City - Regular Meeting

Recording in progress. Sandra, how are we how we looking? We're ready to go.

Okay. All right. Okay. We'll go ahead and um call this meeting to order. Good evening, everyone. Uh this is the regular meeting of the Pacific Grove City Council. We're here in uh council chambers at 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California. It's Wednesday, January 21st, 2026. It is 6:02 p.m. and we have six council members present. Uh for the record, council member Alio is not present tonight. We have and now I'll entertain a motion to approve the agenda as item Oh, actually I'll lead us all in the pledge of allegiance before we get there. So please join me and the Indivisible and justice for all.

Thank you very much. Now I'll entertain a motion on item one, approval of the agenda. So moved.

All right, we have a motion by Ralph, second by Puri. Uh I'll take a voice vote. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Hearing none passes unanimously. We'll take the agenda as stated. And now move on to item 2A, presentations. Presentations. is item A subp part A Pacific Grove Rotary and M Hardenstein is listed but I think someone else may be speaking tonight and just speaking to the microphone so the public can hear at home. Good evening everyone. I'm Sarah from this year's president of the Rotary Club of Pacific Grove. On behalf of our club, I'm proud to present the Pacific Grove Youth Center a check for $10,000 as well as $750 to the Pacific Grove Library. I'd like to recognize my fellow PG Rotary members who created the Pacific Row Rotary Auto Rally, Jeanie and Ray Burn, Steve Cavell, Mike Malone, who started the tradition of donating to youth programs. I'd also like to thank public works director Dan Go, public public works supervisor Martin Gonzalez, Recreation Program Manager Katie Clark, Police Commander Don Delfino, Fire Division Chief Justin Cooper, as well as Mayor of Pacific Grove, Nick Smith, and the Pacific Grove City Council members. And last, but certainly not least, the citizens of Pacific Grove.

Thank you for your continued support of our service organization. Your assistance with the PG Rotary Auto Rally has helped us to make this donation possible. We appreciate all you do for our community and for the collaboration with our club. Thank you.

Thank you very much. All right. Um, and now thank you very much Rotary to the Rotary for the great gift. We really appreciate it and I know it'll go to good use. Um, now I'll invite for item 2B, the little car show presentation by Mr. Molton, Mayor Smith, city council citizens. My name is John Molton and I'm the uh one of the founders of Marina Motorsports and the chairman of the Little Car Show. And just want to mention that we've uh this is our this last was our 15th year with the Little Car Show in Pacific Grove. And ju just so you don't think uh we're out of towners, so to speak. Uh I was raised in Pacific Grove and where we're standing right now used to be the rec center. this building. It was attached to the city hall and police station and that was 65 years ago when I used to go there.

Uh tonight we just I wanted to mention we're donating uh among other things two $2,000 to the rec center and $2,000 to Meals on Wheels and the fireman fund. another $2,000 and another $2,000 for veterans transition center. Um I looked up I couldn't remember how much we donated so far in this last 15 years to uh the city of Pacific Grove recreation department and the library and it was a little over $31,000. That's just from the little car show. Uh, and I guess that's about it.

Thank you, John. We really appreciate the gifts. Thank you.

Okay, let's confirm. All right. All right. Thank you so much. That was great. Thank you to the little car show. Always enjoy that event in August and it's really fun. It's a great little event. Um, now we're on to council and staff announcements. So, council members, do we have any announcements? Council member McDonald.

Thank you so much. Um I just wanted to announce that um well two things actually. One is that the um climate action and adaptation plan is now available for public input. Um and the address to go to that is pwoutreach at cityofpacificgroveve.org. And if you are on the notifications list, you probably got a text or an email about that already. And also the library wants to hear from us. So, I guess the state is doing um a program where they're um looking for stories from people about the libraries and what make our libraries great. And so, we can contribute to that as well at pacificgrove library.orgnews uh survey, sorry.

Thank you. Any other council members wish to make a announcement? Okay. M Mr. Morgson, any announcements?

Mr. Mayor, we do have a couple things on the staff level. First one is I wanted to let the council and the community know that as of this afternoon, our building official gave the Kempton Miridor its final sign off. So it is officially um all approved at this point in time. So anybody who's been around for that project the entire tenure has known that that has been you know quite the feat and you know we really uh thank our our community development staff who have helped them through that. Um now I also turn it over to our deputy city manager for an announcement. Thank you. And thank you, Council Member McDonald, um, for announcing the CAP is available for public review and the library seeking input. There's more information on both of those items on the city's website. Um, on behalf of the public works department, I'm actually really happy to announce they recently completed three capital improvement projects. The first being pedestrian improvements and roadway improvements at Fountain, Central, and Grand Avenues. The sidewalk infill project on Cynics and Congress has also been recently completed and the repairs at the youth center roof. And then you might see some activity here in the city hall complex because they are currently working on the roof repairs at the police department. So there's a lot of active construction underway. So kudos to our public works team. Thank you.

Thank you. Anything further? And I'd also like to welcome uh Mr. Loca to the not his first time up here. So welcome back, Mr. Loca. Okay, excellent. So, uh, we'll go ahead and move on to item four. Uh, general public comment must general public comment must deal with matters subject to the jurisdiction of the city and the council that are not on the regular agenda. This is also the appropriate place to comment as to items on the consent agenda only if you wish not to pull the item from consent. So, given those parameters, um, who wishes to make general public comment at this time? Um, and Seeing one or two in the audience, we'll take them first.

Good evening, Mayor Smith and council members. Um, I'm Jeannie Anton and I'm here speaking for the friends of Chicago Hall. I'm very excited to let you know that as of January 12th of this year, Chicago Hall is now officially listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Let's do that.

So now we have seven buildings with that designation. that includes a Syllamar Conference Grounds, Point Penos Lighthouse, the Centrella Hotel, the Gossby House in Trimmer Hill, and the Frank El Buck House, which we now know as the Charles. So, thanks to all of you and to our city manager for your support in making this happen. We hope this will opens the door to some grants for the Shiitaga project and it certainly enhances our city with our emphasis on our, you know, historic preservation projects. I also want to thank everybody who came to our recent fundraiser at Passion Fish last week. Um, the owner has been very generous and presented us a check for one of our to one of our committee members for 30% of the take that night for everybody that attended, not just for people that were specifically there for Shiagwa. It was a busy night and fun to see so many locals out dining together. And so I want to thank Burke, the owner of the restaurant, particularly for his generosity and making that happen.

Thank you. Thank you, Miss Anton. Appreciate it. Anyone else? Oh, Sally.

Good evening, council and staff. Um, I'm Sally Moore and I left my notes at home, so I'm going to do what I can going to wing it. In October, you um adopted the Cal additional amendments to the national or I'm sorry, see, I'm not doing a very good job. The California um building codes and Mr. Keel explained to council member Paduri that even though they were specific to Pacific Grove that the California codes were the minimum and they did need to be followed. So reading through that I discovered that I'm non-compliant and I'm sure others are when it comes to the um numbers on houses there to be no less than seven inches in size. I have three inches but not five inches and I'll be taking care of that soon. And I noticed that around town there's a lot of them. They're even smaller than that. But what I'm really here for is the California building code 11D705, which is detectable warnings and detectable direct directional structures and textures. And that is for the curb cutouts. I think the majority of our cutouts do have the ridges so that if you're walking with a cane, you are aware, but definitely they are not outlined with an highlight or contrast color for low vision people. According to this, the domes, the truncated domes are to be yellow and all occasions. I know that we've been putting in some new ones. They're gray. They can be painted. I think um one of our real bad offenders are the intersection at Forest and Lighthouse and by the museum where they're a dark red that just blend right in with the um bricks and the paving. Um also there's I think in front of the sewing machine I think there's sewing

center at 16th and lighthouse. Um there was an outline of bricks but as they disappear it's just being filled in with cement so it doesn't show a contrast. Um, one of the truncated domes down by Kidwell was yellow, but it's all worn off. I think probably from all the construction. But I'm just wondering if maybe while the city is resurfacing and repainting intersections if this can be addressed. It really is a shall we'll do things for the city to do. And you had approved these um uh codes. So that's what I had to say. Thank you. And I'll give this to the city. Thank you.

And online. Thank you, Mayor Jane Haynes.

Hold on just one moment. June. Okay. Do hands, can you hear me now? Yes.

Okay. Good evening. Item 9A on tonight's agenda attaches the redacted info applications from 18 residents who applied to serve on city committees. This comment goes beyond item 9A, which is why I submitted under general public comment rather than under 9A. I submitted a timely application to serve on the historic resources committee, but my application was not accepted. Possibly other people also submitted unsuccessful applications. The city manager has informed me that my application was considered even though it was rejected and that application my application is available for public review because it is attached to my public comments posted for agenda item 98. Of course, I'm disappointed that my application was denied. But the broader issue I'm addressing is the August 20 proposal to merge the architecture review board and historic resources committee. When that merger proposal was introduced at the August 20 council meeting, one reason given for the proposal was the city's challenge to recruit citizens to serve on those two bodies. That rationale is no longer valid. Item 9A shows strong public interest to serve on both committees, resulting in more applications than opportunities to serve. Unlike the Architectural Review Board, the Historic Resources Committee's mission supports the outstanding work of the Pacific Grove Heritage Society in preserving the city's architectural heritage. I genuinely congratulate and send my best wishes to all 18 successful appointees and especially to those four applicants selected for the historic

resources committee. Conc concurrently, I respectfully request the city council to keep tonight's strong public response in mind when the committee merger proposal returns for reconsideration. There was not a challenge to recruit enough citizens to serve on those two bodies. There were more than enough applications, including my unsuccessful one. Please keep that in mind. The excessive number of applications when the proposal to merge the historic resources committee and the architectural review committee returns to the council for reconsideration. Thank you. telephone number ending in 902.

Good evening. My name is Nina Bey. The city's support for the modus project endangers the future of monarch butterflies and their habitat here in Pacific Grove. I urge you to withdraw from the modus project immediately and take down the wireless sensors installed in the butterfly sanctuary. Pacific Grove is in violation of its own monarch ordinance. The modus project glues solar powered RF transmitters on the backs of monarch butterflies with little solar panels so it will never turn off and tracks them on the migration. The transmitters are the equivalent weight of a 22lb backpack for a human on creatures that have never carried any weight. 22 pounds is a heavy weight even for a human to carry who has the ground to support them. These butterflies have nothing but air and they must fly for thousands of miles with this huge weight on their backs supported only by their wings effort. That many of them survive the first year back east is a testament to their sheer gutsiness. Worse, the transmitters pulse microwave radiation every 3 seconds permanently, flooding the butterflyy's physiology with this toxin despite known harmful impacts to insects from this radiation. It's a carcinogen. It damages DNA. It can cause genetic mutations in offspring and infertility. It damages learning and immunity and it disrupts ability to navigate and many other problems. And when they're exposed to each other's transmitters, this incre increases their exposure. How could the city allow this to be done? This is pseudocience by people with no background or expertise in microwave impacts to biology. Xerxes society and CDFW both confirmed that no SQA review or environmental impact study was done. No public hearings were held, no public comment periods occurred, and no public noticing vilal notices posted in area newspapers was conducted before this project began. Xerxes has ignored scientific research. This project was a ministerial permit despite the known damages likely to occur in the first

news locally within the Monterey Herald in December with the transmitters due to be activated on their backs in mid December. This is animal abuse. This violates your ordinance. It threatens an already stressed species, ignores what's really impacting them, and adds further burdens to them to them. Halt this project now and remove the AT&T antennas as well at Wilky's in across from the sanctuary, which I and others spot in 2013. Stop this project, please, now for the Monarch's sake. Thank you.

Mike Gibbs. You'll need to unmute yourself.

We go. I like to comment about the cannabis lottery process. I think most everybody knows what's going on. Basically, three companies applied for a cannabis license in the city of Pacific Grove. Uh there were 10 applications, eight of them coming from off the charts, uh the same company, basically gaming the system, uh trying to increase their likelihood of receiving the license. Uh so what I'm asking tonight is a pause in the lottery process until we get this all figured out. If I was one of the two companies that submitted a legitimate full application meeting all the requirements, I'd probably be talking to my attorney right now uh about the process that PG put out in its uh ordinances. It's supposed to be fair, equitable, and transparent and it is not. Uh so I asked for the pause. The other uh thing is very puzzling. How did HDL miss this? I think we paid this consulting firm $26,000 and u if we if we did pay them we should ask for a money back and uh if we have it we should spend the suspend the payment uh for that process. So I think it makes the uh whole process uh um appear to be unfair and even cause a lot of people to question the legitimacy of the total process which then kind of bleeds over to anybody that is awarded license would be on some under some kind of a shadow about the legitimacy of the CAD CADMUS selection process here. So, I'm asking for a uh a pause in the process. And lastly, I'd like the applications for all of the uh all the information made public, particularly for the eight from OTC. I would love to see their EIN, that's your federal identification number, your California C number. That's your corporate number in

the state of California. I suspect that there is not a different number for each one of those eight. And uh that is highly problematic. and um unethical in my opinion. So, suspend the process for the lottery and let's get this thing under control and avoid anybody filing a lawsuit. Thank you very much, Nancy Parsons.

Nancy Parsons, you have the floor. Okay, we will skip her for now. Carmelita Garcia.

Thank you very much. Good evening everyone. Um I'd like to uh comment also on the cannabis um issue. The uh address 1157 Forest Avenue. Um I'm not sure if anyone is aware of the fact that there are apartments behind um I think it's 1147 Forest Avenue. Um and I know the requirement um if my memory serves me correctly is 1,000 ft um from daycare centers, schools, uh that type of um business uh where children uh would be exposed. So, if it hasn't been done already, I would encourage someone to check the footage uh between these apartments and the proposed site. Um and um if Well, anyway, that should take care of it. Actually, I was going to say um with the apartments and what have you um if it were approved um well, what I'm trying to say is if if it is within the distance, would that mean that apartments could no longer rent to um families that have children? I'm kind of talking backwards, but anyway, my point being um I think the distance needs to be measured between the proposed site and these apartments behind um that other address on Forest Avenue um as part of the process. Thank you,

Nancy Parsons. Nancy Parsons, you'll need to unmute yourself. Okay, I think we're gonna have need to move on here. Thank you. Um, no, your hands.

Thank you. We'll close general public comment, move on to the consent agenda. The consent agenda deals with routine and non-controversial matters and may include actions on resolutions, ordinances, and other public hearings for which testimony is not anticipated. Um so um seeing hearing that is there anyone on the days that would like to pull an item. Yes. I have a comment on one item. I don't need to necessarily pull it. Uh whichever way is preferable. Uh Mr. Lora, I'm sorry. Council member, could you restate your I didn't quite

uh I only want to comment on one particular item. Uh should I pull it? Um, I think generally a comment can be noted for the record. If it was a discussion, then you would need to be then you would need to be pulled. So then then do you want me to make the comment now? Make it now or after? It's at your pleasure. And then uh your honor, you'd also mention too about separating out one of the consent items. Yeah. I'm going to see if anyone pulls it. Let's take it out after. Okay. Um and then um is there anyone uh in the audience or online that wishes to pull an item? Please say so. Now, no hands on mine raised.

Okay. All right. We'll go ahead and bring it back to the council for action. So, we have uh the consent agenda on the consent agenda. Uh item 7B. I I'm going to bifurcate due to the recusals. I'm going to go ahead and separate 7B off of from the first vote. So now I'm going to uh entertain a motion as to the consent agenda uh e accepting there from item 7B for now. So do I have such a motion? I have consent. Thank you.

All right. So we have a motion by second by McDonald. We're taking the consent agenda as constituted uh with the exception of 7B. Uh take a voice vote. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Hearing none. Passes unanimously. We'll go ahead and go uh to item 7B directly. At this time, uh the recusals will be uh taken. For the record, uh council members Puri and Ralph have left the deis for this vote. They are recusing themselves for the matter as they did at the previous hearing. Um so now I'll go ahead and entertain a motion as to item 7B.

Motion to approve. All right, we have a motion uh to approve by McDonald, second by Garfield. Any further discussion? Seeing none, we'll take a voice vote. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Hearing none. This is unanimously with those remaining. Four votes. And uh moving right along, we'll invite our council members back in. We'll go to Can I take I'm sorry. I apologize. Okay. There's a lot of moving parts, but Council Member D would like to comment on one of the items.

Yes. Uh, thank you. Um, my comment was just on the agenda item 8A, which is the board commissions and committees quarterly reports. Um I may be off but when I read through it um the quarterly reports were some of some of the BCC's were providing quarterly reports for Q2 some were doing Q3 um some were doing it for all the quarters um and then I I didn't necessarily see some of the like recreation board I didn't see the quarterly report I I don't know if that was there but was not missing except what I'm getting at is maybe we can streamline this a little bit better, make it easier for our BCC's uh just provide a guidance to say we want it for this quarter and give them ample time to submit the quarterly report so we can include it in the future and I would like to thank all the BCC's chairs and all all participating who have done this work to bring it to the council. Thank you.

Right. Thank you very much for the comment. Uh go ahead and move it along to looks like I think we're at 11 here. 11A. Uh and that is was a long one. 11. First reading ordinance to amend city salary classification. Miss Livian. Good evening, mayor, city council members, staff, and community members. [clears throat]

Staff is requesting an amendment to the city's salary schedule for the code compliance officer classification. The code compliance officer classification was not updated to reflect the 3% cost of living adjust adjustment approved for members of the general employees association in July of 2025. This omission occurred during the implementation of multiple concurrent changes for most of the employee groups. The proposed ordinance corrects the salary schedule to include the approved adjustment and applies it retroactively to the code compliance officer classification only. This concludes my report. Thank you very much. Take it out to the public for comment on item 11 A. Just salary uh update for a position. That's

no hands on mine, mayor. Okay, we'll go ahead and bring it back to the council for action. I'll entertain a motion on this. Move to accept. Okay. And are we we're still following this? We're reading the title, Mr. Lurca. So, we have this read the title uh uh on number one and then we're going to move the balance. Okay. So, I don't know if that's been your practice. We've been reading the title. I don't know uh if we need to do that or not, but that's been what we've been doing. Subject matter there. Yeah. Well, they that's Yeah. This way we've been preparing things for the last couple years. Okay. So, we we just have you read the title of the ordinance and then we'll then council member Garfield will read the balance. Move the balance.

And I'll second it for the record. Oh, thank you. Happy to do so. An ordinance of the city council of the city of Pacific Grove amending the classification schedule for code compliance officer. Thank you very much. And the motion to move the balance of items. Motion to include the code compliance officer that was previously left out. Right. Items two through four on the recommendation. Yes. Okay. Wait the further read, hold the first reading and direct that a summary of the proposed ordinance be published as approved by the city attorney. Yes. Okay. Um and we got a second from Council Member Puri. Um so we'll go ahead and uh take a voice vote on this. All in favor say I. I.

Any opposed? Hearing none. Passes unanimously. Thank you very much Liv Livian. And now on to uh the ordinance, the drone ordinance item 11B. So that's where we're at. And I'll recognize I believe council member McDonald to start. [snorts]

Yeah. I want to very much thank the um the city attorneys, the city manager, and the chief of police for their collaborative effort on this process. Um the goal of the ordinance is to protect coastal wildlife and facilitate enforcement of non-compliance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Um and so all of the other protections that we have in the marine sanctuary, the current ordinance on drone flights actually already prohibits flying of drones without permit and there is a mechanism for monitoring already embedded in that. Um and so even though we have these regulations, we see ongoing disturbances. We get a lot of complaints from the community and um for the local monitors for both the harbor seals and the black oyster catchers. There are a lot of disturbances documented and this is an attempt to not only um introduce those wildlife protections but also to protect the privacy and safety of local citizens as well. And so um the idea is to provide clear guidance. A lot of this was already in the permit and it's being kind of captured in the ordinance so people can easily look up what the requirements are in our city and it is um designed to be in compliance and consistency with the regulations already established by the FAA, Noah and CDFW, the Fish and Wildlife. And so this is actually a second step. We originally talked about this agenda item in October and council voted to have the city attorneys work on the ordinance and that is what's being presented tonight. Um, good evening mayor and council. Um, city manager, should I go ahead with the presentation?

Yes, you can. I was just trying to bridge the gap there. That's okay. Okay. No, I can I can wait for that. No worries. I wasn't sure if it was my turn. No, go ahead. You're good. You're right on point.

All right. Well, good evening, mayor and city council. Uh my name is Ellena Jurley. I work with Burke Williams and Sorenson. I'm here tonight in my capacity as special counsel and uh myself and attorney Brian Purick have been working with staff on this ordinance. Uh so this evening, I'm just going to give you a summary of the proposed ordinance. And uh you have seen that there are two um draft ordinances uh before you tonight. One is an urgency ordinance which if passed by six uh votes would be effective immediately and then a regular ordinance which would go through the regular process. So I think uh council member McDonald has already given you a little bit of background on this. So I think we can go to the next ordin uh to the next slide. And uh as uh the council member already uh mentioned uh uncrrewed uh the excuse me uncrrewed aircraft systems otherwise known as drones. I'm just going to refer to them as drones because I think it's easier for people to understand. Um are subject to regulation by federal law and the FAA. Um and federal law preempts some local laws that are aimed at regulating aviation safety or airspace efficiencies. Um as and they put it as laws that impair the reasonable use by drones of the airspace and laws that conflict with FAA regulations. So in in this ordinance we um we were as careful as we could be to avoid any conflict with federal laws or the FAA regulations. Uh next slide please. So, here are some examples of permissible local laws. Um, first of all, for purposes other than aviation safety or airspace efficiency, for example, the protection of wildlife and that do not impair the reasonable use by drones of the airspace. And if if it

sounds a little um mushy and not clear, well, uh it kind of is. So uh then we can also regulate the location of drone takeoffs and landing areas. Uh restrict operation near private property to protect uh people's privacy. Also require uh operators to be located in particular places. Um and we we can also require drone registrations that also again do not regulate aviation safety or the efficient use of the airspace. Next slide please. So, as I mentioned, there are two ordinances proposed tonight. Um, the the main ordinance adds a new chapter. We've also made some minor suggested amendments to chapter 11.72, aircraft landing, to uh make sure that it is uh consistent with the proposed new chapter. Next slide, please. So, here are the purposes. And by the way, as I go through, if anybody wants to has a clarification question or anything that you you'd like me to talk more about, I'm happy to uh be interrupted. So, please don't feel that you have to let me talk uh at infin item, which I won't, by the way. So the purposes of the ordinance that we have included in the draft before you is first of all to prohibit the operation of on of drones in the areas designated in the ordinance such as uh near wildlife and within marine protected areas and near uh schools and flying over private property in a way that uh people's privacy can be invaded. Um, like I said, to protect the privacy of the residents and visitors of the city of Pacific Grove and to protect wildlife and birds, including but not limited to disturbing animals during breeding, nesting, rearing of young and

other crit critical life history functions. Next slide, please. So, we do have uh some definitions for marine protected areas and they are identified in the ordinance and uh they include the Edward F. Ricketts State Marine Conservation Area, Lovers Point uh and Julia Plat State Marine Reserve, the Pacific Grove Marine Gardens State Marine Conservation Area, the Ayamar State Marine Reserve, and Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. Next slide, please. In this ordinance, we propose to uh completely prohibit the recreational use of drones except as might be expressly permitted by federal or state law. Um so if somebody has some way to demonstrate that um federal or state law expressly allows them to use the drone for recreational use and they can show us that they can, well then they can do it. Um, but they would still be subject to obtaining a city permit. But generally speaking, this is going to prohibit the use of recreational drones within the city. Next slide, please. So, these ordinance do allow for commercial project permits and for educational and research project permits. Next slide. Um, it uh allows the operation of public drones. Uh this is for law enforcement, fire services and other official public agency purposes including investigations, emergency response, search and rescue or disaster mitigation. Um although these operations of course remain subject to any federal regulations. Next slide please. We are prohibiting certain actions. Uh and these are there's a list of I'm not

including everything here. These are just some examples, but these are actions that are prohibited unless they are permitted by this specific permit because we recognize that in some cases some of those actions um are going to be required by the the particular project. So, some of these examples are to maintain certain distances specified in the ordinance from wildlife, uh marine protected areas and schools, maintaining line of sight by the operator. We want to make sure that operators can see the drones that they're operating. Also, we want to make sure that uh drones do not take off or land near people that are not operating them to ensure they're they're not endangered. And we have a prohibition on recording of audio and video of wild wildlife andor private property. And also we have an a 500 foot distance requirement from emergency vehicles and crews because we want to make sure that in the event of an emergency there is no interference. And you know there's a few more but this just kind of gives you a flavor of the types of things that uh that we're prohibiting. And then next. Yes. So the project application uh will require among other things the contact information of the operators, the w information about the specific drones that are going to be used, the description of the flight activity, including whether they're going to be filming and taking vid visual images or sound recordings. uh as well as a copy of a valid or and current part 107 remote pilot certificate and FAA tower notification if applicable. So um drone pilots are required to have a certain pilot certification and so uh issued by the FAA. So that that is one of the requirements. Next slide please. So I did mention briefly earlier about project permits. So what we're

attempting to do with this is that we recognize that in some cases um having a simple permit is not really going to do the trick. So for example, if if there's filming at a location for a movie or or a television series or um there are projects by local realtors who are um filming particular properties that are going to be for sale for a certain period of time. Um and also the thing that we were also thinking about was there are research drones that are being deployed um around the wildlife areas and we wanted to be able to have a more flexible project permit or program permit for such research activities such that they don't have to come in and and request a permit for each one of these things. And so you know the the the length of the term of such uh permits or the parameters of those permits there there'd be a lot more flex flexibility with those types of permits. So that's that that was the the thinking behind uh these provisions. Uh next slide please. Um there's also commercial project permits. So, um, as I mentioned, it it could be things like a film or, uh, realtors or, you know, whatever other commercial activities at some point there are probably going to be drones that are going to be, uh, delivering packages. I have not seen those yet, but I have heard of those happening and and that they'll maybe become more common. So, th those types of things. So that again we don't necessarily want uh folks to have to come in and get an individual permit for each delivery or for each uh flight during the filming of of something. So next slide please. Um and so specifically educational and re research project permits. Currently in the in the ordinance, we have some uh

of the items that we uh are thinking of requiring such as information about the drones, uh the qualifications of the pilots, where they're going to be uh using the drones, what kind of projects that would require multiple flights and locations, and any other information that's that's relevant. And again, this is really intended to make the the permit process easier for uh research uh institutions. Next slide, please. And enforcement uh a violation of the city's code is unlawful and is a public nuisance, may result in a seizure and impound of the drone uh and may be punished uh in accordance with title one of the municipal code. This is fairly standard um enforcement provisions and you know each and every day a violation is continue as a is a separate offense. Again this is also pretty standard and the the punishment for violations of the code as you are probably aware are either administrative citations, infractions or misdemeanors. And you know, typically misdemeanors are really uh m are really reserved for very very serious uh and uh habitual violators. Um typical city code violations are um you know the the typical citations are either administrative so civil fines or infractions which you know have no real consequences other than a fine. So next slide please. So these are the recommendations for this evening. Uh to discuss the proposed ordinances, request that the city attorney read the title of the regular ordinance and the urgency ordinance. Uh a motion to wave further reading of the ordinances. A motion to introduce and hold first reading of the regular

ordinance. Uh amending chapter 11.72 and adding chapter 9.50 regulating uncrrewed aircraft systems. A motion to adopt urgency ordinance amending chapter 11.72 and oh okay hello oops uh and um uh and adding chapter 950 regulating uncrrewed aircraft systems uh and a motion the publication of the ordinances will be satisfied by publication of a summary approved by the city attorney and I believe that's my last slide and I'm I'm happy to answer questions We're going to go to um Council McDonald again.

All right. Thanks so much for that. And um and really the goal here in developing this is very much to work with the research institutions. Part of this actually came about too because there has been so much stresses on our local wildlife by all the recreational flights. And we really want to reserve that airspace and whatever disturbances may be. I mean there there could potentially be some disturbances. Everybody understands that even with research, but the goal is really to make sure we're leaving the window open for that because that is something that benefits the entire marine sanctuary. It benefits us um both as uh residents and the general public. Um, so really that is the goal and I know city staff's already reached out to Hopkins in particular and it sounds like um, CSUMB may be doing some local research. Um, and the idea is to develop the more specifics of the permit in conjunction with those institutions. The the intention isn't in any way to limit projects or make this a difficult process. Um, and there's actually already a monitoring program in place. Um, and so it's just continuing with what's already existed. there are generally no fees for monitoring for research. Um and so we don't anticipate that changing either. Um and in um based on comments we've received from the research institutions, we have a proposed um slight modification to the commercial and research section. If Sandra could pull up that slide because this would be something that that council could then consider as a slight change to section D. And um it's also then could apply to public comments that are relevant as well. Oh, sorry. I keep forgetting my monitor doesn't working so I'm waiting for it. And it's over here. [laughter] Um so um what we proposed is um making it clear that uh oh so this is the first two parts. So we kind of remove the research part from the the general project permit section up front. I'll

give people just a second to look at this. Basically, the gist here is to make it clear that for commercial project flights, the goal really it it all comes down to the goal of protecting the local wildlife. Often people doing commercial flights aren't aware of disturbances. I've actually talked to people conducting um commercial flights who had at least a hundred birds swarming around going crazy and weren't aware of it. Um and and we we totally understand that makes sense. We're out there educating often. And so this is really just meant to help make sure we're doing what what our responsibility is for protecting the marine sanctuary that borders our city. Um and so the idea of the 72 hours prior to the flight, this is for commercial. um it doesn't necessarily apply to, you know, big- term research projects. And that is just so that we can get a monitor on board um to make sure that those protections are in place. As I said, this is something that's already done. It there's already a program in place that um the police department reaches out to the person who who does that and they help assign the monitor for that. So, this is actually nothing new. It's just people didn't usually know about it until they got to the permit stage. And then, if we could go to the next slide, please, Sandra. And so the proposal was that for the research one because the intention was always to work with research to ensure that the permit meets their needs, doesn't make it a difficult process, but also helps the the city to know what's going on. That way, for example, if citizens see drones out there and they know that there's a research project going on, they can actually let the citizens know, oh yes, that's an approved research project. So, it's actually kind of a way of of collaborating with the research teams to make sure we're actually helping present some of the the the disturbances they might have by people being concerned about the drones that are being flown. So, the idea is just to say for educational and research institution

permits, the city will work with the institution to facilitate a tailored permit process to prevent the need for multiple separate permit requests. This process will provide streamline approval for accredited permitted scientific research conducted in compliance with FAA rules and applicable Noah and CDFW authoriz. So that would be the recommendation to modify section D with these proposed changes. Thank you. All right. Okay. So basically we got an ordinance we got and then we have some changes to that actual ordinance that's in the packet. So uh with that we'll go out to the public comment. on this uh and we'll take chambers first.

Good evening, mayor and uh honorable count members of the city council. My name is Bill Sherrod and I am uh here on behalf of Stanford University and the Hopkins Marine Station. Um, we come as your neighbor and also your partner in in long-standing conservation efforts in our local community. Our commitment to protecting the coastline is more than a century old. As you many of you know, in 1916, we moved from Lover's Point to our current location in part because of uh recreational activity that was interfering with the very environment upon which we're conducting our research. Uh, and so protecting this coast is not new to us. It's actually the foundation of who we are. We read council member McDonald's letter with great interest, particularly stopping recreational drone activity that disturbs wildlife and with the goal of making research flights flights more easily monitored and managed. We believe the intent is to distinguish responsible pre-authorized research from unregulated uh recreational drone use. uh and we strongly support that goal and with the the spoken additions we we uh have uh we support those uh proposed changes to the ordinance. Our concern just for the record is that as the ordinance was was is drafted there are a couple elements in it that potentially create some potential legal conflicts, internal contradictions and operational barriers uh that that impact that could impact uh conservation and research. Uh, as was already acknowledged, our work is heavily regulated by both the FAA, Noah, and CDFW for operations in the protected areas in the National Marine Sanctuary. And so those experts obviously provide the airspace safety, but also the wildlife protections. And the ordinance duplicates many aspects of that framework. in several places it actually contradicts it or or places uh some some challenging uh operational uh constraints uh and and more so it doesn't necessarily clearly identify any additional environmental benefit for

doing that. The wildlife monitoring requirement uh if that is to be a a requirement for uh research use creates a liability and insurance challenge uh in two aspects. one, the wildlife moni monitor assigned by the city then becomes an agent of the city. Uh, and in doing so, that exposes liability for their actions or inactions. And at the same time, it requires a research institution to to indentify the city while forcing an uninsured third party, a volunteer to into that operation. A research institution's policy coverage would not cover them. They're outside the scope because they're not an employer. They're not an agent for the benefit of that institution. And that creates a that creates a potential scene that I encourage, you know, us us to reflect on. Additionally, the ordinance places the volunteers in in a regulatory role, right? Um, and so the enforcement framework from Noah uh published in 2019 shows that determining wildlife violations is a complex legal and scientific process uh using biological standards uh not fixed distances. Uh so uh setting a a fixed requirement for a distance or separation for an observation uh may not induce uh a uh what is considered a take or uh harassment of an animal or protected species uh and and so you could have it at a greater distance, you could have a closer distance. So the distance is is somewhat arbitrary. It's based on the biological reaction of of the wildlife and their environment. And so that was the standard that is used for our our pering agencies. Um so putting volunteers

I'm sorry you're over time. I apologize. Okay. So we got the letter though, right? Got the letter. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else?

We do have one caller online. Mayor Vicky Pierce, you have the floor. Thank you. Thank you for giving me time this evening. I'd already written to the council, but I wanted to make a a few comments um in support. I want to support your passage of both the ordinances, the regular and the emergency ordinance. Please vote yes on both of them in order to immediately stop recreational drone activities. drones disturbance of Pacific Grove shorebirds and harbor seals can be fatal to their young. This is difficult to document. So if you haven't seen many examples, it's because of that. It's not because it's not happening. One example that I and another member of the Central Coast Black Oyster Catcher Project observed and documented was a recreational drone flight that for a few minutes of someone's fun resulted in the failure of an entire nesting season for our most successful pair of these distinctive shorebirds. Trying to save their eggs, the two parents chase the drone briefly, leaving the nest open and just long enough for some predator to take the eggs. Um, this is the risk that don't drones pose. Black oyster catchers are a charismatic species already listed as birds of concern due to high levels of disturbance. A yes vote can save lives and boost our threatened population. Our city's coastal wildlife, shoreline, and other natural resources are its greatest asset.

I have um acted as a monitor for research flights of the drones and the researchers have inevitably been sensitive to the wildlife, welcomed the monitors. Um, I think the the modifications to um allow and ease research are entirely appropriate. Thank you. Thank you, Angel Lawren.

Thank you, Mayor and Council. I am a neighbor of Vicky Pierce and I live right behind her and my view is of Hopkins Marine Station which has been for over 50 years, way over 50 years. And I am saying that I support their research. But you know what? I don't think that what they're concerned about is really going to happen. We need to have just like flock cameras in and out of our city. We need to know kind of who, when, where, what is happening with these recreational drones. I don't think anybody's going to impede Hopkins Marine Station. I mean, I'm not sure that they have specific black oyster catcher uh research going on, but I don't think they want with their drone and their research to do. I even support their chain link fence. I mean, which the city of Pacific Grove doesn't. But I am saying we need this or ordinance, this drone ordinance, and the urgency. And I applaud Lori McDonald and for working with them and changing it. I don't think research institutes have anything at all to quibble about here unless they want to harass another species that they're not researching. I mean, I don't understand this. So, I fully support the urgency and the the regular ordinance to to put a who, what, where, and why on our drone ordinance. Thank you very much. Kim, you have the floor.

Thank you. Um, this is Kim Aman and I just want to thank all of you guys for bringing this ordinance forward. Um, Lori McDonald and working with the city attorney and, uh, the police chief and the city manager uh, to better our drone ordinance. I have also witnessed a lot of the recreation drones uh causing problems for really particularly our black oyster catchers but also our harbor seals. And so I thank you for bringing this forward to protect them. I have monitored some of the drone projects uh down at Hopkins uh from the fence line there when [clears throat] when they had projects going on and that works actually pretty well and we would certainly help them out in any way we could with that. But it is the recreation drones that is most concerning and that we need controlled. uh and it is not you know just at Hopkins although we see them there at times a Syllamar area is seeing a lot of them as is Lover's Point. So again I I think this you know can all be worked out. It looks great and thank you again for protecting our wildlife.

Thank you. No further hands are raised. Mayor,

thank you. And we'll bring it back to the council for discussion and action. Um, who would like to start? I I can give a couple thoughts first and and see where we go from there. Um, [clears throat] I I'm certainly okay. I think the recreational drones um would be the place for me where I would start. Um, I would start with that and I don't think we have that ordinance before us tonight. we have a much more comprehensive ordinance even with the changes which changes our entire uh code scheme on this and I think it needs a little more reflection in my opinion given the input of our partners in the community uh I think it needs a little more reflection and so I'm I while I'm okay with the banning of recreational drones um because I I can see the issues there the people that don't know how to use them they uh may be uh bothering habitats and things of that nature. So, I I get that and I don't have a big commitment to to that. But as far as the other the folks, the research institutions and the um and the commercial operators because there's a lot of that going on here too. Um I I think we need to go back look at these legal potential legal conflicts, work with the stakeholders, and see what what we can do from there. That's kind of where I'm at. So here I want to hear from everyone else. Council member Garfield. Yeah, this is first of all the most important piece of this is how important we all feel it is to protect um our wildlife and habitat. So that's a given. Absolutely. Um I was on council when the first ordinance was drafted and it was a really um unsatisfactory experience. We were advised that our the extreme limitations on our ability to limit drones um ending with this structure of where we could make a difference that was unsatisfactory for

all of us. Um so here we are. So we have an ordinance that we FAA has rules um and there's marine mammal protections. So we have lots of layers that have already been there and it's not working. So what do we need to do to make what we've got or what we put in place work? And so when we look at the urgency, the timeliness of this need, um we will have pping season right around the corner, um maybe not in February, depending on where we are in the going north of pping. Um but we also have bird monitoring going on right now. So my suggestion would be that we really come down hard on educating people signage. You know the thing that that went up the the big sign that went up during last popping season of quiet popping season. Can we put those at Lover's Point and at the beach at the Hopkins beach that say, you know, be quiet, no drones, or just now ban recreational drones on our emergency ordinance and educate, educate, educate so we get what we've got to be at least attended to. So, um, [clears throat] I'm also concerned about some elements in here like the monitoring. I don't know where the monitors come from. It's just my lack of knowledge. Um, it is important that the monitors be well informed and can be a constructive part of the process. I I don't know how we would assure that. And it it says that in the permitting, we actually get money from the city to pay the monitors. That makes us responsible for their actions. Um, I I don't know that we want to get involved in that. Um, or if that's the best way to do this. uh item 9.50.030G

also says no collecting sound um images and then elsewhere it says you can in the permit you can say you're going to do it. So there's some inherent contradictions in here that I think need to be ironed out. But I do want to talk tonight about what we can do right now starting tomorrow. And I think one of the things we can do starting tomorrow is good signage um that tells people no recreational drones in Pacific Grove on the coastline. Um and put the signs up, let them know, see if that helps and do some do some uh information. I am also concerned that we don't have really current information that the information on the black oyster catcher uh was from 2022 uh which was you know the very end of the um of the pandemic and drones were like oh I can go outside and fly a drone. I'm not sure that that has kept up the level but I don't see drones. I hear valid input that there are out there. Um but how do you know? Um, I would also just an odd suggestion is when you're backpacking and you have a backcountry permit, you need to have a tag saying you've got that permit on your backpack. So, anybody looking at you knows you're permitted. Um, it might be an easy thing for every drone operator that has a permit to hang a tag on them kind of like a condor. We can put a number in their ear. Um, that was supposed to be funny. Sorry. Um but but a visual that this is a licensed drone operator tells people that there's a difference between that one and somebody else who doesn't have a tag. So that occurs to me as a way to have the a passerby know that this is an authorized drone operator. So I mean I could go on with the the concerns I have about inconsistencies. Um but the basically is this is a great start. Lori, thank you for bringing this

forward and calling to our attention that we need to do something. Um, and I' I'd like to do something, but not if we pass an emergency ordinance, I'd like for it to be very simple, black and white. Yes. No. We have an emergency ordinance to um ban recreational drones, period. So, that's my my thoughts. Thank you, Council Ra. Thank you.

Thank you, your honor. Um I I find myself agreeing with you know everyone that's made great points about this and I think when it came up before my concern was uh compliance and enforcement. I don't know if there's a piece of technology where we can geo fence the you know the the um coastline and and you know do something else through technology to keep it safe. Um I would like to see an annual permit for educational and research purposes something that they don't have to come back every second. I know I was uh I was watching on social media and the orcas were in uh in the bay and they they don't stay long most of them. Um this particular pod was in and out pretty quickly but it is uh they are an amazing creature and to be able to capture them I know is is really important. Um, so I would like to see some kind of an annual permit within within the u um within this, not just necessarily project based because as an example, I mean whether it's Hopkins or someone else, they might not necessarily have a project, but you just don't know what wildlife's going to do. And if we see this event where we end up with a rare species of whale or something, nobody's got time to run down to get a permit before they're out of the bay. Um, and I do have concerns about the monitors and their um and their qualifications it and the liability and I think that needs to be uh vetted out as well. I do support an emergency um an emergency

uh ordinance right now that says no more recreational zones uh recreational drones anywhere in Pacific Grove. We're just a no-go zone. I don't want them flying over my house. I don't want them flying over anybody else's house. I think it's an invasion of privacy. um it borders on creepy and I think seriously um and I also want to give um the police department or the compliance officer some kind of teeth behind what we're doing because I think when we put in regulations and then there's no enforcement all it does is frustrate people and then we get complaints about why can't we get enough enforcement. So I think we really need to nail down that enforcement piece um so that everybody is is satisfied with that. And you know again I don't know what the answer is if we can add technology. Um but I think that's something that we need to look at. Um but I would support an emergency ordinance that that just says starting tomorrow recreational zones are drones are banned in in Pacific Grove. And I do agree, we do need the flashing signs at the entrance to town to just let everybody know that we just you can't you can't do it. So,

thanks. Thank you for bringing this forward. Um, so I I would say I'm I'm in concurrence with some of the comments that are made here. Um, I think before going to my statements, I I do want to ask the special counsel a couple of questions. Um, the the ordinance specifically sites like uh 300 ft and uh 50 ft. Um,

could you could you let us know where the 300 and the 50 came from? Was that data based on research? How did we arrive at 350? So, uh, a lot of these are, no, they're not based on data. Um, 300 feet from wildlife is what, um, some wildlife conservations, uh, suggested would be a safe distance. Um, 50 feet from somebody who is, uh, standing there. So, 50 feet from any other person landing and and, uh, uh, and taking off. Also a safety zone. We thought 500 feet for uh emergency crews. We've seen what happens when drones interfere with emergency equipment. I don't know if you recall, but during the fires last year, somebody flew a drone into one of the the big tankers and and uh uh it it was it was down for several days. So, um we really don't want those drones to be anywhere near there. So, we wanted um distances that we thought were reasonable and relatively achievable for people and that were somewhat simple to to follow. Part of the the problem with um using standards such as uh you know, move away if you see an animal being disturbed is that by that time it may be too late. And so, uh, leaving research projects aside because that's a whole different set of rules that would apply to them. Um, we felt that this was a distance that was enough to make sure that wildlife was protected, but not so much that it would interfere with, uh, the operation of commercial drones.

Got it. Uh, thank you. Ju just for my sake uh noting that it's not backed up by data but uh it seems like more like a practical kind of use um is is this legally defensible? We believe so because the um one of the things that we can do is is adopt uh provisions that protect wildlife and uh we could we be challenged in a court? Maybe. I mean, we can be challenged in anything in court, but I think that if we can make a reasonable argument that 300 ft is an easy distance for people to maintain from wildlife and it ensures that wildlife is protected, I think it is defensible.

Okay. Thank you. Um I I would say that um when I read this uh some of the items that I uh looked at it were from a practical point of view and and I agree with like uh the Hopkins letter the the framework that they cited related to how some of these things are not technically like I can say 300 ft somebody else may contradict and say it's 299 or 301. How do you how does somebody enforce that? So it's like a line of sight observation. It's not really practical. I would say it's a I think we need to have a different kind of like metric or measurement to kind of enforce this especially when we're issuing or citing something. So So some of the concerns here for me are really like objective standards and subjective standards uh which which I think will be very important as we draft the ordinance moving forward. Uh the other items I I had was uh just around cost because we are talking about uh effectively citing somebody. Uh so is this like a 247 kind of operation? Is it year round? Uh uh who is actually doing it? Is it somebody from the police uh staff department a dedicated resource? How are they doing it? uh how are they going to identify that somebody has a real time in real time like a license to say they're able to operate a drone. uh so these are some equipment technology related challenges um I would say cost which is which which I don't think has been flushed out of this so I would like to understand like from a just from a cost perspective how long this would take and then also the again practically speaking if we're talking about permits um there may be cases when somebody wants a permit immediately who knows I I I don't know there may be lots of several variations there so we just need to kind of like

drill fall down into how the permitting process works for this and how anybody can issue those. Uh and then um I also had a question because there's there was uh information in here saying we're going to impound uh the equipment. So what happens if uh somebody wants their equipment back? I mean do we need to define a process for that? So there's I I was just thinking of this from a practical standpoint and I think there are a lot of like uh steps involved that we need to think this through. So my view is this is not ready for prime time yet. Uh certainly we can I'm all in for whatever we can do to protect the environment. Uh and and I like the signage idea. I I I just don't know if the signage idea the city manager if you want to comment on that or not because the signs all the signs will say no no no drones, right? something to that effect. It won't site anything or say by CD CDPG code. It'll it'll just say no drones allowed. So, if there's anything there we can do, I'm more than happy to do it. Uh but I I think this is timely and I think we need to work on it a little bit further so that we can uh address a lot of uh issues that are coming up. Thank you.

Um so, council member, if I could briefly address the enforcement issue. Um you know, I just want to be clear. Normally when um with ordinances um you know there's a range of enforcement tools, right? There are warnings, there are civil citations, there are um infractions that are basically just fines and then for very serious much more serious offenders, we go to misdemeanors. So part of enforcement, there's always a discretionary aspect to that. Um, and you know, I do recognize what you're saying about how do we know whether somebody has a permit or not? I'm thinking that the easy answer to that is simply ask the operator, do they have a permit? Um, but you know, I I take your comments and I've I've written everything down and we'll be thinking about that for sure.

Thank you. Okay, Councilman Wingster. Yeah. Thank you very much, your honor. Um, first I I I want us to I think we're getting a little bit in the weeds. I think we can disambiguate between uh ordinance and city policy. Uh on one hand with the ordinance we deal with the what and then we say here's here's the law that we want. Here's what we want uh our our our city policy to be on how what is or is not legal. Right. Right.

And then a lot of how that gets carried out would then be through city policy. we say, "Hey, here's here's the line in the sand." And then the city has to work out some of the uh the processes by which the permitting happens. Is there an interview? Is it paperwork? Those are things that we don't put in the ordinance necessarily. Those are things that are handled um um probably in a living way where we try something up front and then adapt over time. Right? So, so I wanted to call that out. I don't think we need to be ultra prescriptive in the ordinance itself. we simply have to lay out here's what we want to be illegal, here's what we don't want done in our our town, and then so much of the how can then be handled by the city. And we can of course continue that as an ongoing conversation. Um and and the main thing I appreciate about this uh ordinance, this overdue ordinance, uh this has been a long time coming and and thank you everyone everyone for working on this. Uh is the fact that it is comprehensive. You know, we're we're not there's no no industry gets special dispens dispensation on harming wildlife and there is no industry that has not done harm to wildlife with drones. That's across the board. So having a comprehensive uh ordinance that actually says like okay once you have a permit now what you know it's not just wild west you get to do whatever you want I have a permit I can now go racing this around the streets we have to we put guidelines out there right and and that is what this ordinance does that really well is we can talk about the distances and well how do you enforce that it's it's a little bit the same thing with posting a speed limit and you have uh highway way patrol people or or or police officers that are trained how to gauge the speed of a car by sight, right? And but but that's not something that they knew right off the bat when they made the

law. They had to kind of figure it out as you go. Uh I think we're in a similar situation. If we try to be overly prescriptive, we're going to end up instead of being smart, I think we're going to end up kind of limiting our possibilities of of how we could effectively implement the law. I think this this code as it stands is not far off at all if we had passed this tonight. It sounds like there's some resistance to passing this tonight. But had there been or if there is uh support, I would go along with that for sure. If there are some things that need to get dialed in, I believe we can do that over time. Um but this has been a long time coming. I would hope that if we're going to do revisions on this, um I think an area for special focus would be uh if we're going to have assign someone to observe it. Um that might be something we do need to be a little more prescriptive on, right? If we're on the hook for it. Um I'm I'm not certain it's necessary. I think just having the guidelines in place is necessary. The sooner we can get those guidelines out, the better. Um, I think limiting what permits are are are are allowed again is super necessary. Um, I think the uh the outlawing of recreational drone activity across the board, of course, I'm all for that. Um, there are legitimate uses for drones. I'm all for permitting that. I like the idea of an institutional um uh permit for uh for research, but I still want a clear understanding of what you may and may not do with a drone, even with a permit. I think that's a big strength of what we have in front of us tonight. So, with that, I'll hand it off to the team. Thank you.

Okay. I I've got a comment. Sorry. Um, so I think tonight, uh, based on what I've heard on this, at least on this the three over here on this side of the day, I, um, I think that there's a, uh, a support for banning recreational drones. I don't think we can do it tonight because the ordinance that's proposed is comprehensive and I don't want to get into kind of like on the dis trying to rewrite an ordinance that is extremely comprehensive. I also think that if we do pass like one section of it, it could it will impact it could impact other sections. It could be in the wrong section. It maybe should be added to the current drone section. Right now it's a whole new chapter. It's not part of the the chapter 11 the landing the drone ordinance. it's chapter it's part of another completely different section. So my suggestion would be uh we we give guidance to the the staff to come back with a uh ban of recreational drones to start with and examine all other issues and come back with more information on those. That's where I'm at with it. So that's what I would like to do. Yes. Is it possible from both the attorney and the staff that we can have that ban the recreational zone ready to go at the next meeting? I mean, I think we all want and see a need to get this done sooner rather than later. We can, you know, discuss what the definition of is is later, but I mean, I think it's it's one line. Pacific Grove does not allow recreational drones. Period.

Council member, from a staff point of view, yes, we can we can accomplish that. And I believe Elena also is okay, right, Elena? Yes. Yeah. I mean, it it's it would be a much shorter ordinance. I want to make sure that we have um you know, the purpose and the necessary definitions and then the prohibition so we have the the clear text and the enforcement. Uh but we should be able to bring it back for the next meeting. I think that uh you know that's absolutely doable. Excellent. Council McDonald, go. Oh, go ahead.

Okay. Um this is more along a before we can even get to enforcement, we need to get to education and I think we have an opportunity to get to education with what we've got with marine mammal with FAA regulations in our per embedded in our current permits and signage. The signage that was in my head was something like seal and bird protections in force. No drones except by city permit. Getting the permit then puts the restrictions on any drone user. And once we get that emergency ordinance in place, the police department is say it's a recreational drone that we don't have permits for recreational drones. And that that eliminates that immediately at the permit point. Um, so I'm suggesting still that we that we avail ourselves of our educational opportunities even when we can't put in an ordinance for the reasons you've described.

Okay. U council member McDonald.

Yeah. As much as we would love educational opportunities to work, we already have signs saying no drones. We have bayonetters. We have um and actually um one of the things that we've actually had people volunteer to um donate funds for is to put a sign at the entrance to the um the city like citizen volunteers who would pay to have a sign largely dedicated to things like the no drones and the and the quiet zone during pping season. The reality is we have bayetters out there, we have black oyster catcher monitors out there, we have seal team members out there. We are educating people constantly. there's already on our books a permit requirement. We're not actually creating something new here. There's a permit requirement, but the fact sorry, the fact is that people aren't getting them. Um and and so in collaborating with the police department, this actually benefits their ability to enforce because the reality is when people see drones, they're calling the police anyway. They're not allowed. And so this actually helps us work collaboratively to solve the problem. So, while doing the emergency ordinance for the um for the um for the uh recreational drones is critical, we from everything I've heard, we're completely ignoring the commercial side of it. And while we want to support the local businesses who who do some limited filming and stuff, they're the ones who often don't know anything about the disturbances they're creating. So, we're creating a big gap by ignoring that. Um the monitors already happen. I've monitored myself out at Hopkins. Um so when they have research projects um it is handled through the Ottabon. So the person who is in charge of the black oyster um catcher monitoring program the blow monitoring program um when somebody wants to do a get a permit like that they contact Rick Hanks. He's from the Bureau of Land Management um and works through the Ottabon that we do the

monitoring. actually sign contracts when we volunteer through them as does Bayonet who is a part of Noah. So we're not talking about unqualified monitors here. We're talking about monitors with training, monitors who know black oyster catcher behavior, monitors who know harbor seal behavior. So they're very clear when a disturbance is happening. The general public doesn't know that and we don't expect them to. And so while we are constantly educating, we also have repeat offenders. So this actually gives us some teeth also for preventing the repeat offender effect. Um never was this designed to hinder research in any way. We already collaborate with research on the permitting and on the monitoring. We don't see any changes to that whatsoever. That was that's not the intention of this at all. Um and as far as the urgency goes, you're correct. We are actually in pping season. Unfortunately, we had our first miscarriage yesterday due to disturbances. So, we are already in the season where these types of disturbances are the things that are starting to cause miscarriages in our seal population. We just had our black oyster catcher monitoring meeting. Um, they're actually a series of them last week and this week with the data from 2025. So, we do have data beyond it. Maybe the report that we're seeing and that's probably what was brought up was the 2022. That was the more formal one and we're probably talking about specific incidents that may have happened in a window of time. But this is something that we see ongoing. And the challenge we're having now is the black oyster catchers are now starting to look for their nests. And when they're disturbed by drones, which they see as a raptor and a predator, that can affect their ability to find an appropriate nest to have their clutch for the season. And our numbers are really below. They're in the it's getting to the point where they're looking at putting the they're already a species of special concern. I believe it is. And so the numbers have been really poor in our area because of all the disturbances by people. And drones are one of the worst

offenders. Anybody who's seen them and the the behavior they have when they hear and see a drone is a drone is really disturbing. They will chase it and they will go after and go after it and they won't go back to their nest for some time because they don't want to draw the predator to the nest. Unfortunately, that as as Vicky Pierce had mentioned opens up the possibility of a different predator coming in predating their nest. So, this is timely because this is happening now and we've been working and working to bring it. It's been a very collaborative effort. The city attorneys have looked into all of the legal regulations around it. The idea was to be very clearly in collaboration with all of the existing guidelines, but to also help pull them into one place so that people actually have a really comprehensive picture of what the requirements are. It's not actually changing anything that's already out there other than the banning of the recreational drones. So, what's brought into there is requirements that come from the FAA and whatnot, as well as the monitoring program and the permitting program that are already in process. As it stands now, people are supposed to go to the police station to get a permit to fly a drone. That's not changing. Within that permit process, there is the the the program for monitoring. Again, nothing new. It's just that now it's more clear. So, if somebody actually goes to our city ordinance, it makes it really easy for them to understand what is and isn't approved. Um, and then and yeah, we already addressed having the annual permit for research. Um, I I noticed the CSUMB letter had said sometimes they have multi-year projects. no intention of changing any of this for research. That's not the goal at all. And that was why we had the recommendation for the modified paragraph for the research. And because it it said early up that some of these would not apply to research, but I understand if if you don't specify which ones those are, there was never any intention that they wouldn't be able to take sound and video of animals. And and also the distance is very much for the reason that the city attorney um

mentioned and that is that it helps people who might have a conceptualization of what 300 ft is to know how far to stay away because by the time they get closer than that they will cause a disturbance and then we'll be documenting a disturbance which actually is a violation of the Marine Mammal Act. So so we're actually trying to work in collaboration to give clear guidelines so people can easily comply. The goal here is protection. It's how can we help people comply and how can we help the police department have the tools to enforce compliance. That's really what it comes down to. So, thank you. Um, is there going to at this time I'm just going to ask if anyone would like to make a motion on this on this item?

Well, I'd obviously like to make a motion. Okay. to approve as stated in the agenda item with the modification to section D as presented on the slide with your modifications that you presented. Correct. I have a second. Okay. Second. All right. Um any further discussion? Yes.

I I think that that we can compile a list of the things that we'd like to see. your your explanation was very uh good and it gives us context for this. But even so, I still have some uh numerical issues that I would like to see coming back um with that like 50 feet from a person, you can't land. Well, it means that somebody can walk up to somebody with a drone and then now they're out of compliance. So, there's some some issues that are pnikity. I agree. But um I I think this is close as uh council member Walking Stick said and I think that there are some Would you like for us to send to you the very specifics rather than going through it now?

Um yeah, I mean if we send I think any comments that we could send to the city manager maybe so for the city attorney to um to work on and I think the 50 ft some of these are we we'd have to clarify with the the city attorney but a lot of these come from regulations that already exist. You're already not supposed to be flying over people's heads. We have video of people flying over people's I understand that. I've read the FAA thing, so um go ahead. We'll send it to the city manager, but but I'm I'm not not ready.

Okay. I'm not I'm going to comment on that. I'm I'm going to discuss uh there I have issues with the monitoring aspect of it. Uh the applica the wide application to all businesses and commercial operators and as well as colleges, research institutions and others. And um and I think it's going to be very difficult to enforce if we even if even if the standards are extremely clear. Um this is a in the weeds type of a deal that that's the way it's written even. So I'm not going to uh support the motion. So I'm just putting that on the record. Would you like to make a comment, Mson? Mayor, if I could though, it would be helpful that if um the direction tonight is going to be to go back and to work on the ordinance and do more work on it. If we could get

That's not No, right now we're just I'm voting on the That's not the direction yet. We haven't been that direction yet. Okay. Yeah. You know what I'm saying? We're talking about the motion right now. Yeah. Yeah. Any other discussion? All right. Uh let's take a roll call vote. Thank you. Are we voting on the emergency piece? We're voting on on as stated as in the recommendations, which there's a lot of them, but we're essentially there's six items. So, I mean, we're kind of taking a straw vote on whether we're going to proceed as stated

with all inclusive. We're voting two through six because one is discussed, right? Yeah. And I guess we're going voting two through six, but yeah. Yeah. I thought the way that it was read that we're supposed to um recommendation five is supposed to be a separate vote because it needs a different count. It may not be the case, but if you uh we can bifurcate we can bifurcate her motion into uh the non-urgent and then the urgent I suppose. Can we do that?

Yes. So she's going to bifurcate and then uh so the first one is the entire chapter. Let's be clear about this because the ur the urgency ordinance would be comprehensive as well though. Yes.

They're both comprehensive. So it's going to be Mr. Larker. Can you tell us what we're voting on on number four? As I understand it, the the maker of the motion has accepted the modification to to treat uh the urgency and the regular ordinance separately due to the voting differences. The urg the urgency requiring a supermajority and which sections are are part are the urgency as in relation on the pages?

Uh page 395 paragraph to urgency or uh urgent urgency ordinance. Page 395 is a agenda report. Yeah. So, I'm talking about the code. Oh, sorry. It's okay. I I just want to be clear on what we're voting on. So, on 409, that's the beginning of the non-urgency. 409, 410, 411, 412,

415, 4 to 415, no 417 and 418 is the urgency or Okay, got it. So 418 is going to be the urgency ordinance season or ping season. Pupping with it. I can you tell us just some of the differences between these two if there are any? I'm sorry. Was that for me? Yes. Sorry. Could you repeat that? It sort of cut out.

Can you just highlight some of the differences between because these are fairly lengthy and there's two of them. So, can you just highlight the the differences? Sure. So the only difference is in the findings in the recital. So the ordinance itself um the way that it would change the code is identical in the two ordinances except in the urgency ordinance there are emergency urgency findings relating to popping season that would support the the urgency action but the the the ordinance itself in the amendment to chapter 11.72 is identical in both of those. Okay. Thank you. And so that raises the question whether bifurcation is necessary. Um, okay. Just continue the

for for the sake of the cleaner record, it's better to Okay, that's fine. So, is everybody clear on what we're voting on? Yes. Um, my question is uh the urgency ordinance refers to an addition of a chapter 9.5. So, are we voting on the addition to the chapter 9.52? because it explicitly says now therefore council of city of Pacific Grove section one and section two and section two says a new chapter will be introduced right so the the ordinance in uh would add a new chapter 950 and make amendments to existing chapter 11.72

okay for the record if it's adding chapter 9.5 I'm not in support thank you okay we're going to take a vote now on on the first the bifurcated non-emergency ordinance uh number four. We're gonna it's going to be three and four, but we're going to take that vote now. Call vote, please. Council member McDonald, I. Council member Watkins, I. Council member Brown, I still think we need more information. No. No. Council member Beduri. No. No. Council member Garfield. No. Mayor Smith. No. Okay.

Fails. Thank you. So, um, does anyone wish at this time, we may not have the numbers for it because we may, um, does anyone wish to make any other act action motions relating to this, such as uh, directing staff to come back with a recreational drone ban at the next meeting? I I would make that motion that we have that on the next agenda as an urgent uh replacement for this and that we put in the ban on recreational drones. Okay. And is that a motion? Yes. All right. Do we have a second? Mr. Mayor, I'm sorry to interrupt. There was a bifrocated motion for both. So, I think we should handle that.

We got to go back and take theology. Okay. We're going back. We We The first one failed and we're going to The first motion failed. We're going to the second motion on the urgency ordinance uh number five five. Uh so we'll take the vote roll call vote on item five and then that is still uh moved by council McDonald and seconded by walking stick. Thank you. Council member McDonald. Council member Walking Stick. Hi. Mayor Smith. No. Council member Garfield. Uh no. Member Duri. No. Council member Ralph. All right. Mayor PM absent. Motion fails.

Okay. Thank you. Now, we're gonna uh any other direction. We have a new motion, a new This is a new motion uh made by uh Councilman Bau for an emergency ordinance at the next agenda relating to recreational drones only. And do I have a second? Second by Garfield. Discussion. Yes.

Thank you. So, while I greatly appreciate coming back with the urgency and we need a regular one probably too on the recreational drones, I still think we're having a huge miss here on ignoring the commercial drones for the reasons stated. So, if we continue if we continue to see disturbances because we haven't take action taken action, then that kind of falls to us for not including that direction for the city attorney and staff. I would like to see them come back and work on all of it, not just ignore the rest of it and only come back with the urgency for the recreational drones. So, I think that definitely is a component of it, but we can't drop the ball on the rest either because we are in the middle of the the pingp and the nesting seasons now

or the beginning. I I that's Yeah, that's discussion. Any further discussion? Yeah. Okay. Council Row, I just I want to make sure that what's ready in the next meeting is ready.

And if the special counsel and the city manager feels like we have enough time in the next two weeks to get it done, then then I would be okay with that, too. But I just I don't want to make I want to make sure that we get the the recreational drones done and finished with and then you know, if we need additional time, we take it. Now, if the city staff and the special counsel says that they can have a ready by the 4th, then I'm all in for that as well. What do you say? What do you What exactly you referring to? I'm not following you. Your your motion was to pass the recreational drone ban.

So, you're talking about further amendments, further changes. To council member McDonald's point, in addition to urgently passing the recreational drone ban also to come back with uh the changes that we've talked about as well as the changes that are going to be submitted by other council members.

Yeah, I don't I don't think that they'll be able to do that by the next meeting, which is why I think the focus I would like what I my position would be let's focus on getting this recreational drone ban in and uh if I I would say maybe come back with some more info at the next meeting so that we can then follow up on all the the different questions we had. There was a lot of questions. I don't think they're going to have it all that done. We have to they have to talk to Hopkins and the college and hopefully help also focus a little bit of this. So, I heard one motion and I think you got a second on that one. So, that's fine. That's clear that you're looking for just a recreational ban. But on the second part, um it would be helpful if we heard more kind of specifics on what you'd want in the ordinance because I think the attorney has drafted an ordinance that you felt works and so the changes we're going to make now. We don't want to come back with something that you don't want. So if you could just give a little more insight into that because if I receive comments offline, they might be conflicting with other council members of what they're looking for.

Well, yeah. Okay, that's fine. But, you know, I think uh for purposes of just getting through the item, you know, we we're all we have a vote or we have a motion on the floor for recreational drone bound. So, maybe we should take that vote and then continue to discuss on the next piece. Okay, everybody. Yeah. uh just let me comment that uh as far as am I what I want to be coming out of the next uh kind of commercial kind of drone I am actually quite in alignment with what the Hopkins uh letter has and would say that the they everything needs to be realigned with the established uh FAA no CDFW framework they've actually taken some of the aspects that we have put in motion here like the 300 ft and 50 ft and said that instead of doing that why don't we check into noise disturbance. We can actually monitor noise decibels and based on that we can do some activity. So there's plenty of I would say fodder in there in there for us to work with the Hopkins Marine Station to draft something. So I'm as far as I'm concerned that that addresses a lot of my questions. Thank you.

Great. Thanks. Any further comment before we take this vote? Go ahead.

Thank you, your honor. Um, yeah, I think uh I was I was originally thinking about doing a a friendly amendment to uh continue development on the uh on the ordinance, but I think maybe having a separate um complimentary agenda item at the next one to actually go over and discuss this, actually get into a discussion on this would be a good idea. That'll give us enough time to actually review this and come back with some some coherent thoughts on it. So, uh, and then and then of course do the vote on the, uh, uh, the recreational, uh, UAV, uh, uh, ordinance that they'll bring forth separately. Like that's one thing. Move on to the next agenda item and discuss this. Sound good?

That's what I was thinking. Okay. I love it. Okay. All right. We'll take a roll call vote, please. Thank you, Council Member Ralph. Hi, Council Member Garfield. I mayor Smith. Yes. Council member McDonald. I council member Paduri. Hi. And council member Watkins. I. Motion carries 61 with Mayor Pro Abson.

Okay. So, as to the third prong, uh, do we need to staff has a direction? We're going to bring back a separate item to discuss commercial and research use. Mr. Mayor, what I heard is we'll come back with a discussion item on on those items and get more direction. Yes. Um, so is there a timeline on that one? Does that one need to be in the next meeting or do it in two meetings or I guess that's maybe I don't know if it depends on staff but I think it would take a little more than one in my view but is that not what you're Yeah. Okay. Yes. G Miss Garfield.

Any thoughts about um the signage the big signs to say seal and bird protections enforced no drones except by city permit? I don't think we can do that until we pass the law. Oh, I think we should probably save that for when we we put in our emergency ordinance and make it contemporaneous with the effective date. It's already on the books and the Marine Moral Act and the Bird Protection. Those are those are all in place, not in our ordinances, but in our in our current ordinance that all drones should be licensed and permitted. Maybe we can say that.

Well, so no drones except by city permit. I mean, I I I would leave it to I would ask that question to staff and see what they think about that. I just think we have an educational and I and I totally get that there are people one-on-one doing education, but there are a lot of drone people that aren't stopping to talk to anybody and if they come into the city or come in toward um uh Point Penos, this is a very official pay attention warning. Um, do you want to put that on the other item as a as a discussion item signage and or do you want to kind of wanted to see them tomorrow? [laughter]

Signs up anytime we want to. Okay, go ahead. Okay,

Mr. uh, Mr. Goth, the city manager, how many of these signs do we have and are they available? Council member Ralph, members of city council, we have two of those signs. I'm going to caution you though. Those signs are related for traffic related information purposes and that's so we do not distract drivers as they're proceeding. So they're for like special events, road closures, items like that. And that's very well defined in the manual for unified traffic control devices. So I will put them up. Caution.

We did have them up for quiet please. And that was associated with the special event which is allowed. So our special events are the popping season and the bird count. Here to take direction from the city council. Councilman, we'll talk about it tomorrow. We'll figure it out. That sounds like it's still living as an idea. So, thank you. Um, mayor, can I ask for clarification if you don't mind? Sure.

Um, I'm clear on coming back with an emergency ordinance banning on the recreational. What I'm not clear on is is the separate item. Do you want this ordinance to just come back for discussion so we can get direction from the council and then revise it or do you want us to go back revise it based on what we've heard and then come back with that for further discussion? We're just going to we're pushing back to a discussion only item so that we can actually identify what we want to have in it and that may require rewrite not a revision. Okay. All right. Um, and we can already start reaching out to the the research institutions too and get some of their feedback as well if if uh that would be acceptable.

Absolutely. I believe everyone would love that. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. Okay, that'll I'm going to close this item out and give us a break. We'll be back at 8:05. Recording stopped.

What? Tuesdays.

We call the people that bring their dogs cherists. Recording in progress.

Are you uh streaming? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Sorry.

All right. So, we are uh live again here recording. Um this is the Pacific Grove City Council January 21st coming back from break 8:07 p.m. And we've made it to item 12A, unfinished and ongoing business. And this will we will recognize our city manager Matt Mogansson for this item. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, so to remind us how we got here, uh, November 19th of last year, the the council received a presentation on the city's general fund, five-year fiscal forecast, and also a five-year infrastructure needs that we've been working on putting together. Um at the same on the same evening you also approved an agreement with um props and measures to assist with public engagement efforts regarding um the some of these challenges that were described. So the scope of work included in that agreement was to conduct a public poll assist with public education and promote development of a ballot measure in November should we decide to do that. So since November 19th we received some feedback uh from regarding the agreement and the financial information that was provided. We also have seen some opinion pieces published in a newspaper that uh state some individuals opposition to this agreement and effort. Um the opposition though we found you know did the statements you know seem to lack the background the financial reasons for why we brought the item forward in the first place and also there were some concerns that were communicated that um this agreement will be to support a council stipens increase and you'll see tonight that there's no mention of council stipens within our presentation because that's not part of this package and it's completely separate issue that the c deliberate on a at a different time. So any work under this agreement is going to center on the city's financial stability and the ability to meet the long-term service demands and infrastructure needs. So based on some of the concerns communicated with the agreement and a

further need to communicate our fiscal sustainability concerns again once again that we're reiterating tonight, we've decided to bring this item back so that the council could hear it again and we could explain to the community how we got to where we are tonight. So this this agreement with props and measures um does re does represent a large investment in both time and um efforts. So we want to kind of just ensure we still have our our solid commitment in this. So in establishing the priority focus areas for 2025 and 26 within our goals and work plan, the council placed a special emphasis emphasis on the city's financial stability. So the work plan contains three goals that are towards this effort for the next two years and we've been working towards achieving those. So the supporting tasks that um have made us look closer at some areas that we hadn't quite gone as deep before and um when we start looking closer at our debt, our equipment, facility replacement needs, um our ongoing expenditures and revenue opportunities, you know, you see bigger problems starting to develop into the future. So through these examinations and our current budget development, we are also um able to provide a greater deal greater detail of financial information to the community throughout the this past nine months approximately. So at the beginning of this fiscal year, the council was presented a budget that lowered our revenue expectations by $700,000, which is about 2% from the previous year. And the reason for this is because we saw um potential softenings of some of our major revenues in our um this year and also our sales tax. Of course, we're watching closely to see how it actually performs this year, but going into this year, that's was the projections. So, we lowered the the expectations of revenues by 700,000. And to start to soften some of the the blow of all this, we also looked at our budget closely and we cut $1.4 million last year. I'm not sure if everybody realizes that, but we lowered our expenditures by 1.4 4 million starting this year. So despite those sizable

cuts, um it was still necessary for us to propose a budget to the council that was $ 1.96 million in in deficit spending for this year. And um the five-year forecast, as you're seeing here in your in your screen, um you know, demonstrated that this deficit, you know, continued to grow going in the next couple of years. Um so you know again we're in a position today that that we were thinking we have a little time to deal with this. So it's not an emergency. Um so the efforts that we've been going through are are probably right on target. One of the things to pay attention to is the the trajectory of our um reserve level ratio. So our policy um as adopted earlier this year is 25%. We're also putting money aside for capital projects now in a separate fund. So, um, so the reserve level is a little bit lower than they used to be, but this again is just reserve funds. It's more for, you know, um, not for capital projects necessarily. Anyway, so we're at 36% to start the year, but you see that go down pretty quickly to 5% by the the last year 29. So on November 19th, we provided you some updated projections based on some new information that has come about since the budget was first adopted. So, some of the new information included now that the Kemp is, you know, officially on online and is about to start um for next year, we're now projecting our first year of revenue from the Kempton Hotel. So, that um the first year is anticipated to be about a million dollars. So, that helps to lower our deficit for next year by a million dollars. Also, um if you go out to the end of 29, this is something we're typically not comfortable with doing, but through this exercise, we thought we would go ahead and do it. We're ant we're also projecting here ATC revenue. Um at this point we don't have plans for ATC. So it's a bit far out there but uh we we would anticipate that that would start at about a $2 million um level at the full year of toot.

Also something you'll notice in this table that was updated is you know we closed the year out. So we knew how much money we did not spent from the prior year. So our our reserves um therefore went up by about I think it was 1.5 million um when we closed the year. So that changes our our reserve level. So you'll see it's 41% then to to for this year and then it it goes down to 26%. So these small adjustments here made made quite a difference when it came to our reserve levels and um give us a little bit better idea of what things look like as we go forward. Another thing that you'll notice is on 202930 um that's when the pension bond retires. So that's one of the major reasons that that goes to a positive number. So without that pension bond retiring, that $1.6 million surplus would actually be zero. So we'd be even. So the good news is that we're going to have that extra $1.6 million that we can decide to reinvest in the to pensions to pay them down faster to um other uh capital expenses that we might want to, but we'll have those options. So like I said, you know, the the point of a lot of this exercise is not that we're we feel like we're in a major emergency right now. this is about a few years out and we want to start planning now so we don't get to that place where we're in a major emergency and I think you know some people have probably worked here for a while have seen when we've had to do larger layoffs and stuff and that's a place that we don't want to be the community doesn't want um so we want to talk about that now so what are the reasons I guess for some of this the changes in the five-year forecast because our 2425 no yeah yeah 2425 budget did not have you know the same makeup of it uh so some of the things that happened I guess over last year in between the years is first is we added you know some some new costs and and new some new positions. So we had added last year some additional recreation programs. We also added a forester and a city engineer position. So those are new new additional expenses in our base. We also saw larger than

expected um insurance premiums. Our purse costs as we know continue to go up. Even when they have good returns our costs still seem to go up. Um, so the POAU is also approved and they started getting cost of living adjustments. So that combined with our general employees cost of living adjustments and theirou those two things combined was a bigger expense. We also had a larger inflationary cost than we antic than we've all experienced in our lives. And um these costs will will most likely be ongoing costs that are hard to control going forward unless you again pull back on the level of services you have. So when you couple all this with the 2% that's how we got to to where we were with um a deficit starting this year. So what we've been doing and we've talked about this throughout the year is looking at some things on the staff level of where we can make some differences to start to close the gap because there probably is not going to be a silver bullet answer for all of these problems. It's a combination of things. So on the revenue side of things, things that are somewhat within the administrative control that we'll continue to do is, you know, we will adjust our our fees and and our um our yeah our fees uh this year by CPI like we do typically larger ones like our community development department permits those um that department typically you try to get as close to 100% cost recovery as possible. Also, some of our recreation programs, we're we're going to take a closer look and analyze some of them and see if we want to redistribute some of that money to more um programs that are a little bit more, I guess, you know, effective at, you know, spending the money correctly. Uh we also, you know, might have some options on parking revenues or at least to be more efficient. You know, we'll be bringing something forward for too long that that talks about at least going to electronic meters so that we don't have to have um csos go around collect coins still. So, that's one efficiency that, you know,

we're looking at starting at doing. Um, and we'll have some more on that. Also, our facility rentals and processing fees and, um, grant funding. You know, as we get into more of this 5year CIP, we have more of an outlook. So, you know, perhaps it makes sense now to engage with a grant writer to help us to to look for funding for projects that are three and four years out. Also, you know, um we have a bid and a hid and I um we haven't talked about this much at this point, but both of these bodies have been around for a long time and there's a question of whether these fees are still, you know, up to today's dates. You know, they're so they're relatively low. The the bid, I believe the the annual budget for that is about $30,000. So, there's not very far we can go with $30,000 to really help our businesses downtown. Also, the city administers these things and there is no city um share of the I guess the administrative costs currently today. So, those are just some of the things that we're looking at for revenues, potential expenditures. I mentioned the uh pension bond will go off in in 29. So, that's towards the end of this. Uh we can also look at additional regional partnerships for sharing services. Um we're we can analyze where they're contracting or bringing some services back in house. Makes sense. You know, we've been contracting for building for a long time. Maybe we analyze that. Maybe it makes sense to hire a building official. That's, you know, typically it doesn't, but it's an analysis we should do. Um, you know, another thing that's been mentioned is that our, you know, this is also a tougher conversation probably, but the our annual contribution being the cities is tied to our budget. So, if our budget goes up, our contribution goes up. So, maybe, you know, we want to look at is there a brakes that should be put on that? Um, because again, as our revenues grow, so does theirs just at the same speed. So I believe that's up to 350 about thousand somewhere there uh currently a year. Um look at additional uh operational efficiencies and ways to save t staff time costs. We've been looking with the

council at different boards and commissions. integrate our capital projects better perhaps so that we can do like two projects in one and I think public works does a great job at that today but perhaps we could take it to a different another level if we have other funding sources as well and then continue to digitize records. So in order to actually address our long-term fiscal needs we also felt you know looking at capital makes a lot of sense and the the council gave us the guidance to look at a five-year CIP. So um this this first slide here starts to represent some of those numbers that have come together. So in November 5th, uh we provide a study session that really explained in great detail these these capital needs. Um but to just quickly recap this first table you're looking at it is the total need. This doesn't include or this this um includes all the costs but it doesn't show you yet what we take out for like measure X. So on the next slide we'll look at that. But in the coming years, you know, we'll we'll be continuing to develop additional information here. And that's going to going to include um categories of a sewer fund, the storm water fund, um additional parks and recreation, and in addition to um equipment, heavy, you know, large vehicle type things that we need to fund in the future years. So, we should start reserving better for. So, this table here though shows you what's between the two tables. Um, oh, sorry. I'm looking at my Are you following along with me pretty well? Okay, good. Great job. Um, so the this t the this next table though shows you what is unfunded within our capital needs. So the bottom line for fiscal year 2526, if we were to be funding things such as our roads and our facilities at the level that they're recommended in the studies that we've had performed, we should be um funding this year at $3.12 million. That's money we're currently not funding at. So the bottom line there shows you a missing missing money. So if you look at the 5-year though for 26 27

through 3031, it demonstrates that we need 11.72 million to be able to again um resurface our streets and repair them in in a manner that will keep them in a good condition as recommended by the study and also to keep up with our facilities and keep them from deteriorating. So to recap again, our long-term fis fiscal sustainability challenges over the next five years. You know, we do see some positive results from Kempton and ATC and the reduction of our pension bond. However, um even with that, you know, um our project reserves are projected to decrease and we're not again talking about these major capital expenses that we're trying to start funding. Um, infrastructure needs alone, well, we're we're kind of looking at we need an average of about $2.1 million just for those two big categories of streets and and facilities. And then we also need to develop some other um funds as well. Next slide. So to to start to work towards this, I mentioned earlier that there's not going to be, you know, there's lots of pieces in in our mind that's going to have to come together, you know, to to ensure we have a long-term f sustainability of the city. So the another piece of this was um to bring forward an agreement and this was with props and measures again to assist us with doing some polling to understand what level of information the public has today, what understanding that they have and if they would potentially support a ballot measure. And this um polling, you know, we think would not only help us to know if our community understands the issues, but also help us to know if they would be and and if they would support any kind of revenue measure, but also help give us in insight into the services that they value and the resource allocation decisions as we go forward. So, if we find, you know, them clear guidance that they don't ser value one service over another one, we know that we could reallocate some money that direction, it would would um be one way of handling

some of our shortfalls as well. So, I'm going to um say a little bit more tonight than we did last time and that we've also been looking at uh what are the different tax measures that might be possible and I think we've kind of vetted it down to two that seem to be the most valuable if we were to take anything forward. The first one is um transient occupancy tax and that's because this is a tax on visitors. So, typically that's something that's been more supported in past polling. Um it doesn't have a direct impact on your own residents. We think that that would be perhaps about a million dollars a year if it were to be um a 1% increase. So we're currently at 12. Um but perhaps maybe a better thing to look at this year is um uh similar to other communities around us, they've also discovered this that there's a 375 of additional sales tax cap that is left um that is currently not been absorbed by anybody else. The reason that this might make sense to look at is because if um there's a good chance that if the city of Pacific Grove and its voters did not decide to try and pursue this 375% that somebody else in the county will. So that means our residents will pay the 375 but the money is going to go to other areas of the county you know through regional agencies that are out there. So we felt that that was one that you know it might make sense to be to be the one that you subject the polling to you know if we were to go forward with the polling. So that that revenue category we think in addition could be um you know on its own about a million dollars a year. So again this is maybe a third of the of the whole problem that we're talking about is or is is perhaps um a measure if it were to be successful but we're a long way from that and that's why you do the polling first to understand if that's something that's a viable thing within our city. So we're going to move along here for you. I know I'm probably going long, but I want to spend a little more time talking about the actual contract for props in measures and how it works. So the um the next slide um well the previous it demonstrated the phases but this next

slide here gets into the budget and how the budget's broken down. So the the the top two things that you see there for um consulting that is strictly props and measures um consulting um costs. So the total if we were to take this all the way through um and not to exceed amount would be for them $38,500. Um now it's important to mention that this is a menu of items, you know, and we spend as we go. So wherever we decide to stop is when we stop spending money. The reason we propose this contract this way is to be completely transparent. You know, instead of coming back in a piece meal way and showing you contract after contract, we're showing you the whole shebang that if you were to go all the way through. I don't anticipate that we would do that. I think that if we were to go forward with the polling, you know, then the council has a decision. Do you go forward and work across the measures more then, you know, perhaps we work for a couple months with them? Perhaps you're, you know, however long we take it, but you only pay per month that you work with them. At this point, you know, they they put mailings into here just anticipating it's possible that we could do two mailings. Perhaps we do none. You'll see there that the total time and materials costs that are included in the budget are $27,8180. Again, kind of optional expenses. And then the last two things are for Chor who is the pollster. So they would do an initial survey or initial poll. Um and that would be 28,000, you know, just for their portion of it there. And then if we decide to do a tracking one, which is one you would do like next perhaps June before you decide if you're actually go forward, people's sentiments are still the same throughout time. then that would be the cost of that second poll. So again the total thing will be not to exceed 141,530. However um on the next slide we'll talk about how work. Um so the first phase um is just polling and to do the polling you know the total cost for for the things that are in red here is um $53,150.

after we go out and we do the scientific polling of the residents. Um we haven't done that yet and we don't have a start date yet projected for it depending on on things here but um we would come back to the council we would present that information and the council would have a decision. Do you what do you think about the information? You know is it something that you want to pursue further? Do you does the information tell us we need to go out and talk to our residents more before we do anything else? that would be you know so we would make the decision once we come back another decision would be that you know we don't want to pursue this any further right now and then we stop we stop spending money um so the the next slide shows in orange the numbers that are you know again kind of more the the second layer of optional things so if we continue again continue consulting um with props and measures it's a per month fee so it's not $39,000 but I believe that I believe it's uh $6,000 housing per per month. Um, everybody's got the quick math there. Um, again, the mailings, I don't know, Pacific Grove, this has historically been something we've done here, so perhaps we don't do those at all. So, you don't spend that 22. And then again, the tracking, second tracking is not necessary. It depends on our decisions later on. So to summarize the scope of services again you know within the the agreement um the polling is is to educate the polling and then the educational portion of this um in the first phase is you know again the major component you know of what props and measures and the pollster will provide us. They will also provide us assistance with crafting a revenue measure based on the polling and everything should we decide that's a viable thing to do later on in the process. Um I do want to put out there really quickly though that it is important as we all acknowledge props and measures we've been advised that is required by law all publicly funded communications by the city in this work effort must beformational not advocacy once the measure especially is on the ballot if the council chooses to do that

in June or July. Um at that point all work of the city stops and we don't do any further work. if there is to be any campaigning, it would have to be by some outside entity that is privately funded and has not through the city at all. So, I think that's an important thing to to mention. Um, so the takeaways from this tonight um to sum it all up is that, you know, our general front operating has pressures from rising costs and the those going forward exceed our revenue projections. The pressures will be partially solved by some spending reductions, by some revenue things we can control. um some different ways of getting efficient. Um but there's going to be a gap most likely. So potentially down the road we will need new another uh funding source in order to again fund our capital and everything at the levels that we wanted to. And um yeah, I believe I hit all those points there. So the options we're leaving you with tonight is, you know, not a lot different than last time in some ways. The first option is status quo. Continue on through this. will come back after we do the poll and the council will take the information to decide do you want to go further or stop. Um option two would be to decide tonight not to do anything after the poll and again you don't have the information from the poll. Um or the last two options are basically you know stop stop at this point on this agreement and if you were to do that we would ask a direction since council approved the agreement in the first place and then that concludes my long presentation. Well, that was great. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Um, it's good to get the information nice and clear. Uh, online public comment.

Thank you, Mayor Christie Italiano Thomas.

Hey, that that was that did explain a lot more, but I I just Oh, hi. I'm Christie. Nice to see you all back after your little sbatical. But anyway, I saw one of the public letters that um I kind of agree with just to support cancelling the entire contract because it's like in lie of everything you were saying in lie of um this 26,000 cannabis consulting circus on top of the million uh for the housing element which has no viable plan on top of losing revenue from the grill at Point Pinos on top of the fact, how could you even consider ATC revenue when in three years I mean they don't even have permits? So, you know what I'm saying? And um I just wish you could I just I just want you to practice saying we can't afford that or this is not in the budget or this spending is not a priority because um it's like you know when our h household budgets tighten like with all this we have to cut unnecessary spending. We have to reassess priorities. We have to tighten our belts. and this city council should be held to the same standard. So, and also when you mentioned about facility rental process and stuff, it's like in the I remember a time when the community center was rented for things. Well, look at it. Would you rent it to do something in there? I think the last thing was a very low budget um memorial service or celebration of life. Um and then of course you know Chiakqua is being um updated um because that was so gross to deteriorate. But but anyway, thank you for your time.

Thank you Lady Garcia.

Thank you. Um you know I want to apologize earlier during public comment I was really really rattled. Um I live at the corner of Spruce and Forest and there was a threecar pile up. One of the cars ended up on its roof. Uh Jaws of Life had to be used to extract the driver. Um but I want to thank the fire, the police, uh AMR, and uh parking enforcement showing up as fast as they did to get control of the situation. So I was really recovering from all of that. You know, I was one of however many that dialed 911 and tried to give the proper information. Um on to this agenda item. I think projecting anything from the ATC is a really big mistake and I think it's very misleading um especially for the city um to uh bank on something that hasn't even come true as the previous speaker said in three years when it was supposed to be you know a done deal. So you know I think you really need to remain realistic with what you're looking at and how you're projecting. Um I think it's a great idea to get um the museum agreement uh redone. They get way too much money. They have an enormous staff and um I think we just really need to separate ourselves um from them. The Kemp Hotel, remember, it's a startup business. Um you know, and to again be cautious with how you're projecting what kind of revenue you're going to be, the city might be generating from them. They're just getting started. Um I would agree with um the toot and the and the increase in the sales tax provided no other jurisdiction goes after it. If it's if it's a first come, first- serve type of thing, um, cancel this agreement. If you were to hold community meetings, you would hear loud and clear from the community what what they want and whether or not they would support either one of these um t tax measures. Um, and I want to say that the money you save from uh not hiring this consultant,

I really encourage you to contract with the city of Monterey for motorcycle enforcement uh so that we can get a grip on the speeding, the outrageous speeding that is going on in this town. I mean, it's just crazy and it's totally unnecessary. You want to talk to the public, talk to them about speeding. go on Next Door, go on Facebook. You'll hear it straight from the parents mouth of what they're experiencing and their kids are experiencing. That should be the priority right now because there are enough people in this community screaming about it. So, I would really really ask you and encourage you to take this under serious consideration. Um, thank you very much,

Chris Lindstöm. Can you hear me? Yes.

Yes. Uh I'm opposed. I think you should cancel the agreement, but in lie, I think you should form a citizen financial oversight committee. And its purpose would be to advise on community needs, provide oversight on budgeting and expenditures, and recommend sources of savings and revenue [clears throat] and innovative means of keeping our city a city of homes. As in every government everywhere, it seems functioning. They're going downhill. It appears that bureaucracy has grown too large and self-s serving. The going through the check register each month points out the astonishing amount of spending that would seem extravagant to most residents. And I think if most residents go through that, they'd have a lot of questions. That's why I'm recommending the Citizen Financial Oversight Committee. Thank you. Lawrence and thank you mayor council. I find myself pretty much agreeing with the three previous speakers and they not even my concerns particularly but hey they I find myself right in their camp. Um, if you were to go ahead with this, the survey is the only thing. But I am so concerned that the survey is going to be influenced with heavy bias, too, because there's no way that this council, the mayor and majority council and the city manager and staff are going to keep out of it. I mean, it's going to be biased questions. And then how is your outreach going to be? How are you going to reach citizens that aren't on Facebook or

Twitter or or whatever it is? I mean, I'm truly saying, how are you going to reach us all? Or not all because you're going to be picking and choosing who you reach. Okay, I think it's a bad idea all around. Yes, toot and sales tax measures could be a possibility that we could swallow except you're still touting shop local. Um, yes, I do as much as I can. And the other thing is this props and measures thing is you don't need to do that if you were in touch with the citizens. And obviously it's not. It's the same little bubbles of our own little sphere of influence and who we listen to and who we don't. And we end up not getting a full picture. Um and yes the expenditure still I mean it's gone up so much and frankly it's all in salaries and purse and the salaries and here we are that this mayor and majority council want raises. I mean it's it's like and this was I think how this whole props and measures came through and I'm really saying enough is enough either cancel this or be done with the survey. Thank you.

Mike Gimps,

council mayor and council members. This is a thorny issue. Obviously, it's raised a lot of um discussion. City Pacific Grove was featured in the Wall Street Journal over this issue. And um there there are a lot of and I sent everybody a letter a lot of really smart, knowledgeable, practical people in the city of Pacific Grove. We have world known worldwide known economists, former mayors of other cities in California. And the first part of the props and measures proposal is education. Well, I actually think that that has been handled over the controversy of this particular contract. I talked to quite a few people and everybody knows what this is about and has an opinion. I wouldn't spend 50,000 plus dollars getting people educated about this. I think there already are and you've heard some of this um discussion already. Um, having a business background and being an entrepreneur myself, um, let's call on the people who we have in this town. I like Mr. Lindstöm's idea, which has been raised before of a a citizens finance committee to advise and Brown Act, but uh, citizens committee to to be there available to run ideas past and have some discussion as a resource to the mayor and the city council. Also, the um you know, we still have a number of downtown uh spaces that are empty. The Pier One space is kind of struggling a little bit and Chase Bank and etc. You you know better than I do what those spaces are. Let's get those filled up. So, take some of the money you might

spend on on this and boost the PPG website. Reach out to get some businesses in there that will pay sales taxes, which we're not collecting now. I think we can better spend the $50,000 on boosting business, bringing tourists in, asking Sea Monteray to do more for Pacific Grove. That's how I would spend this money. So, I'm for cancelling the contract and really getting practical about um how to put this great town, this wonderful town, uh to the forefront uh for people who want to come to visit and make it even more beautiful and attractive that it is. So, I hope you vote in that direction. rely on your local citizens and experts to help you with this. We're here we're here to be a part of the process. Thank you very much.

No further hands are raised, Mr. Mayor. Thank you very Thank you very much. Sally, would you like to speak? All right, go ahead.

Oh, [laughter] well be best. But I know of two and possibly three surveys that have been done in the last 20 years. I believe the last one was a survey monkey probably five or six years ago. And I'm wondering, have you even looked at it and gone line by line to see if some of these things have been answered? I don't know that you have. I just think you should consider past surveys. look and see, compare numbers, ideas, and I really think that you could cancel this contract and do that on your own. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, we'll go ahead and close public comment on the item 12A. Bring back to the council who would like to speak and chaps. Thank you, Mayor and thank you uh for the the long presentation. Mr. I'm saying uh the um so I I just wanted to clarify like even in the agenda me uh agenda item as well as in the presentation it refers to phase one consulting beginning December we're already past that mark so whatever we do is going to be on a rolling forward basis right like that three-month window is that correct

yeah that's correct um we we have um not finished um creating a survey or any at this point so minimal work has been done okay Um so and um just just for my edification here like the the million dollars that's coming for the Kimton that's just based on 12% TOT possibly 70% occupancy for for the year something to that effect. Yeah those those are the original projections actually from three years ago. So it's possible it could be a little bit more but we want to be as conservative as possible on it. So, so point being we are conservative it's not like 100% occupancy right so um

yeah we had the estimates initially were between 1 to 1.5 million so we purposely took the low end in aense great thank you um um so I I'm actually I think we should just do this on a step-by-step basis that's where I am right now so you're you presented a number of options which I'm thankful for and I think what we need to do is just uh start off with option number one uh see where we are uh after the option one is finishes uh and then see come back to council and kind of review what we need to do whether we even need to do phase two or not anyway that's where that's where I am with all the options right now. Thank you. Is that just for clarification that's number two right on the list.

So that's um it looks like the first option is return back to council after phase one. uh whereas the uh the second option looks like you have to start phase two automatically. That's how I read it. So um the the contact that's in place today um is option one. So we do the survey, we come back, we present it, and the council says we authorize you to go further. So, just so that I'm clear, option one means phase one proceeds, phase one concludes, uh, and then the staff will come back to the city council to say, do you want option two? Yes, that's what I'm going with. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you very much. Thanks for the clarification, everyone. Council member Gman, thank you, your honor. Um, so to the point about previous surveys, the most the most recent survey I know about was in 200 the scientifically done one was in 2016 and it was about t it was very specifically about tax issues and you told me that that's available on our website someplace. Um, yes, that's where I believe uh Nick found it was on our website, right? He might have. Yeah, I'm not aware of it. Can we we have it? Um it was found by one of our employees on our website. I'm not exactly sure. Can we make it so that we can find it on the website? Yeah.

Um I remember I was on council when that was come came up and it was very specifically about what kind of revenue measure could be put forth. Um, this one I want to underscore what I'm reading about this is that it's this survey is intended to find out what the citizens of Pacific Grove who are sampled um to be representative want from the city in terms of services, programs, um, maintenance and so what's important and I think that's that's we don't want to lose sight of the fact that that helps us set policies as well. If people want things that we can't afford, then we find out how amendable the citizenry might be to a revenue measure that that affects them. Um, but the the first thing I think we need to know or I want to know the answer to is what's important to people. um you know, are they willing to give up on roads in order to uh have more recreation programs or are recreation programs that we're subsidizing 70% of aren't important to them? And that's that's important for us to know um as we go forward to know where we can cut back um with essentially validation from those in our community. Um and to to some of the speakers talked about, we all talked to people who agreed with us. We talk to people who are the same as us. We talk to the people who have the same experiences or see the city the same way. We need to know what people think that are not talking to us. And that's an important part of this this exercise. So, I'm looking forward to I support the idea of a survey. I support the idea of coming back every step of the way with full information. Um, and also looking back to see what's uh that

the survey, but this is a little apples to oranges. the survey from 2016 is is is somewhat different and you remember that as well. It was like should we tax the aquarium, but the answer was no. But people insisted on doing it anyway and it lost. So there's a real good reason to listen to these pollsters. But anyway, there that's um I'm I'm really hoping we'll learn a lot. And Council Member Garfield, I just want to mention I looked online. So yes, it was 2016. It was in the Monterey Herald. They talked about the survey as well too. So I just wanted to verify what you were talking about. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Um, Council Member Ralph, thank you very much.

Thank you. I would support us moving forward in a phased approach. I do want to survey. We hear a lot from um from a lot of the same people. And I know there's a lot of people about 10,380 others that vote in this town that we don't hear from. Um they just want their city to run. they they elect us so that we'll do what we said that we were going to do. Um, and I think if we're talking about large changes, I think to council member Garfield's point, I mean, if we're subsidizing uh, you know, recreation and the city agrees, you know, the electorate agrees that maybe that's not where we need to spend our money or those programs are so valuable to people that they're willing to pay more. Maybe that's what we find out through this. Um I I do support the toot. I do support uh raising it to get us to the sales cap and to do it first. Um and I think the only way that we're going to know if we're along that same road is to um is to do a survey and to hear from a wide variety of people and then let's find out. And I think going back to 2016 and even um you know even sooner you know the makeup of Pacific Grove has changed over the last 10 years. We have a a lot of different people that have moved in a lot of people that have moved out. Uh and what was possible in 2016 may not be um what's possible today. What people wanted back then is probably not what they want today. And you know, I think faced with, you know, I I've gotten a couple of emails where people are like, "Just cut." It's like, but

they don't tell you what they want to cut. They just want to cut something. Well, all of that has implications. Do you want to cut fire? Do you want to cut police? Do you want to cut public works? Do you want to I mean, you know, if you've got ideas, hey, that's okay. But just to to throw out a a statement saying you need to make cuts when we've already cut $1.7 million out of the budget and tightened our belt pretty tight, then what else is there? And so I would I mean I'm not going to take anything off the table as far as generating revenue or or making you know efficiencies or whatever that case is. I think we need to do it and and I think the survey is a really important way to hear from others in the community. So, I would favor us starting out with the survey and then see where it takes us. I mean, we could get the survey back and it may make the rest of it completely, you know, completely void because of the responses we get. So,

thank you very much. Uh I I just want to echo uh a lot of those comments and um the previous ones. Um and I won't belabor the point, but the world's different now. We need some new information. The residents are different. Uh the perspectives more than anything, maybe the same people, but perspectives over the last since co I mean it's can be a lot different. So um we've had some experiences the last eight years that have been quite trying. So, um, I would like to get the information and make the best judgment with the information. So, I'm I think I'm hearing four for option one and I'll turn to my colleagues over here to give their comment if they wish or

Yeah, go ahead.

Thank you, your honor. Um, what I'm hearing a lot of, not just from the public comment tonight, but from uh uh uh including the public comment tonight and a lot of other conversations I've had with people over the the last number of weeks [clears throat] is wanting some sort of return on investment or that that seems to be a core complaint about spending this money. Don't spend it on that. Spend it on this instead. We're still spending the money, but people want to see the the uh the return on investment. So, fixing the community center. so that we can rent it out uh instead of uh you know cancel this contract and instead invest it in local businesses so that we'll have a return on sales tax here. Um the reason I support this in the first place, the reason I support the survey trying to identify what revenue generating ideas would be receptive to the public is for return on investment for this money that we're spending. I want to make sure that if we go forth uh uh with our props and measures and we put some ideas forth to the public that they are going to be what the public is most in favor of in the first place. Like the example that was brought up about having the uh the ticket tax for the originally pointed at the aquarium but ended up uh uh taxing unduly the high school for football games. That's why they opposed it. People had no problem with charging the aquarium. They had a lot of problem, not as much as you think, very little. The four or five people that were allowed, what they really cared about was the high school and how it was impacting the general community. Uh I would say this, if we were able to get $1 off of two million tickets per year out of the aquarium, that would help us a great deal. I'm just going to pitch that for a second there. But um so so the the the concern over we're spending

money instead of generating it. This is a way of ensuring that we're not wasting this money that we're spending usually come out on the same side of most things as the general public. But in this one instance, um I do believe that spending this money is smart for us in the long term so that we don't put forth uh uh revenue generating ideas that everyone is just going to be against. Like even if we discussed it here and everyone in the room agreed, we had 100% agreement, this is what we're going to put forth, that doesn't mean it resonates with the greater community. We need a more scientific approach than than just that. Um the uh the second thing I've heard a number of times and came up again tonight is the idea of a citizen financial oversight committee, which I think is a wonderful idea. There's nothing stopping anyone from organizing citizens uh taking the information that's freely available on the city website and conducting their own financial oversight and providing recommendations. Bring it to the city council. Let us know what you think. If you have cost savings ideas, if you have smarter strategies for how we could be uh uh uh organizing our our financial strategies or how we conduct business, bring it forward. Happy to hear it. Um, and that's and I'm not being patronizing when I say that. I am genuinely promoting that idea. If you want to do that, I think that kind of volunteerism is wonderful. So, please do. Um, I think it's important for us to find out what the revenue ideas are that the public is receptive to. I'm really looking forward to that information, getting that information from the survey. Once we have that information, as Tina was pointing out, then we have something to work off of. Maybe maybe they're not receptive to anything. I don't know. But we don't know that until we do the survey. So, uh, last comment I'll make on doing this after 10 years. Our challenges and

opportunities are different now than they were 10 years ago. We have a lot of the same people here. Obviously, um, but our our our the atmosphere in which we're making the decision decisions is different. So, we have to assess where we're at right now. and assessing where we're at right now, what the public actually wants is the entire goal of this. So, thank you. I turn it back. Thanks. Go ahead.

Thank you very much. Yeah, I I I agree with everything that's said and I I I definitely appreciate the public sentiment about having concerns about spending money when we're saying that we foresee deficits. But but what I appreciate is that staff has taken the council goals of fiscal sustainability and infrastructure really looked that out five years in the future. The reason this is an issue is because we're looking far ahead now and we're looking at if we do the projects like for example the the 2.4 million annually is what's recommended to maintain streets. We hear a lot from the from some of the public at least that they want us to maintain streets. Obviously, there's an uncovered cost for that. The same thing with infrastructure. If um the recommendation is to spend 1.5 million a year for that, we need to know what the public values and do they value it enough to support revenue measures. Um, I think we all seem to be in agreement and maybe the public would be too about having the additional taxes on the toot and and utilizing that 3.75 I think percent uh.375% additional sales tax cap for city benefits. So, if we're looking at something like that, knowing if the public supports that, all of these things I think are helpful to us because we're responsible for spending the money that's needed to help run the city or at least setting the policy for that obviously. And so, the best way we can do that is with the information of what is important to the public so we can make those decisions on their behalf. And from my understanding when the original um measure uh the proposal was brought to us, the idea was that it would be scientific polling because it wouldn't just be who's on social media. They would actually do outreach where they are going out to the public, the ones that may be too busy, don't have the bandwidth to pay attention, but when somebody's coming to their door, for

example, and giving them the opportunity to participate in government that they maybe don't have time to proactively do, it gives us a better picture of our overall community, not just the ones that have, you know, the time and maybe the desire to participate on a daily basis. So, um, I come from a world where before you do anything, you want to do a needs assessment. And that that gets back to the the whole idea of the ROI, um, until you know exactly what your needs are. And in our case, a city council member, our needs are the needs of our public in many ways. Um, and so the best way to make sure that we are spending the money and directing policy on spending that money in the right direction is to do the needs assessment. So, we would normally look at you spend a small upfront cost. So, it's a one-time cost to make sure you're going in the right direction and spending your limited resources in an intelligent way. And we've already expressed in council how we very much are all interested in this um fiscal sustainability. We've made that one of our top priorities. We're looking at what can we invest in now so things cost less down the road. how can we have um like stop having deferred maintenance where it gets so much more expensive if you wait than if you plan ahead and so staff has already brought us some great information on the infrastructure and the the roads um there's a bit more work to that needs to be done in that overall part but I think it really helps the community and helps us serve the community by having that information so while I understand that um there are issues with spending it's a small amount for making sure that we can get the best utilization and if the and if the public supports a tax that brings us the revenue to do more of the things once we know what's most important is that roads are they okay waiting and having you know roads aren't in the best position but it may be they think infrastructure maybe roads it may be

something we don't anticipate yet so I feel like getting that information from the community is the best way to do that um it was never about um council raises or anything like that. It really was about how do we find out what the public values so we can best meet those needs? And I feel like I I feel like we've been put in an awkward position because the idea here was to be transparent to give the opportunity for public input so we can best serve the public. So to me, this seems like a small cost upfront to make sure we're doing that well. So I like the way it was structured where we just do the survey first. If we think that that leads in a direction of needing more education, more um putting a measure together that will inform us whether we would even want to proceed with future steps. And it was very clear also in the initial thing that there would be no advocacy whatsoever. I like I actually really appreciated that in that initial statement. It made that really clear and then again tonight. So, I really applaud staff for for being proactive, going out there and giving so we know what we're looking at. So, it puts us in a position to say knowing what we know now, what's most important for you as the public to represent um so that we can best serve you and get the needs that are most important to you met.

Thank you. Um, you I'm going to go ahead and make a motion. U motion to approve uh option one as laid out in the staff report. Do I have a second? Second. A tie. Who would who get it to council member Garfield? Uh, and uh any further discussion? All right, let's take a Yes.

Quick, quick little discussion. I want to just emphasize uh Council Member McDonald's point about the importance of this five-year plan that's been laid out as it tells us what's coming in a way that we've not had before. And that is crucial. Um and I totally appreciate your your conversation today about how to interpret this and what still is going to be needed beyond this. So to that point, let's not forget that the community deserves education about that, information about that, and and we need to find the best way to fully inform folks um about the needs of coming, not just do you like recreation or streets. Um we need to be we need an an informed electorate. So um where that comes into play later, um we need to pay attention to that too. Anyway, thank you. Okay. All right. Um, hearing no further discussion, we'll take a a voice vote on this one. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Hearing none. Passes unanimously. All right. Excellent. Okay. So, we will get that back. Take that up at a later time. Uh, now we're on to item 13A, new business, Shiakqua Hall. And, uh, we'll have our public works director, Mr. Go.

Thank you, your honor. Members of the city council, I do not have a presentation for this, but I will be very brief in a verbal. Sounds good.

We have two recommendations tonight. The first recommendation is to enter into an agreement with Hunter Orchard Eldridge Architectural, who's a local architect for Shiitaka Hall Architectural Services in an amount of $176,000 and some change plus a 10% contingency. And then the second portion of the project is to enter into a funding agreement with the Heritage Society of Pacific Grove for reimbursement of those architectural services. I want to commend the Heritage Society for really kicking off this project and say thank you to them because they spearheaded the donations and the those efforts towards this and have been able to generate over $700,000 towards the project. So that when you see your Heritage Society members out there, thank them for that. Otherwise, we wouldn't be here tonight and I wouldn't be here recommending Hunter for the architectural services and then ultimately moving forward for construction. If Hunter is approved tonight, we're thinking it's going to take 6 months or so to develop plan sets and specifications and release an RFP for proposal for construction. At that time, I will come forward to the city council with bid award for construction services and then we will enter into an amendment to the funding agreement that will then allocate funds for the construction. The Heritage Society anticipates being able to fund both. If there's a delta between um the construction bids and the donated funds, we'll bring forth options at that time of the for the construction. This

is the first step to move forward with architectural services. As you know in the staff report, Hunter has developed a very strong team. We interviewed multiple agencies and or firms that could perform this work and we felt Hunter's team would give us the best results. We have a landscape architect associated with him, somebody that will do kitchen design, an ADA consultant to ensure that all of the plan sets and the work will meet the specific criteras. Mechanical and plumbing will be part of the design. That includes all of your electrical components. We're going to have structural engineer evaluate the building and make sure that all the structural needs are put into this architectural plan in the plan set. And then we're also going to be doing audiovisisual enhancements to the Shiitaka Hall facility. That concludes my report. I'm super excited to be here today with this. I mean, this is a long time coming and like I say, they've generated over 700,000. Let's kick off this project. Let's get going. You approve it tonight, we're going to enter into an agreement with him and we anticipate get going right at the beginning of February. Thank you.

That's very, very good news. Excellent news. Thank you so much. We're excited. Uh let's go to public comment. Anyone in chambers? Chambers first. uh outside of chambers. We'll go online. Thank you, Mayor. Looks like we have Peter Lawrence and Dmer.

Mayor [clears throat] and Council, I think that Hunter Porter Eldridge is a wonderful firm that will do this well. And here it takes volunteers, citizens, and private donations to get our historical resources restored. And that seems to be what the city does rely on, which is why the city really needs to hear from us because this is one of the important things. This is our heritage. And I went against Hunter from at ARB just this last week because he's promoting a copper roof on an Ocean View Boulevard home that pollutes and we don't have an ordinance for this in our in our city which needs to be because the copper roofs which [laughter] they are polluting our marine mammals. animal and wildlife. And this is one of those things that has to come up because the research is just catching up. But Hunter is a good person and his firm is to do this and do it in a thoughtful, wonderful way. And yes, it's the citizens of Pacific Grove supporting this project and our heritage that is bringing this forward. Of course, partnering with the city. Thank you very much.

Thank you,

Christiano Thomas. I I I guess I I know you can't answer the question, but I I was shocked when I saw this because I I thought that if the private citizens raised all the money, why would they give it back to the the city that allowed the building to deteriorate in the first place? Um and so now I I don't know. I I guess I'll email. So, does that mean now the city's going to be the project manager on this or are you going to I you know, I'm just confused on that. I'm very familiar having uh worked with the American Institute of Architects. Um this architect is AIA certified. He's great. He's local. I know him. But, um I'm just wondering and confused again because of the private funds why now the city's the project manager. So maybe that'll be clarified. Thank you.

No further hands online. Mayor, thank you very much. We'll bring you back for discussion uh and action. I I clearly this is a great item for the city. This is a great thing for the city and we'd like to move forward. I'd like to move forward on it. So anyone would like to make a motion. I I would entertain them at this time. Perhaps in the interim, Dan, Mr. Go can tell us who's going to project manage it and we'll just answer that question. The project management would be conducted through the public works department as we did with the Pacific Grove Library. We anticipate giving periodic updates um to the construction and all aspects that are occurring throughout the duration. Thank you.

And just to clarify, Mr. Go, the reason that we are the project manager and we are overseeing this is that it is a city-owned facility and correct. Okay. All right. Anyone want to make a motion? I just had a question. So, noting previous experiences here, anything related to noise and disturbance or do we need to specify that or is that like handled through project management construction? You're regarding regarding construction noise disturbances. Yes.

Entering into the agreement tonight with Hunter will not have any of that. I would say let's address those aspects of concern when we award bid for the actual construction. But we will have building permits that we will be pulling when we actually do the construction that would have all of those parameters specified on the permits. We won't deviate from anything that's not already specified in city codes. Okay. Thank you for that explanation. So I'm I'm I'm good with the item, too. Thanks. Would anyone like to make a motion? Can we get a motion first? Sure. Okay, I will. I will.

All right. Um I I move that we um authorize the inter we enter into an agreement with Hunter Porter Eldridge and his team for Chiakqua Hall for the amount not to exceed $176,68 plus 10% contingency and move on to authorize the exe the execution of a funding agreement between the heritage society and the city for reimbursement for architectural services for Chakqua Hall. Second. Do I have a second? Second. All right. We have a motion by Garfield. Second by Ralph, would you like to make any further comment?

Um, I really like the landscaping at the the lighthouse. Um, I I'm the leazison to Chad Hall and I've looked at pictures of Chadwa Hall to find out what kind of plants were there. There was nothing. It was dirt, but it's an opportunity to say that the lighthouse did a fabulous job with their landscaping and it would n tie those in nicely together. our sites. Um, and anyway, that's okay. That was fair. I would love that. Thank you. All right, Council Member.

Yeah, and I think this ties up to the last uh to the last agenda item. You know, the consultant told us that we're a little city doing big city things, and it is true. And not many cities have the same uh amount of infrastructure that we have, our own, you know, water recycling plant and and we own our own the golf course and all of those things. So, um I think that unfortunately or whichever way you're going to look at it, this is probably going to be uh not the last one of these that we're going to have to do. And I would also say that I commend uh the board of of the Heritage Society for raising the money and anybody listening. Uh $700,000 is a is a fair bit of money for by anybody's estimation, but I think it's going to take more. So, I look forward to having that plan set when people can get an eye on it. maybe we can uh increase those donations as well. So, uh I'm in favor of this and let's do it.

All right, I'll echo all of that. Um All right. So, unless there's further discussion, I'm going to go ahead and take a voice vote on this. All right. Hearing none, we'll take a voice vote. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Hearing none passes unanimously. Thank you very much, Mr. go. And we look forward to this uh project moving forward. And now for our final item of the night, we have the annual financial report and audit, Mr. Marsh. Yeah. Uh thank you, mayor and council members. Um so tonight I'm introducing Jessica. She's our assistant finance director and she's actually going to give the presentation. So turn over to Jessica.

Jessica, can you hear me? Okay. Okay. I won't yell. [laughter]

Good evening, council members, Mayor Smith, and community members. I'm Jessica with the admin services finance department, and I will be reporting on the annual financial reports and audit for the fiscal year 2425. So, a little bit of background, the annual financial reports and audit, uh, the city contracted with the pun group, which is a firm of independent CPAs to audit the city's financial statements for fiscal year 2425. The audit was performed in conformance with the generally accepted auditing standards and the city received an unmodified opinion on its financials which is the optimal opinion to receive from an external auditor. There were no recommendations for improvements in internal controls reported by the auditor. The reports included are the annual comprehensive financial report which is the acter, the popular annual financial report which is the PAFER, the report on agreed upon procedures applied to the appropriation limit schedule or the GAN limit for fiscal year 2526 fund which is the TAMC measure X report and the auditor's required communication Additional highlights. The paffer provides a summary of the acter in case you don't feel like reading the 200 pages, including financial statements for the general fund and other major and enterprise funds. The city's general fund met the board adopted policy for reserves for fiscal year 2425 of 25% of its annual expenditures. And the single audit report will be

completed at a later date prior to the submission deadline of March 31st, 2026. And single audit reporting will be for fiscal year 2425 as the city expended over 750,000 in federal grants for fiscal year 2425. Both the ACER and the PAFER have been submitted to the Government Finance Officers Association for consideration as part of their awards programs and our recommendation is to receive the reports noted in this report.

And I just want to add one final comment. Um we got noticed that we actually got the uh noted triple crown actually from GFOA from our budget from our acter and for our path as well too. So really thanks to really all the great work that admin services does and kind of putting that together. So I just wanted to note that as a final item. That's great. Appreciate it. I appreciate that. No, it's excellent work. Um we'll go ahead and go to the public comment on this receive the report item. Anyone Sally, would you like to anyone online? No hands raised online, mayor.

Right. Well, it's because it's so well done. There's not a lot of opposition. Okay. Yeah, I don't have any comments. I appreciate the work. Anyone up here like like to make a comment additional? Okay, awesome. All right. Well, thank you so much for the excellent work. Congratulations to the department. Keep it going. Thanks everyone for tuning in this evening and coming in person. We appreciate you. Take care and have a good night. Meeting adjourned.