City Council - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon, everybody. If you could keep it down to a mild roar, we can get started. That's pretty good. All right. Good afternoon. It's Tuesday, April 7th, 2026, and we are at Carmel City by the Sea City Hall, and I'd like to call this regular meeting of the Carmel by the Sea City Council to order at 4:30. City clerk, would you please call the role? Council member Ber here. Council member Baron, go ahead. Here. Uh, council member Dram here. Mayor Prom Delves here. Mayor Burn here. All are present.

Thank you. Brandon, would you like to lead us in the pledge of allegiance? Hand over heart and begin. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God, indivisibley and justice for all. Thank you. We'll begin this evening with our extraordinary business section, and we have a pretty long one tonight, so we'll try to move through it as quickly as we can. Uh we're going to recognize and hear from important members of our community. Uh the first item is Carmel High School report out. Do we have someone here?

Yes. All right. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon. All right. Hello everyone. This is Drew Galley from Carmel High School and here's my weekly or monthly CHS update clicker duh. Um, so the first week of March, we had a college and career center resume building workshop which helps students as summer approaches build their resume so that they can get summer jobs. Which reminds me, uh, Model UN traveled to Berkeley for their yearly competition. and don't really know how they did, but they always are swell. Uh, junior bonding happened the week of March 9th, which was a movie night while eating some Chipotle. I'm jealous. Um, March 16th was Battle of the Grades. So for those of you who don't know, we hold a rally and that whole week we are putting on events and competitions between the grades so that the winning class can get ice cream which happened to be the seniors this year. Um and then also that week mock trial had state championships where they placed sixth which is awesome. Uh the next week we had junior SAT testing. Don't miss that. Uh we had the Red Cross Club's uh blood drive uh to help those who need it. Um the CHS musical fame opened on Thursday night. Um and we had a lot of support. So we thank those in our community who came out and supported. And then ASB officer elections. So I will be out soon. I'm being usurped. Uh, and then coming up, uh, we have English benchmark testing, CASS, which is the junior state testing. We have spring break this next week. Um, we have a desert trip to Joshua Tree Park for some juniors and seniors, and a conference for the

California Association of Student Leaders, which myself and a few others in our leadership class will take to Ontario, California. Um, and that rounds up everything that is happening this month. So, thank you so much and thank you very much.

Okay, so next we have a proclamation recognizing American Red Cross month. Would the Red Cross representative please come up? Did they get here? I talked to him a week ago. Here she is. Why don't you come up and say a few words and then I'll I'll read the rec the proclamation to you right after. That's great. Okay. And I just thank everybody for showing up to hear about the Red Cross to It's all for you.

Yes. So, thank you, Mayor Burn and members of the city council. My name is John Cromwell. I'm vice chair of the Central Coast chapter of the Red Cross. I'm joined by my fellow board member and fellow Carmel resident Patty Montay and it's a great honor to accept this proclamation that you're going to be reading in a bit. It's actually recognizing March as Red Cross month. So, we're just going to be taking a slight step back in time pretending that we're still in March. But anyway, um, our mission wouldn't be possible without the community heroes, our Red Cross volunteers, generous financial and blood donors, community partners, and people trained in vital health and safety skills. During our annual Red Cross Month celebration each March, we honor the commitment to support individuals and families in need. And on someone's darkest day, be that beacon of hope. When help can't wait during emergencies, American Red Cross volunteers and blood donors step up to ensure people in need receive relief and care. Every eight minutes, Red Cross volunteers respond to a disaster in the US. Their support is essential as large disasters like hurricanes, floods, and wildfires grow in frequency and intensity and home fires continue to upend lives every day. We help countless individuals and families during their darkest hours regardless of race, religion, or citizenship. Our work is critical to the volunteer support we receive. And we are always looking to add additional volunteers to our team. So, just last month, we responded with 20 volunteers to a significant disaster right here in our backyard with a large multi-unit apartment fire in Monterey. occurring just before 4 in the morning. Tragically, the fire resulted in one death, eight injuries, and 90 displaced

residents. We continue to work with county and other area nonprofit partner organizations helping those displaced in providing support services they as they rebuild their lives. This reinforces the importance of our sound the alarm program where we link up with communities across the country to install smoke alarms in residential units given how effective they have proven to be and pre to prevent deaths and injuries. Here in Carmel, our disaster services group has been working with Chief Todd Treer of Carmel City uh by the city police department on the community evacuation drill to be held on the morning of May 30th. This effort is intended to strengthen our collective preparedness, coordination, and communication in the event of a real emergency affecting our community. We will be staffing the temporary shelter and be providing snacks, beverages, and guidance on emergency preparedness. In addition, Patty and other volunteers will be conducting handsonly CPR training for community participants. To recap, our core lines of services, which you see up here, blood services. Every two seconds, someone in the US needs blood. We ask that you help support this effort by donating blood. Appointments are easy to book online. Disaster response and volunteer positions. We are community. We help one another. It is mutually rewarding. Network computers of over 600,000 volunteers across the country. We have plenty of ways to engage you in our services and all the training to make you comfortable in your role. training services. Always core to the Red Cross is our mission to spread knowledge and educate as many members of the community in life-saving procedures. These include CPR, AED, first aid, swimming, water safety, and many other skills. Service to the armed forces. This obviously was one of our core initiatives, the founding of the Red Cross, where we support military families around the globe. And finally, international services. Our

efforts extend across across the globe through the world's largest humanitarian network. On behalf of the American Red Cross, we thank you for this proclamation. But most of all, we'd also like to thank you and many of your city staff members who have worked closely with the American Red Cross over the years to be a better prepared city for all types of emergencies or future disasters in our community. Thank you. All right. Thank you. If you could stay up here, I'm going to read the proclamation, then we'll get a picture. Great.

All right. So this is a proclamation of the city of Carmel by the Sea to the American Red Cross month 2026. Whereas during American Red Cross month we celebrate by honoring our neighbors who make it humanitarian mission possible in Carmel by the Sea. And whereas every day their acts of kindness change lives bringing relief, comfort, and hope when we can't wait. And whereas this compassionate spirit runs deep in our community just as it has for 145 years through the American Red Cross. And whereas the contributions of local Red Cross volunteers, 1801 in this county, give hope to the most vulnerable in their darkest hours. And whereas last year in Monterey County, volunteers helped 49 families affected by 30 home fires by addressing their urgent needs like food and lodging as well as providing recovery support. And whereas in addition they installed 682 smoke alarms, collected 2141 blood donations, provided first aid and CPR training to 20 2423 residents, and assisted 112 families of our armed forces. And whereas these collective efforts are a powerful reminder that the strength of our community lies in our shared commitment to one another. And whereas we mark Red Cross Month, let's celebrate our local heroes and resolve to continue lifting each other up so no one faces an emergency alone. Now therefore, be it pro proclaimed that I, McDale Burn, mayor of the city of Carmel by the Sea, on behalf of the city council and the citizens of Carmel, hereby proclaim March 2026, fast forwarded to April as Red Cross month, I encourage all Americans to read out, reach out, and support its humanitarian mission. And I'm going to come down. Congratulations. Congratulations. There we go.

Thank you.

All right. Next, I'm going to turn to uh Council Person Baron, who's a passionate board member of Community Human Services, a wonderful organization, and I'm looking forward to hearing their presentation. Jeeoff, you want to take it over?

Thank you, Dale. Yeah, passionate. I'm sure that's a word that's often used to describe me. We uh it's my pleasure tonight to introduce Shawn Stone, the new CEO of Community Human Services. Sean who um in well Shawn who's been with CHS for 10 years worked his way up from the front line to the COO and was promoted uh by by the board last month to the CEO position. Community Human Services is a JPA. So it's an organization that is comprised of a number of municipalities. So all of the Peninsula, all of the Peninsula cities, all of the Peninsula school districts as well as Selenus and a couple of the Selenus school districts have seats on the board and we all contribute um seed money to the funding of community human services. They provide uh mental health services, substance abuse services, and we're going to hear tonight about a couple of the homeless homeless facilities that that they fund. Community Human Services uh believes that early quality help leads to better outcomes in our community. And I'm a I'm a very passionate, very proud board member. So Sean, good evening everyone. Um mayor, city council members, thank you for having me here tonight. Um I I wish I was here to present on our agency and um all of the great services that we do. Um but tonight uh I will be presenting on some funding shortfalls and program impacts that we're facing with two of our uh homeless shelters uh in the county. Oh, thank you. So we operate two homeless shelters specifically for women and families with children. uh one is located in Seaside

pictured here. Uh the other is uh called Schuman Heartouse. It's located in uh in Monterey. So each of these programs are a 35 bed emergency shelter. Uh but even though it's an emergency shelter, we provide a an array of services, comprehensive case management, full meals, um supportive services, connections to uh mental health services, substance use services, uh and other basic needs. So the annual number served at each site is around 80 people. Um and this includes both, uh the women and the family members. And you know the these services the purpose is to stabilize these individuals and families uh identify what led them to becoming homeless or um requiring services such as ours to essentially become independent and housed and stable. So these shelters came to be through a a large community effort. So, cost in OAW Buena, we applied for and received $1.3 million worth of HEA funding uh government government grants and raised an additional $400,000 from the community. We renovated a county-owned building located in Seaside and uh opened during COVID. Schuman Heart House was opened uh primarily through private philanthropy funding, but the operating costs are uh primarily subsidized through government grants. So, these programs cost just over a million dollars a year to run. Um we established a special purpose fund for community fundraising. Uh this was done through the community foundation and that's specifically for Kasa Denotena and roughly 70 to 80% of the operating costs are through uh government grants.

As I mentioned there about a million dollars a year to operate each program. um in these upcoming years uh in fiscal year 26-27 we're anticipating uh between the two just under a million dollars uh in a deficit in 2728 about 1.5 2829 1.6 and in 2930 uh 1.8. So the key drivers of this gap is reduced government funds for these type of services. We've utilized uh local uh city of Monterey PHLA funding. Uh all HAP funds, there's HAP multiple rounds. HAP 5 will be fully expended in 2627. The special purpose fund when fully utilized, we have about $345,000. Um that will be fully depleted in in this upcoming year. uh so without new funding streams and the reduction of these grants it's the beginning of a structural deficit and uh in this in this field uh it's being referred to as a fiscal cliff. So what's unique about these programs and the same thing goes for services that we operate in Selenus, the services that we operate uh in Monterey, is that there's a lot of overlap, a lot of um uh services that are where we have uh basically a a contributing a safety net of services that although it's oper uh oper operated and offered in Monterey, there's a lot of uh people who seek our from all over the county. So, you know, these services do contribute to a well functioning community, support workforce stability. Uh for context, uh in just uh all of our in just our homeless service programs, just over 1% of our clients are Carmel residents, but most are

coming from neighboring communities. So to provide some context in our outcomes, the most uh comparable statistic uh for crisis response exits, the statewide benchmark is 23% of clients exit to permanent housing. Both cost JUB and Schuman hard house over have over a 50% exit to permanent housing, which is exceptional. And additionally, we have another 17 and 24% uh exiting to to temporary housing. So these programs are are pretty remarkable uh not only for for our area area but compared to the entire state. So with these reduced funds um we we have to make some tough decisions. Our objective is to continue the services that result in the positive outcomes that the that basically the purpose of these programs were made. um was to get people housed and to stay housed versus having an emergency uh you know place to sleep uh one night. Uh so we want to avoid service reductions or shelter closure. Uh we want to do what we can to if there needs to be reductions have them be phased uh while we are pursuing other funding. And you know the options that we're facing are reduction of capacity uh reduction of services, meals, the case management which is a driving force of the positive outcomes um and obviously partial or full closure. So any reduction of these services significantly weakens the outcomes and increases long-term system costs like emergency room visits, crisis interventions. So, all of that being said, uh we are

reaching out to uh JPA members, uh cities, and trying to spread the word about what is at stake for our community that these services were to reduce or close. Um we're looking for ways to partner uh identify stabilization or bridge funding and essentially just a commitment to preserving the services that that foster these positive outcomes. So having the opportunity just to speak to you all tonight uh accomplishes at least one of those. So thank you all for for allowing me to be here. Thank you.

Do we have any questions from council members or how can people help? We've got a lot of people here tonight and they know a lot of people and yes, a lot of them like to support good efforts like yours. uh reach out, take a look at our our website. Um there there are ways to donate, there are ways to become involved. Um so yeah, that would be great. Just the people in this room could make a difference. It'd be amazing. So So please help. Thank you. Thank you, Sean. Thank you.

Okay. Next, uh this is a recognition of the Clean California designation awarded to Carmel by the Sea. That's us. Ken, are is uh Ken Wasaki here? Why don't you fight your way up here? I'd like you to kick this off if you could.

Now, just come up and introduce yourself. And you're famous. You got a lot of people here. I'm a famous person. Yeah. Just intro just introduce Mark. Hey everybody. Uh my name is Ken Weisaki. I'm the public works director. Uh been here now just about a year and trying to do the best we can to do make this community beautiful, green, and safe. And who do we have here? Oh, Carmel. Come on up. All right. a really big sign. I promise you see it, but you can't really see it. But we just want you guys to see this really big sign we got. Hold it up.

Yeah, I'm dismissed.

Hi. Good afternoon, everyone. I'd like to uh say thank you to the mayor, to the city council, to the city officials, and to the members of the public. Thanks for being here. My name is Margaret Burn, and I'm the executive director and a founding board member of Carmel Cares. A few years ago, CALR launched the Clean California Community Initiative. Cities were invited to take part in local improvement and community engagement efforts to care to earn statewide recognition. And with that, a very large sign. I'm proud to say that Carmel by the Sea was one of the first cities in the state to both sign the pledge and achieve this designation. This recognition reflects the incredible work of our volunteer groups along with the strong partnership we have with our public works teams. What makes this especially meaningful is that it represents who we are as a community. The leaders and residents of Carmel share a deep sense of pride and a collective vision to be cleaner, greener, and a more beautiful place to live. Our goal is to be a model of excellence known for our commitment to cleanliness, environmental stewardship, and community engagement. The Clean California designation recognizes communities that truly live those values. This recognition is more than a sign. It's a commitment. A commitment to continue showing up, working together, and taking care of the village we love. And yes, this sign is quite large, but more importantly, it serves as a visible reminder of what we can accomplish together. It will be proudly displayed in our public works facility as a symbol of that shared effort. Thank you and thanks for our volunteers who helped to make this happen. We should all be very proud.

Thank you. Thank you, Margaret. And thank you for all the work that all your volunteers and all the volunteer groups, not just Carmel Cares. They're it's a big team effort. I'm sure they're going to go out and have a picture on the stairs now. Ken, do you want to take the sign out there, too? I don't think we need it anymore. Yeah. They'd probably like they'd probably like you in the picture, too. Go out and get in the picture. I'll get that. Okay. All right. Next, we have public appearances. Nova, could you please read the public appearances notice?

Sure. Members of the public are entitled to speak on matters of municipal concern not on the agenda during public appearances. Each person's comments shall be limited to three minutes or as otherwise established by the mayor. While stating your name is optional, it helps to identify speakers in the meeting minutes. Under the Brown Act, public comment for matters on the agenda must relate to that agenda item, and public comments for matters not on the agenda must relate to the subject matter jurisdiction of this legislative body. Remote or in-person participants who do not comply with the requirements of the Brown Act will be muted.

Thank you. How many people plan on making a public comment so we can judge the time?

All right. All right. You'll get three minutes. So, and and if you can keep it as as as tight as you can, we've got a long agenda tonight, so we'd appreciate it. But you've got three minutes if you want it. Hello. Hello, and thank you. Uh good evening, M Mr. Mayor. Thank you for your service and members of the council. Um my name is Vince Kohler. I'm a long-term residence here resident here in Carmel and I'm here today for the third time uh to talk to you about the city's opportunity and responsibility towards the neighbors of the pit. Third time is the charm. So I'm optimistic. Um I addressed you in November and in January after the January meeting the mayor asked me uh to meet with the city manager and we did that and with represent representatives of the CAA uh on February 27th. That was a very constructive meeting. We all felt optimistic. Uh and Brandon indicated that he would confer with the city attorney and move forward with initiating the nuisance determination process barring anything unforeseen. We're now 5 weeks later. Unfortunately, to my knowledge, the nuisance determination has not been made. And in those five weeks, the the situation has only gotten worse. Uh just to reiterate the undisputed facts here. As a result of that excavation at the pit that started years ago, subsidance and erosion occurred and created a threat and very real damage to all three neighbors. Uh the CIA, the Carmel Foundation, and the city of Carmel, which is a neighbor because it's got two rights of way. We've seen new incidents at the site. You guys probably read the pine cone. Um the city finally stopped. The most damaging practices the week before last. Uh but I would say there's no clear example of damaging practices of of there's no clear example of a nuisance uh in the city of Carmel than the pit. And with your indulgence, I

would like to show you the municipal code that applies here if we can. I don't know whether the technology works. Um sometimes laws and city codes are obscure and confusing. This is not one of those moments. This is a doozy. It's super clear. I'm showing you section 1557 of the Carmel Municipal Code which says that a nuisance exists in uh natural state or as a result of grading operations, excavation or fill or c uh that causes erosion, subsidance or surface water drainage of such magnitude as to be injurious and or potentially injurious to the public health, safety and welfare. So clearly applies to the pit. And then uh if you go to the next page, please um whenever the city administrator uh determines that any premises within the city may exist, then he shall cause notice to be given in a manner provided in this chapter. And there's the form. It's right in the city code. So this is not a mayo. It's a may determine mustd do situation. Again, uh those of you who have heard me speak before note that I've been subject to this nuisance abatement for something I didn't cause but could have caused uh uh damage to my neighbor and I gladly complied and we rectified it. Uh the situation for the CIA, for the foundation, and for the city is serious and uh there's liability that the city incurs by not acting. So I want to thank you and um again I think the third time is the charm. Thank you. Okay, thank you.

Hi, Meredith.

Hi, everybody. My name is Meredith Null and I'm here briefly to talk about two environmental things. I made copies for you if you want to pass it around. I hope I have enough copies. So the first one I want to talk about is for the library something called in the design for the revitalization of the existing library something called lead is a architectural uh United States green building council very popular concept of building. The reason is because it is the most highly efficient, lowest possible utility costs on every type of utility including water and lasts for years and reduces the maintenance of a building. But I think more importantly to that having a sign similar to this which I took a picture of in a building in San Francisco. California has over 400, I think 450 lead buildings. There are four levels of certification. You could choose the level you want. But it's a big message to not only the residents when they go by and see the library, they can remember, oh yes, we want to be efficient, we want to maintain sustainability, and we want to do all we can to um promote good stewardship of the homes and Carmel by the Sea. And it also gives a message out that Carmel by the Sea is proactive in sustainability and efficiency. And the next environmental thing I just want to share with you in 2021

um because when I was moving here I saw on TV a lot of fires and it scared me because I was coming here and the fire in paradise happened. So I wrote a proposal that was awarded not with money but with a scientist and she helped Calire, the Monterey Fire Commission establish a webinar series of all the excellent people in scientific world who deal with fire mitigation. For instance, to know where the five spots are in your home where an ember could land. very significant information. I tried to share that on the web page, but I'm not a good web page sharer, so it didn't come out. So, I will leave this with you and um I sent sent the information, I think, to you and to the mayor. Um but it's to uh educate everyone on the areas to really mitigate and the 30 ft and to be defensible spaces for your house. So, thank you so much for your time. Much appreciated.

Thank you, Meredith. Good to see you. You can keep the applause down. All right. Hello.

Hi, City Council, Mayor, Chief. Um, the the chief of police had a meeting uh the end of December, about the middle of August, which he called Car Week. Um, and he's been working really hard to keep everybody happy. It's pretty difficult. And I just want to remind you that this is a hospitality community. We have people that visit all the time. They want to come here and enjoy themselves. And maybe if if we as a community work together to let them do things and and show up, charge into park cars on main streets here. Sounds a little out of out of line. Although kind of ridiculous how you would stop people parking. One of the men at a car show in Los Angeles walked up to me because he knows me from here. He comes every year. He said there was somebody had sold a parking spot and what happens if you do that? You'll get a classic car there and now you have people in the street. And I like some of the people that are involved in some of the shows. But to have a bunch of volunteers telling people to move and push and stuff like that, I've seen that not go that well. And these officers are great guys. They have better things to do. They go around, make sure everybody parks in the right spot and everybody's quiet. It's only two days out of a whole year for all y'all that they're they're blocking traffic. The rest of you go tonight. We couldn't find park. So that's pretty much what I'm looking at. Kindness, consideration, a little bit of patience with the people that come here to visit. They come a long ways here. And I know we will like a quiet area, but things change. And if if you're calling every day, all night long, bothering the police about noise or somebody out in

your driveway, there's important things to do. They have important issues. What if there's an emergency and things like that, you know? So, we're trying to get it out there. And I just saw on the pine cone, it's like I think everybody could get together a little better and and change the way we are more so than trying to get our tourists to change the way they are. Does that sound right? And I had read out a thing at the first meeting and I made copies for all of you guys what I thought would be a good way to work it out where um you got you can be nice and I know it's it's loud sometimes but the the people that come here they they come to have a good time and there's a lot of other things going on and some of the people at the meetings they're not understanding that this is just caramel so if you get stuck in traffic and seaside it has nothing to do with the chief of police in Carmel. Okay. Or you the mayor.

Yeah. You know, so you want to plan your days and work it out. I'd really appreciate it and hopefully you enjoy the week. Thank you. I'm sure I'm sure the chief would love for you to reach out to him. He's really easy to talk to and he'd love to hear from you. I'm sure. All right. Thanks, guys. All right.

Afternoon. Mark Stillwell, owner of Stillwell Hotel and Tradewinds and a uh an employee rental that we have in town here. Want to speak on two quick things. First, I want to commend you. I really like how the new stop signs have been working. I think they're working well because the number of horns I hear at the hotel and our tenant hears at the hotel. Literally, he was hearing 10 to 12 a day from near misses and people, you know, cursing and stuff. It's gone way down at least in that location there. So, that's that was I think a really good move. And I like it just when I'm driving in town. It it makes everything clearer. Second reason I'm here, Bobby Richards, former council member, said, "Mark, you know, you were right years ago when you came to the city council and said we should not allow permanent conversion of 40 to 50 residential units to short-term rentals without some clawback ability." He said, "I was wrong. Now that city's got this target of 349, I mean, if we could get back those 40 or 50, the target becomes 300. So, I just point that out. I don't know if it's it's a legal issue for your council, but it involves no construction, not you know, no impacts on neighbors. It's just bringing back into the fold formally employee housing, um, you know, residential housing long-term that would be very useful to the city. So, I just at Bobby's suggestion, I thought I'd raise that because he's had a an epiphany on that. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mark.

Hi, Cindy. Thank you, Mayor Burn, members of the council. My name is Cindy Lloyd and city staff. Excuse me, I forgot them. I would like to just bring um attention to a beautiful project the public works department has done along Rio Road and down the medians between the Carmel Mission and um Mission Trail Nature Preserve. They have planted gorgeous California native plants all through that area. So when you drive from San Carlos down Rio Road, just give a look at the plants as you go by and thank the public works department and Ken Weisaki's great department. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Cindy. Hello, my name is Maria Reinherus and as chair of the community activities commission I would like to bring to your attention a few subjects. The first one is I don't know if you were at the Carmel Host Lions Club successful really successful breakfast with the bunny this past Saturday and it was fantastic. They were serving pancakes and sausages and it was like absolutely a great ambiance and I wish we were all there. Um the VIPS also helped tremendously. So it was a great event. Uh but I also wanted to bring up to your attention two more events. Uh the first one is on Thursday. We're coming back to our third Thursday of the month event on April 16th. We're going to have celebrations every third Thursday. We're going to have music, food, market vendors from 4 to 7:00 p.m. at Davendor Park. So, when you go to the farmers market, you can continue to wander around and you wait for the event to happen and you'll have live music. That's where an event that I actually uh enjoyed. One of the best bands I've ever heard in this city. So, it was amazing. So, I would like everybody to join us on April 16th, but also on Saturday, April 18th, from 10 to 2:00 p.m., we will have our fourth annual Earth and Arbor Day celebration. So, let's come together to celebrate with people, but also our planet with tree planting, environmental initiatives, and community resources. And I even brought some invitations for those of you out there, anyone around. basically talking about our Earth Day which honestly is organized by our city and really the

public works team but I want to pass this around or leave them here and this will be hosting echofriendly businesses communities mini farmers market live music so just so that we continue to have a very lively and eventful city please come all you city council members and all of you all here join us in this two celebr celebrations this come this month of April. Thank you so much. Thank you. Next.

Good evening. Uh Joe Denucci, president and member of the library uh board of trustees. I want to read something. The success of the American experiment doesn't require agreement between Hamiltonians and Jeffersonians about how to balance liberty and power. It requires good faith commitment to participate in the inevitable tug of war between them. That's from Jeffrey Rosen in the his book, The Pursuit of Liberty: How Hamilton and Jefferson Ignited the lasting battle over power in America. I'm bringing to your attention this little flyer you see all around. And it's here because on April 28th, Jeffrey Rosen has a will give a talk at Sunset Center in the evening. And I strongly recommend there's still many many tickets available and it's a must attend and it benefits the library. So I'll strongly recommend there's little things out on the table here but if you don't have a ticket already get one. It's really going to be worth your time and and effort. Thank you.

Thank you Joe.

That's it. It's remarkable. Anybody online? No. All right. All right. We're going to go on to the next item, which is announcements. Thank you everyone for your comments. By the way, um we'll start with the city administrator. Do you have any comments?

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have two quick announcements. Uh one I just want to announce because I have a big audience tonight, so I'm going to take advantage of it. Uh I want to let everybody know we're really excited. So, Chief Trayer, Marissa and I have been working on at the direction of the city council, uh standing up an enhanced parking compliance program. We're really excited. We're working on interviews this week. I think we had around 26 or so candidates. Uh we're going to be standing up a program that's two full-time and one part-time employees. We've got new technology that's going into all of our enforcement buggies. So, uh by the summertime, you know, in a couple months, we're going to see an enhanced parking enforcement program out there. So, that's in response to, you know, what we've heard from the council and from the community. So, I'm really excited about that. I figured I'd take that opportunity with everybody here. And then the second thing I really what I really wanted to tell everyone um we sent out a press release yesterday. Uh there was a structure fire over the weekend uh directly behind the Hops house on Dolores. Um it was an amazing response. I want to thank our police department, our our fire department, our C volunteers and also the Hops house. And I'll tell you why in a second. So the fire was controlled within minutes. It's great if you know where the house is. It was it could have been very bad. Uh our police department were first on the scene. They evacuated the resident and her dog. Uh the fire department got there just moments after uh then evacuated a cat and then they got the fire out within minutes. It was a hot kitchen fire. Um if you've seen pictures of it, it was it was it could have been really devastating. So I really want to thank everybody as first responded to the fire and then also Cert was there lickety split to set up firefighter relief. And the reason I wanted to thank the Hopsis House, it's a it's a good it's a good note of being neighborly. So, um, the Hops House was kind enough to to put the resident up, uh, that evening after their their house had burned down. So, kudos to everybody involved. I mean, I don't think anybody, uh, can overstate how how amazing it was that was put out so quickly and how big that could have been. So, I I really really want to commend the fire department, the police department, and the SER folks.

Thank you. And thank you to the fire department. That was a remarkable performance. Uh, city attorney, do you have anything to report? We had a closed session last night, but there's no reportable action. Okay. All right. Thank you. All right. We'll go around the horn here. Jeeoff, do you want to start? Council people, no announcements.

Uh just really quick, I wanted to send condolences to the family and friends of Ken Spiel Fogle, who passed away uh last week. He was, of course, as we all know, a longtime business owner in Carmel going back to the 1980s when he had a deli at the uh Carmel Plaza and then of course later with Larry's Seafood Restaurant. and uh since our earliest days, our town has had uh really a history of colorful and notable characters and he was certainly among them and will be missed.

Thank you, Bob. Again, taking advantage of a full room, uh I would like to um remind us all that it is budget season um and that's when we do the most important thing that we do, which is figure out how to spend your money. Um and it's delightful to have the room full of people today. Um we have budget meetings as well and we don't get this many people. Um please pay attention. The financial situation of our city is not great. Okay. Um we have deferred maintenance of well of $100 million. Um that just things we haven't done for decades that haven't been paid attention to and we haven't talked about. You've got a great city council right now. We're telling the truth and looking at the problems and the challenges our city has. Um, and we're not panicked and I'm not sending a message of panic. Um, but I think you should pay attention and understand what we're dealing with and how we're dealing with it. Um, and uh, the solutions that we are looking to put in place to address some very real challenges. Please show up. Please pay attention. If you have questions, call me. I'll meet with meet with you and explain things to you. Thanks very much,

Hans. Um, I'd like to uh echo Alisandre's comment about Ken Spilfig. I had a chance to spend some remarkable time with him this last couple days and uh we'll miss him a lot. I'd echo Bob's statements. Um, how many of you were here last night? You know, it was a it was a really powerful meeting and we covered a lot of good things, including how much you pay for fees. So, watch the meeting. It's a little late, but I think if you got a message off to Brandon, you still might be able to influence something. There's some important meetings. This council is having full meetings like we have tonight. And we really need to have you here. And if you can't be here, watch on YouTube. It's really easy. You can fast forward past what things you don't want to listen to. But these are really important meetings. We are taking on a lot of big things that have been kicked down the road for a long time and I'm really proud of this council for for being willing to do that. We'll be here late tonight. Um, one other thing, and I might be preempting some Brandon's things in the next month, but I went to the bunny event, the breakfast with the bunny, and it was excellent. Thank you to the Lions Club. Uh, I took a side trip over to the fire station, which I like to do, and I looked inside the garage, and they said, "There's our shiny new used ambulance." And I just want to hand it to Brandon Swanson, our our acting city administrator, and the council for moving quickly. I mean, we had a problem with both our ambulances, and we moved quickly, and he found an ambulance. I don't know how he did it, but when you see it, you won't believe it. The price we paid was like one a new one would cost. And we got it in what, a month. And it is spectacular. And our fire department is very proud of it. And so are we. So, I just want to let you know that we have our fire engine is now in Monterey. Our new one.

That's right. And the ambulance is the the first ambulance is about to show up. So we have I think the best fire department in California right now with all the trucks that all of all the different cities have. PG is getting a new fire truck, too. And you saw what they can do even without all this new equipment. So it's pretty good. It's pretty good. I'm very proud of our fire department. Merca deserves a lot of credit for that ambulance, too. That was a team effort.

Thank you very much. You really won't believe how great it looks for the price we paid. It shows that city government can be really thrifty. All right. Uh I guess that's through with our announcements and we're going to move on to public hearings. I'm going to have city our city attorney Brian Purick uh kick this off. I think he's got a pre pre uh agenda item to cover.

Well, it's not a pre-agenda item. It's this item, but um uh it it does relate to my recommendation as to how you proceed tonight. Um, I want to mention um that there was a request for a continuance that was submitted by the Fenton firm on behalf of the owners of the AWS Shucks business as well as the Hudson firm and they represent the owner of the building where AWS Shucks is located and they requested a continuence based on um the production of records by the city um and some determination that they've made about when those records were produced. So um my recommendation is that we have this um matter this evening proceed with two phases. The first one would be to address the request for continuance and that if the council agrees with the request for continuence then you would continue the hearing to a future date. And if the council does not agree to the continuence, then the second phase would be for you to proceed with the hearing, have a presentation from staff and proceed in the normal manner. Now, with regards to the request for continuence, I do have some comments I wanted to make. Um, the request um from the Fenton firm um came on April 3rd of 2026 with their letter to the city saying that there were some records that weren't produced. Um, I'm going to address that first and and they'll have an opportunity, of course, to to speak to this as well. Um, the original request came in um on February 24th of 2026 for public records spanning from uh 1880 to the present. That's 146 years. Um, I'm not really good at math, but I can do that. Um, and so obviously a long period of time. Um, and eventually they narrowed the scope of their uh request. Um there were some other issues with the request. There were some documents that were not correctly identified which took

some time to locate. Um there were records that were produced multiple times. Um and they continued to say they didn't have it. Um to give one example of what they called a critical document that would be the excuse me the use permit um that was issued in 1993 to Ashucks. That document was attached um as um attachment A and B to the uh staff report that went to the planning commission on October 8th of 2025 and it is even labeled as um the uh report um at that time and so that was the initial um production um and it was available on the city's website for the last 5 months. In addition to that, this use permit was uh produced to the Fenton firm twice on on March 13th. Um and it said in the PDF label use report. So uh use permit, excuse me. So it was very clear that that's what the document was. Uh it was produced again on March 27th and again on April 3rd. So it's been produced multiple times, but they continue to say it hasn't been produced. Um, in the letter of April 3rd, uh, other than the use permit, they identified some other records which they said had not been produced. And I'm going to spend just a couple minutes talking about that. Um, they wanted a planning commission report uh from September 15th of 2025. Well, there is no there was no planning commission meeting on that day. After some period of time, which it took to find out what they were talking about, eventually uh the city clerk, Nova, uh Nova Romero, who by the way was very diligent, uh in responding to the Fenton firm, I think there were 11 plus emails that she sent to them. Uh in their first production of March 13th, there were 34 documents produced. But to get back to this September 15th of 2025 um planning

commission report that there was no such um report um what we did find was that it was um uh in September of 20 um uh 2015. So once we tied that down September 23rd, 2015 we were able to produce Nova was able to produce that record. A second document they said wasn't produced was entitled an acceptance of permit and acknowledgement of intent to comply. Again, that document was attached to the um staff report from October 8th of 2020 um five uh five months ago was available to them. It was also um produced. The signed copy uh it took the city some time to locate that. Um but that doc the signed version of that form um has now been produced. So they do have that. Um the third document they said that wasn't produced was um something that was referred to as interpretations by staff made via correspondence of August 7th, 2023 for the associated floor plan. Um we uh Nova and and staff were able to u locate that floor plan and it was produced um weeks ago uh to the Fenton firm. Um despite best efforts um by uh Nova and staff, uh the city was unable to locate this August 7th, 2023 correspondence. So that was a document that just couldn't be located. It wasn't a matter of not producing it. It couldn't be found. Um there was a letter of Parker Logan to the city in July of 2025. Um originally that document was being searched for in emails. Eventually, it was found in an application form for a use permit and that has been produced. And then there was a fifth document which was the email correspondence between Parker Logan and Mayor Burn in September of 2025 regarding the use permit. Uh a diligent search found no such record. So based on

um all of these um efforts by the city to produce the documents um it it appears that the city has complied with of its requirements to produce the records. As I said the overwhelming majority were produced weeks ago. These few handful of records that were claimed not to be produced either don't exist were misidentified or have been produced uh to the Fenton firm. So uh it's my opinion that the city has complied with its requirement to produce the records. So my recommendation now is that you allow the um representatives from the Fenton firm and the Hudson firm who submitted the requests for continuence to to address uh this issue and and why they believe they're entitled to a continuence. And then you allow public comment um uh if there's anybody from the public that wishes to speak to it. Um and then um the council should make a decision uh following that normal process as to whether or not you're going to grant the continuence. And as I said earlier, if you're not going to grant the continuence, then proceed with hearing. If you are going to grant it, then you would continue it. One last thing I want to mention is that you may hear comments from some members of the public uh this evening regarding Sades, which they believe are relevant to the proceedings. Um both Sades and Ashucks do involve permits for drinking places. And I would recommend that you do not mute these speakers as they have a right to make a public comment. Your decision today should be whether to deny or grant the appeals of the um resolution that was approved by the planning commission. There is no action for you today with regard to Sades. So I've completed my introductory comments. So my recommendation is that you allow the representatives for the parties to speak to their request for continuance.

Thank you, Brian. And that's just what we're going to do. Could the appellants attorney please step forward? Good afternoon, Mayor and Council members. Good afternoon. How How much time do you think you need? Two minutes. Oh, that's fine. I was going to give you more, but go ahead.

The use permit. The same document was repeatedly produced to us. It's not a use permit. It's a staff report. It's not signed by any any city official. It's not signed by the applicant. It's not signed by the property owner, which is standard for any permit in the city. So, how are we to know whether the staff report is identical to a mystery use permit document that the planning commission um purported to interpret and and make decisions regarding. Number two, as to the typo, um it was clearly a typo and I will agree that your hardworking um city clerk has really done a lot of work on this. Um, and when I asked for the document, I said that the document was cited in the planning commission resolution at issue here. So, it didn't take but 2 minutes perhaps for her to respond to say, "Oh, I think you made a typo." So, to the extent that there was some extensive research that needed to go on, I I think don't think that's supported by by the evidence. Um, as to the August 8th to 7th, 2023 correspondences, that document it is referenced in the acceptance document that indicates that that correspondence interprets the use permitted issue. So once again, if we don't have the written interpretations of what this permit does and doesn't allow, how how can this body um adjudicate it? um it results in unfair surprise. And speaking of unfair surprise, the yes, the unsigned document was produced to us, but the signed document wasn't produced to us until this morning. We didn't know whether the document had been signed or what date it had been signed. And so we had to scramble to figure out how this fit into

the timeline, which is critical to understanding the context of of what did and didn't go on here. Um, I think that's the majority of of the comments on that. And yes, many documents were produced repeatedly. And that was part of the problem. We got many of the same documents over and over and over and over again. It took a while to figure out what we did and didn't have. And then, um, God bless her, working literally after hours on Friday night before Easter weekend, she produced a whole list of documents to us on the Friday before Easter that I didn't get to until this morning. So, we're scrambling. Um, and so if there were documents that weren't produced, um, or were produced late, um, that doesn't give a full opportunity for the parties to to present their to present their case. Um, and as for the the letter from Mr. Logan, um, we didn't get that letter until today either, yet it says all shucks all over it. So, I I don't I don't fault the the the city clerk. whatsoever or the process. I'm just saying that the result of the process is that my clients are deprived of a fair opportunity to understand and fully vet the facts and present their case. And that's the basis for our request for a continuence.

Okay, if you could stay here. Thank you for your kind words about Nova. We totally agree with you about the incredible job she does. Appreciate that. Uh any questions that that council has? Brian, do you want to do you have any comments from I I'll wait until we hear from the Hudson firm. Okay. Got a question. Okay. Do you have an do you have another person or are you the only speaker? Um I'm the sole representative. Okay, here we go. Okay. So,

good afternoon. Christina Goldman of Hudson Martin on behalf of Appellent TSD Carmel Properties. Just for clarification on the record, there are two different law firms here today. Mr. Oliver from Fentin and Keller represents the business owner of AWS Shucks and my firm represents the property owner TSD Carmel Properties. So, um, as the city attorney has mentioned, our firm also joined in on the request for a continuence because fund fundamentally what is at issue here is making sure that there's a fair opportunity to be heard. There were documents that we understand were produced. There was a lot of hard work by the city in trying to locate those documents, but some of them came in later. And so there needs to be an opportunity for there to be a full, thorough, thoughtful review of the issues that are presented on appeal. Our firm understands that AWS Shucks has been in contact with the city regarding their production request. We agree with them that there are some documents that appear as though they have not been produced. As Mr. Oliver just indicated, typically when you have a use permit that's issued by the city, it does in fact include the signatures or similar from the council members who adopted it. Typically these days you see a resolution. To our understanding, no such document has been produced to date by the city. What we have seen as has been mentioned today are copies of the findings from the 1993 hearing regarding the use permit. But the actual final document we haven't seen. Likewise, there was a document that was executed by one of the former owners of AWS Shucks relating to the use permit that made reference to communications with the city from August 7th, 2023. We've worked directly with our client to try and see if perhaps they even had the document, this mystery August 7, 2023 document referenced in this use permit resolution. They were unable to find it. The city has been unable to find it. And of course, that gives us concern about

what the city is going to be basing its decision on, what the planning commission had been basing its decision on, and if perhaps there are documents that exist that have not been produced or if there is something else that could potentially be going on. So needless to say, given the absence of certain documents and the need to ensure that there is a fair opportunity for both our clients and AWS Shucks to be heard, we're just simply requesting a continuence. Thank you. Thank you, honor. Before I respond, do you want to ask if there's any public comment on this? You want to do that before we ask questions? Yeah, I I think that you should ask for the Well, it's it's up to you. You could ask questions now or later.

It's a little bit out of sequence, but I'm fine with that if you recommend it. Are there any public comments regarding the continuing subject only? Seeing none. All right. Did you want to hear from me before you asked questions? I would like to.

Okay. So, um, uh, Mr. Oliver said that they didn't know this document was a use permit. It said on the PDF use permit five times. So, it's pretty clear that that was the use permit. the law does not require a use permit to be signed. So his argument that because it wasn't signed that means it's invalid. He said it was a staff report. That's wrong. It is a findings for decision adopted December 8th, 1993 and it goes on for a number of pages. So that is not a staff report. That is findings for decision which were adopted um by the city. So the representation that this is a staff report is really wrong. Um documents not being produced. I went to some length in my earlier comments to explain that it was down to this handful of five and I identified which ones were produced um including the one that was misidentified that um we were able to locate. Um, and then with respect to the um, no resolution, I heard from council for Hudson, you don't need to have a resolution to have a final permit. Um, the this document of August 7th, 2023, the city couldn't find that. The city's been looking for 6 weeks to find that document and couldn't find it. So, that to me would be a due diligent search and some documents are unable to be located and that one could not be located. So I think that covers all of the documents. I one other thing I want to mention in terms of these documents coming in recently. Uh NOVA worked until 6:30 on Friday night and we just heard from Mr. Oliver that he got around to looking at this this morning. So we have the city clerk working after hours in a in her effort to produce records which was what is today Tuesday. several you know some days ago there should have been time to

for for a review of that and this document this acceptance of permit which I'm holding up here is one page and he had it except for the signature so this is not a document that would take hours to review the letter from uh Mr. Logan that I mentioned in my earlier comments is one page. So again, these are documents that could have been reviewed in a short period of time to determine whether or not they impact whatever arguments they plan to make at this hearing. Um so I provided my conclusion which is I think that city did um comply uh in good faith in producing the records to the parties. And now it's up to you to ask questions and then make a decision on whether or not you want to grant the continuence or not.

Anybody have a question? Yeah, I have a question for the uh the attorney from Fenting Keller. Um I was sort of typing furiously, but can you one more time just clarify the the content of the August 7th correspondence? I have no idea. So you said it was referenced as characterizing.

Yes. In in the acceptance document, which again we had no idea if it was signed until this morning um says that the permite and the landowner accept the terms of and conditions of the use permit as interpreted by correspondences dated August 7th, 2023. So council uh with all respect is conflating compliance with the public records act and notice and an opportunity to to review and understand the the terms of the document that are at issue in this appeal. So they're different things. And and just lastly, the the document says it's a it's it says it's a findings for decision. It doesn't say it is the decision. It there's a reference that a decision was made on a particular date, but show me a permit that doesn't include at least someone's signature on it. So without it, um, it's vague, it's ambiguous, it lacks notice.

Can I be heard on that last comment? Like I think you're finished with this individual right now or did you have more to ask him? That's I'm going to ask the council in a second. Okay. Do you want to say something about that? Yeah. Go ahead. Um, go ahead. This isn't a dialogue, so if he's finished, he could take a seat. Okay.

Thank you. All right. He just made a comment about this thing saying it's a findings for decision, but it wasn't a decision. Um, this is in the record. It says adopted December 8th, 1993. This isn't just some random staff report or some, you know, something that's written on the back of a cocktail napkin. This is a findings for decision and it was adopted. So, um, that is the permit and it was labeled as such.

Okay. Anyone else have a question? Jeff. Bob. I have a question if you could come up. At what point do you think that you will be accept that you've received everything you need for us to proceed? Uh well based on the representations from the city clerk um we have received everything that the city has in its possession, custody or control which is a separate question from whether we have all the documents that relate to this appeal including the August 7, 2023 interpretations of the use permitted issue which again is separate from compliance with the public records act. It goes to what what what is the document that's at issue here? What are the terms and conditions of the permit at issue here?

So that's that's it. That's what you're waiting for. Yeah. So in terms of making a decision, excuse me. In terms of us making a decision, you want to continue this for you to get just that document, nothing else. I we my client doesn't know what other documents may exist. So, if we didn't get certain documents until until today for the first time, including ones that say all shucks all over them, how do we know what other documents aren't there? So, I think it just makes sense in the in at a minimum an abundance of caution to allow your city clerk to continue looking and allow my clients and um and the DAO client to evaluate what we've got.

Okay. Thank you. You can make another comment if you like. Thank you, mayor. I just want to make sure that my client also has the opportunity to speak to the question that you just posed. We do have a copy of the document that was being referenced, but not the document referenced in that document. So, just for clarification, what has been received is an acceptance of permit and acknowledgement of intent to comply. It states in all caps above the signatures of my client and one of the former partners of AWS Shucks, "We, the undersigned, have read and hereby certify that we understand and agree to the issuance of this permit and the terms thereof, including the conditions of approval of this permit, as well as the interpretations by staff made via correspondences dated August 7, 2023 for and then there's a typographical error associated ated end of typographical error floor plan. We understand that failure to comply with the conditions of this permit may lead to its revocation by the planning commission. At the end of the day, what we are here about is a decision by the planning commission to deem as abandoned. The use permit that my client and AWS Shucks were operating under. If there are additional correspondences that can shed light is to the full understanding of the parties at the time that this document was signed on August 28th, 2023, it would be informative to both of the appeals. To the extent that there are additional searches that may need to be conducted in order to locate the document, we would want the city to undertake those searches. While we understand that the city has indicated that it has conducted a thorough search, at this point we actually have no information whatsoever as to what those searches involved and whether there may be additional searches that would be appropriate to try and identify this document. If at the end of the day, following a comprehensive search, the city is able to state that

it affirmatively does not have this August 20 August 7, 2023 correspondence that interpreted the terms of the use permit, then we would be ready to move forward. But right now, there's certainly uncertainty and the decision that the city council is going to be reaching today is too important for us to rush. This is impacting the operations of two businesses in the city and we need to ensure that we are not leaving any rock unturned so that our clients have a fair shot at being heard and have the opportunity to fully understand what the city was looking at when it reached the decision that somehow this use permit was abandoned when they thought for years that they were complying. Thank you.

Okay. At what point will you be satisfied that we've done everything we can do? Serious question. I mean otherwise we'll be here forever.

And I felt as though my response just told you that if we can get an indication from the city about the search that has been performed to date to identify this particular document and if we can have an understanding as to whether there may be additional searches that could be conducted. For example, there may be other communications that were with this former business owner that were not searched because they didn't involve the current owners of AWS Shucks, for example. You know, those types of details would help us understand whether an additional search would be beneficial. And after understanding whether the search was full and complete and then have a response from the city indicating what that full complete complete search consisted of and their statement as to whether or not there are any other documents that exist that would be responsive to this request or shed light and to how this use permit was interpreted back in 2023. At that point, we would be satisfied. I don't know how long it would take the city to get to the point to be able to make that representation to us.

All right, Brian, you have more you can you can sit down now. Thank you, Brian. You have more experience than me in this situation. Could you

Well, I can tell you and if you want to hear from them personally, you could do that. I have confirmed with the city clerk, Nova Romero, and with the director of community development, Anna Janette, that they looked everywhere uh in the city's records trying to locate this August 7th, 2023 letter and have conducted that search for several weeks and they could not find it. So there is no no place else to search. So the answer is we we've done everything we can do and we're not going to find it in the future given the search we've done. There is no other place to look. Okay. So

and you can get if you want have confirmation from uh the city clerk and from Anna Janette to confirm what I just said. You could do that. Right. Anna, could you confirm that? Yeah, this is important. This is important. Yes sir. I can confirm that we've looked at all the electronic files and all the files that we thought were available or would be available and hard copies as well. We don't have many hard copies from that time. Everything is scanned or saved electron. So it's been archived already. Okay. Nova.

Um I can confirm that I did a search of um the citywide emails, which is every single email account in the city, um for a period of like the entire month of August 2023, just in case the date was off by a few days. I did different searches of uh combinations of a shucks spelling with or without the periods in between the A and the W. Um, I did searches of um just the use permit number. Um, I tried multiple ways to search and um made sure that the search was more broad than just that one date just to make sure that I was covering that whole time frame. Um, I also did a search of all emails within like a two-year period for Ashugs. And that was already released to both attorneys. And so that was like a whole two-year period that covered much more than just 2020 August 7th, 2023.

Okay. That's about as thorough as I can get. Do any council members have any questions of Nova or Anna or the attorneys at this point? All right. So, what's the process we go through now? you should discuss whether or not you want to um grant the request for a continuance. If your decision is yes, my advice would be to continue it to a date certain. Uh if your decision is not to grant the request, then you can proceed with the hearing. All right. Anybody have anything to say? Any discussion? Opinions? We have to get this. We have to get to an opinion. So, we need to start somewhere. Yeah. I'm torn between two conflicting impulses. one is, you know, Nova is a very diligent person. She is,

as she just described, those are the the types of search queries that you would that you would want to go through. Um, so it sounds like it was pretty diligent.

At the same time, you know, I am a little bit troubled because the two documents do seem to be somewhat foundational. So, it's referenced as, you know, um, here are sort of key elements of, you know, your requirements as as referenced in this email. and we don't have the email. So, that's that's concerning to me. And then, you know, again, just as a lay person, um I understand that we have the adopted we have the adopted findings, but um if I'm understanding it correctly, we don't have the the actual use permit, which is again a pretty foundational document. So, those two things are troubling to me. Um, and what I'm trying to reconcile it with is the question of will giving it another month actually meaningfully increase the probability that we actually find the documents. But um, I'm also I think the vehements of the uh the appellants. Um, you know, clearly they're very interested in these documents. So that's what's rumbling around in my head.

We do want to get this right. Jeff, I'm I'm ready to proceed. I you know Hans's question will will we will we find the documents in another month you know it sounds to me the answer to that question is no so I'm ready to proceed

um I certainly understand and respect the appellent concerns um about uh requesting the continuence um and so I'm just wondering if perhaps since everybody is here and that costs time and money um what if we went ahead with the hearing and then at the end if the appellants still feel that they um need more time than we can consider it and grant it and then continue it to the next month. Would that be something Mr. City Attorney that would be possible? You're looking at me. So, um the answer is there's no legal reason why you couldn't do that. Okay. Thank you.

Can you make can you make it more clear exactly what you're asking? It sounds like it could be problematic to me. um that we go ahead with the hearing since like I said everybody is here. Um and then we ask um the attorneys for the appellants if they still feel uh that they need that additional month where we can try as a city to look again even though we're hearing that that it's we've done everything with due diligence but in case there's some other spelling perhaps that could be entered into the computer. I don't know. I'm I'm reaching a bit here, but you know, something we can do to reassure them that we really really have given it 110% to try to find those documents. Um, and then we can continue it into the next month. But what I'm saying is since everybody is here, if we could at least get started.

I think that puts a little doubt in the whole process. But Bob, what do you think?

I think based on the last 40 minutes, I'm really glad I didn't go to law school. Um well, here's what I know. Um I know this group is always prepared. Um um I know this group um and I'll speak for myself. Um I've spent a lot of time preparing for this. Um I would tell the the um uh the appellant um you've given us a lot um including massive dumps of emails that came into our email boxes just this morning. in fact, just hours ago. So, you know, we're scrambling, too. Um and um as my dad used to say, it's um you know, it I'm I'm sorry that your um uh late planning is my problem. Um so, if you're scrambling, um I think we all are. And um I'm ready to hear this thing. Um it this this thing is off on a foot like we're fighting and you know, we're being defensive. Um, and the fact is we're just here to listen. Um, and I guarantee you we've all read everything you've given us so far. Um, I think you've done a very good job of writing your um, and preparing your uh, your case. You have a lot of information um, and you've shared it with us. Um, and I I mean we'll see whether one missing document at this point means a hill of beans worth of difference, but I I think we can get on with this thing and uh, be done with it. I don't want to go halfway. Um, so let's either start and finish um or um or grant the the extension. Um one or the other. But I don't I don't want to do any middle ground.

So Hans, are you do you want to continue? Do you want to do two want to go tonight start the hearing? I'd probably continue it, but I I'm good with the other way. Okay. Guess it's up to me. Um, I haven't heard. You said you said you want to go tonight, right? Yes. You want to go tonight? I want to go, but I want to give them an opportunity if they're still concerned if we if they need if they feel that they need more time. I'm just trying to be fair.

I'm not I'm not happy with that because that just that just sounds like you you'd like to continue it, but you're not quite sure. I I don't want to go into it with any kind of ambiguity. I really don't because then we'll just be back here again when something else comes up. Um I also don't want to have this be an issue in the future. So uh I'm ready to go tonight. I'm ready to go tonight. I I don't believe if we wait another month or two that we're going to find anything in addition. So uh unless there's anything any of you have to say, I'm I'm ready to get going on this. You're okay? I think we have agreement on all five of us at this point.

So, the next item would be to designate the time. Um, so you're proceeding with the hearing. Yes. Okay. Um, the next thing to do would be to allow the appellants. Um, and there's two um that would present their um let's call it an opening comments. Um, and under your city policies, they're allowed 10 minutes for the opening and the closing. Although sometimes I've seen where a council will give them 10 minutes for their opening and then they can reserve five minutes or have five minutes for their rebuttal. So it would be the appellants. Each of the appellants would present their case. The next step would be public comment and um uh and I should have probably said the staff report comes first. So so staff report then then the appellants could make their um case then public comment. Um, council can ask questions of staff after the staff report, of course, and then, uh, they can do their rebuttal and then come back to the council for decision.

Okay. Thank you, council, for your your comments earlier, and I think we're ready to get going. So, uh, it's time for the staff report. Thank you, Mayor Burn, council members. Anna Janette with Community Planning and Building here presenting on the AWS Shucks appeals um filed by Hudson and Martin PC for TSD Properties LP and Fenton and Keller for AWS Shucks LLC. For the record, um staff recommend staff recommended that the hearing um for A20670 and 71 be consolidated based on their um commonality. Therefore, staff's presentation will encompass both appeals. to provide the council with some context. Staff will present a a brief present staff will provide a brief presentation on background and history. Um summarize the appeal contentions and then go over the options that were provided to council in the staff report. The subject property is loc is located off of Ocean Avenue, 3 southwest of San Carlos in the central commercial or CC zoning district. City records indicate that the subject property had a bar use um going back to the ' 70s

and the owner's testimony stated that the use actually goes back to the 60s. In either case, this use was established prior to the requirement of a use permit as well as prior to identifying drinking places as a restricted use. Um, up until the mid90s, the establishment did not include any food services. So, background on permitting history. On December 8th, 1993, use permit 9345 was approved memorializing the legally established drinking place use and it allowed um it allowed food service um which is when the uh limited food sales was introduced. The use permit was conditioned uh requiring that no full kitchen um be provided. The hours of operation are also shown on the slide here. Then in March 3rd, 1994, the city issued building permit 9447 allowing installation of the following items listed on this slide. In 1995, building permit 9681 was uh applied for to install a burner and gas fryer. Corrections were provided. Um they're also shown on the slide on the left hand side stating that an amendment to the use permit was required. However, that note was um crossed out and replaced with the note below with the asterisk that states that a new application for a business license for a full-line restaurant was required. The notes in red indicate that that was done.

The permit was also um issued and final in 1996. Moving forward to 2008, there was another building permit 08168C um allowing a commercial kitchen remodel. This permit was final in n 2009 and there was no permit activity up until 2003 when the current owners acquired the business and business license 23041 was approved. That business license stated that a fullline restaurant was the primary use and that a drinking place was the ancillary use. There was a key determination by the plank commission in 2015 where they formally designated AW shucks as one of the three drinking places in the city. Then in 2023, the community planning and building director responded to an inquiry by the property owner acknowledging that the city memorialized additional cooking equipment and that their current menu was consistent with requirements. This slide here um illustrates the floor plan layout and seating for the establishment on the left and then a picture on the right. During the numerous planning commission meetings, um both the property manager and business owner operator provided testimony. The property manager presented on the land use history of the site. Um the business owner indicated that when the establishment was purchased, there was no change in use and that the use permit for the drinking place um was included in the purchase price. Both parties um desired to retain the drinking place use

permit. Ultimately, on February 11th, 2026, the planning commission was provided with two options. A draft resolution finding that the drinking establishment was abandoned was provided as well as a draft resolution finding that the that a fullline restaurant ancillary to the primary use was appropriate. The commission adopted resolution 260004 which found that the drinking establishment use was abandoned. However, the um action included allowance of the operation to continue for 6 months in order to allow the um the property owner or operator to file an application for um a permit. Um staff will now go into a summary of the appellent's contentions. Um both appellants are here so they can speak into in more detail. Um the appellants assert that the drinking establishment use was never abandoned and the planning commission's finding of abandonment conflicts with the Kreml by the sea municipal code and city determinations. The appellants site permit history and previous determinations as well as the lack of any appeals filed of those. They also site um municipal code section 171404I3D which states that a that drinking place standards shall apply if more than 20% of seats are at the bar. Um this would classify the use as a drinking place. The appellants state that the planning commission ignored this section of the code. Um staff would like to also note that on um December 10th, the planning commission stated that the seats that

are located in the oyster bar area should not be included in the bar area and count towards that 20%. Um, further the appellent states that finding of the abandonment requires an intent to abandon and that AW shucks continued to operate. Therefore, there was no clear intent. Um, the appellants also cite the previous permits and determination that staff um summarized previously. Um they also point out that based off of those permits and determinations, the owner and operator um acted in a good faith effort um thinking that they were within um the allowances of their permits. Relative to the bar operation, the appellants contend that the planning commission aired in finding that the addition of food service constituted a change in use under the drinking use permit. Um they site a um a copy of the menu which includes an extensive option extensive list of options for alcoholic beverages. They also cite that the 2023 director determination that the use was not abandoned is legally binding. They also state that the use permit um and uh municipal code do not impose revenue unit or volume limits on food sales relative to alcohol. So overall the appellants claim that these points support their contentions of vested rights and estoppel. In summary, this is the primary basis of the appeals and the appellants request that the city council consider their claims, grant the appeals, which would result in overturning the planning

commission's actions on finding the drinking establishment use abandoned. Staff has provided the council with um two options to move forward. Um first option is included in attachment one of staff's report. Uh that's a draft resolution first ordering consolidation of the appeals finding that the council's action is not a project under SQA. Um although if argued um that it is a project um the council would find that it is exempt under the common sense exemption existing facilities and minor alterations in land use limitation exemptions and that none of the exceptions do the exemptions apply in this case. Um the action also includes denying the appeals of the planning commission um finding that the drinking establishment at AW Shucks u has been abandoned. And then last um the resolution would allow AWS Shucks to continue to operate um for 6 months um from the date of February 11th, 2026. The section second option is contained in attachment two of the staff report. This draft resolution also orders consolidation of the appeals. Similar um SQA action. Um the last action though would be granting the appeals filed by TSD and a AW shucks of the planning commission's finding that the drinking establishment use has been abandoned. conditional upon the owner or applicant filing for an amendment to the use permit to omit the limited food service and add fullline restaurant as an ancillary use that is greater than 10%

as a primary drinking use or drinking establishment. Um staff would at this point staff would like to identify that two uh amendments to the appeals were received um approximately 2 hours prior to this hearing. Um staff has reviewed uh the appeals has not had the chance to review all of the attachments, but um and the appellants can speak to this. Uh it's in staff's opinion that um these do not bring up additional um contentions except for the fact that they point out that the um providing of requested documents um results in an issue with providing a fair um chance for them to make their arguments. So this concludes dash report and I am available if you have any questions. Would you like us to do questions now or have the appellants first and then have questions?

You can proceed in whatever manner you you wish. Um I think typically questions come after the staff report and before public comment. Yeah, that's normal. That's fine. Yeah, we're going to try to be normal. Okay, good. Uh so we're going to have questions. Who wants to start? Any questions? No questions. We do have one. Yeah. Okay. Go. Anna, thank you for that. Uh, could you just repeat the numbers again for um the information regarding the number of the seats of the bar and then you said there was a slight change and I didn't quite catch what you had said.

Yes. So, I will go back to this slide. Okay. So during the December 10th um planning commission hearing um staff provided um a very similar slide showing the calculation of the total seats. So, the business license indicates that there are 45 seats. Um, and then if you count the seats that are in yellow B 1 through 8 and then the seats that are kind of in gray next to the um green box, it's I cannot read from here. Um, but those seats um if you add those two together, that exceeds the um the 20%. And the planning commission thought or the planning commission opined that the seats next to the green rectangle um are the seats that are located at the oyster bar and therefore shouldn't be considered bar seats.

Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that.

Go ahead. Pardon the extemporaneous question. Um, so the planning commission's assertion is that seats at any bar, the number, excuse me, the number of seats at a bar is defined by the number of seats that are at the bar. Like I don't like I'm a little lost. So, if this was a room that had 12 seats at uh 14 seats at eight and six seats at the bar and a bunch of space like that would have 12 seats like how would we calculate the capac like what's the like I'm I'm a little lost at the the decision that the the assumption that seats at a table don't count as being bar seats Like I don't like I've been in lots of bars where you seats at a table like seats at a high is like like this a high top table where those seats are bar seats like some of them serve food and some of them don't but I've never heard I've never heard like like is that do you understand?

I do. So based on the the discussion from the planning commission, it was their determination that because of the seats that are identified in yellow are directly in front of a bar with the alcohol behind it, the bar back. Um those are bar seats and that the seats um in front of the green rectangle are seats located in front of an oyster bar that is not a a beverage bar. So it was their determination that those should not count. Um I do also

so if they let me interrupt you for a second. So if the planning commission had counted the six seats as bar seats they might have made a different decision like like was that integral to the decision they made? it was interled to the point that staff was trying to make that if you're over the 20%. Um this is the the information in the staff report that was also supported by the information provided in the white paper. Um that was years prior. um staff was trying to make the point that if if you're exceeding the 20% the code says that you have to apply the drinking place standards. If you have to apply the drinking place standards, you're effectively calling it a bar because it's restricted to three. You cannot be within 200 ft of another um establishment. And there's another one that I cannot remember, but you're effectively treating it as a bar. So,

so because the six seats in the green area weren't counted as bar seats, the planning commission decided that they didn't the like the drinking place establishment standards didn't qualify because of the six seats at the bar. They did make that point, but their point was more it acts and functions more like a restaurant and it is not. Yeah. I'm not asking about I'm asking about you know you mentioned you mentioned the code. Right.

Right. And the application of the drinking place establishment standards and that seems to rely on the classification of the six seats as something other than bar seats. It's like now I'm kind of struggling as to what we would call them like what should we call them tabletop seat. I mean if there seats at the bar and seats at tables I'm not sure what uh I'm not sure like you know out of the frying pan into the fire like I'm not sure what to like they're clearly not at a table. Staff's presentation in December was to count those six seats as bar seats.

Thank you. Yeah. So there's a apparently there's a letter in 2023 when they purchased the restaurant. There's let's just let's simplify it. Correspondence the what business license are we currently operating under to be the 23 business 2023 business tell us what that was. How was that referenced? Was it a drinking establishment license?

It was referenced as a fullline restaurant as the primary use and a drinking place as the ancillary use. Who issued that license? I believe Sur I don't know the last name. Sur Nathan who was a previous planner. Okay. So, one of our planners issued a use permit business license. A business license as a full line restaurant primary drinking place ancillary. Correct. That's correct.

Okay. What who did anyone flag that that was inconsistent with it being a drinking establishment primarily? Because I think that's what's being said here. I do not have any records of that. No one at the time said, "Wait a minute. Wait a minute. We're a drinking establishment with a with a alternative use of a full service restaurant. This is important because that's right when they bought the restaurant. Right. Right. And that business license was required because there was a change in ownership. Okay. So the 2023,

but the business license said it's a full service restaurant with an ancillary use of a drinking establishment. I just want to make sure that's clear.

Yes. Apologies. I'm looking for a copy of that permit which I may not have. do not have a copy of the business license in front of me, but I maybe or mayor we can get that for you and answer that question. So, let's let's we'll get it before

J can go look. So, what type of Wait a second. Maybe they found it.

So, uh approval and conditions 1A of the business license um date of the action is August 8th, 2023. A states primary use. The use is classified as a fullline restaurant. Um, parenthesy N AICS number 722511 and parenthesy approval of this permit authorizes the establishment of a fullline restaurant selling a full line of prepared food and drinks for on-site consumption using non-disposable plates, glasses, and utensils. This use is permitted per use permit UP9345 AWS Shucks/Murray Weaver/Paul Elliot. The restaurant is authorized 49 interior seats. Section B, ancillary use, drinking place primarily or drinking place parenthesy and IC S number 722410 and parenthesy primarily engaged in preparing and serving alcoholic beverages for immediate consumption. operate from 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. Friday and Saturday.

Okay. What ABC license type does AWS Shucks currently hold and held when they acquired the restaurant? I do not have that information. And mayor, I would I would offer that the the state license doesn't have any relevant Star City license. There's no requirements for what type of licenses people carry from the state for our use permits or business licenses. So, we don't know what kind of license they have. We We can look it up, but it's not It doesn't Is it Is it a drinking establishment? I don't know what they're called officially. Is it Is it the type of license that you need to be one of the three drinking establishments or is it a regular restaurant license? You mean from the state? Yes.

Um I I I wouldn't be able to answer that at the moment. Okay. Can we find that out? I guess I can find out from the from the appellent. Yeah, we can we can try to look that up. So, your question is what what licenses from the state do you need to be able to sell alcohol, hard alcohol? If I'm not mistaken, there's like a special license for a drinking establishment where you don't have food. So, the state the state doesn't care what we call it. The state doesn't care if we call it a drinking establishment. And in our code, our our code allows for a drinking establishment to be the primary use, but have other uses. So, a drinking establishment can sell food. Okay?

So, the state doesn't really care about what we call it. Um, there are different types of liquor licenses. Some allow for serving alcohol only, and some allow for serving alcohol and food. So, someone who had a drinking establishment use permit in the city of Carm by the Sea could technically operate under either state license, but that's not something that we we bear our decisions on. So, it doesn't matter. Yeah. Okay. Good. Thank you. All right. Anybody have a question before we open it up? Okay. So, I think next we're going we're going to combine the public comments, I believe, after we hear from everybody. And we've asked all our questions. Okay. You right. If you're done if you're done with questions, then um you would give the appellants. I think we said 10 minutes each and and then public comment.

Okay. Thank you, Anna. I'm just Yes. No question for Oh, good. Can you confirm 2015? Is that when this regime of three drinking establishments, is that when it was initially created? No. No, that's just when it was reaffirmed. It was reaffirmed in 2015. I believe that was based off of another permit for another drinking established bar. Okay. Which required a report. All right. Who wants to go? question. You're going first.

I don't know if I'm necessarily going first, but I had a preliminary question regarding timing. In terms of the 10 minutes, when we initially were informed about the hearing today, we were told that at least for TSD Carmel Properties, we would have 15 minutes and now I'm hearing 10. Was the 15 minutes intended to be 10 minutes plus 5 minutes for rebuttal? Yes. Okay. Okay. And then for clarification now that 10 minutes we have 10 minutes and then uh AW shucks also has 10 minutes. Correct. Correct. Correct. Okay. Why don't you go ahead? Thank you. I'd like I'd like to make sure that's good. We want to make sure you have enough time.

Yeah. I'm I'm going to be quick. The business license that was signed into in on August 28, 2023 was triggered by a change of ownership, not by a change of use. Number one, the form permit that you fill out to get a business license has very limited choices of the types of business uses that you are. Um, it's not like there was a a a rest fullline restaurant box to check and and a bar uh box to check. So they the the business license was signed the same afternoon after then director Swanson sent his email saying, "Yes, in 2015, the planning commission confirmed that the your existing use conforms with its drinking establishment use." And so based on that representation, um the document was signed. um the planning commission's stated in its findings and decision that a business license does not amend a use permit. And so again, there was no use that changed. Um and and what's really unfortunate about this is the planning commission um in their finding of abandonment that they really abandoned their own decision. They they were the body that before a public hearing on September 23rd, 2015 considered and affirmed the fact that AW shucks as currently operating conformed to the drinking form to the drinking establishment use. There has been no change in that use since 2008 when the last permit was issued. They were issued 94, 95, 96, 2008. Fast forward to 2015. The planning commission affirms the decision. Then director Swanson in 2023,

August 28 to be specific, uh, affirms in writing that that is the case, essentially making a director's determination that was appealable, that was not appealed, that the Ashucks representatives and the landlord relied on and signed that document. Nothing changed um until the planning commission abandoned its own findings and instead unfortunately tried to cast it off on staff and said, "Well, we're not bound by the mistakes of our staff." Well, it wasn't a mistake of staff. It was the planning commission's own decision that they forgot about or abandoned. There's been no change whatsoever. Um so that's point number one. And point number two is there there has been a lot of talk um and the commissioners from the dis made comments to the effect of no harm no foul. Um there was there was no evidence that they pointed to to support the decision u and finding that there would be no harm no foul. Um, and so with that, um, I'd like to introduce Clark Savage of Savage Accountancy in Carmemell, who is, um, a business appraisal, uh, appraiser and an accountant. He can give you his, um, his credentials. And we submitted a report this afternoon. Um, and he's going to just sort of walk you through a little bit of that.

Good evening. Um, oh, somebody put my slide up. Thank you very much. Can I interrupt for just one minute? No, you're still running the 10-minute clock. Yes. Okay. Could you could you give since it's not on the screen, could you give them at least a one minute notice that they're near time, please? No. At least one minute. Just they need to know that they're getting close. Okay.

I'm a certified public accountant in Carmemell and an accredited senior appraiser with the American Society of Appraisers. I also am certified in financial forensics. Um, I've practiced in Monterey County for approximately 40 years. I've got about 44 years total as a certified public accountant and um, I work um, significantly in business appraisal and business damages cases. Um, we I have about 24 slides here, but we thought we had 15 minutes, so I don't know if I'm going to be able to get too far into this. Um, if I could interrupt you just just for the audience's sake, did you make this presentation to the planning commission or is this new information? I'm sorry.

Did you present this information to the planning commission or is this new? This is this is new information. I was I was asked to examine the record and consider whether or not the decision might lead to damages for um for the parties there. Thank you. I'm sorry for interrupting.

Okay. Um, so in August of two 2023, Randy and Karen Bassie acquired the bar AWS Shucks. As we know, it's one of three drinking establishments. Um, in that transaction, they paid for something that we consider in business appraisal to be a very fragile asset, and that's goodwill. And the way the way goodwill works in a transaction, the way accountants look at goodwill is they look at goodwill as the residual amount you pay to acquire a business after identifiable assets. For example, physical assets and identifiable intangible assets like the liquor license and covenant against competition. So once we consider the purchase price against the value assigned for the physical assets and identifiable and tangible assets, the residual the way accountants look at it is the amount of goodwill in this case $1.3 million. So for for this, you know, lovely bar they acquired that has a niche and special aspects to it that really speak to the goodwill. Um, we we can address why would anybody pay for goodwill? Well, in every business transaction except for in a a liquidating business going through bankruptcy and maybe auctioned off, there's always an amount paid that's over and above the um value of the tangible and intangible identifiable intangible assets. So that um the the buyer and the seller make an arms length agreement about what what the fair market value will be in that transaction and the residual amount. The way accounts look at it is goodwill but the way appraisers look at it is we want to see the underpinnings. When we advise a client to pay that amount over and above the value of the t the identifiable intangibles and the value of the physical assets they're acquiring. We want to know what the

underpinnings are. And in this case, there's very strong branding. There's a there's a a business model that supports an extensive bar menu and a facility designed as a drinking establishment and the competitive advantage of the use permit 9345. And then the operating systems of a bar. You can see from the branding side um it's designated as a bar and the high the highlight reel shows cocktails are the main are the main item. Um the brand is um a a key issue for success in business. uh customer awareness and expectations is is uh deliberable from the company and it's supported by the marketing and the and the word of mouth in the community. Uh branding also gives you differentiation such as um scarcity of the item you have and it creates the demand. Finally, the credibility and reliability of the results allow a business to charge premium pricing and have long-term sustainability. We prepared a retrospective valuation at the date of acquisition. And we determined based on the market approach to valuation that a premium over and above the the what we would what we would have advised probably without considering the location and and the use permit was about $450,000. So that's that's a large component of that 1.3 million in goodwill. And that's just based on market transaction data we have. And also we have uh we have good ties with local business brokers so we can get we can get local data. Also um the principle of substitution says that when you go in to buy a small business I'm going to go quickly over this. It's it's probably the least safe thing to do compared to putting your money in a savings account or buying a public

company that's liquid that you could sell like that if you decide to get out of the market. Um, so there's a due diligence process that a buyer goes through and they investigate the uh the background and the underpinnings of the transaction much more deeply than if you say you're going to go put money in a bank account. So throughout all that um effort that the buyer has to go through to make the acquisition um they of course discover the existence of the use permit and that's a key consideration for being willing to go along with the investment. Goodwill impairment is something that appraisers consider. Um, it can be impaired, goodwill can be impaired by a damage to a brand. It can be impaired by profitability challenges or disruptions. For example, regulatory disruptions.

You have two minutes. How much? Two minutes left.

Okay. We're not going to make it. Um, so um anyways, this resolution will have impacts on um customer expectations. As you can see, the facility is configured as a bar. All the seats are hightop except for um uh one four top that's ADA compliant. So, the whole place is set up as a bar. It's branded as a bar. Um the menu is substantially related to uh selling spirits and the food the food offerings are 75% cold food, which is not how a full-line restaurant is configured. Um there's your there's your kitchen. There's your full service kitchen.

It's pretty tiny, but you know, it's obviously not not the kind of kitchen you'd find in a full service restaurant. One minute.

There's the configuration of the bar seating. The whole place when you go in, it looks like a bar. Um, so what would happen if they lost the if they lost their um use permit? Well, they'd lose their competitive advantage. Um, they'd have to do head-to-head competition with other full-ervice restaurants. um it would not be consistent with the current business model and not consistent with the physical plant that we just looked at. Um there'd be loss value and loss profits coming from everything from um having to having to rebrand and to remodel and expand the kitchen. Uh so the we did three damages computations. We considered loss profits, loss in value, and a total loss of investment. Um, for loss profits, we calculated a loss business opportunity over the remaining life of the lease of 1.3 million. Um, for loss of value, we looked at, you know, revamping the business model and

go ahead and give us your closing. Give us give us the high point here. The high point here is the the loss in value would be 1.4 million. And then if it's a total loss and the owners just decide to walk away and not spend more money remodeling and don't put good money after bad, there'd be a total loss of their investment, which is about 1.9 million. And that's it. Right. Thank you. Very interesting. Thank you. Appreciate it.

Okay. So, all right. So, I guess it's time for the next appellence. Whoa. That's a that's a lot for 10 minutes. Well, in consideration of the short time that we have as well as the public records act uh I'm sorry the uh the requirements leading into the um meeting today where everything can be submitted about 2 hours before the hearing. We wanted to ensure that you all had hard copies of the addendums.

Uh yes. If so, I wanted to make sure that each of the council members had the opportunity to actually see the addendum that we had filed prior to today's hearing. There's about 200 something pages. I need I need to interrupt. Um uh have these documents been posted on the website? I'm asking the city clerk. Yes, both the um the appeal addendum that was received this afternoon and then the um the I think it was 200 pages I got from Fenton and Keller at about 4:00. Both of those have been posted on the city's website. So, they're both public. And what about what are the documents that are in this notebook?

They are the same as what has been posted. I'm happy to provide a copy to the clerk so that she has Yeah, it looks like the same as what? That's fine. And when were they posted? Pardon me. When were the when were these documents posted? Um, they were posted this afternoon. Um, every time I got something new, I reposted it. So, it was continuously being updated this afternoon. So, like 1:00.

So, the most recent update was at 4:00, but before that, I had already posted um Christina's letter. These documents were submitted at approximately 2:00 p.m. about 2 and 1 half hours prior to the hearing in accordance with the notice meeting requirements. But we wanted to ensure of course that you all had the opportunity to review because as I indicated earlier, this is really a critical hearing and we want to ensure that the council is reaching an informed decision about the appeals that are being presented today. As stated earlier, my name is Christina Goldblesman. I represent the landowner TSD Carmel Properties LP. Our time this afternoon of 10 minutes will be split between myself and one of the property owners so that you have the opportunity to really understand the impact that this decision has on one of your local business owners. As indicated in this addendum that we filed this afternoon, um we did have objection to decision to potentially not continue this matter given the importance of it and the possibility that there could be additional documents. We do understand that the city council is moving forward at this time. So we are moving forward with the understanding that the record we have before us is the full record of what the city has with respect to this use permit. We also objected to the decision by the city council not to hold a site inspection prior to the hearing. As indicated earlier today, the layout of the bar is critical into understanding whether it meets the Carmel Municipal Code requirements for a drinking establishment. It's been presented in the papers that were filed as well as at prior planning commission meetings that at least 20% of the seats need to be at the bar or in the bar room. And it's our position that that requirement has been met since 1993. We submitted with the addendum examples of the different floor plans that existed over time. So for example, if you were to turn to exhibit number

14 in what we have provided to you, there is an example of what the layout for the establishment looked like at at the time that the use permit was adopted. So about 1993 and then 1994. I need to interrupt again. Um so the council is looking at what you've just directed them to. Um, Nova, can you put that up on the screen and can you also stop the clock while

Yeah, here I'll pause it for right now. Council, could I ask is there going to be some other exhibits that you refer them to? And if so, can you tell us what they are so the clerk can get them queued up in case there's a need?

Certainly. Let me know when you're ready. Okay. There should be bookmarks in the electronic copy that can help orient you in terms of identifying the exhibits. If not, I could provide you a hard copy that we could use on the projector.

Um, I'm not trying to see what would be easiest.

Pardon me.

I do not have the PDF. Sorry. And then in terms of the attorney's question difficult to locate.

Yes. So is this exhibit 14? Yes. Start the clock. Start the clock again, though.

So, what you see before you in exhibit 14 is a blueprint. It's a layout of the restaurant in about 1993, 1994. So, in 1993, the use permit was approved to add food to this bar. And then this permit, I'm sorry, this plan was produced in order to affect that. As you can see on this particular screen, there's an entire bar that runs along the lefthand side and there are seats at that bar. As shown earlier today, there is still a bar in that place. There are still seats in that place. There's also a kitchen and the kitchen is in the same place as it was in 1994, in 1995, in 1996, in 2008, in 2015. All of those years are relevant because those are dates when there were building permits that were issued to change out the equipment in the kitchen. The actual footprint of that kitchen never changed. The location of the seats never changed. And what's really important for the purposes here today is that when we are talking about is AWS Shucks meeting the Carmel Municipal Code requirement of a drinking place, the answer is yes because more than 20% of its seats are located at the bar. this discussion relating to where it's driving its revenue from, what type of licenses ha it has, it's not relevant in terms of determining compliance with the code. And because these operations have remained the same for over 30 years, there was never any reason, no reason whatsoever, for our client, the land owner, to think that there was a problem when the new owners came in in 2023. to ensure that the use permit was still being complied with when the new owners came in. They reached out to the city to ensure that they understood the effect of the change of ownership and they received that written confirmation that as long as they continue to operate as they had been back in 2008 when the last building permit was approved, everything was fine. And so they continued to believe in good faith that the operations were compliant with the use permit. At no point was there any

expression by my client or by AWS Shucks that they ever intended to abandon this use permit. So what happened? How is it that the planning commission came to the determination back in February that this use permit was abandoned? Well, we think the planning commission made several errors. They misinterpreted the law. They misinterpreted the facts. And more than anything, they didn't come into the hearing with a clear, impartial view of the way that the proceeding was supposed to go. And what I'm talking about is due process. As we indicated in the addendum that we filed earlier today, there were irregularities in the way that this use permit inquiry was handled that implicate due process violations. our client tsd caramel properties LP and honestly AWS Shucks were not given a fair chance, a fair process to have a fair impartial body decide whether or not this use permit was actually ever abandoned or even violated in the first instance. From the outset of this inquiry, our client was never even notified. Apparently, according to the planning department, they initially received an inquiry in February 2025 alleging that there were violations of the AWS Shucks use permit. Our client was never informed. In fact, our client didn't find out until months later by accident at a Rotary Club meeting in October 2025, shortly before a scheduled planning commission meeting. We submitted public records act requests trying to understand how this inquiry came about. We never got anything indicating that there was an inquiry commenced in February 2025. Instead, we received a March 2025 email from Parker Logan alleging that there were gross violations of the use permit. That appears to have been the communication that initiated this entire inquiry. From there, it appears as though Parker Logan and his council, who

represents Sades, as well as Espirans, a Carmel Commercial LLC, were in communication with the city regarding the inquiry and the investigation and the planning commission. They ended up actually submitting an application for this exact use permit, even though it hadn't been abandoned, in July 2025. And in that application, there was a letter referenced earlier where Parker Logan states that a hurdle had been crossed. AWS Shucks is no longer operating as a drinking place essentially, but I can refer you to exhibits that we provided to you in the addendum that you can refer to and we do ask that you review and consider before you reach a decision on this. Ma'am, to let you know there are 3 minutes left.

From there, Mr. Logan and Sades and Espenza Carmel continued to be in contact with the city, including through August 2025. They asked for updates about the abandonment finding. And at this point, our client still had no idea what was going on, had never been notified. Then in September 2025, on the same day, there was an email from the mayor to Parker Logan regarding about finding a solution to help Sades. That same day, there was an email from the planning director to AWS Shuck's owner indicating that they needed to talk about the use permit. Within two weeks, the first planning commission meeting was scheduled. We don't think at any point that there was a fair process. This series of events is irregular and it raises a lot of questions. Why wouldn't the city inform tsd and a wshocks about an inquiry came in alleging that they were non-compliant with their use permit when it came in in March 2025? Why would the city instead have substantial communications with council for Sades and Espiranto Carmel LLC and Parker Logan instead of our clients about the use permit? Why would the city set the matter for a planning commission meeting without even informing our client? Why did he have to find out by accident at a Rotary Club meeting? And then why would the planning commission, when they finally have the opportunity to hear this, disregard the continuous operations under the use permit? Disregard the city and planning commissions pass decisions that should bind them as to whether or not this operation is considered a drinking place under the Carmel Municipal Code. Why would they disregard the harm and the deemed abandonment would have on ts and tsd and AW shucks? And by the way, we do mention our addendum, a specific number of $2 million in damages that our clients going to have. And we did preview that with the planning commission who was not interested. And then why would TSD disregard I'm sorry, why would the planning commission disregard TSD and AWS Shuck's request in February 2026 to allow them to explore the alternative resolution of

potentially amending the use permit? so that they could stay in operation as they could. This whole thing was presented to our clients as an opportunity to clean up the paperwork. It was never that. Instead, at the end of the day, they're here without any use permit whatsoever. That's not cleaning up the paperwork. That is taking away a use permit. That is a government taking and it's clearly that it was intended from the series of events to benefit two other private entities, Sades and Landowner where its new uh business is going to go. That's Espiranza Carmel LLC. So, at the end of the day, this is not due process. They there's not been a fair hearing and we really want the city council to seriously consider what's occurred here. Also, as we raised in the addendum, we had some concerns that perhaps there might be conflicts or appearances of impropriy that may have required some of the city council members to recuse themselves as they have had in the past year due to connections with the two parties that stand to benefit from the taking of this use permit. And to my knowledge, there's been no recusals today. How much time do we have?

14. All right. Well, that will conclude my portion. Thank you. Nice presentation.

All right. Um, so let's see the order of this. I think we were going to ask questions now, right? No, it would be public comment. Okay. We're going to do an unusual thing. Okay. public comment first. How many people want to make a public comment before we start? Okay, not too many. If you took up all my time, that's what attorneys do. Uh my name's John Plastini. I guess I have three minutes. I think you all know me. I'm TSD Carmel Properties president. Uh I run the building for the uh Dow family 38 years now.

I'm sitting back there. Want to jump up and answer all the questions because I go back 38 years. I was there in 2015 when Commissioner Baron was struggling with the seats. I was there with Mark Winer when they were trying to determine 2015 the drinking was out of control at late night in Carmel. They wanted to curb it. Okay. So, they established the three drinking establishments. There was a meaningful review. They looked at if you look at the record, there was a meaningful review. Uh there was Barell, there was Sades, there was AWS Shucks, there's the Red Lion and I believe Brophies and they narrowed it down. They looked at AWS Shucks and when you look at AD of Shucks, the question with the seating drives me crazy. Okay, the code says 20%, we have 45 seats. 20% of that is nine. That's all you could have at the bar. We have 14. There's too many seats that dictated it. When Mark Winer was in there, we looked at it. When you walk in there, it's a bar. We specifically I acted in good faith. I made sure that there were high top tables. They're 24 inches wide. They're all hightop seats. It was always a bar. When you walk in there, it's a bar. And that's what Mark determined. And if you look at the review there, where you get confused with the restaurant versus bar, he determined it was a drinking establishment, restaurant, bar. That's what it says. It had equal weight. Okay. The problem that you have is with ABC and acting director Brandon Swanson. I want to get the titles right. Anyway, uh a 47 from ABC you have to have food. Okay. A 48, which Mercedes has, is what we refer to as a dive bar. It's not a derogatory statement. It just means that 18 and above and no food services. So therefore, by default, they have to have a 47. And when the state says it's a

restaurant bar, that's what Mark used. He says, "Well, you're a restaurant and bar because but you don't use a restaurant bar." So the paper was was faulted at the very beginning. We should have corrected it then. Now, I've worked with staff for 38 years. Most of you weren't here then. Sorry. But I've always had a very good relationship with the city. And every time we've had a problem, we resolved it. I see in town where there's so many violations out there. I don't see the city taking anything away. I see them working with them. That's what I thought we were doing. Anna, when I found it in a Rotary meeting, there's a uh uh you're on the agenda. What are you talking about? We're on the agenda. Met with Anna. We went through everything. The key thing is it was approved in 2015. I did my paperwork. Brandon Memorial's at when we said are we good? We are good. 2028, uh, August 28th, I had the letter that signed. The problem is the the new owner that's there. They don't know. They have no idea what all the They just signed what they told them and they thought it's a restaurant bar. So, I'm here to answer questions, too, because I've read all that. I feel sorry for you. There is so much paperwork there. Uh, uh, anyway, so look, where do we go from here? There's only two things. We work with you. Well, we wind up in a lawsuit. I don't want to be there. And the questions you're going to be asked in front of a judge or a jury, I don't know which one it is. Why did you need to do this? Why did you need to hurt that? Because you had paperwork that would fix it. You had an option, too. The other thing is, no one brought it up. Did anybody explore? Maybe it's time to look at the drinking establishments in town and maybe we should make a fourth use which would satisfy all parties. Mayor, his time's up. Give him more time. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, John, for providing your side of this. Hello, my name is Bob Rosenthal. I am a local attorney. I am a customer of Shucks. I was a customer of Sades. Um, I'm at a loss to understand either TDS or TSD's or Shucks motivation behind her taking this position. Um, nothing is at stake. They have nothing to lose. I listened to Clark Savage's presentation. I'd love to get him on the stand and cross-examine him because again, he has opinions, but he gave you no facts to support those opinions as to how these damages are calculated on a license, on a permit that can't be transferred, on a permit that can't be sold. There's no rebranding that's necessary. What will they lose? They'll lose nothing. Why are they fighting this? Why are they Why are we here? We're here because the landowner wants to retain in the in their back pocket this permit. There's no other reason for it. There's no other damages to be suffered regardless of what they may think is worth $250,000 or whatever it is. By upholding this appeal, you're going to be ignoring the code. you're going to be ignoring all evidence uh that shows that the restaurant is the primary use. Look at the state documents, the ABC documents. Look at the business license documents. There's plenty of evidence to support what this is. The seating, look at the look at the ABC application where it shows that those green seats that they say are bar seats, they reflected those seats as being dining seats in their application.

But the thing I really want to talk about is this claim that there's not a fair process I think was council's use. I practiced here for 50 years. I'm shocked by the gamesmanship that's being demonstrated been demonstrated here today and the attempts the threats of litigation. You can threaten anybody can threaten litigation. Winning is another ball ball game. Having the facts and having the law to support that litigation is another ball game. And for them to make this motion to continue, for them to bring in a CPA who's providing an opinion on damages and new evidence that wasn't put before the planning commission that the documents haven't been given to any of the public to look at. I've never seen them. for them to give binders of documents two hours before the hearing, other documents at 4 pm before the hearing. I suggest to this council if they're going to take this evidence that's been put before you that this now I'm I would suggest the public deserves a continuence so we can review Mr. Savages re report report, his appraisal, the basis for that. And and my time is up, but don't don't be intimidated by threats of litigation. Anybody can threaten litigation. Judge your make your judgment based on your code and based on the law and the facts and not based on Parker Logan as not being liked in this town. This isn't about Parker Logan. This isn't about tsd. It's not about shucks. It's about your code. It's about correcting mistakes that have been made in the past.

Okay. Thank you.

You can hold You can hold the applause, please.

Uh good evening, mayor and council members. Um uh my name is John Atwell. I come here as a resident, citizen, a taxpayer, and a voter. And get get that perspective in here. Um, excuse me while I put on my glasses. I forget how blind I am now. Um, this issue is very simple. Um, city policy requires that restaurants operate as bonafide restaurants whereas where food sales exceed alcohol and alcohol is secondary. Um, as reported uh recently in the publication Monterey County Now, uh, AWS Shucks operates with a roughly 5:1 ratio of food to alcohol sales. Uh, by definition that is a restaurant, not a drinking establishment. Uh, and the planning commission um, and I was there for that has already said exactly that. um they rightly acted to enforce the code and gave clear direction uh either operate as a true bar or surrender the permit. Um so the question uh before you is not complicated really. Uh will a city enforce its own rules or make exceptions that undermine them? Uh we are talking about a permit which is has been spoken about here which has not been used by AW shucks for over 30 years. Um, and by a restaurant that closes at 8:30 p.m. Um, not exactly drinking establishment hours. Um, drinking establishment permits are scarce in this city by design. Uh, they exist for a purpose, economic regulatory, and to maintain the character of Carmel by the Sea, which we all hold dear. Um, when a permit is held by a business that doesn't meet the definition of a drinking establishment, it's not merely a technical issue. Uh,

it's a misallocation of a very valuable public resource. Um, it's a loss of tax revenue flowing from the city uh from that permit. That permit uh is not the property of the the permit. it is the property of this city and it is granted there and that permit is it exists uh in order to to create revenue. Um and and any loss of tax revenue flowing to the city from that permit uh leaves us taxpayers on the line to to make up the difference. Uh and so it comes at that cost and more uh to fairness to consistency uh and as said to the city's own financial uh interest. Um this is not about taking anything away. It's about aligning permits with reality. Um Sades is the oldest operating business in the city operating continuously for over 100 years. Um, where is our where is our protect our history rhetoric we hear so often here in Carmel. Um, AWS Shucks is a well- reggarded restaurant. It should be recognized as one and permitted as such. Um,

all right. Thank you. Nothing more, nothing less. Uh, and just in conclusion, if the rules mean something, they must apply here. And if they don't apply here, then they don't mean anything at all. Thank you. Thank you. Hello, mayor. Hello, council. Hello.

Good evening. My name is Michael Sapon. My wife and I were owner operators of AWS Shucks Oyster Bar for 16 and 1/2 years from 2007 to 2023. We purchased the business through Cornell Business Sales in November of 2006 in which eight Wshucks was listed as one of three bars in Cornell by the Sea. We used the existing laminated food and cocktail menus for the first year to build trust of the locals that we weren't going to change the concept. Reasons we paid the high price and it was high. Number one being only one of three bars in Carmemell, especially the only one on Ocean Avenue located in the center of town. Number two, being one of three bars with the right to stay open till 2:00 a.m. Number three, the long lease terms offered by the landlord TSD Carmemell Properties and some of the longest in Carmemell. Lastly, the opportunity to improve. And we we loved that restaurant when we first saw it. Throughout our 16 plus years, we had the great support from locals, city employees, and officials, including city mayors, city council members, and the police and fire departments. We've always been known as one of three cocktail bars in Cornell by the Sea and we never had any issues with the city or police department. On numerous occasions, we operated past midnight. Here are all of our ads 2007 8 9 and 10 of our Halloween contest parties lasting past midnight

with the first prize of $500. They're all here. They were advertised in the pine cone. Okay. We also facilitated several late night parties for weddings, bachelorette parties, and during the concourse the elegance. We didn't advertise that. People came to us and they wanted to facilitate that. Okay. In 2023, we sold AWS Shucks Cocktail and Oyster Bar to Karen and Randy Bassie. It was clear that AWS Shucks was not only an oyster bar, it was also one of three designated bars in Carmel by the Sea, which added value to both parties. Not only did it not only did the bar designation add value to Ashucks, it was great importance to the Dow Arcade and TSD Carmel properties. We are here to support AW Shucks and Oyster and TSD properties to keep its historic designation as one of three bars in coming by the sea. Thank you very much. And thank you. Thank you. Uh, good evening, council and Mayor Burn. Uh, my name is Jason Rderer. I'm speaking here on behalf of Parker Logan. Um, I already submitted fairly extensive comments for the council's consideration, so you should have received those. Um, don't intend to belabor the point, but let's call a spade a spade. The sole focus of the council's deliberation should be on the operational characteristics of AWS Shucks to determine whether the restricted drinking place use has been discontinued and abandoned. All the facts and evidence support that AWS Shucks is not operating as a drinking place and instead is operating as a full-line restaurant consistent with all the other restaurants with a fullline menu and a physical bar. The last time a

drinking place operated in that space was Maxwell McFly prior to 1993. How do we know that? Because if you look at the staff report from 1993 relative to the use permit to add the Oyster Bar, it stated that the existing operation at that time was a business that operated exclusively as a drinking place with no kitchen, food preparation, or display and no food sales with operating hours from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. daily. Anna pointed out in her October staff report to the planning commission, Ashucks has been operating in a consistent manner as a fullline restaurant since 1996, 30 years ago. 1996 is when Ashucks installed the stock pot burner and the gas fryer. And then a full-blown kitchen uh commercial kitchen permit was issued in 2009 and that added a char broiler, a griddle, and two burners and an oven. Anna goes on to state that AWS Shucks is currently counted in the existing inventory of restaurants running on Ocean Avenue where only 15 restaurants are allowed. There is more evidence that Ashucks is a restaurant, not a drinking place. The restaurant closes at 8:30 during the week, 9:00 on weekends. The liquor license that has been issued to AWS Shucks prohibits AWS Shucks from operating as a drinking place. We heard that earlier. AW Shucks even declared under penalty of perjury in the application for the license that it would be operating as a restaurant with only 25% of the to total sales would be from alcohol. The application also called out the seating in front of the Oyster Bar as quote unquote dining seats and I provided you a copy of that application in the uh comments that I submitted yesterday. Our letter provides a list of other evidence and facts that demonstrates this is a restaurant. It's not a drinking place. The fact that building permits were issued for a kitchen, which clearly should have required an amendment to their use permit, just reinforces that the drinking place use has been abandoned. Don't be intimidated

by threats of litigation. Anybody can file a lawsuit for $435. That doesn't mean they're going to succeed. Takings litigation is very complicated and rarely successful. Even more rare is for a court to hold that a city cannot enforce its zoning code based on prior mistakes or misrepresentations by staff. Had the current debate that we're having here, the planning commission had for four hearings and the evidence that has been presented with the planning commission, had we had that debate in 2015, I feel pretty confident that the planning commission would have made the same decision. If the council is inclined to grant the appeal, I would urge the council to find in the resolution that any drinking place use was grandfathered in prior to the 2004 ordinance establishing the limit of three and that one permit remains available for future use if that's the direction this commission or council wants to go. Thank you.

Could you repeat could could you repeat that last your last statement? I want to make sure. So, I think that if the if the city council would like to uphold or or grant this appeal that it should make a determination that this drinking place use at this location that apparently has been in existence for 60 or 70 year years should be grandfathered in a grandfathered use that predates the 2004 ordinance that established it as a that established the limitation on three restricted uses. So that would mean that there could be one available uh uh drinking place permit that could potentially be issued for future use by whoever. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. How many more remaining? So

good evening, mayor. If you can keep your comments as as short as possible. We we need because otherwise we're going to take a break for dinner before you finish. For sure.

All right. Thanks. Um um I'm here to support uh Randy and Karen Bassie, owners of Ashucks. Um I have known the Bassies for the past 10 years and can attest to their law-abiding nature, successful business ownership, and dedication to providing residents and tourists with an exceptional experience at their bar. The Vassis were thrilled to purchase AWS Shucks in July of 2023, knowing the privilege of being one of only three bars allowed within the city. Since its establishment in 1993, a AWS Shucks has been known for its high-end cocktails, fun atmosphere, and great food. The Bassies have continued this tradition, catering to both liquor connoisseurs and regular patrons alike. I'm concerned about the recent determination by the planning commission that AWS Shucks operates more like a restaurant and bar, potentially changing its designation and imposing negative fiscal implications to this business. This decision appears to be have been made without due process or prior communication with the owners, leaving them in a difficult situation. I urge the planning commission to reconsider this determination and work collaboratively with Abassis to find a solution that allows AWS Shucks to continue operating as a successful bar within the city limits. Changing the designation to a full line restaurant could have significant consequences for the business affecting its hours of operation and bar seating capacity both of which does not align with their original vision AWS Shucks when they purchased it. I believed I believe that AWS Shucks adds values to the community and should be supported in its effort to provide a unique and enjoyable experience for its patrons. Thank you for considering my perspective on this matter.

Thank you,

Mr. Mayor, Council. How is everybody tonight? David Fank. Um, I'm a wind trick pony. I'm a hotel and restaurant tour my whole life and uh 25 restaurants and six hotels and a few good ones here in Carmel by the Sea. Um I had a speech written, but I'm just going to go off the hip here. I think this hearing is bad for business. Uh you know, Randy and Karen bought um Michael and Michelle's business thinking that they were getting one thing and now they're going to get another thing. Well, you know, I created all of my businesses here. I bought the Sundown Maid Leair. We created Aubberine, Carmel Beach Hotel, blah blah blah. Buché, Luca 400, Park City, Stein, Ericson, Hieldsburg. Heelsburg and Yanville are the best cities you could possibly want to be in business in to work with staff. I love our staff here. It's always been very difficult to be in business here. This hearing is bad for business. I consider that I know why we're here. I love Parker. He stirred the pot. Said, "Hey, they're they're not Shucks is a bar that serves food." How many scotches do they have? Anybody know? I think about 200. 200 is a bar that serves food. I go there once a week. I, you know, it's 30 seconds from my house. Wonderful. But you can solve this easily. Let their Let them stay in place. Issue another permit or two. It's not going to move the dial here. You know, Carmemell is incredibly boring. I live downtown. I I've created a lot here. And Hans, you know this. We need some more life here. We really do. So, you can do the right thing tonight. You should leave what they have in place. Issue another permit or two. Hell, maybe I'll open a bar. But anyway, thank you very much.

Hello, good evening and thank you for hearing me out. Um, Mayor Burns and um, member of the city council. My name is Rorowena Waters. That probably sounds familiar, but um, I'm the uh, general manager and have been uh, proudly employed with AW Shucks for nearly two decades. And um many of our cooks have also been with us for over 20 years. And several of our servers have dedicated more than 5 years of our team. And um this level of longevity speaks volumes about who we are. Uh we have remained in business since 1933. It started out as um Whitney's Bar um when it was first opened as Whitney's. uh the history that history is something that we are proud of and it reflects the lasting uh relationship we have built over generations. Um AW Sharks is more than just a workplace. Uh it's a second family and for some even a first. That sense of belonging carries over into how we treat other um how we treat every guest who walks through our doors. Um, our customers are not just patrons. They are treated like family. They are welcome with genuine warmth, respect, and a level of care that makes them feel truly special. And that's what makes AW Shucks really special. As many of you know back there, it's common for us to hear quote unquote, "This is always our first to go, our first stop." whether um they're visiting for drinks, food, or uh simply familiar uh friendly faces. Um our local community knows that they can count on us for consistent top tier service and a welcoming atmosphere. Whether you

consider us as a restaurant, a bar, or both, one thing remains the same. Every guest is treated as one of a kind. And uh I have witnessed that throughout my career with AWS Shucks. And I'm so grateful for um Karen and Randy Bassie. They are genuinely the the true and kindest and um just real people. And not only that, but Michael and Michelle. They are like my family as well. And they have just been so consistent with um you know, just treating everybody there with so much respect. Um so that's what makes Shucks so special and that that is why customers continue to return. Uh we actually had a visitor from New Zealand because of AW Shucks. Now if that tells you there how many more other customers that you know visit us from all over the world um that do return for um for AWS shooks. But we are so proud that we have built and we want to continue doing it the right way. So thank you with all gratitude.

Thank you.

Hi. I'll be as quick as I can. That's all less than 3 minutes. Thank you.

Uh my name is Mickey Ford. My husband Eric is also back here with me. We've had a family home here in Carmel for 30 years right on Monovery. Actually, uh, over the years, we've eaten at Ashucks many times. It's one of our favorite places to go. When friends who are planning a visit to Carmel ask me for a list of places to go while in town, Ashucks has always been on my list. I tell them to try the clam chowder, the seafood platter. When my son was little, it was the one place I could get him to eat a salad because he said they had the best ranch. Uh, but never once have I said to anyone, "Check out all shucks, but don't go there if you're hungry because they don't serve food." I've never said that because they are a full-ervice restaurant. Can you get a drink there? Sure. Rowena makes an amazing spicy uh cucumber martini, pa martini. Most of the restaurants in town will serve you a drink, and there are plenty of restaurants that serve alcohol and have a actual bar. But being a drinking only establishment is a completely different thing. Ashucks is a restaurant. It is not a bar. If it was a bar, my kids would not have been allowed inside for so many lunches and dinners over the past 20, 30 years. I understand that All Shucks was originally a drinking establishment, but it hasn't been that for many, many years. And I'm not without sympathy to the position of the owners of Ashucks that they find themselves in. Based on other meetings that I've attended, it sounds like they bought the restaurant being told that the value was higher because of this extra permit in their possession. To me, it seems like the town possibly dropped the ball by not pulling that drinking establishment permit when they issued the mid-range permit, which is some food, still mostly alcohol. and then again when Ashucks upgraded to a full-ervice restaurant. The bottom line is that Ashucks simply can't be both

things at once. They're holding on to a permit that does them absolutely no good. I don't see what is going to have to change for them if they don't have this permit. Uh they don't stay open late. They don't serve only alcohol. You don't have to be 21 to go. It makes it seem to me as if they're taking advantage of a slip up on the part. unfortunately of the city. And I don't think you can just tuck that permit in your back pocket and say, "Well, we're going to hold on to this just in case we want to use it in the future." The permit has been abandoned at this point. And regardless of what they threatened to do in retaliation, my belief is that the city needs to face the music, pull the permit, deal with the consequences, albeit maybe an innocent mistake, a mistake it still is. And there's no reason for that permit to be held hostage by someone who has abandoned that use, especially when that permit could be released and used by another business. This decision will affect the livelihood of another small business owner in this town.

Thank you. So, thank you.

Hi, John. Greetings. I've uh had a little bit of an experience dealing with the council and uh last year they didn't have common sense. This group does and you know what I'm talking about.

You mean two years ago? But the situation to me is the reason I bring it up is a common sense deal. I mean AWS and for that reason Bar is they're really not holy bars. Sades was and it's a place where locals went. So solve the problem. You have AWS. their restaurant license, fast track it, and give Parker Logan a way to open his bar back up again. Now, if anybody believes that AW Shacks operating has a restaurant with their bar there is going to go on the toilet. There's nobody walking into that place that's only going there because it's abar that defies common sense. Thanks.

Thank you, John.

How many more? All right, that's it. After that, if you have your hand raised up, you get to speak. Other than that, we're gonna stop. Okay. So, there's three more, right? Let me get this straight. There's a lot more than three. Okay. Well, put your hands up because I'm going to break for dinner if if this goes on too much longer.

What do you guys What do you guys want to do? Keep rolling. You want to keep going? All right. We're gonna keep going. Hi, Mary V. I'm a bartender at Sades and um this is really nerve-wracking. Hi, beautiful people. Hey, people on YouTube. You don't you don't need to be nervous.

There's been a lot of big words in here. Um it's been very confusing and I just wanted to say something from the point of view of some you know that I don't know. Um I had cute little notes but I think everybody hit all the topics. It seems to me I relistened to the meetings leading up to today also um like the especially the December 10th one and on my way here today I relistened to it again and it seems that we're all arguing about the same thing and the same thing is that something went wrong with the permits along the way and at this point we're just going backwards and not moving forwards and I feel like we need the solution is let's just issue new permits. I know I'm talking from like an ignorant place and I'm not a lawyer, but why can't we fix things moving forward instead of reflecting on the mistakes in the past because they've been made? They've already been made. How do we remedy it moving forward without kne we could change? Tourism has changed in this town. I've worked in a lot of restaurants in in this area and tourism has changed. what we need to give our guests has changed. So why can't the city council change the operations and the permits moving forward to reflect that? I'm Mary. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. You did great.

Mayor, council. Thank you. I'm Greg Cole. I'm a local business owner and I have one question. Why are we not considering a fourth bar only use permit? Currently, there are four to five million people traveling up the coast through Carmel. And with the World Cup this year and the LA Olympics coming in 2028, add another 1 to two million people. That's a big number. And if you can make the decision to have addresses after a 100red-year tradition, certain certainly you can honor the 100year run of Sades by issu issuing a fourth bar permit. All right. Please keep the applause down. Hi, Julie went and I'm embarrassed to say I'm a former planning commissioner after the decision that was made on Oshocks. Excuse me. Um, I'm not sure why we're here. Nothing has changed for Oshocks. They serve food. They are a bar. They meet the requirements. What's to discuss? So, I hope you support the appeal. And Grant, I think it's number two. just to do a little rewrite on the uh use permit. Thank you.

Nice to see you, Julie.

I am Todd Tyson. I have uh rest or the uh clothing store is right next door to the club, right next door to the Chucks. I've been going there since 2002 when I came here. And I'm going to be real brief. Unfortunately, the city is the one that made the mistakes and unfortunately we're trying to make them pay for it. We shouldn't be making the bassies pay for it. Issue another permit. It is a bar. It has great food as well. But it's a bar. They should They didn't make didn't what in 1993 when it was given the rights to have the stove and things like that and you kept doing it. Why did the city keep doing it? They kept doing it and doing it and doing it. It still did it again here in 2023 when they when the bassies finally bought it. So if it said it was a bar, it was a bar then. It's still a bar. It hasn't changed. Just put another permit out there for another drinking establishment and it can be one of four. But to take it away from them is ridiculous. Thanks.

Thanks, Todd.

Good evening, Mayor Council.

My name is Cheryl Gimenez. I've been working as a deputy sheriff going on 35 years. I met Karen and Ranch at Bassie back in 1992 when I moved in next door to them. Over the years, I've seen exactly who they are, not just as neighbors, but as parents, professionals, and members of our community. Karen was raising four kids while working toward becoming a kindergarten teacher, and Ranchet was building his insurance business. Everything they have they earned through hard work and integrity. Shortly after Karen was diagnosed with MS. Instead of focusing on herself, she sta started a foundation called a wave of hope to help others with MS pay for bills and get equipment. That's who she is. Someone who gives even when facing her own challenges. My husband and I both work shift work in law enforcement and trusted Karen and Ranchet with our children, all four of them. That kind of trust is earned and they earned it. They are hardworking, honest and generous. Karen also serves as a president of Omega U helping women and children in need. The Bassis have also supported people in so many ways including sponsoring Rudy's dog park. Always giving back, always showing up. And Ranget, we call him the hardest working man. So when they bought AWS Shucks, they were excited to continue giving and investing in others. That's why this situation matters so much. It's important that a permit that has been in place for over 30 years is handled with fairness and clear consideration. Karen and Ranchet have done had done everything right. They deserve fairness. I respect I respectfully ask that you look closely at the

decision and consider the people behind it. Thank you. Thank you,

Joe Denucci. I probably have the less least connection to the either of these businesses you can imagine except 42 years ago I rented my house on Delora Street to as a residence for the man who then had bought Sades and after about 6 months he burned me and everybody else in town left me with unpaid rent for 3 months. So every time I heard the name Sades I had a negative reaction until I met Parker Logan. Now, the summary I think here, I think David Frink really nailed it when he said, "This whole procedure is bad for business. It's bad for the for the city. We've all spent a ton of time paying attention to this trying to figure out what to do." It seems pretty obvious that another permit was not going to hurt anyone and it would re reinfor reinforce and uh the the investors who bought the the Ashock's business and what they're doing with it and how well it's being received and Parker's business as well. So I hope you can come with a compromise that puts the history of the whatever mistake was made in the past in the past and let this move forward with goodwill. member and members of the council and city staff. My name is Cindy Lloyd. I'm going to offer you a little bit of an historic perspective on this issue. I was alive when Whitney's was a bar and when we were kids and we'd walk up and down Ocean Avenue and we'd peek in to see who was drinking during the day because drinking during the day wasn't a really uh honorable thing. So, as little kids, we used to like to see who was there. Over the years, I have never been in Whitney or Slime McFly or Ashocks. But what I have learned from going to the

various meetings and hearing the talk in town about Ashucks is it sounds like it's a great place to go get a bite to eat, but I don't drink alcohol because it triggers migraine headaches. So, I can't go there just to enjoy it as a bar. What I'm really getting at is what I've heard over time in the testimony tonight and what I've learned from living here my whole life is that the upgrade from Whitney's to Ashocks is memorable and and it should be um honored in some way and form. But I know that you will make the right decision. So thanks.

Thank you. I'm going to keep this brief. Y'all are hungry and you want to take a break. So, my name is Cara Looper and I am here um on behalf of my friends Karen and Ranchet Bassie, owners of AWS Shucks, who are currently involved in this matter before you today. And I've known them for more than 20 years and can to attest to their integrity, reliability, and dedication to the communities where they live. And throughout our friendship, they have demonstrated a strong sense of responsibility and genuine commitment to following regulations and acting in the best interests of those around them. You've heard from a lot of other people that have said many nice things about them, so I won't go on and on, but I just feel that it's it's really important to realize that they would not have entered into this lightly. And I I believe this can be corrected. Basically there are the facts of the matter are that use permit from the city of Carmel was issued in 93. In 2015 there was a change capping the total number of permits and in 2023 the bassies purchased um AW shucks. The issue seems very clear increase the number of permits that can be issued. I think it's really something that could be solved relatively easily and reverse the decision to revoke their permit. They didn't abandon anything and they were never notified. The Bassy's approach to solving issues is always thoughtful and considerate and they consistently seek input from others to ensure fair outcomes. I believe their involvement in this city of Carmel by the sea planning commission issue is issued is guided by a desire to contribute positively and uphold the values of the community. I would encourage the city of Carmel and the planning commission to exhibit those same ideals in this issue. Providing due process to all is necessary. So please, please, I urge you to do that. Thank

you. Thank you, Andy Carr. President, I didn't come to speak on this issue and I wish you'd get over it so we can move on. But I do want to say that I so appreciate both sides of this story and I agree what David Frink said. I think it never occurred to me, but there's no reason why the city can't issue another use permit for a bar. And I think you need to consider that very carefully and be done with it.

Good afternoon, uh, mayor, council, members, staff. Um, or I should say good evening now. Um, I'm Randy Bassie and Karen and me own a Wsharks. Nice to meet everybody. I want to keep this real sweet and short. I've heard a lot of legal ease, heard a lot of threatening about suits. I don't suit anybody in my life. I don't intend to. I just want to be able to operate and my wife wants to operate one of the best businesses in Carmel by the Sea.

We contribute a lot to this community. We're just getting our feet from under us from running a bar. Mike and Michelle, God for they are so they're they're they're so blessed what they did to that place and built it to what it was today that we were able to buy it from them. We still thank them for it. But we don't we have been drugged through the mud last two years. I don't know why. What have we done? What have we done? We bought a bar. Everything has been approved. We did our due diligence. I'm illegally. I can talk all that stuff. I just want to talk about common sense. You walk into our establishment. If you think our bar is a fullline restaurant when you walk in there, I'm sorry. I think you all need a different opinion. It's it makes it's common sense. We got 80 square ft as a restaurant, as a kitchen. All this remodeling, this total remodeling that we've been talking about has been changing of equipment. There's no remodeling happening. And by the way, nobody, not anybody on this council, planning commission, and I don't know who else has asked me and Karen what our plans are for this business. Nobody. So, I've heard a lot of opinions of what Ashucks is. Do you guys really know what our plans are? Like I said, we just got our feet under us. We have a lot of plans for this business. I didn't buy this business to keep it status quo. Ladies and gentlemen,

I I bought it to grow it because I seen the opportunity. I can't grow it if I don't have the hours that I thought it had for the last 30 or 40 years. We have so many people that want to do private parties. I don't I I first of all I want to be a good citizen of Carmel. I don't want to have problems late at night, but we are more than willing and our plans are to open later to serve that community that maybe wants a drink at whatever time that may be, but certainly be able to support the private parties that we keep getting requests for. But when we do, we're going to be very diligent on the safety and health of the citizens in our city. So I think you all need I think the answer is by the way this is not about Sades or Shucks. I think it's about unfortunately some of the decisions that past members have made here. Issue a new use permit. Mr. Logan deserves it. His business has been around here for hundred years and let's get on with things. Thank you. All right, I don't see anybody else. We've got two hands up. We've got Patrick and Christie. Patrick, why don't you go ahead?

Thank you. Can you hear me? I can.

Thank you. Well, it seems like the question is, is it a bar or a restaurant? And so, does it have 20% of its seating for bars? Well, when you go into Ashucks, all of the seats are bar seats. They're all at that level. But if you go to the Oyster Bar where all the bar seats are, you can get oysters at any of those seats or you can get drinks at any of those seats. They are all bar seats. and they do comprise over 20% of the seating in the bar. So, this is a bar, not a restaurant, and it has been so for decades. Keep it that way. And if you need to issue another permit for someone else, that's your choice. But this needs to stay as a bar restaurant. Thank you.

Thank you, Patrick. Christie. Hi. Can you hear me? Okay, I can.

Great. Um, I'm Christy Rymer's, business owner and resident. I want to clarify something. There is a difference between ABC license and caramel bar permit. And that distinction needs to be made clear here because many of the speakers are getting the two mixed up. ABC license 47 does mean that it's a drinking and food restaurant type establishment. Barmell has the same ABC license, by the way, but the Carmel bar permit allows a drinking establishment to be open until 2:00 a.m. whether or not it has a restaurant as part of its use. Many of our other restaurants that have a bar like Vuvio or Grazings don't stay open until 2:00 a.m. because they don't have one of the three restaurant uh the Caramel bar permits. It seems as though before a designation is taken away from an owner, that owner should be allowed the time to decide whether or not they want to take full advantage of its Carmel Bar permit, meaning stay open late. This shouldn't be taken away without first working with that owner. I hope you support the appeal and give them the time they deserve. I may not be the most popular saying this, but I also do not believe we should have another Carmel bar permit given until we can get the current ones in compliance. Many of you do not live downtown, but I live at St. Carlos and 7th and Carmel between 12 and 2 a.m. here is an absolute circus.

Thanks for listening. Thanks for your perspective, Christie. All right. Are my is my council ready to take a break now? All right, we're going to take a break. I'm sorry for all the people that came for these other things. But, uh, we have to do our job and we're doing it. So, uh, we're going to take a recess for Can we do it? Can we come back at 7? Everybody okay with that? We're going to come back at 7 sharp. So, be here, sir. Pardon? It's It's already 7. Yeah, my eyes are blurry at this point. We're going to come back at 8. I wish we could come back at 7:00. All right. Thank you everybody.

All right, everybody. We're back in session. as we get started. Uh I believe Council Person Baron has an announcement to make regarding our agenda tonight. Well, it's not a it's not an announcement. It's a I guess a request of the council or someone um I'm not Yeah, the council one of the items on one of the items at the end of tonight's agenda is the um update on the design traditions 1.5 project. and it really seems like we're not going to get there. Um,

so I'm talking about agenda item number three, order of business, receive an update on the design traditions project. And that was that's the ad hoc committee composed of me and council member delves and I see a number of uh some committee members in the audience and some staff members and it seems like we're not going to get there like given what's given that we have to do the toot thing first. So, I would ask us to like make sure it's okay with the council to postpone this until sorry, May. And I think Brandon, you had some thoughts on why that might make sense.

Yeah, it makes sense because we'll still we have a we have a plan to go to the planning commission tomorrow and get their feedback on the draft and the the scope and the process. Um, and so actually, if we come back to you in May, we'll have even more information to share with you in May. Um, I checked in with our project manager on Tom Ford. um he he he sees that it's not going to be any meaningful impact to the outcome of the project. So we are recommending that we do that as well. I have a question on that. Does it impact the critical path at all? No, it doesn't impact the time at all. No, we we'll continue to do so. We have the schedule laid out already. We'll continue to do those steps between now and when we come back to the council. We'll just have more information, more work done that we can share with council. So you guys will actually start working on the next month.

That's right. I'm good with it. We're doing it. Everybody said yes. Okay. So be it. All right. Um when we were last here, we had just finished public comment, I believe. And so we're going to bring it back for uh discussion deliberation up here on the council. Ready to go. Oh, we have some questions. That's right. We They have They have rebuttal time. We haven't asked questions yet, though. You'd want to ask the questions first before the rebuttals? I'm okay with it. Give it. We need some advice.

Yeah, they're they're could wave it, of course. Um but if not, they each have five minutes. Do you want to do your rebuttal before our questions? Attorneys? Yeah. I would I I would suggest that you hold on the questions until all the public comments. Okay. Go ahead and we can have your rebuttals now, both of you. Thank you. If you want, if you want, if you want to move this forward, we can just start. First, I just want to really acknowledge all the thoughtful comments. Microphone. How do I do it? They have to turn it on.

I just want to acknowledge all the thoughtful comments in the discussion on both sides. Um, something super important to keep in mind that that Mr. rhetoric raised um that the drinking establishment use was a legal non-conforming use. Don't forget the use permit did not allow the drinking establishment use the drinking that the use permit allowed the addition of food. So how can it be that the addition of food resulted in an abandonment of the use permit? It it just makes no sense. So, I I think that um there's an opportunity here to confirm the legal non-conforming use as the drinking establishment, making no changes to what they are currently allowed to do, which is to stay open till 2 in the morning on Friday, Saturday nights, whatever th whatever those rules are. um and con conform the documents to to the reality and con and confirm the legal established um drinking establishment use that allows the food that they serve now. And there is your win-win and avoids the rob Peter to take to to pay Paul. So that that's all I got unless council has questions.

Hans, do you want to do you want to go ahead while he's here? I'm okay with that. I'm trying to remember if it was you or the other council, but the question was at one point you said the the Carmel Municipal Code says there must be an intent to abandon a use for the use to be considered abandoned. Um, and I was just wondering if you could kind of point me to where it says that in the code because when I was looking at the code, I I didn't see it or I didn't interpret it that way. So, I was just curious if you could point me to it.

Um, I I don't know. Well, I didn't make that comment today. I've made that comment in the past that intent is just a common principle in the law. Um, and if you couple the lack of intent and the lack of any change circumstance since since the planning commission in 2015 affirmed the drinking establishment use, how do we get to abandonment? Okay, thank you. Anybody else have a question for for him? Okay, thank you.

Thank you. I'll just make a few brief comments before turning over to my client who I promised time earlier and unfortunately did not have for him. So, the main point here is that of course we're here today requesting that the city council overturn the decision made by the planning commission. As you may recall, back on February 11th, 2026, the planning commission had two options before them. They chose one, finding abandonment. The other option was an opportunity to engage with tsd to engage with AWS Shucks about an amendment to the existing use permit. And of those two options, the second one really should have been the one that the planning commission took them up on. That being said, I'm going to turn this over to my client for further comment.

How many times did they leave you time like this? Anyway, uh situation again going back, we follow the rules. I made sure I worked with Brandon for years that uh everything we did was upright. We never received the violation of non-compliance. No notice of non-compliance, nothing. So when we talk about abandonment, how is I supposed to know that we had a problem? If you came to me, you say, "Hey, John, look, it doesn't look like a bar. What do you want?" Okay, let's go back to the original. let me stay open till 2 am, seven days a week and I will talk to our tenant and we can remedy this if you want another bar in town. That's not what the city wanted. They wanted to eliminate that light that late night drinking. Uh Tim who is a building official for many years, his declaration that you see in the packet, he was there during that time. Read his. He was there and he said it was always considered the bar. his ruling would be that's the way it was. Uh and as far as when we look at that, if you wanted us to do something, work with me. But to come back later on and say, "Hey, guess what? You don't get a retake. It's just being stripped away from you." I don't think that's fair. I I have nothing against Sades. I would love for you to make a fourth use. I know that's difficult. That probably won't be a way of going. So, you have to choose. Okay? and and that's a difficult thing to do at this point and I understand that. But all I can say is that again time and time again I made sure that we followed all the regulations and when we had a question when there was a purchase for a new tenant coming in wanted to make sure that we were okay with the use. Brandon was kind enough to go through that look at it he memorized that it was legal and non-conforming. There's a lot of legal non-conforming uses in town. The complexity was is when

we went to that 2015 regulation, how does this work? Tim said it's more of a pub. We're not quite maybe I'll give you it. We're not a true drinking establishment because a true drinking is 18 and above, but that would mean that Barmell would go away and we would go away. And this ruling theoretically could say that someone can come back and say, "Hey, there's a precedent here." Now they've taken away AWS Shucks use permit. The kitchen at Barmell is a fullline kitchen. They operate off of their menu that's a fullline menu, but it's limited. It's an enhanced menu. So the whole thing of the kitchen area, I don't understand. But it does open up somebody else coming in, whoever, and saying, "Hey, you've made that ruling. Therefore, Barmell shouldn't have one. I want to open up another 48 in town. Now you'll have three 48 establishments, 18 and above. The police chief is here. He probably would tell you that could be a problem. Three places open to 2:00 a.m. All I'm asking is that, you know, we did everything right. I follow the rules. I feel as if if you strip that away from, we're being penalized. If we can work with the city with that resolution number two, which did originally what they said, it fixes the paperwork. The problem is it's the restaurant. It could be a full line with more than 10% and that fixes it. That's what I recommend. I would like you to overturn the planning commission if it's possible at the same time that you can find a way to get that fourth use. All parties are satisfied. We come to you. You're supposed to solve problems. Okay? I don't want to say you've created the problem, fix it. You know, you broke it, you fix it. And I think you can do that. I don't know. Can you do it? No. I guess the attorney will tell us. That's my time. But if you had any questions because of the paper, I'd be more than glad to answer them. So that's it. Thank

you. Thank you, John. Nice job. Yes, you're you I I'll give you a moment to come up. Come on up. Make it quick.

Uh so this legal non-conforming use issue. So, the 1993 staff report that was prepared on that use permit kind of conceded or acknowledged that the drinking place component of the uh of that premises, the drinking place use was legally non-conforming, that really that permit was just designed to deal with the limited food use. And then the the ordinance on the restricted commercial uses that said you could only have three drinking places happened in I think it was 2004 is my recollection. I'm not sure exactly what the data is, but that was when you look at the code and you look at the entry down below, it shows like a 2004 ordinance reference and a number. So, argument is that if it's a legally non-conforming use and we can make that finding in the resolution upholding the appeal, then there could be an additional finding that that legal because it's legally non-conforming, it didn't count as one of the three restricted uses that came later in the 2004 ordinance. So, there could be a way you might have to have further conversations with your city attorney to be able to uh incorporate that finding into your resolution that could resolve the issue tonight. You know, no going back, amending the code, adding a fourth a fourth uh drinking place permit, but just acknowledging that this is legally non-conforming, wasn't subject to the limitations that are contained in the 2004 ordinance that established these restricted commercial uses, and then it's over. So that's just I just wanted to add that clarification that I think there could be a mechanism to do that where we can end the issues tonight and potentially allow a call it a third because this particular instance it was legally non-conforming. So anyway, just just a thought for the council's consideration.

Thank you. I appreciate that creative thought. I'm not sure I totally understood it, but we'll discuss it. Okay. Um, we're I think we're done with rebuttals, correct? All right, we're going to bring it back for our discussion deliberation, you might say. And uh we'll get started with who wants to put their hand up. I'll start.

Go ahead. Um, starting with the end in mind, um, um, I will, um, I'm prepared to overrule the planning commission, um, and, uh, find for the appellant, um, and, uh, keep the, um, drinking establishment use permit in place uh, where it is today. Um when ever it was you said 2004 that that we uh that the planning commission established the the limit of three uh that was to me a very important um event uh for a v variety of reasons. The first one is this may have been intentional or not, but when they declared um Sades and Barmell and it was it a and awes um say that the operators of those businesses necess it wasn't about right the operators of the business. It was it went with the land so it goes with the owner. So, whoever owns Barmell um chooses to bring in a tenant and that tenant runs the bar that they want to run. And we don't have a ton of rules about what a bar is or is not. You know, we got this 20% of the seats thing. Um and the owner of AWS Shucks, represented by Mr. Plastini, uh did the same thing. they brought in or they already had at the time an operator and that operator uh chose to run the bar that they wanted to run and whether you know what but the food service was um or was not was up to them. It's a free market. It's a business decision. Um they can run the bar they want and the owners of Sades um had an operator who chose to run the bar that they they ran. um those owners are

going to make business decisions um uh based on you know what's best for them which is I I guess why the uh owner of Sades uh didn't renew the lease because they're going to pursue something that they may think works better for them with a different operator of their drinking establishment you know of that use. Um uh the other thing that whether again it was intentional or not that that happened when when three of them were created um they created scarcity. Scarcity creates value. Um and um so I believe that the owners of these use permits have value. Um and I I really accept the arguments that were made by Mr. Savage. um not necessarily the quantification of it, but you know the the the concept of goodwill. Um I remember learning in accounting class that you know goodwill isn't always good, right? Goodwill is the amount of extra money you're willing to pay for a business above really the book value of the business. It's it's risk. Um and you know you are going to pay more because there's something intangible, right, about the business that's worth more. Um, and um, I don't think I've got the right or the power to take that away from you um, for whatever reason. Um, I think the due process here, I won't even say the due process, the process, um, was cumbersome historically. Um, I'm afraid that happens in government. Um, because there's so much change. You know, the staff changes a lot and this group changes all the time. The planning commission changes all the time. um and consistency and uniformity is sometimes difficult. Something that I think we're all working on um is to get a little bit

more of that um in into our government. Um but you know, I think Mr. and Mrs. um Bari Bari um

sorry I wrote it down but I couldn't read my own writing. Um I mean you said it, you bought a bar. Um, and I'm not going to be the guy that says, "No, you didn't." Um, you bought a bar and you get to run the bar the way you want to run it. Um, but the other thing that happened when we did that, you know, when when we selected the three, um, and again, intentional or not, what happened is you three specific locations were selected. the place where Sades was, the place where Barmell is, and the place where AW Shucks is there, you were sort of declaring those are the bars. That's where the bars are today. That's where the bars will be tomorrow, and that's where they'll be in the future. Um, and that gives certainty to the neighborhood. Um, a lot of people don't want to live next to a bar, and a lot of people don't want a bar moving in next to them. Um, and so when you move to town, you can figure out, oh, there's three bars that might be open, might be open after 10:00, midnight, midnight till 2:00. Again, it's their business model. It's their choice. Um, but you know that um or at least you have reason to know that. So, we're we're I don't think we are here to consider solving the problem of Sades. um that we're not here to consider adding a fourth permit. And I'm not saying it's appealing or unappealing to me. That's not why we're here. Um and I think that's a very different process. And even if we could do it here or were prone to do it here, I wouldn't. um because again you are I don't want to just assign or you know enable another um use permit kind of without knowing where it's going because we owe that to the citizens especially the ones that live downtown because

otherwise it just goes where it follows the money and it goes where it wants to and suddenly one of the more quiet streets in you know in the city becomes loud louder at night. Um, so you know, we talked a lot about common sense. I think this is common sense. Um, and I think, you know, that we just need to restore the status quo um, here. And, you know, thanks to everybody for your passion and your interest in the topic. I would love it if you would show up for the budget meetings. Thank you. Thank you, Bob. Well done, Jeff. Why don't you go next? Sure. If you're ready.

Yeah. Um, thank you everybody for coming and I'll echo Bob's budget meeting comments. Um, like Bob, I'll start with the lead and I'll say I also believe that we should grant the two appeals. I'll start by saying that I appreciate the work that the planning commission did to uphold the municipal code of the city. and I appreciate their willingness to correct what they perceive as an error that has been sort of progressively made over the course of the many past years. That said, I believe that the planning commission has not given appropriate difference to prior decisions of the same planning commission as should be common practice. And I think the case in point was something uh that I that I brought up early, the discussion of the six bar seats at the Oyster Bar as bar seats or not bar seats, which means of course that years ago the remaining hightop seats, the the bars around the the seats around the table were classified as bar seats in order to meet the bar seating requirement, the the 20%. And putting aside the obvious question of what kind of seats the Oyster bar seats are, I believe that it was a mistake to not give for the planning commission to not give deference to previous decisions that rely on the same set of facts without a change of circumstances. And the the Barcie discussion is a good example of that lack of difference because it's clear to me that at one point and certainly in 2004 when these uses were established, it's clear that AWS Shucks was in compliance with a number of bar seats. And I believe that the planning commission should have deferred to that historical analysis rather than trying to redo that analysis. The process that was that was propelled by the planning commission should have been a subsequent look at a should have been a subsequent look at a previous decision by the planning commission and should have involved deference to previous decisions and previous sets of facts. What the actual

conducted process what the actual conducted process was but should not have been was a decision towards a new use permit. a decision that starts with a blank slate and provides for more interpretation and more direction from the planning commission to change my own direction. The city is not an island where mistakes that might have been made in the past and I emphasize the word might here because that is not a determination that I am prepared to stipulate to. The city is not an island where the past can be arbitrarily and summarily corrected. Previous owners of AW Shucks have relied on the city's assurances that their vested rights of their drinking establishment use permit have been maintained over the years. And had those asurances not been repeatedly given, the renovation path and corresponding business license and use permit path that AWS Shucks has traveled down might have been different. For example, if AW Shucks has been told that the installation of tables or the installation of a stove would have abregated their use permit, the remodeling path that they undertook might have been different. In addition, AWS Shucks has been told on more than one occasion that their use permit as his drinking establishment was fully intact. Not only was AWS Shucks told us this recently by the director of planning as the establishment was sold, but AWS Shucks was also told this by our own planning commission, the very same planning commission in 2015. For the city to now say that this use has been abandoned when in fact AWS Shucks has not changed how they do business. For the city to make this determination would be a violation of state and perhaps federal law by both denying the business and the property owner of their vested property rights as represented by their use permit and by violating equitable estoppel principles. The notion that they have conducted their business based on representations

that have been repeatedly made by the city. Representations still that still hold weight as once again awe has not changed the nature of their business. For these reasons, I believe that we should grant the two appeals. Thank you, Jeff. Do you want to go?

So, I feel like every time every time we do one of these hearings, I always want to I always want to lead with this. So, we we wear two hats, which is I think a a kind of a strange thing for people that are elected, but um we have a policy hat and 99% of the time you you see us wearing that policy hat and you probably are sitting there looking at us thinking we're wearing that hat today, right? That's when we're talking about should we have addresses, should we ban pickle ball, you should we have three or four drinking establishments in town. Um and then we have these um quasi judicial hearings where we're focused, you know, narrowly on, in this case, a property owner and a business um and their appeal of the planning commission's, you know, land use decision and how that comports with the municipal code. And those are two very different things. So, you know, should the city amend its policy to have a fourth drinking establishment? I think it's worth a discussion. Um, I'm interested in hearing what the broader community thinks about that, but you know, that's that's just not the focus of of the meeting tonight. So, you know, I tried to break this down into into questions for myself. And the first one was, is it a drinking establishment or is it a full-line restaurant? And um I like to just go back to the to the city code when I'm when I'm doing these hearings just to see like what does the actual language say? And um we've had a lot of people tonight say that it's sort of a slam dunk one way or the other. And um I think if you actually look at the language, it's it's really not. Um I guess first there's a lot of things that were mentioned tonight that just frankly aren't in the definitions in the code. So, are kids allowed? Like, that's really a state license issue. Like the percentage

of revenue. Um, you know, the the pieces of the code that I was able to identify, um, there's section 17.68.050 and it's the section called commercial use classifications. And so drinking places, it says businesses serving beverages for consumption on the premises as a primary use and including on sale service of alcohol including beer, wine, and mixed drinks. Um so there it does say as a primary use. Um for restaurants full line, it says restaurants providing a full line of prepared food and drinks. These restaurants provide table service to patrons of all ages who pay after eating. Um, it's just a pretty thin definition, honestly. And then you get to one other section that says additional use regulations. This is section 17.14.040i. And here the definition of a fullline restaurant says um, and there's two components to it. And it's an and logic. So to be a full-line restaurant, both of these have to be true. The first part is the applications, menus, and plans indicate that the business will primarily be a restaurant. So that's one part. And that no more than 20% of the total number of seats are at a bar or in a separate barroom. So if that second part is not true, then it's not a full-line restaurant. Um, and more to the point, it actually says, it goes on to say, if the use does not meet this standard, the standards in the drinking places section shall apply to the use. So, you know, that that piece about the the number of seats at the bar is actually like pretty important. It doesn't really give us a

definition of like is an oyster bar seat a bar seat or not. So, none of these things are are slam dunks either way is my point. It's it's really quite ambiguous. The next the next question is, you know, are they operating outside of the the use permit from 1993? And, you know, it says you can't have a stove. It has a specific menu. Um, so I think yes, like they're clearly not within the black letter of that use permit. The next question is, has the use been abandoned? And you know, when you look at the section of the code about who makes the determination about whether a use has been abandoned, it's the director of community planning and building. Um, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, but the director of community planning and building, to my knowledge, has never made a determination that they're in violation of their use permit. Is that right?

That's correct. Okay. So for for I mean 1993 so you know we're talking about 30 plus years um that that determination has never been made. So then it's only this planning commission decision in February. Um and you go back to this sort of litany this this chronology of permits and approvals. Um and you know like honestly let's just be let's call it what it is right like the the city has not covered itself in glory in you know this this chronology. So, um I believe it should not have granted those building permits and businesses licenses over the years, right? If we could go back, I think everyone would agree, most people would agree, um they should have looked at the requirements in the initial use permit and said, "Sorry, we're not going to do those things." But we now have a 35 year history. And it's not like one, it's not like it happened last year. It's 35 years. And there's multiple points where this was reinforced over time. Um and you know it's been brought up but just to quickly go over some of these things like the initial um the initial building permits in like 199 the early mid 1990s 2008 and 2009 there's a building permit um for the commercial kitchen with an oven which is specifically not allowed in the in the use permit. In 2015, the planning commission um reaffirmed that Ashucks is one of the three drinking establishments in town, right? Like that was the planning commission. Um and to the points that were made

earlier, nothing about their operation has changed since then. And then in August of 2023, uh, the former director of community planning and building, um, when there was a change of ownership, so we had a private actor, a business owner go to the city and say, "All right, as he said, he's trying to do his due diligence, right? They go to the city and they say, "Hey, before we make this investment, let's just let's confirm a few things." And um I'll I'll read a couple of them because I think they're worth reading. He said um these are quotes from Brandon's email. Uh he stated that the city had determined it had memorialized the additional cooking equipment and restaurant operation by approving a building permit um in August of 2008. And um in this case, even though the original use permit sets a limit on the type of equipment and menu, the city took an official action to approve the updated kitchen and menu it was meant to prepare, thereby creating a legal non-conforming situation that is allowed to continue under the city's municipal code. Um I mean that that history over that period of time um I think it's I think it's pretty clear that they do have uh vested rights there. They've been operating in good faith as a city. We um there has to be some basic business predictability. Uh and I think this is sort of a classic situation. Um, you know, so I the the concern that I have like Jeff's point about the planning commission probably needs

to defer to its prior ruling. Um, there there is sort of a starry decisis component to this. It sort of feels to me like double jeopardy for the planning commission, same body, albeit largely new faces, to make a different determination in 2026 when it's the exact same fact pattern as it was in 2015. Um, so look, I I understand the other perspective, which is basically the spirit of the law is that there's supposed to be three true bars in town. And, you know, Barmell and Ashucks are, you know, a little bit less than that if outside the definition that's in the code. Um, but again, that's not the point of this hearing tonight. So, um, that's something we could take up at some point, but it's just just not the point of this hearing. So, um, I would also uphold the the appeals. Um and and I would do that by supporting um uh amending use permit uh 9345 to omit limited food service um and add a full-line restaurant as an ancillary use that's greater than 10% of the primary use uh as a drinking establishment. Um, and I would be interested at some point later in having the city attorney opine on uh the suggestion that was made earlier about legally non-conforming um uses and using that as a mechanism. So, thank you.

Thank you. Um, I support uh resolution two granting the appeals of the planning commission uh resolution and having a awesiary use that is greater than 10% of the primary use as a drinking establishment. Um once again, I know I'm going to be repeating some of what we've heard, but the key dates um and city actions. Uh the first is in 1993, the planning commission approved use permit uh UP 9345 to add limited food and exist to an existing drinking establishment. The second in the chronology is September 2015 when the planning commission recognized AWS Shocks as one of three drinking places in the city. And third, in August of 2023, uh, under the new and current owner, uh, for the business license as a full-time restaurant with drinking place as an in ancilliary use, uh, and the same quote that Hans had, uh, quote, a legal non-conforming situation that is allowed to continue, end quote. Um, I think it's also very important to look at the visual evidence. um just the actual establishment. The bar is so prominent when you walk in and you are overwhelmed at the number of bottles that they have there. Um I looked online and and I found some interesting quotes. Uh one of them is from visit carmemell. It's the carmelc california.com website and this is from the previous owners and the emphasis is really what a large number of different brands they carry. And the quote is, "We have 135 scotches, 50 vodkas, 81 bourbons and whisies, 36 gins, 23 brands of rum, and 65 tequilas." Couple other quotes that I have um in those same marketing materials, uh

they call themselves a seafood pub. Now, if you look up the definition of the word pub, this is directly what it says. It is a drinking establishment licensed to serve alcoholic beverages on the premises. And also on that same uh online material, the menu shows the extensive offerings for alcohol. Uh another very important point is the number of seats at the bar. Awshocks has 45 seats. You add the eight and the 16 and that's 14, which is 31% at the bar. and the Carmel Municipal Code states that if there's more than 20% of the total seats are a bar, then the drinking place standards apply. Um, I believe that the drinking establishment use has never been abandoned by the owners. It has been and continues to be a bar for the past 65 years. The business and property owners have not done anything wrong and have acted in good faith throughout. Um, I agree with the arguments about vested rights and equitable estoppel. Once again, I support the appeal and overturning the planning commission decision which was not based on a factual analysis.

Thank you.

Thank you. I think we had four pretty complete statements there. I think that the planning I I do not like the idea of overruling the planning commission. They're there for a reason. They're there to enforce our municipal code and I think in their mind with the evidence that they were presented I think they did that. Uh this is a different hearing. We saw different people speaking in different ways and I I think some of the things that really came up tonight were there's just a lot that's taken place over the years and this is not a simple thing of just enforcing the municipal code. Um, I think it's also an element of fairness and uh I'm going to support uh option two. So I think we have five five votes for option two at this point. We'll get a motion in a second and do it.

I have a question. Sorry I didn't ask this before Brian.

Um or maybe it's uh Anna. So option number two, um I'm looking at uh statements number it's on page 36 of the packet. So, so the first uh the first three the first three uh uh paragraphs um buying the city within the 45 calendar days the dated approval Oh, do those maybe it's numbers three, four, and five. And I'm so I'm sorry if we didn't do this work before. Are they Are they um This is on page 36 of the packet. Uh yeah. So, go down where you're looking. Yeah, that's probably the easiest thing.

Um, it's run by. Sorry, give us a second. It's run by Goblin. Goblin. Okay. Do numbers three, four, and five work together? like the city council grants the appeals conditional upon applying to the city within 45 calendar days. So number three is that uh AWS shock the property owner however it is that works has to apply for um a change to their use permit. Right. Right.

But then what is number four? four states that if they do make the application within 40 45 days, the city council's decision is final regardless of what. So maybe the thing that got me going is what happens if the planning commission says no. Like it says they make the application within 45 days and then number five says they don't make the application within 45 days and then there are consequences to pay. So, let's say they make the application within 45 days and John Plus TV does what we're asking him to do. Yes.

Um, what happens if they apply and then things get like kinkedked kinkedked up at the planning commission? Then they can appeal it back to you. Well, so the planning commission has an unlimit so they can operate as they are with their permit. So, as part of this hearing, they can operate as they are with their current permit. And then the planning commission has an unlimited amount of time to make a yes or no decision. Like that's the way that this is written. That's like

so they have to make their application within 45 days and then you know 25 days after that they go before the planning commission however many days that is. So we're two months down the road and then the planning commission gets as much time as they want right to approve the the the permit. Are you suggesting like the planning commission could just keep continuing it indefinitely? Well, what if the planning commission says no? Then then the applicants could appeal that decision to you. So, so I'm really not interested in that option. Well, you you can't Sorry, Anna.

I'm just going to say you can't you can't you can't tell the planning commission what to do. I guess that you can't you know, Brian, correct me if I'm wrong, but you can't dictate to the planning commission what the decision So

you've heard his question and my question is so we can't alter the use permit here and prevent all this from happening. Okay. The answer is you can do what's in this resolution. Um I wrote these paragraphs to allow you the flexibility um of granting it. This that's what the purpose of resolution 2 is is to um conditionally grant the appeal. Um, and the whole purpose of resolution two is to allow Ashocks the opportunity to go back and I've heard some people call it as correct the paperwork or or whatever you want to call it, but their use permit uh would be amended uh from its current uh uses to uh having it as a drinking place and a full line restaurant as an ancillary use. So, we've said, "Well, we think we want to happen, but the planning commission isn't bound to do that."

Well, that's because the co your code says that the planning commission would have that authority. So, you don't have that authority. Um, if the planning commission makes the decision to to approve the use permit, it that approval could get uh appealed to the council as well. So that's why you see this kind of chronology of of how these events would go forward. So after the planning commission makes its decision either approving or not approving that if there's no appeal that's final. If there is an appeal it comes back to you for decision on the planning commission decision about the amendment to the use permit and then that decision would be final.

Yeah question. So they would apply for a use permit. Planning Commission says no, we can we can approve the use permit then in in a couple of ways. One is that it could be appealed um by the parties or the uh the council could exercise this authority to uh with two members to bring it up for review the planning commission decision.

Okay. So if they get a no decision and then the next day, for example, I talked to Bob just to pick some random council member that is going to vote yes, they're going to vote for this option. Um, we could call it up to the planning, call it up to council and save them the appeal, save both parties the the subsequent appeal fee. Yes. And then we can fi make it final. Yes. It doesn't have to go back to the planning commission again. would be final when it comes if and when it comes back to you and they and they know that's going to happen. So, it's not likely they're going to turn it down. Well, there would be a staff report to We don't speculate on that, sir.

Well, there would be a staff report from Anna and she would explain the options. Well, it's a process we have to do. There's It is a process. The answer is yes. That risk has to be taken. That process has to be followed. Yes. Yes. Okay. That's another way of saying it. I've got another question for Brian. But do we also have the authority to um refund uh the bassies the amount that they paid for the appeal? You do. And is that something we can decide tonight? Yes. Okay. I I I would like to

Here's how you here here's how you would do that. Um you would add a a um section. Well, I I probably spoke too quickly. The answer is yes, if you add language to the resolution that that would um result in that waiver. So, um if you want to make it, we've got 1 through five here. So to keep the numbering easy, you could add a section six to this page we're looking at here, 36, which would say that the council approves the waving of the um or the refund of the um appeal fees that were filed by um I guess AW shocks and by the building owner.

So TSD I think is is that their name? Okay. So for both parties. Yeah. Well, I guess you could do it for just one party. Well, which one? Let's do both. Whoever paid for it. So, for clarification, it would be add uh six um under now. Therefore, be it resolved. Uh yeah, there's refunding, right? There's one through five.

Add six refunding for one party and seven refunding for party number two. No, I think you could do it all in one. So, be just six would be the council approves um a refund of the appeal fee that was paid by uh AWS Shucks LLC and uh the appeal fee paid by TSD Carmel Properties LP. Okay. and it's okay to take this action with the amendment even though there's no number on the resolution. Do we need to assign it a number at this point?

Perhaps the city clerk knows what the next number in order would be. I don't think it was given a number because it wasn't known which which one you were going to approve. I know which one is it number 023. So 2026-023. Yes. I'm sorry. No. No. But what number was that again? 2026-023. So when it comes time to make the motion, I'm I'm writing.

Okay. Go ahead. Did you want Yeah. Please proceed. Okay. So when it comes time to make the motion, you do not have to read this full title of this resolution. You can just say that you're you're going to make a motion to approve resolution 2026-023 as included in the um uh agenda packet as attachment two um uh which is to um uh consolidate the appeals and to um conditionally um grant for the appeals to be granted conditionally. As modified. Pardon me.

As modified. Yeah. As Thank you. As modified with the addition of section six. Okay. Want me to do that? So I'll make a motion. I'd like to finish. I have a couple comments. Not pertinent to yes or no. Just I think Bob brought up some of this as it's sort of an afteraction situation. I think it would be very good for the planning department to debrief on everything that's happened since 1993 and just make sure we never let this happen again. And and I'm not sure that this is cleaning up everything we need to clean up. Are you convinced that it is?

My advice on that, mayor, is that you have that under future agenda items rather than as a discussion on this item? I'm just I'm just suggesting we do that and I'll do that in a second when we finish the future. Understood. I'm suggest I'm suggesting you wait and and uh Okay, just go ahead. I think we've got this going. Go ahead, Jeff.

Okay. So, I'll make a motion to adopt a resolution as listed as attachment two in the agenda packet um as modified with the section six that we have discussed here that orders the consolidation of the two appeals, finds that the proposed action by city council is not a project as defined by and not subject to SQA and grants the appeals filed by TSD properties and AWS Shucks LLC. I'll second it. Roll call vote, please. Council member Baron, yes. Council member Bter, yes. Mayor Prom Delves, yes. Council member Drammo, yes. Mayor Burn, yes. Motion carries.

All right. Thank you everybody. That was that was uh an interesting experience.

Okay. now on to be a more complicated way. All right, we're going to now I got to go back and find this Okay. Could everybody clear the room? We'd like to keep moving. That's not clearing the room.

Cindy. Cindy, could you please The chief's going to take care of it. All right. Okay. We're our second order of business. Discussions of draft resolutions and ordinance relating to a potential ballot measure to increase the city's transient occupies occupancy tax from 10 to 12% direction regarding the submission of such ballot measure to the city's voters at the November 3rd, 2026 general municipal election. Who's going to run this one? present. Okay, go ahead.

Turn on the mic. So, thank you, mayor. Um, this is a Can we go back to the opening slide, please?

Yeah. So, uh, as this slide suggests, we're going to be discussing draft resolutions, um, relating to a potential ballot measure, um, with respect to the transit occupancy tax. Uh, next slide. So, by way of background, the current u city's transit occupancy tax is 10% and the request is being made of you as to whether to consider um uh amending your code with respect to the transit occupancy tax. Um there's two resolutions in the packet. Next page. Uh resolution number one uh is calling for the election and submitting the ballot measure. and and resolution number two uh is submitting the ballot measure if there's already been a calling for the election. So the logic to why there's two is that it depends on when you adopt this the the resolution and perhaps the city clerk could educate us on when she plans on bringing back the um resolution for the calling of the election. um it's on the um forecast to have the resolution calling for the election in June. So that's that's when it's planned.

All right. So given that information um you could go with resolution number two and u on in June there would be two actions. The first, assuming you approve them, um the first would be uh to approve a resolution um calling the election and the second one would be um to approve a resolution um to submit the ballot measure. And we might be able to fold that into one. Um I need to to do some further review on that, but it would either be one or two resolutions. The calling of the election would definitely be the first piece of business there in June. Uh so the next slide please. Um here is the ballot question um that's in your packet. Um and I'm not going to read to you from the screen. You can see it. But it basically is um shall this ballot measure uh for funding um for general government purposes um by increasing the transit occupancy tax um paid by lodging guests from 10 to 12%. that would provide approximately $1.9 million annually and that's until ended by voters. The reason why it says until ended by voters is that the election codes has a has a requirement that you specify the duration and that would be a specification of the duration. So let's go to the next slide about what votes are required under Proposition 218. the city may only increase a general tax, which this would be because it's for general purposes, not for specific purposes, if a twothirds of the members of the council, which since you've got a five member council, 2/3 is um four affirmative votes. Uh they approve the placing of the tax measure on the ballot. Uh and secondly, in terms of the vote by the um by the electorate, uh that would be um a majority vote 50%

plus one. Uh if it were a special tax, then it's a twothirds vote, but this is a general tax. So, next slide. Um in terms of submitting the measure to the voters, um the council would need to adopt a resolution. Um submits the measure to the voters increasing the rate. um requests consolidation of the general municipal election with a statewide election and then authorizes the drafting of the primary arguments and um directs the city attorney to prepare an impartial analysis and authorizes rebuttal arguments. All right, next slide. uhformational activities. Um after the measure has been certified um on for a ballot, uh the city is prohibited from spending any city resources to support or oppose the ballot measure. The city is able to provide information to the public in a neutral and unbiased manner and in a format that is not argumentative. It's my recommendation that prior to taking some action with regard to the measure, if you approve it, uh that you might want to check with me first to make sure that you uh satisfy all the legal requirements for doing so. Uh next slide. All right. Uh this is a um a slide that was added to recognize that the Carmel Inkeepers Association um submitted a nine-page analysis which is in the packet as attachment five. It's expressing opposition to the toot increase and um it also discusses the potential impacts of total visitor costs on demand, competitive positioning and a long-term tax generation. I assume that we'll be hearing some public comment for further details on that. All right, let's go to the next slide. This is a slide that um uh that I

prepared um based on the uh logic of creating a new 2% tax because your current tax is is 10%. Um and uh we're talking about uh a if this alternative language were used, you would then have a new 2% tax. And I think this is a um a more efficient and and clear um measure if you if you did it this way. So as I gave it further thought as we're preparing for the hearing, I came to that conclusion. Um and so the change to the title of the ordinance that's in your packet would be as you see it here. Next slide. Uh in consistent with the comment that I just made about um designating this as a new tax um uh you see the language here. This would be the amendment to section 3.220 which would specify that as you see in the beginning you've got a tax of 10% plus a new tax in the amount of 2% of the rent charged by the operator for a total tax in the amount of 12% of the rent. So you have the existing 10% then you have the new 2% and then you get to the total of 10 uh 12 excuse me. All right next slide. Uh again this is to further clarify the um uh ordinance with respect to the 2%. Uh this would be an amendment to section 3.32130 under the disposition of proceeds and it would add a new section there which would specify that the additional 2% added by this ordinance. Do we have an ordinance number for this one yet? Um

Nova. Yeah, but I need to

while you're looking that I'll I'll continue. You you interrupt me when when you when you find it. So the additional 2% would be added by this ordinance. It shall be added to the general fund for usual and c and current expenses. Again, that is confirmation that this is a general tax. So, next slide. In in order to be consistent with the previous three slides about the new tax, um there's uh some editing that would be needed to the ballot question. Um and you can see it in red line here. Um it talks about the funding being for general um uh government purposes, gives some examples, and then says another general purposes by establishing a new transit occupancy tax. And I'm just going to say toot so I don't have to keep saying transit occupy tax of 2% paid by lodging guests to the operators of hotels and hostelaries. um in addition to the existing 10% TOOT with the new 2% providing approximately 1.9 million annually uh until ended by voters be adopted. Now I know that's a mouthful um but the the law requires that uh there be sufficient information so that the uh voter uh understands what they're voting on. they they would certainly get further information that's available to them um uh with regards to that the the resolution and the ordinance itself but this is the ballot measure that they would um be ballot question they'd be voting on all right next slide so let's talk a moment about the election timeline we got a kind of a preview on that earlier from Nova's comments in April and May is to review the ballot language um and then in June to to have the resolution adopted

calling for the general election requesting consolidation. Um, as I said before, I've got to uh do a little research to see if we if we if we have that resolution calling for the election, if we can also at the same time include the language with respect to the tot. If we can, of course, I think that would make more sense to to combine it. If we have to have separate resolutions, we can do that, too. The first resolution would be calling the election. The next one would be presenting the ballot measure. Uh according to NOVA, um the uh deadline to adopt the resolution to add the ballot measure is July 7th. Um and then at your meeting on that date, um I believe that's because the county requires that that we get it to them. U and and then if we came to you in August, it would be very short turnaround. And then uh as you can see July to uh October public outreach and engagement. Then there's some filing periods. You see the dates there on the screen um for the primary ballot uh arguments and uh and also for the city attorney submit the uh impartial analysis as well as the the timeline for the rebuttal arguments and then election date November 3rd 2026. Uh next slide. So the recommendation is to discuss the two draft ordinances that are in your packet um that I've described in my earlier comments um and the proposed ordinance um including the alternative language um and then secondly we I guess this is redundant. Number two is discuss the alternative language. So um I guess you'll do that twice. Um and then the third one is um a motion providing direction to staff um regarding the submission of the ballot measure to the voters. So I'm prepared I guess one more slide. Do I have another one or no? Is that it

questions? I'm prepared to respond to question. I see a hand. Thanks Brian for your presentation. Um I do have a question. I didn't quite understand why we're doing the alternative text because I found it a bit confusing by calling it a new tax rather than an increase. So what's the uh reasoning behind that? Yeah, the last it's also not before you say something. Um this thing that we have in front of us doesn't have the alternative text in it. Yeah, it it it doesn't it does not the Pent version doesn't. So Marissa is making copies of it right now. Yeah. I didn't realize that it didn't. So So can we get it take two minutes to run? Two minutes.

Yeah, Marissa's over there making copies right now. Can you just put up?

Well, we can do both. Why don't we put up the alternative language so we can be talking about it, but in the meantime, you know, let's you know, we can wait for copies, too. So, did you want to just pause or could we if if if Allessandre's got a question on one of the particular uh Let's Let's back up to the first alternative one. Okay. That's that. Yeah, that's the title of the ordinance. The logic of why um it would be a new tax is because this is the first time it's going to the voters under Prop 218. Um uh now you're required to take the tax to the voters. So, the current code that you have was um approved by city council approval and it has certain designations in it that you'll see in the packet of how the funds are to be spent. So what this would do if we have the alternative language is to basically separate the 10% that have been approved by council and what those spending limitations are from the 2% that would be approved by the voters and what limitations are there which are none because they're for general funds. So the the thought being that we didn't want to mix the two and just say we're increasing from 10 to 12 and then somehow that creates some legacy language from the prior ordinance as to what the money could be spent on because we want it to be clear that this is a general tax, not a special tax.

Okay. Thanks. And then I have one more question. It was on a upcoming slide. Um, it was about how it would be used and I was wondering because the language was vague if we want to make it more specific or or if it was deliberately left vague. Okay. Can we go to that slide that's got the ballot the measure? Um, we'll get there. It said something about use. Well, where did it go? U keep going. There must be Oh, you went you went backwards. It It comes after the um alternative language slides. So, keep going. Go one another time one more.

There we go. Wait, wait. I think we actually had it. Um, shall shall be added to the general fund for usual and current expenses. Are we deliberately leaving that vague or do we want to say, you know, for operating our police force and running our city and giving a little bit more idea about how it's spent or you can't do that? Understood. This is designed to eliminate any question that it's a general tax. Um, but now let's go to the ballot question, which is the next.

So, Brian, let me can I interject on that one? So, th this this is so there could be a general tax, but as we talked about before, if it passes as a general tax, the city council as a policy like in your budget can adopt a policy that says that that's what that doesn't tie future councils, but it's a it's a policy versus having the voters decide that's what it's for. So, that's the difference here. If you put that language in this, it needs to be a 66. But even if there was something I remember seeing that just said like operating the city with and it had a couple examples like police force like general things that are not going to be requiring the 66% specifically going to be used for maintenance at DevOp kind of thing. And

so we've done that in the ballot question. Um is shall it shall the measure provide funding for city's general government purposes such as and so it gives examples for example infrastructure improvements, public safety and other general municipal purposes. This has been recognized as acceptable language for a ballot question. Um many cities have have done this with examples of how it is to be spent but no requirement that it be spent in that manner. Okay. So that other one is okay to just leave very vague and then this okay got it. Yes. Thanks.

I have a question for Brandon. This whole discussion and Alisandre's comments got me thinking about this. There's presumably there's presumably, you know, consultants that work on this stuff presumably have Yeah,

sorry. No worries. Presumably have a uh a good handle on they've probably pulled a lot of these this language in all kinds of different place like this is not a new concept. And so I'm personally not interested in polling our residents. But is there a world in which we would try to engage a consultant on a super limited basis just to look at the language here? Because Brian could tell us if language is, you know, verboten or not. But uh you know we also to Alessandra's point you know are trying to be as um you know we want to make the language as appealing as possible. We we could definitely do that. I think that, you know, when we come back to you next month and talk about, you know, the draft language with respect to the sales tax, one of my recommendations is going to be to do just that, to engage a consultant that understands how ballot measures work in general, so we can we can make that part of their scope.

Yeah. Yeah.

Any other questions for Brian? Looks looks like there aren't any questions for you. All right, I'm available if there's questions. Yeah, I think you got them after. Okay, I I think you're ready for public uh comment if you're done with go for public comment. How many people are going to comment? All right. Good.

Thank God. All right. This matter is so important to me that I gave up my grandson's uh musical production at the Sunset Center this evening. Um my name is Andy Carr. I'm a resident of Carmel by the Sea and I'm also past owner of several hotels in Carmel, not all at the same time. the Coachman's in, the Green Lantern in the Carmel Oaks in as well only as well as owning properties in Monterey. I cannot believe that the toot has not been raised in 30 years. That makes no sense to me. Um, it's a revenue for the city. It it it helps the residents the residents the the sign behind you is that the residents are come first that anything else is secondary. And I just don't understand how it's been allowed to go this long without being raised. It was 6% in 1975, 8% in 1978 and then in 1998 it was raised to 10% and that's when I had my businesses here and I can remember the discussion and you know the protocol and I just I'm blown away that I I had no idea I wasn't paying attention that it hasn't hasn't been raised all this time. I went online to try and find out the average

um toot tax in resort areas. It's anywhere from 10 12% to 15% with additional self assessments being done as there's a self assessment here. Um, I know it's not the only thing that funds our town, but it's a very important one, and I think we've had enough time go by where it hasn't been raised, and I think it's time to do it. Um, I've heard people say that we don't need to raise the toot t tax as the hotel rates have been greatly increased. Um, and it brings additional revenue. And that is all true, but guess what? As a city, you're entitled to both. And we need both. Um, prices have gone up on both sides. and our city needs both sides of that revenue to maintain itself. Um, I mean, when I looked into it further, I thought maybe it should be raised to 14%. But I don't want to be unreasonable. Um, 12% is good. I'm not opposed to 14%. Thank you.

Thank you. Thanks for the intro. Do you have the presentation? Is it the one from Mark? Yes. So we um Hi, good afternoon or evening Carrie Ty with the Carmela Inkeepers Association, uh co-owner of the Hoffs House. Um, we Mark and I are going to give a presentation within our three minutes each. So, um, thank you. I think we agreed. Which Mark? Oh, yeah. Which Mark? Mark Watson is going to follow me. Let's get this

and then Mark's still well and I I agreed to give you more time. So, let's get it straight. How much you're going to take? We We only have seven slides, so we'll we'll be able to highlight it. So, I'll be a little lenient with you.

Thank you. Um, the Carmel inkeepers are going to focus on should Carmel raise the hotel tax in terms of whether the raise and hotel tax depends entirely on some information that has unintended consequences. Um, please look at the data and we're going to present data over time that will highlight some of what Andy said and we'll see very clear pattern emerges. Um, revenue growth in Carmel has not been driven by higher tax rates. It's been driven by stronger hotel performance that we as hotel people have driven. We haven't asked the city to do that. We have done it ourselves with pricing power, occupancy, and reinvestment in our hotels. So, tonight we'll walk through some of the data and understand what the long-term consequences of a tax increase would do not only to the hotels, the other businesses in the city. This chart chart shows uh the blue is the CPI increase over the years and uh the orange is the cumulative increase in caramel what we call revpar which is revenue per available room and before 2013 hotel revenue growth in Carmel was roughly in line with the CPI and it's important to remember what happened during the decades prior. The trans occupancy tax went from 6 to 10% by the late 1990s as was mentioned.

During that period, in the years that followed, there was a relative there was little reinvestment in our hotels with that big increase. Um to the point where the mayor of Carmel called us up and said, "What's going on? Why aren't you guys in reinvesting in your hotels? When a larger portion of revenue is taken through taxes, there's less available for property improvements. So, growth remains modest and largely attracts inflation. With the creation of the HID, we had a more focused uh marketing program and the RevPAR, the key measure of hotel performance began growing at a faster rate of 8 to 9% per year compared to 3 to 4% of inflation. That translates directly into higher toot revenue for the city. toot revenue. If we had just been leaving it without the impacts of the HID, hospitality improvement district today in 2025, we would have only seen about $7 million in toot revenue for the city. But what we're seeing is almost 10 million. So we've done this organically ourselves by increasing toot revenue to the city. When re when we reinvest in our hotels, we support revenue growth and we keep the product at a high level which is what our guests want to see coming to this unique city. going to the previous person's um

if you would allowed me to go first Andy I um we this side is higher pricing power delivers higher toot not higher tax rates. So the toot production per hotel room for Carmel even though it has the lowest toot rate is higher compared to the other cities of city of Monterey Pacific Grove Marina and Seaside because our rates are higher because our product is better. So we don't need higher taxes to get better revenue. What we need is a good product and that will bring in more revenue. Carmemell generates significantly more tax per room than cities with a higher revenue because they they don't that average hotel rate per room is much lower. Average hotel rate for Marina is probably $125. For Carmel, it's three something. So, we're getting that toot revenue with the rate increase, not necessarily with higher revenue uh percent toot. We have a case study of a local uh recent Half Moon Bay.

Oh, is that you? Oh, thanks.

Good evening, council. Sorry to interrupt you, Carrie. Um, so we have a real world example. I've never used this before. Hopefully, I can figure it out. Um, of what happens when you raise the toot? what kind of impact that has up in Halfoon Bay, they raised the rates uh their tax rate from 10 I'm sorry from 12 to 14% in 2021 and then they raised it again to 15% in 2022. Prior to that, you can see that the unincorporated areas around Halfoon Bay tracked about the same occupancy as the city hotels. After CO and then the subsequent increases to the city hotels, there's a significant drop in occupancy for the city hotels compared to the other outlying unincorporated properties. the um the demand did not disappear, it just shifted, you know, today. Um and Carmemell actually has a lot more competition around us than than Half Moon Bay today. There's um the way that the pricing is displayed to travelers includes the tax. Now, I'm guilty of in the past never paying attention to what the tax was. It was always an afterthought, and I think a lot of us, Maria brought that up to me earlier, that you didn't really look at what the tax consequence was. But now with the new law, you have to include the tax in your total cost. So, visitors are shopping the total cost, the room rate plus the tax when they're comparing where they want to stay. And I I forgot to mention too that we have a lot more competition around us and we're going to have another thousand rooms come online in the Monterey

Peninsula. That's like adding another carl to the Monterey Peninsula to compete with on our and to try to maintain our pricing power in light of a potential tax increase. It's um it's a very real risk as you can see from this graph. If you raise the taxes substantially uh it will affect the occupancy and that's laid out here as well. um using an established elasticity research uh for the hotel industry. When the total price of a hotel stay increases, demand will decline. A 2% increase in toot is expected to reduce demand by about 5,000 rooms in Carmel annually. That translates to roughly $2 million in lost hotel revenue and about $1.5 million in reduced local spending at the retail outlets. So in order to gain 1.9 million for the city, the businesses are going to lose about $3.6 million in revenue. So the net effect is not just a higher tax rate, it becomes a smaller overall economic base. And this slide is the city's current projection which assumes a a 1.3% increase in toot for the next 5 years. Historically, growth has averaged about 5.7% annually. When you apply historical trends, the city is likely to generate more than $8 million in additional tooot

over the 5 years without a tax increase. So the issue may not be the tax rate. It may be the assumptions underlying the forecast and the need to increase taxes to achieve toot revenue goals. You can see that if we continue on the current trend, we're going to exceed what the toot is forecasted to be by the city even with a 2% tax increase without all of the downside that come with a tax increase. So Carmel's hotel model works and and just to mention something that Andy said about I can't believe it's been so long since we raised the tax rate. By that rationale, someday we'll be at 100%. You don't have to raise the tax rate to increase your revenues. You need to see improvements and reinvestment. And when Sue Mloud, as Carrie had mentioned, called about the condition of our hotel rooms here in Carmel and the complaints she was getting, we had just come off of a 40% increase in tax. And and that led to people cutting their improvement budget, which is typically 4%. And that's exactly how much they lost with a 40% increase in the tax rate. So, Caramel's lodging market is already producing really strong revenue growth. Our higher ADRs depend on reinvestment. Higher taxes starve that reinvestment. Higher taxes also lead to lost occupancy and fewer overnight visitors and perhaps even more date day trippers. The question is whether a tax increase supports or undermines long-term performance. The data suggests the best

path is to continue strengthening performance, not increasing the tax. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mark. Yeah, mayor. Uh before the next speaker starts, I wanted to mention that the um slides with the alternative ordinance language are on um the desk of uh the city clerk in case anybody would like to see them. Okay. If you want to get it, go ahead and get up and get it. Those are the slides that we were handed out. Yes. Hi.

Hi. Good evening. Bear with me. I'm tired. I'm sure you can all relate. Um just to tag along on to what Mark has been saying um you know the hotels have done an incredible job of um outperforming even our own expectations and a lot of that is um the fact that we've been able to reinvest. I'm one of those people who has reinvested multiple times in the over the last 30 years. I had the gift of selling a hotel to Andy um back in the day. Um, so I've been around quite a while, but what I want to say is we need to we need to invest in other sources of revenue in this city. You can I feel it's unfair and it's not smart to keep coming back to the same sources that are, you know, because they're easy. Um, you know, the hotels have a system in which the toot is raised. It's easy to come back and just say, "Well, let's up it. Let's up it. But there are other sources of revenue in this town that could be tapped and paid parking is one of them. The city of Carmel used Lagouna Beach as a example um in their case studies of toot and um in using that same city, they have a paid parking program. And if we plug in our metrics, which is our two little parking lots and all of our city street parking, and plug it into the formula that they have used to generate the number, income numbers that they've generated, we're missing out on $1.3 million of earned revenue from paid parking. And with the suggestion of increasing our toot by 2%. Um you're going we're going to be

forcing uh visitors to make choices. And like Mark said, they have choices. Um and what's going to happen is people are not going to stop coming to Carmel by the Sea. They're just going to stop making it their overnight destination. We're going to see an increase in day trippers. And this town has absolutely no way to monetize the day tripper. And they're the we're not marketing to them, but they come anyway. They park on our city streets for free. They bring their coolers with their their all their meals in them. They utilize our beaches. They utilize our trash cans and our bathrooms. And there is absolutely no way for us to monetize it other than the cars that they bring into this town. So, I really hope the city council will remain have open minds and remain open to looking at other sources of of other sources of revenue and that is a really big one that we're missing out on. Thank you.

Thanks, Pam.

Hello again, Mark Stillwell, owner of Carmel Tradewinds and Stillwell Hotel. um 35 years in the hotel business with Pebble Beach Resorts as their head of real estate and general counsel, six years on the Carmel School Board dealing with tax issues and revenue issues. Um you know, I'm I'm I don't want to be here today. I don't like fighting this city. We've had I've had a great relationship over 35 years. I've got water for from the reclamation project for you. I put police communications equipment on the Pebble Beach maintenance yard. improve communication in the northern part of the city. Always work cooperatively. Um, but you're really not leaving me any choice and the hotel years any choice here. I think your your decision to possibly increase the toot is is really misguided. I think it's going to backfire. I think it's going to hurt my business and the businesses of other hotel owners here. And I really really think it's unfair to single out the the industry that probably does more um contributes more disproportionately to the city than the hotel business. I mean 40 42 hotels 25% of your revenues. And the only rationale I really get is hey Mark we need the money and we this is unsaid but we're an easy target right put it on the ballot let the voters decide. I don't think that's a wise decision long term. I mean, I did a quick review of toot around the state and the mean is one is 10.12 and the median is 10%. Now, that varies all over the board. Um but we're not we're not low and because of the rates we get um as as Mark and Carrie pointed out we we pay far more I

guess far more per room night than most jurisdictions in the state and certainly every jurisdiction in Monterey County with higher tax rate um other than unincorporated county um you know I talked to our county supervisor at length yesterday and she's she's not I asked her is the county planning toot increase. She's not in supportive of it. She thinks it's could potentially kill the golden goose. Now, her colleagues don't necessarily feel that way, but she said if we go down that road, um I would start a process. I would not just propose a ballot initiative that would increase this. I would I would sit down, we'd have a long process. We work it through the hotel industry. We really It's really been we've been reactive to this, not sitting at the table at the beginning talking about it. Um, and it's it's hard it's hard to approach it um that way. Um, you know, I just I said a year and a half ago, I just opened my new hotel when this came up and I said, "Give us time and let us show you what we can do by our own efforts." And well, Mark and Car's information is factual. Okay? We're we're the last two years has been 10% increases. Um, 10 to 12% increases. Um, and I said last time my investment in two and a half years of being closed with no income, I've increased my toot collections by um 4.5%. 160 to 712,000 between the first year before we started renovating and then the first full year after renovation. And honestly, we're doing even better this year. Not not the same numbers, but it's growing. And I there's so much inventory now being renovated and I have another hotel. We're planning on doing it. Decisions like this make me think maybe I should hold off on that. As I said last time, it just it doesn't give

me um security to make enormous financial sacrifices um and and then be rewarded with a 20% tariff increase on on overnight visitors who we I think would want to encourage to come here, not stay at PG or Monterey or Marina and drive here because they're paying onethird of the toot that our guests are paying. I guess the the last thing again there's a reason I don't want to be here but I've run a political campaign for Pebble Beach. I've only run one in my life and I got a twothirds vote of approval on a land use thing and and taxes are tough and I hope you don't think I mean this is not a threat. This is just protecting my business. There will be a vigorous opposition. I've already I've already thought about it and I'm good at this and I don't want to do it. I'd rather sit down and figure out other ways to help the city. But again, I feel like we all feel like you're leaving us no choice. This is this is harmful to our business. It's harmful to the long-term economic, I think, condition of the city. It's harmful to our guests. And um I really would urge you not to move forward with this. And I know it's probably a fatal compon plea, but you got to hear it from the people most affected and people who I think understand our business the best. So, I'll leave it at that. Thank you very much for allowing me to vent. Thank you. Thank you, Mark.

Nan, excuse me, Nancy Tumi speaking as a resident. Um, I am uh Mark Stillwell stole my line. Uh, I'm of the side of don't kill the goose, the gold, the goose that lays the golden egg. Um I believe and have seen from the numbers that they've shared that um they've been delivering incremental revenue to us at a rate that goes far beyond what has been budgeted in prior years and that is real dollars to our coffers that we desperately need. So, I'm I'm all about, you know, how do we make a bigger dent into uh our deferred maintenance, but I'm I'm very concerned about the risk that would be introduced through an increase in sales tax as is being proposed here tonight. Um so, let's not, you know, let's encourage that reinvestment. Yes, they're a profitable business. They need to continue to be profitable and we need them to be healthy and serving our visitor and and overnight visitors in the way that that people expect. Um so uh please count me in as a resident in not in favor of the increase in tot at this time. It can continue to be monitored. You know, does that increase in percent of dollars that they're contributing to our city uh really continue to demonstrate its its upward curve and at a accelerated rate. Um, and at a later time we could reconsider it, but I'm not a proponent of it at this time. Thank you.

Thank you, Nancy. Maria, Kevin, were you going to talk? Oh, okay. Looks like we're done. Christiey's Oops. Christie, go ahead. Christie,

hi. Christy Ramers again. Um, I can understand the concern of the hotel owners increasing their hotel taxes. that they want to remain competitive in the area. As a retail store business owner, I would be worried about increasing sales taxes, but I wonder if the hotels would be willing to reduce their self-inflicted advertising fee to 1% um from 2% thereby reducing the overall fees to the hotel guest. As a business owner, we are inundated with tourism. Our visitors come here to experience the charm of Carmel and yet they feel overwhelmed. I regularly hear things like, "Is it always this busy?" This weekend I heard continuous complaints, including from a fam, a family from San Francisco. I can see underneath it all that there's a quaint town, but it feels like it's being infiltrated with chain stores and too many people. And another female visitor who comes here annually from Mil Valley. Wow, I haven't been here in a few years. I see many more empty storefronts and the amount of people has taken over the relaxing feel that I have come here for. These comments should give us pause especially when it comes to our advertising. Ordinance 96 is in place to preserve our downtown as a resident serving community. Um please reread the frame document behind you all. Anyhow, wondering if we can have a win-win. We can get the extra income with the 2% increase. We can all get the benefit of a breather on the advertising with the reduction to 1% that the hotels pay to visit Carmel. I think more people will want to vis visit us if we have less crowds and more visitor quality experience. I support the toot increase with the idea that the hotels could meet the city halfway by reducing their 2% advertising fees by 1%.

I visit family in rural areas in Europe and there isn't one person who doesn't know where Carmel is. We don't need so much so much advertising. Thank you. Thank you and good evening Christie. Thanks. Thanks for being here for both both of the issues. All right. Looks like we're don't have any more. We'll bring it back for discussion. Go ahead, Jeff. So, I have a microphone.

So, sorry. Um, I have a question for um Nova on the election timeline. Um, I I I want to I want to make sure the June 2nd. So, to Brian's comments or the Brian's comments earlier, June 2nd is one resolution. So, I'm I'm not particularly interested in consolidating the resolutions and having you do that extra work, but the July 7th resolution is where the text gets sent to. So, if we went from 2% to 1% or one and a half% or as Andy Carr suggests 4%. Um, that number is uh just kidding. That number is uh

that number is fixed on July 7th when we send the text of the ballot measure to to the registar. That that happens on the July 7th date. I I suggest we put the election timeline slide up if we're going to be talking about dates. It'll make it easier. So that was in the PowerPoint. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We were

um to answer your question. So, usually it's June during an election year that we call for the election, which is the um the election of the mayor for a two-year term and then two council members for four-year terms. So, we're going to do that anyways. So, we already have that draft resolution pretty much done, ready to go.

Um, if you wanted to do a second separate resolution about the ballot measure, you could do that at the same meeting date because you would adopt one first and the other second. And then I would send both of those to the um the county register of voters and they would understand that we want to consolidate the election do the election of the mayor council and then also a ballot measure.

Okay. So on the can you put the presentation up? So the June 2nd date is the date where you we adopt the resolution calling for the mayor and two council members election and then we could and so when you were talking about two resolutions, you were talking about the the elected representative resolution and the um the uh to possible toot increase resolution. You weren't. So the tot increase is done with one resolution. It's not a two-step process. Correct.

That that's that's right. But you would need we have to do it by July 7th, but we might should do it by June 2nd. You could either date and and the first resolution you'd have to adopt would be the one calling for the election, the one that Nova said she's drafted. And then once that's done, then the second resolution, which could be the same night, would be the ballot measure. Okay. So it's that resolution that specifies the rate the it's that resolution. It's that second resolution that specifies the rate 2%. Yes, that what we're talking about. So we don't need to have the 2%

ironed out until we get to either that night or maybe a couple days before that night or a month before that night or whatever it is. Well, we could also do it in July. Yeah, we'd probably want to get direction in time to to bring it in July to you in July. So presumably you'd have if you wanted to have further conversation about this, you could do it in May or June.

Give direction as to what if anything you want to do in terms of a ballot measure so that it could be drafted and posted before July 7th. And then um refresh my memory when we did the uh sales tax increase. When do the ballot when do the um when do the uh the 200 words that we have to write that go in the ballot book? That has to also be done on July 7th or we have a couple days after that to do it. I think Nova may know the answer to that. Yeah, I think we saw that sounds like the the ballot arguments. Yeah, that's in middle of August. Oh, okay. Yep. Sorry.

That's good. Um Okay. And then rebuttals are done. Um also see Okay. Thank you. It's a good thing you're sitting next door. Election day is when? November 3rd. Okay.

So, I have a I have another comment. Um, I had a conversation with Brian about um, the definition. So, I've been outspoken in addition to the Toot issue, outspoken about the inclusion of resort fees in um, in the definition of TOT. And our current municipal code defines this in 3.32.10. And there's language in the there's language in the um present in in both the red line in sort of the resolutions that are in the packet and in uh well not in this presentation but in the presentation last month about changing the definition of rent to include a resort fees. And I had a conversation with Brian and I am now satisfied that we could in fact be uh charging rent. Like I'm satisfied that our current definition of rent as is in the municipal code that that's the basis for the DOT includes resort fees. So we do not charge that. We do not charge we do not bill or however it is the hotels for that amount now. But I'm satisfied that we already have the authority to do that. So, I would be in favor of removing that uh removing that language from the um election from the ballot from the proposed ballot language because I think that uh you know Brian brought out this alternative language um to to uh clarify to sort of clean up and clarify what the election what what the changes to the municipal code are. And I think that the I think that we can drop the rent red line too and it would make the language that's in the ballot book even easier

for people to understand. Could Could I suggest that we might ask the city clerk to pull up that page so that the council can see what language you're talking about on that sentence? Yeah. So in the it's the red line version attachment three page one of the of the package. Yes. It's page two. These pages are cut off, but um I have the red line. I have the red line printed. Well, um but I don't have the I think I think Nova should be able to get to this pretty quick. It's page one of the attachment three. Okay,

there we go. So we're talking about 3 3.32010 and you see a red line there. And so Jeff, that was what you were referring to. Yeah. Do you know Nova which page it is? Well, of the packet it is.

You think that's it? I think it's 229. Yeah, I'm almost there. Yeah, this 229 go.

Okay. So, it's in the middle of So, for you, uh, for Aandre and Bob and Hans and Dale, um, it's in the middle of page 229. It's title section one of the resolution. It's title 3, section 3.32.10 definitions of the uh, Yeah. So, here it is. Um, and there's a red line version. Thus, rent includes but is not limited to any resort fees. And so, I'm satisfied that um all those things below are included in uh consideration charge for occupancy of space. And so we can delete we can delete the uh I think we should delete the this underlying section to make it easier for voters.

Just like makes it more palatable. Yeah, it's less confusing because it's going to be pretty confusing as it is because of the nature of what's going on. Makes sense. It doesn't make sense to me. I'm sorry. Um I understand what this is saying about what's the the tax applies to the rent and that all these things should be included, but is that the current definition?

Uh the current definition, sorry, the current definition is in black. the the amended definition, the new definition would be in red. Okay. So, I I missed this. Um and is this um today um are the hotelers calculating your payment based on resort including resort fees? We don't have most don't charge. Okay. Well, but if you did have a pet fee, would would you be paying toot based on that? No, we don't charge toot on pet fees, resort fees. Rent is if you're going to have somebody speak, they need to go to the room. Okay. Yeah,

it's late, but you still have to come up. Sorry.

So rent is part of the room and so we charge toot on the room rate. We don't charge toot on pet fees or a resort fee currently. So, um, rent means the room rate. That's Now, keep in mind when this was created, we didn't have resort fees, we didn't have pet fees. We had just room rate way back in the 70s. So, this is very old. And so we are not you're getting toot from what the room rate is 10% of the room rate.

So um thanks Krie. So I experience with this in tellide where we went through this 10 years ago and the hotels were charging $100 per night resort fees and so we had to plug this this hole. So I I I understand this, but this is also sort of changing the rules a little bit and right and adding something to the tax. This seems like a an additional tax increase based on as compared to the current definition. Is that true? Did you want me to answer?

You'reing taking it out. I want to my proposal is that the black words so my definition my interpretation differs from car's and I believe that we already have the power to tax resort fees if we choose to exercise it and so my my suggestion is that we take out the redline stuff out of the ballot measure. Are you also suggesting that we start charging toot on all those things? Sounds like I think that's a more of a I think that's a different question that's beyond the scope of this. Okay. I don't know.

It's 10 to 10. We should probably decide if we're going to do this or not. Yeah. That's a fine detail. Do you want to You want me to open the discussion about whether we want to do toot or not? That's why we're here. I mean, we we talked about sales tax last night and we were going down a path where maybe sales tax instead of this. It's what I heard. I took votes. I mean, what I heard, but I might be wrong. And what I heard was we don't like the idea of doing two taxes, sales tax and toot tax. If I got that wrong, I got it wrong. I wouldn't say that was any unanimous vote. I didn't say it was unanimous, but that was a discussion point last night. Why don't Yeah, let's just have the discussion. I guess we've been through all preliminaries

and a lot of people weren't some of these people might not have been there. Did you have substantive comments on what since you're already talking on the tot?

My substantive comments on the tot. I've made my substantive comments on the TOT. I asked the question I asked the now looking back on it in nameain questions about the dates and then I made my comment about I support the language that the alternative language because I think it simplifies the measure and then I would ask that we remove that amended definition of rent because unlike Miss Ty I believe that our definition of rent includes I believe that our definition of rent already includes resort fees and that, you know, we perhaps should have charged started charging toot on resort fees back when the hotel started levying the resort fees. Like that would have been the best solution. And I think how to catch up on the resort fees is a question for another night unless Bob wants to do it tonight.

No, I'm okay with I'm I'm fine. I think what he just said is I'm still protoot increase. Yeah, you're probably proceeding with All right. We're trying to simplify.

Yeah. As I said, as also, you know, just to reiterate, as I said last month, um I'm interested in, you know, finding a balance like I said that last month and I'm still interested in that, but right now I think we should proceed. Okay. Okay. Hans, you want to go?

Yeah. Um, I'm sort of torn because uh I had a slide that I was going to try to get some some public buy in on our $10 million thing, but I think the number of people that are watching is probably fallen way off a cliff here. So, I don't know. Um, let's pull it up anyway and just maybe somebody will watch it in the morning. So I'll go I'll go quickly but um you know and Bob uh Bob and I have been really trying to uh raise the profile of this problem but again uh because different people can be watching this and obviously we have the same people every time who are here in the chambers but I'm going to say it for the virtue of the benefit of the people who might be might be new to this conversation. We have a deferred maintenance backlog of hund00 million dollars that we need to address as a city. And you know, every year we spend $2 or3 million in capital expenditures on things that are not part of that don't go towards that deferred maintenance. And so that leaves us with, you know, the balance. We have a CIP budget right now for the next five years, which seemed like it was getting a lot of head nods um last night. That's about $10 million a year. Um if you look at that CIP budget over the next 5 years and so um you know that that means we need to get to $10 million. So the question is how do you how do you get to $10 million? And we have a policy that we adopted last year where 10% of our revenue goes towards capital expenditures as opposed to operating expenses. So the expected revenue, the projected

revenue from our finance director is $3.9 million. So 10% of that you start off with $4 million from our from our, you know, recurring revenue that goes towards capital expenditures. If we're trying to get to $10 million, obviously that means we need $6 million more. We found some windfall ambulance revenue um that I would be a proponent of by policy putting that towards this capital expenditure that was kind of found money. So, as you can see on the screen here, that would get us to about $4.5 million. We still need $5.5 million from somewhere. And this is this is not just stuff I'm making up. This is the CIP budget for the next for next year and for the next five years that we all kind of were nodding our head to um last night. So how do we do that? So um $5.5 million. So go to the next um go to the next slide, please, Nova. So one option is to change that 9010 policy. to take the the $40 million of revenue that we get every year and to say, "Hey, instead of uh 10% of that going to capex, we're going to take a higher percentage of it, maybe even 15%." That's something that we're considering. Um it's a reallocation. You can kind of think about it as a budget cut because it's basically um it's reducing the amount of money available for operating expenses. So that could have service impacts, etc. So, you know, just to be clear, I completely hear what you guys are saying, but I think we we're trying to do our part, too, right? And and by extension, the residents are trying to say, "Hey, we're we're trying to be in there as well, making some sacrifices. That's a potential that

we're looking at, right? We haven't decided on that by any means, but that's one of the options. If you did that, now all of a sudden you're at three and a half million." So, Nova, go to the next slide. You know, and again, none of us have made any final decisions. It doesn't sound like we need to make any final decision tonight, and we don't have to make a final decision until July. But, um, you know, if you did a TOT increase, it's another 1.9 million. Now, you've got one a.5 million left. It's just it's totally random, but it's just so happens that the amount of quote unquote budget cut or reallocation that that residents would be experiencing is literally the exact same as the toot increase, which I I just think is kind of ironic. Um, but in any case, there's there's other ways to do this, right? Um, you could put the sales tax increase would be $2.5 million, right? So, there's different permutations of how to do this. We don't have an estimate on paid parking. We don't really know um what that would be. I know there are some people up here that are interested in that. So, again, there's a lot of different ways to slice it, but just to step way back, like this is the exercise that we're engaged in. And so, we have to decide um among those different options. Um, and so, you know, I think that that's just um, you know, helpful context. The I completely get, you know, the the arguments. Um, my, like I said, I've said it many times, but my parents ran a, you know, at its smallest, it was a 14 room bed and breakfast. Um, and so, like, at that scale, you, you know, you're not, this is not a corporate enterprise. like you really do feel the you know the operating leverage

there the margin there is pretty is pretty thin. So um I've literally experienced that myself. The you know the the other thing is it's you know it is real money here. Um, you know, Mark's still well. He talked about he's paying $700,000 in toot. So, a 20% increase, I think it's like about $150,000 a year, right? I mean, it's it's significant. And if you um put a cap rate on that, it's, you know, north of $2 million of value. So, um it's it's meaningful to people. Um I think that we get that it's meaningful to people. Um but again I wanted to show kind of this because this is the the framework that we kind of have to put it in as we think about kind of the greater good. Um so um I think it's there's time still for us to have you know conversations. We obviously need to have conversations um among ourselves. We need to really make sure that we feel like $10 million a year is the right number. Um, you know, I think we're getting closer to to that, but I think we need to actually drive that to a conclusion. Um, the other thing I would say is, you know, I was thinking about this recently, like we really are, it sounds obvious, but we really are partners with the hotel owners in this, like our interest on renovating hotels is completely aligned. You know, Mark mentioned that his TT contribution to the city on the Stillwell Hotel went from $160,000 to $700,000. I mean, it's a it's a really significant increase. So, I'm personally also irrespective of what we do with the Toot

um uh and I remain, you know, supportive. I'm very interested in how we could work with hotel owners to meaningfully incentivize how could we be creative with policy to meaningfully incentivize more renovations um of hotels because and don't take this the wrong way. I think our hotel stock in Carmel um like in general I think most people would agree with this. It doesn't uh it doesn't align with kind of the the brand of Carmel if you will. It's it's I think there's a lot of uh there's a lot of opportunity there, a lot of lowhanging fruit. And so given that alignment of our interests, how could we work together to create a policy to make that happen? So, um you know, I'm I'm pleased that we don't have to finalize this until July, but there's there's some wood to chop, you know, for us and some discussions to have still. So,

thanks. Go ahead. Um well said. I have to say that it was great presentation.

Yes. And thank you for the slides. It's very very helpful. Um so as we learned yesterday um when we had our revenue options report, this is one of the most straightforward options that's available for the city to pursue as a general law city. Um and it almost feels like we would be negligent if we didn't at least try it. And of course, everything is always subject to the will of the voters if they choose to approve it on the ballot. Um, in general, um, as most of you know, I don't like tax increases, and we have heard the arguments against, um, this from members of the local hospitality industry. And I just wanted to touch on something Hans just just brought up because I would like us to find some sort of a compromise or middle ground with the hotels because we absolutely do want them uh to be encouraged to do the renovations to their properties so they can improve their hotels, charge a higher room rate, which ultimately results in a higher TOT for the city. Um just a few ideas I had. Um for one, the city could wave or reduce permit fees um for hotel construction upgrades. Um and another item would be perhaps those hotels that do undergo the renovations. Um if the TOT is approved, they could be exempt from the 2% increase for a certain number of years perhaps based on the total dollar amount spent on the improvements. That would still be determined. But I think that goes along with Hans's idea to get some sort of a policy um to encourage that renovation so um they can improve um the hotel stock. And then the other item too is there might be a secondary effect um and that is with the increase in the tot uh some of the underperforming hotels might decide that it's time to get out to and sell the hotel keys as part of the AHA program. Um, and those can get afforded converted to affordable housing. Um, which is a relatively easy conversion.

Go ahead, Bob.

Thanks. Um, yeah, I mean, I think the hotelers and I have talked a lot, so it's no surprise for me that I'm I'm still a go on putting Toott on the ballot. Um, I'm a businessman. I understand I don't really understand your business, but I kind of do. Um um I mean I invest in technology startups, high-risk, sometimes there's a reward, sometimes there's not. And uh Mark, you said it. Taxes stifle reinvestment. Taxes stifle a lot of things. Um and they're unpredictable. And when I go into business, I accept that I'm going to get taxed and that I don't necessarily know who's going to tax me what, but that somebody's going to tax me a lot. And um uh and you got you all are in a business that is subject to tax. Um whether you call it a target or low fruit um I think it's just an unfortunate leftover from Proposition 13 when all the tools were taken away from local government that lodging tax was a tool that was that remains. Um and therefore it's Han said it right now I think we've got three tools. We got paid parking, we got uh lodging tax, and we've got sales tax. Uh we may have a couple more if we became a charter city. That's a tough road. Um and it's a long road. So um we so we'll we'll see. Um I you know, this isn't just a two-way dance. It's a three-way dance that Hans is right. You know, our relationship is very much intertwined. I I I when you say 25% of our revenue comes from your industry, I no 70% of our revenue probably really comes from sort of the visitation industry. Um because when you include second homeowners who are sort of sort of that and the property taxes they pay. Yeah. Um but somebody mentioned, you know, ordinance 96 here. I think we've we trampled this thing years ago. Um and you know, the residents of this

community, they're just tired. Um and you know you guys made a business decision 10 years ago to form the um visit um Carmel and um I think you made a brilliant business decision. And I think you've executed brilliantly. Um, and really it it Mark's numbers show that that the the the investment you guys made in assessing yourself and then in doing a good job of marketing has raised your ADR and that is one of the factors that has certainly allowed um uh you to reinvest in your um businesses to raise the ADR even further and I I see it as a cumulative effect. Um but um a a side effect of that decision to increase the marketing I believe is it has driven up all visitation and Mark makes the the distinction to me I'm sorry he's gone. Um that well you only market to put heads in beds. Um but you do online marketing and that's really not how it works. I mean, your initial target is someone that wants to spend the night here, but it's digital marketing, so it gets shared and shared and shared and shared. Um, and it's not long before it's in front of everybody in PaloAlto and Concord and, you know, Walnut Creek. Um, encouraging them to come to Carmel. And the day tripping is it's it's it's become it's kind of it's crazy. But the real thing is, and I've said this before, while that, you know, your business decision has allowed you to improve your product and it has in it has directly allowed the city uh to generate more revenues from that. I'm sorry to tell the truth that um um our infrastructure has been ignored. Um and our product doesn't keep up with your product and we have to reinvest in our product or the whole thing's going to

fall apart. and and it is and $100 million is a very real number. I don't think it factors in a lot of things like inflation, like soft costs. Um so it's a bigger number than that. Um and so what we're looking to to do is get this ship on the right track and that's going to take the numbers that Hans just went through. So I that's my job. Running this business is our job. Um and we're gonna have to make some tough choices, too. And I know those fall on you and I'm sorry. Um but that's that's the tool that uh that I've got. So we're not done yet, but um I'm I'm still there. Um and you know, I do think we need to get on get unpaid parking um seriously uh to show you some goodwill um in that regard and to take some money out of the pockets of those people as well to help to help with the problem. Um thanks.

Thanks. Also well said. Um, well, I think everybody here on the DIS knows that I'm more of a bisdev guy. I want to grow the pie. I uh I want to I like paid parking, but that's never going to be big enough until we have some parking lots, and that's sort of a dead-on arrival here. So, I'm not going to push that. Um I I thought I thought there was a lot more positive attitude about sales tax last night, but I must have been wrong. So, I'm I'm a proponent of the sales tax because it produces more money than the toot and I think we've seen from the hotels and I think we all met with the hotels. So, I'm going to say I met with them because we all did. Um, and I I sent Mark some what I thought were some pretty sophisticated somewhat complex ideas related to what I think a couple people have said in terms of developing getting more commitment from them to make reinvestments so we can see what those numbers are going to be so we can feel more comfortable with not taxing them. Um, I didn't hear anything back from him so I'm taking that he didn't he didn't want to come and present those but I'm happy to share those. I mean, it was pretty interesting and I think it would it sort of starts down the path. I think Hani may have brought it up like you need to prove to us more what you're going to do and how it's going to do before we stop going down this path. I think that can be done. It gets sort of complex, but again, we don't have anybody at the city that thinks that way. And the chamber doesn't really think that way. So, it's going to take some work. Maybe not this year, but maybe next year. But I'm I'm more for sales tax and pay parking. And I think that closes this gap as well as raising the tot if not more. But I understand what everybody's saying. So I think we've got we still have a majority easy majority on increasing toot if I'm not reading that incorrectly. Wanted to show of hands. I think we've got four. Right.

So it's still four to one. The same as we were last time. All right. Um what what more I don't have any comments about the language. which I thought was fine and and everybody had good comments. I'll accept your comments. So would the direction be to come back with a resolution um at your meeting in May or June or some later time? It's not that much. Uh I mean at this point you're 9/10 of the way there, right? Yes. So there's no harm in you know there's no harm in surfacing it next month, is there? So at least that would allow us to continue this discussion that we're having, you know, perhaps on Monday night for, you know, 45 minutes if that's what we need.

Yes. Could I before we stop this, could I get a vote on sales tax because if we're going to do that, we also need to do the same sort of thing, right? Not today. No, that's not on the agenda. No. Okay. No. So we'll put it as a future. Sales tax is already coming back. We already

we took we took direction last I can give you a report out. We took direction last night to come we took direction from you all last night to come back next month with draft language on sales tax. You're good. Okay. Good. Could I request that somebody make a motion as to what it is you want to do with the toot if you know just just a motion to modify with if this is your desire to modify it with the alternative language that you saw and deleting the sentence from that section on the definition. If that's what your desire is, I I make I'll make a motion to bring back next month um the resolution that we have with the alternative language. The alternative language and the lead the uh and the sorry the change I made suggesting

the definition of rent. Forgetting the change to the definition of rent. Second. Can I can I ask a question before we vote on it? Yeah. Is there a I just want to make sure that however this comes back to sales tax that we're able to have a a holistic discussion that's not just focused on one of them like we you can't just we have to decide how are we going to do all of it right

so yeah my like I said I think I said earlier my intention under my authority as city administrators when we come back with ballot measures is to to engage somebody to help us with the questions we talked about yesterday about what do two what does two ballot measures look like on a ballot for the city of Kaly we don't have our staff with that sort of like technical expertise um and so we're going to speaking to somebody excuse me just speaking to somebody like like Civotas like we tal last night who has an expertise in that area so we we we can do that I already planned on doing something like that so I'm I'm hearing that from you as well Hans are you also asking about the budget Terry discussion

yeah I'm kind There's a few things that are sort of um kind of um floating around right now. So, one is just firming up. Is it $10 million a year that we're going for? That's I honestly logically that feels like that's where you start. Say, okay, how much money do we need? And then I would just want to be able to however it's agendaized to be able to have a discussion about like you said there's basically four levers we can pull paid parking toot sales tax and reallocating something different from 9010. So, I'm interested in finding a way to have that discussion in sort of a a holistic logical way as opposed to like these oneoff conversations about individual levers.

I agree. Sounds like part of the budget conversation. Yeah. In May, so in May, we'll be bringing you your draft budget and I think that would be a really appropriate time to do that all as one item. Okay. Great. I agree. Yeah. No, great question. I think you got five. So, there was a motion. There's I heard a second. Did Did y'all vote on it yet? Yeah. Del's second, right? Has there been a vote? Okay. Roll call. Um, council member Baron, yes. Council member Berter, yes. Mayor Prom Delves, yes. Council member Jamal, yes. Mayor Burn, no. Motion carries 41. I have a future agenda item if we are there now. So do I. All right. So do I. You taking notes? I want one, too.

You taking notes? I'll take notes. Go ahead, Alisandra. you go first. Um, thank you. 2:00. There are people leaving. I I just want to thank everybody for for being here if you're stepping out. Appreciate it. So, I discuss

I wanted to request that we bring in an expert to discuss municipal bonds for financing the police department public works project. Um, and I'd recommend doing it ASAP. um you know I was looking away that the funds would come from the city's general fund and not from go bonds and property taxes um and it would be similar to what we did uh for the sunset center um and I was hoping that we could get that education from um an expert um prior to um or maybe coinciding with the decision uh with the architect which I know is coming in June. So, I know that that means basically we have to do it in May. Maybe we can also do that with the budget um when we do have our budget day on the 12th.

Oh, I can work with the mayor and the mayor prom on that. Okay. Um I don't I can't promise May so busy, but I understand what you're asking for. Exactly. Yeah. Like a bond council to come and talk to. Yes, I understand. Got it, Jeff. Yeah. So, one of the things that close to my heart is following through following up and following through on the decisions that the council made on Millsac the Mills Act and terminating the Mills Act contracts. And as Brandon can tell you, I talk to Brandon about this uh or I talk about it every week and uh Brandon's been unable to find the capacity to do that and I would like to resurface that at the council meeting. Okay. I hadn't heard I hadn't heard that. So that's news to me.

Sorry if Sorry if we haven't. It's a it's significant money and I would like to deal with it. Okay. Are we ahead? Are we still going to have our close session? That's a good question. I think that we're not done with Okay. No, we're still future future.

My item is um so the wildfire preparedness committee, you know, we've been spending the past two or three months kind of putting together a list of home hardening and defensible space topics where the city needs to take a look at modifying its policies. um you know with an eye towards balancing fire safety and community character. But specifically um we divided the list into kind of two buckets u process-wise. One is a list uh that we think could could be for an emergency ordinance and then a second is um a separate list for that we would try to send through the design traditions process. Um obviously allows for good community input. that's already going on. Um, but the the future agenda item is for us to consider an urgency ordinance um on some of these topics and you know some of them that were discussed was allowing gravel in zone zero uh uh where it would be exempted from site coverage requirements. Um there are some some considerations about tempered double pane windows. Um, actually the the suggestion would be to require them for all new windows and currently they're only required within proximity to doors and bathrooms. And then ember resistant vents requiring them on all new construction and remodels anywhere in the city. Um, currently they're only required in WOOI and fire hazard severity zones. So um, yeah, I the request is to uh consider an emergency ordinance on on those items. steel fences. Maybe

we thought that that one was best dealt with with through design traditions because it involves a complicated discussion about materials. I think council members, I might offer I think if the future agenda item is just talk about materials with respect to emergency ordinance, that would be the item. Let's not hash out whether it's a th um okay. I think that's a good idea. We'll talk we'll talk about it. Um, I don't even know if this is proper to ask because I'm still learning city government a little bit, but uh, I've had a number of questions about how we hire people, hiring practices or policies and I don't know if that's something we can do in public meetings or how that happens, but we we can bring you a presentation on how okay

recruitments work at the city. Okay. That's certainly something questions on. Sure. Yeah, we can do that. Because we had a hard time in certain positions. Absolutely. They're questioning it. We can talk about the, you know, the challenges in government. Okay. Yeah, absolutely. Okay. Maybe a report out if nothing else. Okay, you're good. Anybody from the public have an item? Nope. Okay. All right. Uh I guess we can just end the public meeting, right? And then we'll discuss what we're going to do, go into close session. We can't We probably can't have We should just continue. You have to take public. I'm I'm I'm willing to put myself on the chopping blocks. Like I'm totally fine with you guys pushing my evaluation items to another meeting.

I think we should My my motion would be to push this to next month. Can I say something, sir? Can I Before you do, I I was going to I was going to say I'm I'm willing to put my stuff on the chopping block, but Marissa actually needs a little bit of direction from you all as she is about to enter into negotiations with our bargaining partners. So, we need to delay on the one. I I would appreciate if you could spare a few minutes for that. One minute. I need one minute as I really I'll sacrifice my time for that to happen in public or you want me to No, I need to I need to talk to Kevin on my design traditions committee before you leave. So, okay. Thank you everybody for being here. We're going to end the public session and go into close session. So, you have to take public comment close session. Do I have any public comment on it? Was the uh

Well, I should announce it first before we ask about Go ahead. That's your job. Yeah, that's right. So, um there's three close sessions on the agenda tonight. We're only going to do the last one.