

www.electbarrett.org

I served 34-years in law enforcement and 26 years of that was in the City of Monterey. Lots to be proud of, but I would say the lessons I learned in service were; caring for others and being aware of my community needs. Paying attention to a wider audience, representing everyone and through the years learning how to stay in balance. Married for 45-years, with 2 wonderful children and 3 grandchildren. family is very important to me. Having a sense of what it means to think about and act for the public interest.  Being experienced, responsible and dedicated. Co-Founder of Monterey Peninsula Pride 501(c)3 and current Co-Chair.  This is particularly important because there was no prior services dedicated to the LGBT community.

I've also accomplished various projects within my career at the Naval Postgraduate School over the last eight years.  I started off as a Transportation Assistant and soon after advanced to a Program Manager in the Center for Executive Education.  Proceeding that role I was a Financial Analyst managing research accounts for the Oceanography and Math departments.  I currently serve as the Executive Assistant to the Chief Information Officer.

During my time at NPS I became the Legislative Committee Chair for our union, the National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1690.  My first task was to get us involved with the Monterey Bay Central Labor Council.  We've successfully maintained our relationship, and continue to find ways to support workers' rights across the Peninsula.

Background

Timothy Barrett Ed Smith Tyller Williamson
Occupation Strategic Communications / Councilmember Monterey City Council member Administrative Officer
Years Lived in Area 36 65 8
Education MA Instructional Science and Technology
BA International Policy
Certificate of TESOL (Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages)
BA Degree in Administration of Justice, Sacramento State 1975,
Masters Degree in Urban, State and Federal Governance, Golden Gate University 1983
B.A in Human Communication and working towards the completion of my MBA
Experience A lifetime of public service, most recently as Vice-Mayor and Councilmember for the City of Monterey. Incumbent, City of Monterey Council, member since 2014
Vice Mayor 2016-2017

Board member of Transportation Authority Monterey County TAMC
Member of TAMC Executive Board
Member of TAMC Rail Policy Board
Board Member of Association of Monterey Bay Governments AMBAG
Board Member of Old Monterey Business Association
Past Member of Monterey Bay Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council
Alternate Board member to Fort Ord Re Use Authority FORA
Alternate Board Member to Monterey Bay Community Power JPA
Education Committee for Monterey County Hospitality Association

Seaside Police Department, 4 yrs- Officer; Academy Class President
Monterey Police Department, 26 yrs- Officer; Field Training, Detective, Sgt. & Lieutenant. Served until 2006
Desert Hot Springs Police Department, 4 yrs- Division Commander- Retired 2011
Former Instructor, MPC Police Academy, Criminal Justice courses
Leadership/management; Instructor, State of California numerous agencies
Current trainer in leadership and organizational management
Architectural Review Committee for the City of Monterey; Housing Advisory Committee for the County of Monterey; Staffer for President Obama's 2012 re-election campaign

Terrell Maddox did not respond.

LandWatch Monterey County compiled and distributed this questionnaire to 71 mayoral and city council candidates on the November 2018 ballot. LandWatch is a nonpartisan, nonprofit educational organization that does not endorse, support or oppose individual candidates or political parties. Replies from candidates are printed as received. LandWatch is not responsible for the content. Candidates are listed in alphabetical order. No part of this questionnaire may be reproduced without permission of LandWatch, or used in any way that may be construed to be an endorsement of an individual's candidacy or views by LandWatch.


LandWatch Monterey County

LandWatch is dedicated to preserving our community's economic vitality, high agricultural productivity, and the health of our environment by encouraging greater public participation in planning.

 

306 Capitol Street #101
Salinas, CA 
93901

PO Box 1876
Salinas, CA 
93902-1876

Phone (831) 759-2824

Fax (831) 759-2825

Home
About LandWatch
Issues & Actions
Contact
Donate

YouTube Channel
Facebook
Twitter
AmazonSmile