City - Regular Meeting

recording in progress. We're going to start count uh the council meeting dating uh Wednesday, February 4th, 6 p.m. Um the meetings are conducted in person at city uh hall council chambers. Please note that the meeting will proceed as normal, even if there's I can't hear problems with Zoom. Um, we'll do our best to get the Zoom.

You're on mute. Uh,

can she be unmuted? Can can council member Garfield, can you hear me? Okay, she can't hear. It's gonna be here. Can you uh council member Garfield, could you hear me?

It's on his side. That's what I thought. Okay. Uh we'll we'll try and fix this soon. Uh maybe just pause for a moment.

We'll be uh starting in a little bit here. We have Who is that one? The Okay, good. We can Can you hear me? Uh, Council Member Garfield should have tried this sooner. Nope. That's not it.

Can you hear us? You know how technology is on there. So, we have to make sure another council member is on Zoom right now. It's all the way up. Can you hear us? Uh, Council Member Garfield.

You can hear me? Yes, but you can. Okay, then there's something wrong with my speakers. I'm switching to my iPad, which may give me a better um audio. Hold on.

Okay. getting there. Council member Garfield.

We have to have her on board. I believe she is still as panelist. This will take a minute. Do you guys want to go ahead and do the consent agenda and I'll join you after?

Um, can you hear us? Uh, council, I can hear you now. I can hear you.

Good. Okay. um at the beginning of this meeting. Um she needs to request which she just did under just cause provision of the Brown Act and um is there any um objection from the council uh having no Okay, good. Okay. So, this is like I started off. This is a regular council meeting uh Wednesday, August uh February 4th. And um we're going to have um council member Paduri. Give the pledge of allegiance.

Please stand. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic of which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice. Thank you. Thank you. And um are there any uh council uh announcements approval of the agenda? Well, yeah. Correct. We need to approve the agenda. First of all, Mr. uh Mongus, um the presentations, uh that's that comes after the uh approval of the agenda.

Yes, that would be correct, Mr. Mayor. We we have none tonight. So, after your approval of the agenda, you go to council. That sounds good. Okay. Yeah, for everything. We need a roll call vote for everything. Um thank you, uh council member So, do I have a motion to approve the agenda? Second. So, move. Okay. Um, can we have a roll call vote? Uh, Sandra. Yes. Council member Ralph. I. Council member Puri. Council member Walking Stick. I

McDonald. Garfield. Hi, Mayor Proio. Hi. Except Garfield. Did she say yes on this? Um I I say I. Okay. Thank you. Yes. Motion carry 601 with Mayor Smith absent. Okay. The uh are there any presentations, Mr. Mogansson? No presentations this evening. Um however, we do have staff announcements after the council announcement. Okay. Um, are there any council announcements tonight? Yes. Uh, Council Member Ra.

Thank you, your honor. I just wanted to say we had the opportunity to all be at the um at the ribbon cutting last night for the Kempton and I just wanted to wish Julia the GM and all of her staff and everyone that made that just a first class event and uh I want to thank the public for showing up and showing their support. It was um it was a show of force that I've never seen and it was just really uh incredible to see everybody come together and celebrate this this new hotel and um I just that was my announcement for tonight. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, Councilman. Anybody else? Okay. Um staff announcements. Uh Mr. Mgusen. Yes, Mr. Mayor Poten. We do have two tonight. Um the first one will be um our wreck program manager Katie Clark is going to talk a little bit about summer's programs. Okay.

Uh good evening council and members of the public. We have one announcement regarding our summer programs. We want to let everyone know that the recreation department summer staff recruitment is now open. We are looking for camp counselors, sports assistants, lifeguards, and swim instructors. More information on all of those positions, the requirements, and how to apply as well as the application can be found on the city web page, and that is cityofpg.org/job. So, we look forward to seeing hopefully some wonderful candidates. Thank you. Thank you. And uh Chief Dave will lead us in our next announcement. Okay.

Is it on? Okay, there we go.

Good evening, Pro Amundo and Honorable Council. I'm here to share just kind of a well, it's kind of a it's a it's a big deal. It's a significant deal that um we're recognizing a few officers uh for an incident that happened over the weekend. And so, um because I'm restrained, uh just due to some privacy issues, I'm going to give the kind of a brief overview. Uh on one February 2026 at about 2 p.m. Pacific Grove Police Sergeant Orlando Perez and Pacific Grove Police Officer Kevin Shim responded to an undisclosed location within the city limits to assist a resident who was experiencing a mental health crisis. uh this particular resident who was a member of the armed forces community was contacted by uh the officers who worked to deescalate the situation and resolve the incident seeing to the welfare of the resident and obtaining the help and assistance required at that time. Tonight, it is my distinct privilege to introduce the senior representative to the Naval Postgraduate School and to invite Colonel Dana Demer, United States Marine Corps to the podium.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I'm Colonel Dana Demer. I'm the senior Marine officer currently at Naval Postgraduate School. We have uh 248 Marines currently studying at Naval Postgraduate School and uh they're members of your community. This is uh we've uh value the relationship that we've had with the community since our founding in uh the 1940s. Uh and um and is my honor to help recognize some of your finest uh that helped some of our finest uh this weekend. Um, as I told in a sit situation report to my commanding general, uh, I honestly believe that we would have had a much sadder um um u a much sadder situation. had it not been for uh your officers, how they were able to deescalate a situation, recognize one of our Marines that was in need and make sure that he um he found um one uh the the care he needs and he's currently uh in that care uh now. Um, and like I said, I can't thank you uh enough and I would like to recognize your officers with our commander coin uh for their actions.

Thank you. Well, again, I thank you for the opportunity to do this and we look forward to continuing the the strong relationship that we have with with your community. Thank you. Thank you very much. They are among our finest in Pacific Grove. So, um let's go with uh other announcements, Mr. Moasen.

No further announcements. Okay. So, general public comment general public comment are items that could be pulled from uh that may cannot discuss anything on the agenda, but they have something else to say during general public comment. Are there anybody here that wishes to make a public comment? Come forward. Good evening. I'm Sally Moore and I would like to correct a misstatement that I made at the last council meeting. It was with regard to the address identifications under the local amendment local amendments for the California Building Standard Codes. Not doing very well now. Um or according to ordinance number 25-019 it's um again address identification new and existing buildings shall be provided with an approved address identification. The address identification shall be legible and placed in a position that is visible at all times from the street and road fronting the property. Address identification characters shall contrast with their background. Address numbers shall be Arabic numbers or alphabetical letters. Numbers shall not be spelled out. Each character shall not be less than four inches and I had said five, not less than 4 in high with a minimum width stroke of 1/2 inch for single family dwellings and duplexes. For all other occupancies, each character shall be not less than a minimum of 4 in high with a minimum stroke of 1/2 in unless otherwise required by the fire code official. So, I just wanted to correct that. And evidently, we're all going to need to address that with our homes. Thank you.

Thank you. U go ahead, introduce yourself and uh go ahead.

Uh good evening. My name is Tony Raful. Uh I'm currently a Monterey dispensary owner, the one in downtown Monterey and u I want a license in Marina as well. So I'm here to talk about the issue about the cannabis uh processing year. Uh BG is creating liability by not following the practice in in cannabis application process. It's like uh allowing people to stack applications. And out of the 10 applicants that we have here, there is eight identical applications. And since it's like a lottery uh process, I see that as a fraud and and waste of city money by paying uh HDL uh money to study eight identical applications written by the same person belong to the same company. So uh we I remember 2020 when when Mr. Harvey was the city manager and how he played favoritism for one company and it didn't end up well for him and I see the things like continue happening again here. So I urge you please to just stop the process and and look at it again and to be fair it should be only between three companies. the two that has applied for one application each and the eight application identical let them have one spot in the lottery and in this case it's all going to be fair game. Thank you.

Thank you for your comment. There's no um are is there anybody else uh wanting to speak at this time that's not on the agenda? Okay. Is there someone online? We have three callers online. Okay. Go ahead. A Morris.

Yes. Thank you very much. Um good evening uh Mayor Prom and members of the council. Uh, my name is Amra Morrison and I am an attorney with uh, Redwood Public Law and I represent the applicant Nug LLC and property owner Manure Yonan in connection with their commercial cannabis business uh, provisional license application and my comments are going to be very similar to the comments that you just heard uh, from the prior speaker. Um, we have previously corresponded with the city relative to the city's cannabis uh, business license license application process. Um, and we'd like to take this opportunity during your public comment to once again raise your concerns about the application process. Uh, like the prior speaker, we fundamentally request that the city take immediate action uh to protect the integrity of the application process before the lottery uh is conducted. Um, as the previous uh speaker stated and as stated in our January letter, we have serious concerns that eight of the applications were submitted uh by a coordinated group of affiliated individuals and entities tied to a single operator uh off the charts. Um we contend that the submitt of these coordinated applications constitutes permit stacking um which is again we define as the submission of multiple non-independent applications by a single economic enterprise. Obviously this significantly increases the related entity's chances of securing the s the city's single available license. Um, the city's response to our January 9th letter simply concludes that because the city's ordinance and guidelines don't expressly prohibit such coordinated submitts that the city is free to proceed with its lottery. Um, obviously which is now clearly biased eight times in favor of the OTC related entities. Um there I do want to point out that there

are provisions in uh Pacific Groves ordinance which define owner in the same way that the state um medicinal and adult use cannabis regulation and safety act defines an owner which uh among other things um indicates uh or or um defines an owner as an individual who will be participating in the direction control and management of a person who is applying for a license. The reason for the definition of owner in not only your ordinance but state law, is so that a regulating agency here, the city, can determine whether a person has a significant interest in an entity that's applying for a cannabis license. So once again, we request that the city simply hit the pause button on conducting the lottery until such time that staff does its due diligence to confirm that these eight applications are not owned, controlled, or operated by a single owner. Um, and we thank you very much for your attention this evening.

Is there another one online correctly? Yes, there's a couple more hands raised. Okay. Revka Ravibo Yes. Hello. Can you hear me? Yes. Yes. Great. Um, thank you for this opportunity to address the council. Um, I'd like to revisit an important topic I first discussed with the city council, chief of police, and the city manager back in August of 2025. Um so as we know tonight there will be a presentation on the regulatory landscape of ebikes.

No, excuse me for a second. The um ebikes has not come up yet. It'll be coming up later on the agenda. Okay. So I can't make a public comment about Yes, you can make a public comment when we deal with the ebikes later on the agenda. This is general public comment. The appropriate time for an ebike comment would be during that item. Okay. Thank you. Go ahead. Continue, ma'am. Uh, Angela Lawrence Jr.,

thank you. It's interesting. I'm really disappointed in how this whole cannabis thing turned out. I knew that back in Ben Harvey's and how he just tried to get around the whole tax issue and everything else and we really needed the vote. We're all for it. But this process has just been corrupted. I mean here the city seems to have with its HDL which you know and I've spoken against that company many many times. They are generic consulting company that pushed the Economic Development Commission in weird ways. I've said that they they have their fingers in too many pies and offer generic solutions for everything. Well, the city just voted, and I was against it, to hire HDL to do this vetting process, and here we are with a buyout. We're selling Pacific Grove to the highest bidder by letting the and taking the application money. That that is just I mean, it's ridiculous. This isn't a fair process. It's not at all. And we were trying to get local, not not a chain store cannabis. And here we've got I I don't know. I am just so disappointed with how the city has handled this. And I thought we were going swimmingly along. But of course, I should have realized when you let HDL take over that that's what they did. and city council and me the public who's pretty aware of things. Hey, didn't realize that we didn't say there's absolutely no stacking and buyout of lottery tickets, so to speak.

Anyway, I'm just very disappointed in how this has played out when I thought we were doing well. Certainly, other places have handled this a whole lot better. Thank you very much. Thank you for your comment. Uh the next person online two. Okay.

Good evening everyone. It's Debbie Beck and I just wanted to say to Chief Day, Sergeant Perez, and the officer that was involved with the incident this weekend, which I am not familiar what it was, but to have a colonel come forward to our city to award both of these, the sergeant and the officer, uh the coin that he provided to them, I give them a standing ovation. and I was at home listening and it brought tears to my eyes that our officers helped not just our residents but a military resident. So, thank you very much for your service. Hey, thank you for your comment. Um, Carla Garcia,

good evening. Um, so we're into a new year and I would encourage the council and particularly you mayor prom to encourage the mayor to hold a state of the city address. Um, in 2010 when I was mayor um I held the first ever through the city of Pacific Grove and that tradition continued um through uh former mayor Peak's term. So, it would be great to um get that going again. Um I know when I did it, there were 200 plus uh residents in attendance um at that address. Um so again, I would encourage you to uh have the mayor um hold one. With regards to the cannabis and what's going on with it, uh if it does come to a uh standpoint, I would encourage you to take a look at the separation of limitation uh in the ordinance. What it does not speak to is residents uh where children live and that 1,00 ft um separation. The proposed location right now at 1157 Forest does not meet that separation and there is an apartment complex behind 1149 Forest Avenue. Um I find it ironic that in the ordinance the minimal requirements are met uh via children are protected or well I say protected because it has to be more than 1,000 ft at schools, daycare, preschools um and what have you. But once that child gets home, if that criteria is not met, they are no longer protected. Something doesn't seem right here. Um, so again, uh, I would encourage you to take a look at that and, uh, amend the ordinance by all means to include residential dwellings. Um, and, um, you

can do that. You can make it stronger than what it is now. Thank you so much. Comment. Is there anybody else online? No. for their hands to raise.

No further hands. Okay. Okay. Um we're going to deal with the um there's no written general public comment. The consent agenda. Is there uh anybody on the city council that wishes to pull the cons any consent item? Okay. Is there about anybody in the public that wishes to pull a consent item? Hearing none, do I have a motion to approve the city council um consent agenda? So moved.

Thank you. Can I have a roll call? Thank you. Council member Ralph I. Council member Puri. Hi. Council member Garfield. I council member McDonald I council member Wahinstick I mayor protolio. Motion carries 601 mayor Smith absson.

Okay. So, what we're going to do now is go to 11A the um the sequence of the steps for council consideration of the appeal. Now, before we get started, um Mr. Biggs or uh Mr. Lur can Mr. We had we had a letter um asking for a continuence and would you be able to address that?

Certainly, Mayor Proto. Uh we did receive an email request yesterday afternoon from the appellant requesting a continuence to a future city council meeting about 8 weeks away. I will let the appellant address the um comments or the reasons why she's requesting the appeal, but there's some factual things that she included in her email that I wanted to clarify. Uh one of the things was that the address for this project was not listed anywhere. Uh we did go back and take a look at the agenda for tonight's council meeting and the address for the property is listed along with the assessor's parcel number. Uh there was also a um note that the reference to an incomplete application uh was not the correct date. That was is the correct date. It was a reference to an incomplete application notice sent to the applicant and the property owner back in um 2024. Um and then there was a note that a document regarding a review of an earlier historic preservation analysis of this project site was not included in the packet. uh that was included in the packet for the city council. It was part of the appeal uh application submitted by the applicant. So you have all those documents along with the document um that is dated January 12th of 2026 by Stacy D Shazo Evans and uh AMP. So, I think the the thing to do now will be for the city council to consider whether or not the uh request for continued should be granted per the request.

Okay. Um is there any objection from the city council or continue this item? No. No objection. Okay. We're going to continue. Yes. So, you're saying continue? No. No. We're going to continue this particular So, we're gonna Yeah, we're going to move forward. Correct. We're going to move forward. Me, too. So, in that case, no, I think we should move forward. Okay. Are we all in agreement on this? Yes.

The appellent is the one bringing it forward and they're the ones asking for the continuation. So, that is there a reason we would want to proceed when the appellent is the one who's asking for more time? Oh, okay. Sorry.

So, I don't hear any major objections to this and we're going to continue on with the um uh the appeal process. And uh just to let you know that uh the appellant presentation is 10 minutes total. Uh if a single designated spokesperson is provided to the city clerk in advance of the meeting, names of the persons who request the spokesperson to speak on their behalf shall have more than 10 minutes. However, at this time, it's 10 minutes for the appellant. Is the appellent here? Um I think we will do the staff presentation first and following the staff presentation I think that'll be an opportunity for the appellant um as you noted to have 10 minutes to present their reasons for the appeal and then the applicant would be given 10 minutes to present their reasons for why the appeal should be uh not be considered or approved and then I think you mentioned that there was an opportunity for some rebuttals to on each of the

Mr. books. Thank you for that correction and missed the staff report. The most important thing there with that I will introduce uh Garrett Macau who is our associate planner and has been working on this project uh since its submittal and has carried it through to the planning commission meeting is ready to present everything to you this evening. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor Pro Tim Amelio and council members. My name is Garrett Macau, associate planner for the city of Pacific Grove. For your consideration tonight is the appeal of the planning commission's approval of architectural permit and coastal development permit 24-0044 or 685 Mermaid Avenue. The subject property is on the historic resources inventory and the proposed development consists of a remodel and rehabilitation of an existing 950 ft two-story residence to include the demolition of the existing garage converted square foot first floor edition6 65q ft second floor edition, a 337 ft attached garage, and a 339 ft second story ADU, resulting in a 1,363 ft twostory residence with a 339 foot attached ADU. The rehabilitation will include returning the existing structure back to its original board and batten wall cladding, replacing damaged and deteriorated windows with inind replacements and shaping of the existing windows,

restoring the French door, and restoring the front bay window. This project has gone through a couple of iterations since the first HRC hearing on July 24th, 2024. The image on the left depicts the original proposed project in July of 2024. The image on the right shows the planning commission approved design after incorporating HRC comments, public comment and concerns, and qualified historian suggestions in order to be more in line with the Secretary of Interior standards for for rehabilitation. Changes to the design include, but are not limited to lowered ADU height. Windows and doors were revised to wood windows and doors. Uh they updated the materials and colors, removing lap sighting in order to return sighting back to its original exterior board batten wall cladding. Retaining the character-defining front door in its existing location. Retain the character-defining first floor window in its existing location. and to uh differentiate the addition from the original structure with horizontal wood sighting. In preparation for the planning commission, the applicant contracted with a new qualified historic consultant uh historic resource associates to provide a historic consultation and a new phase 2 historic assessment uh for the project. Upon cons consultation, historic resource associates recommended changes to the proposed project which focused on historical compatibility and improved consistency with the secretary of interior standards for rehabilitation of the historic structure. In consideration of the changes to the plans and the new phase 2 historic assessment, staff presented the revised

proposed project to the HRC on September 24th, 2025 with a 300 vote to recommend approval for the project to the planning commission. The project was presented to the planning commission on December 11th, 2025. And upon consideration, the planning commission voted 41 to approve the project with two conditions of approval. Tribal monitoring during soil disturbance and to verify that the subject lot was lawfully created. The appellant provided 12 reasons for appeal which are provided in the agenda report. In short, the reasons for appeal are summarized in this slide here. The qualified historic consultant, Dana Sapernowitz, principal of historic resource associates, has reviewed the project and documented his findings in his phase 2 historic assessment August of 2025. He found the project to be in compliance with the secretary of interior standards for rehabilitation and made recommendations to modify the original proposed project which has been incorporated into the project by the architect. The extent of the demolition has also been reviewed by the project historian and concluded the proposed demolition and rehabilitation meets the standards retaining the building's significance and integrity per se guidelines section 15064.5 states quote generally the project involving a listed resource that follows the secretary of interior standards for the treatment of historic properties with guidelines for preserving reh rehabilitating, restoring, and reconstructing historic buildings or the Secretary of Interior standards for rehabilitation and guidelines for rehabilitating historic building shall be considered mitigated to a level of less than

significant impact on the historical resource. In this case, staff made a determination based on what the phase 2 historic assessment identified and determined that the proposed project falls under class one and 31 categorical exemptions. Uh, SQL guidelines section 15301 existing facilities and 15331 historical resource restoration and rehabilitation. Although in need of work, the current owners purchased the property in its present condition and they are currently making an effort to rehabilitate the property by means of their proposal. Once complete, the project will contribute to the eclectic mix of residential buildings in this neighborhood and will not detract from the desiraability of the surrounding neighborhood. The project reviewed by the planning commission was a result of the change in the applicant's historic consultant input by the HRC and the architects/homeowners willingness to make changes that brought the project further into compliance with the secretary of interior standards for rehabilitation. Although the information from the first historic consultant was not provided to the planning commission because it had lost its relevance in light of the new historic evaluation, changes to the project and reconsideration by the HRC. They are included in the agenda report packet. The Mermaid Avenue neighborhood has smaller lots relative to the rest of the city and it includes an eclectic mix of varying architectural styles, alignments, and scales which are regulated by Pacific Grove Municipal Code 23.57 and 23.90. These standards in the code sections include, but are not limited to, uses permitted, building height limits,

allowed building coverage, allowed site coverage, and required setbacks. The existing structure is on a double lot, 1,760 square foot lot to be exact. The proposed project complies with all the site development standards identified by the red arrow in this image on the slide. The proposed project and the neighborhood consist of similarly sized residents of uh varying architectural styles, alignments, and scales. As proposed, the mass and height of the new structure would not overwhelm adjacent structures nor be out of character with the neighborhood. The imple implementation of the general plan specifically as it relates to mass and scale is carried out through the zoning regulations and development standards. As proposed, the project complies with all zoning regulations. The grounds for the appellants appeal are not supported by the city's zoning regulations, secret requirements, or the city's historic resource conservation efforts and processes. This project has been reviewed by the HRC and the PC and their approvals support this conclusion. Therefore, staff recommends denial of this appeal. This concludes my presentation. I'm available for any questions that you may have as well as the project applicant, qualified historian, and the owner. Thank you.

Thank you for your presentation. Um I think we'll uh Mr. Lorquez, should we uh entertain questions with uh Mr. Mcone or should we continue on with the appellent? Um if there's any questions of staff now, I think you can ask those and then you can move forward with the public hearing. Uh does anybody have on the council questions for the Mr. McC Thank you. Um, so one question I do have is since there has been a request for an extension, are there any legal requirements to grant that? Just to make sure we've covered our basis. There are not. Go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Kron, uh, for the presentation. U, it looks like the planning commission had um the vote was 52 uh, for from the planning commission to to move this forward. Um, do you happen to know what the the two dissenters from the the two dissenting commissioners? Do you happen to know what they actually why what what the reasons were why they desented?

Pardon me. to to to be exact. Uh it would be hard to u explain exactly but their their biggest concern was um the massing and the scale of the building. Uh but however this this project is regulated by height and building coverage. uh GFA is not regulated in in the zoning district

and GSA refers to the gross floor area. Um some of our zone districts in town have a floor area table to indicate the um the volume that can be within the building. This particular zone district only has a lot coverage uh requirement. So it doesn't include that floor area ratio. And I think it's fair to expand a little bit on Mr. Macauan's comments that you know he was correct that the dissenting commissioner was concerned with the um uh the the massing of the structure and whether or not it was the the proposed additions to the existing historic structure were compatible with the uh historic resource that was there.

Okay. Thank you. Um and you and so this is not the first time we're hearing appeals like this especially in that area. Um do you this is just something for the future maybe um which may help uh since you brought up the floor floor area ratio perhaps an average floor ratio of that neighborhood or that street might help in the future to come to some conclusion on what we can do for future such uh kind of requests that are coming in. But I appreciate the insight. Thank you. Welcome.

Is there any other questions from the council? Okay, let's um move on to the um applicants presentation. Go ahead. I'm sorry. The bell's presentation. Um, regarding the notice of incomplete application, there was, I believe, another one issued in the beginning of 2025. It was after we submitted the um EDS report, the peer review.

Let's speak into the microphone that way you'll be on. we submitted the um peer review um on Kent CV's phase 2 assessment um there was a period where they issued a notice of incomplete application before um historic resource associates did the second phase two assessment excuse me ma'am uh could you uh speak into the microphone yeah it's all right no worries and could you introduce yourself no not yet I just wanted to ask a question before I got started just to clarify

um because there was another notice of incomplete application issued um in the process is this whole thing. Sorry, I got to get this in the right place. So, um I just wanted to get clarification on that. So, a notice of incomplete application. There there most likely was uh a second one, but this is a document that is uh provided to uh to the applicant only. Uh and it it discusses uh conformance with with the plan set,

right? But I just want to be clear that there was another one after we submitted the pure peer review. There was that document plus many other documents. But the purpose of our laying out the timeline in the agenda report to the city council was to provide a highlight overview of the steps in the process that uh got this this particular project in front of the planning commission. But the first one was mentioned. So why wasn't that one mentioned? Didn't mention everything in the project. I think you need to address the council now. Yeah. Your your honor. I just want to make clarification.

Yes. You're just going to say this is the appellant's opportunity to present their their matters and and and if there are inconsistencies, they can point those out, but generally back and forth with staff is outside the the normal protocol. Thank you, Mr. Lura. Um, so let me give you the time right now. It's 8:45. Okay. You had up to 10 minutes, but it's down to 8:45. So, go ahead and continue, please.

Okay. Hold on one sec. Okay. So anyway, first of all, I'd like to make it clear, am I good? Can you hear me? Um, that we want to see this home re rehabilitated, but in a way that preserves and enhances its historic charm, um, respects the village-like setting of the protected historic neighborhood and does not desecrate our property values. But it's very important that we get this right. Um I think the architect said in one of the meetings that they counted 14 cottage style homes remaining in the mermaid neighborhood. Um so allowing this house to be built will really set a precedence in that neighborhood that the remaining 14 homes that are known for this cottage style feel could easily have to be removed from the reg historic register. Okay. So, the property is located within the city's area of special biological significance in an area sensitive to archaeology in the coastal zone in a protected historic neighborhood and it is a locally registered historic resource. And I understand buying a property and feeling like you should be able to do what you want with it, but the reality is that every aspect of this property is legally protected. So, there's going to be restrictions. So, our concern about the design is not for setbacks or if the mass and the height of the new structure would overwhelm adjacent structures or if there are other large modern homes in the neighborhood so that this design will fit in. We are looking at how the changes will affect the historic significance and essential physical fabric that put the home on the historic registry, including the relation of the size of the house to the lot and to the neighborhood. With vernacular homes like

this, the size is a defining characteristic of the coming age era, as well as the bungalow feel it conveys. The city's historic context statement lists of aspects that define integrity of a historic property include form, massing, architectural style, spatial relationships of the buildings, and the property's feel of its expression of a particular time period. The proposed design will adversely affect all of these aspects. So, there's basically two things we're looking at. We're looking at does it comply with squa and does it comply with the secretary of the interior standards. So the California Environmental Quality Act or SQUA regulates alterations to historic resources by requiring state and local agencies to identify, analyze and mitigate significant adverse impacts of buildings listed on historic as historic resources. The qualified architectural stories historium we have working on with added this to a recent submitted assessment of this property. SQA and the guidelines for implementing SQUA give direction and guidance for evaluating properties and preparing initial studies, categorical exemptions, negative declarations, and environmental impact reports. Under California state law, the city of Pacific Row is legally responsible and accountable for determining determining the environmental impacts of any land use proposed it approves. Cultural resources are aspects of the environment that require identification and assessment for potential significance under SQA. Now the project is not an exempt from squa until it is proven that a the design for categorical exemption class 31 will not cause a substantial adverse change such as the significance of the historical resource would be materially unpaired or

until proven to meet the secretary of interior standards for rehabilitation. Um so it's mitigated as a level of less than a significant impact per sequa. Neither of the phase 2 assessments have addressed SQUA or offered proof as to how the project meets the standards. Study has not been done outlining options for rehabilitation of the garage. The impacts of the demolition of the store home and the issue of the change in massing with the new addition has not has been voided. The design proposes to demolish 245 square ft or 30% of the original home, not including the interior stairwell, original kitchen, and upstairs bathroom. Demolition of the garage removes 45% of the wall facing the street, meeting the definition of def demolition, therefore qualifying as a substantial adverse change for SQA. The demolition will alter the interior spaces of the home as well as the original build environment. It does not address the fact that the project will destroy original materials or features that define the vernacular. The staff recommendation justifies the garage demolition with the following statement. The project is not a demolition of the historic resources as demolition defined in EGMC 2376 as changes to more than 25% of the wall area of the historic structure facing the street or more than 50% of the total exterior wall. with a note that the definition this definition was not applied to the garage because it's a non-contributing element of the historic resource due to the alterations and changes in use. Since its project is not the demolition of the historic resource for the city's own definition, the project does not result in a significant impact. Um the condition of the garage has no bearing on it being counted towards square footage of demolition. Um, with

the historic property, all square feet to be demolished or added is counted because we're not assessing assessing the condition or the zoning requirements. We're rather determining how the addition or de demolition affects the size, mass, and feel of the original home. Um, it's been confirmed by both historians that the garage is original. And in 2019, Paige and Tural Turnbull um recommended this get added or remain on the historic registry and they made a note about the garage being converted, but they said it's eligible for the HR um significant for vernacular design express features. Okay, I'm running way out of time. Um there's also another SQL code that they um didn't include part of the SQA blah blah blah 15301 class one. They didn't include the part that says 50% of the floor area of the structure before the addition or 2500 square feet whichever is less. Um disqualifies it for the from the exemption. Um, they're also talking about adding 143% to the square footage of the home, which per the Secretary of Interior standards, the word size, scale, and design are in the standards. Um, I also want to point out that we submitted a assessment um from our qualified historian. Um, in this assessment she said very blatantly, this does not meet the Secretary of Interior standards and she included alternative designs which state code regulates alternatives should be offered and that

at any time demolition or any harm to historic resource can be avoided, it should be avoided and other plans should be presented. So she offered three possible alternatives. One where the garage gets sunk to make it smaller. The second one is a smaller roof line here. So this addition is not bigger than the original historic house. And the third one that's the easiest one to qualify under the Secretary of Interior standards is a one-story edition. Um, and you'll see if you look at the design, although the latest rendering that the um, architect submitted makes it look like the addition's smaller, but if you look at in here, she puts the dimensions. It's like 14t wide versus 12 feet for the original house. You can see that they're adding 10 feet in the middle. They're adding 14 feet. And it's actually taller. The addition is actually taller than the original house. and they'll tell you that, oh, it's set back, so it looks smaller, but it technically is bigger.

Thank you.

Okay, we'll go with the um applicant. See applicant here. Good evening, prom mayor, uh, members of city council. My name is Charlie Hornisher. I'm the architect on 685 Mermaid Avenue. We have the presentation loaded. Perfect. Thank you. Um, I'll keep my remarks brief this evening and focus on the design approach, the review process, why planning commission's decision to approve the project was appropriate. Um, also our project historian is here tonight and will address technical historical findings in more detail. Next slide, please.

continue, sir. I'm waiting for the next slide. Sorry. Okay. Here we go. Perfect. Uh the project involves the rehabilitation of a historic 950q ft residence with a carefully designed 752 ft addition. From the beginning of the design intent was clear. The historic structure remains as the primary architectural expression. Next slide please. The addition is set back simplified in form and intentionally restrained to avoid competing with the original building. project was developed in three dimensions specifically to minimize scale massing overall visual impact and to ensure the addition reads as secondary in all street views. Next slide please. Next slide please. Next slide please. Several appeal points focus on the massing and the neighborhood character. This is an architecturally diverse neighborhood. Next slide, please. Just a few examples of what's surrounding this this project. Next slide, please. Next slide, please. Next slide, please. Next slide. Our goal was to respect the original historic structure while thoughtfully adding functionality and additional housing with the ADU. We took deliberate steps to limit the perceived mass wherever possible. The design responds to its context through proportional relationships, material choices, articulated massing, and is consistent with city design guidelines and the surrounding neighborhood. Next slide, please. The appeal suggests that a thorough

review process was not followed. That conclusion is difficult to reconcile with the length of review, the number of hearings, and the amount of analysis that was reflected in the record. This project did not bypass scrutiny. Concerns were raised during the review process. The design was revised in response. Height was reduced where feasible. Stair enclosures were intentionally left open to avoid increasing the overall mass. The project was evaluated by staff, reviewed by historic resource committee, and ultimately approved by the planning commission. The administrative record reflects a careful and methodical process, not a rushed or incomplete one. The appeal also raises environmental concerns. The city evaluated the project under SQA and determined that it qualifies as a categorical exemption. The product does not project does not result in a significant adverse impact and the city's findings are supported by the record. Rather than go into a deep technical uh in in depth with the preservation standards, I'd like to turn it over to our project historian who can address the historic assessments with the former garage compliance and rehabilitation standards. But next slide or that's the last one. In summary, this project was thoughtfully designed, thoroughly reviewed, and appropriately per approved. We respectfully ask that the city council deny the appeal and uphold the planning commission's decision. Thank you. I'd like to pass the remainder of my time over to Dana. Okay.

Good evening, council members and prom. My name is Dana Sopernowitz. I am the architectural historian who assisted the uh owner of the property and Mr. Hornisher to conduct a phase two and reinvestigate the property. So I just want to make a few sort of general observations and comments. Um there really two principal issues here. One is the house and I had an opportunity recently to re uh reenter the house and look it over carefully and the garage. It's not a garage. It's been a a residence or a a unit uh connected to the house for over 40 years. So the idea that it's a garage is is really not accurate. It's it hasn't been a garage for a long time. And the conversion of the garage raised the floor level. They they eliminated doors, put in a wall, and they cut a cut a doorway into the house. So there it doesn't look like a garage isn't feel like a garage. And it's in horrible condition. I mean, the whole house is is one of the worst I've seen with dry rot, termite damage, um leakage going on, and um you know, I think the the owner is is to taken a bold excuse me, a bold step to try to preserve the house. So, that that's one of the issues. The second part is, you know, house is in bad shape. It it could have been demolished if be frank because it hasn't been taken care of for a long time. And the second issue is what the addition is and whether it meets the standards, whether it's historically compliant with the character of the neighborhood. And that's been discussed and and uh Charlie provided some photographs. And you can see that there's the only consistency along Mermaid is the narrowness of the lots. There's a verticality to houses, but there's big houses, tall houses, two

stories, and then there's also small singlestory houses. Some have additions where they piggybacked on tight uh on top, but it's not as if the neighborhood's very cohesive other than the fact that it's got narrow lots and there's small lot lines uh um for each of the properties. Uh in terms of the second issue about the additions, um mo if the number one, the garage or the former garage is not a contributing element to the property anymore. It's not a garage. It was a garage and it's in terrible shape and it doesn't look like a garage when you go into it. It's been, you know, wallboarded over and this and that. So demolition would be appropriate if it's a non-contributing part of the house. The house is being preserved for the most part. You're going to lose a little bit of wall, but not as much as you might think because the former garage takes up already some wall. There's already been some um damage to the house because of the conversion to that former garage already. So bringing the house back is really important. uh as far as the the massing, as far as the symmetry, as far as the scale, what is being proposed, in my opinion, it it meets the overall neighborhood character. Um, you know, you have this house that's tall, you have a little house that's short. So, in essence, this building when it's all done, board and bound sighting will uh stand alone and you can still recognize the house. It's being preserved, which is good. It's not being torn down, and it'll stand alone with the middle portion being set back and then the ADU alongside it, which kind of mirrors some of the other houses in the neighborhood. So, uh, to sum it all up, when I looked

at the standards, when I gave it a lot of consideration, when I think about the terrible condition of this house and and a new owner, it's not his fault. It's like it is is willing to preserve and save the house, I think that's what is really paramount for the discussion tonight. So, um, that's all I have to say. If you have any questions, I we're happy to answer any. Okay, there's, uh, still some time left. Was there anybody else going to speak? I don't think so. No. Okay. Um, Mr. Walker, I'm going to go ahead and move on.

Yeah. I don't know if if your honor wanted to entertain a rebuttal from the appellent and then Yeah.

Yeah. Um, so the uh appellant rebuttal. Uh, you have five minutes. First, I want to say I have copies of this SQL code um that shows that it's not doesn't qualify for the exemption because it has to be um less than 50% of the floor area. if you want that. And I also have the codes pertaining to the local coastal program um that regulate what can be done to this property and as well as copies of the reports from my historian if you guys want those. Um but anyway, the one thing that has not been talked about or not addressed in any of the phase 2 assessments is that this is a special community. This community is protected under section 30253 of the coastal act and 2357 of the Pacific Grove municipal code. So this house needs to be assessed in terms of how it affects the whole neighborhood. Um the description of these special communities are it's a village-like setting, cottage style feel. So the feel and the setting and the relationship of the size to the neighborhood has to be considered and it has not and this is very important. This is protected like this is something that has not been addressed. Um also this home was approved for the HR in 2019. Um and Paige and Turnbull said it has integrity as a historic home and that

included the garage. So from 2019 to now has not been that long and they keep saying oh the garage is not confirming the square footage doesn't count but it does and it's was improved. It was said to have integrity. It was put on the horse historic resource inventory based on it having the garage that also has the gables that are defining characteristic and the overhanging eaves. So to demolish that is to take away part of this original house that was proven to be built with the house in 1926. The other thing is Secretary of Interior standards. These are federal laws and if something is on the historic um inventory registry, it's regulated by these federal laws and a lot of these standards and things have not been addressed. And especially in terms of masking, you can look at the report from my historian. It's very clear that she's saying this does not meet these standards and you can't have that much square footage because it overwhelms the other house. And like I said, the size of the addition is larger than the original house. So she offered options like sink the garage or get one story. Um so that's it. So, the other thing I just want to add is that um if this appeal is denied, we're going to file appeal with the California Coastal Commission. So, denying the appeal will not necessarily help the home owner homeowner get closer to an approval design that he proved design that he can build. You know, we're going to continue to pursue because this is very important and the city is liable for the decision they're making on this. So, I think you really really need to look at the codes because it's not exempt from SQA. They're telling you it is. I have one of the codes, the exemption that it's so clear that it's not exempt. It hasn't met the SE

Secretary of Interior standards. It's not exempt under that. And they're saying that the demolition of the garage doesn't count because it's it's in a bad shape. But you that doesn't fly with historic resources. So, really consider it. Thank you. Okay. Happy to do you want this paperwork or no? Uh you could give it to the uh city clerk. Okay. Um I'm going to go out to public comment. There's um Mr. I wonder if the applicant wanted a rebuttal moment.

Yeah, that's what I have in the next step. Then we'll go off public comment. Correct. Okay. Mr. Or thank you. Um let's see the uh applicant rebuttal. You have uh five minutes. Just want to make a few comments to sort of uh paint a picture. A little closer to Yeah.

Logan Turnbull was hired a number of years ago to do a resource inventory. Uh Ken CVI was the initial uh historian was brought on board a friend of mine and I just want to point out that Paige and Turbull's survey was a windshield survey. Their survey was not complete in a lot of cases was inaccurate and I'm not blaming Paige and Turbull for what they did because that's sort of what happens on these broad-based surveys. They did not look at this house like the other houses they looked at very carefully. They didn't look at the garage carefully. They didn't look at condition issues. They didn't study the resource the way I think Kent did. And then I actually went into the resource, the house, walked around the house, the Sandborn Fire Maps, uh, painted a picture of what's happened to it, all the changes. And, you know, frankly, the house doesn't have a lot of integrity. It has integrity, but it's been recited. It has a bay window that's been added. It's it's no longer a garage. It's a whatever you want to call it ADU and there's an addition on the back. So there's a lot of changes that have occurred. So the illusion that it's this great, you know, house that has wonderful condition and u historic integrity is really not accurate. The other thing is the secretary of interior standards are not a law. All they are is standards. And I I work with a lot of local governments and they're treated in different ways. They're not, you know, you don't have to meet a standard necessarily 100%. Because it is a standard and every community is different. Pacific Grove is different than Carmel and Monterey and so forth. So, you really need to look at these properties individually, you know, and I agree the neighborhood is important, but you have to assess uh the property, what the benefits are of preserving the the house against, you know, constructing

something alongside it. And in the end, I still think you're going to have a a a home that'll look and feel like an historic home. But, of course, you're going to have an ADU where people can stay and live. And a lot of things have occurred since the standards were created in 1996. That's when with through the National Historic Preservation Act, they enacted the standards and they've been modified over time. There are communities that have created their own standards that that fit the city, the the history of the city. And I think, you know, you also need to look at Pacific Grove and what's gone on as far as additions uh uh changes to houses. you know, piggybacking on roofs and and so on and so forth and put this in comparison because there's a lot of precedent for this kind of project um in Pacific Grove and there has been if you drive the streets and look around. So um those are my comments and I I my opinion is it does meet the standards and the standards have flexibility and I think the city needs to look at that and I think they did a good job of assessing the standards for their own you know community themselves. So that's it. Okay, thank you. Um, so Mr. Lorca, we'll go way up to public comment, right? Uh, is there anybody in the public that wishes to speak? You have up to three minutes. Good evening, city council. My name is Cindy Bleichi and I um I have some pictures that Can I pass them to you?

This way, city clerk. Okay. Yeah.

I just want you to thumb through them while I'm talking. And I also would like to pass along your neighborhood compatibility neighbor. Okay. I support the appeal that was submitted by Leslie Anderson who was speaking the appellet and respectfully request the city council please disapprove this massive project that completely overwhelms the original historic house that's there at 685 Mermaid Avenue. Please look next door to the houses that are there. The pictures that the architect showed were houses down the road and he chose some that were actually facing Ocean View to show you the large houses there. There are many small houses there that keep that street still quaint. I think if you're local, you know that street and you know there are a lot of very nicely welldone small homes that look great. So there's no requirement to build a massive structure. It does overwhelm the original home and there are ways to make this house look more original. The picture does not preserve any history. It's a modernlook house. Let's be honest. Okay. So, um I just want to say something here. The good neighbor considerations. This is Pacific Grove's architectural review guidelines and in it section one neighborhood compatibility.

Locating a building to preserve scenic views is a part of the character of Pacific Grove through careful design and may be possible also to maintain views from neighboring properties. New construction should be positioned to maintain views from adjacent adjacent properties when feasible. It is feasible absolutely to make a smaller structure. We're asking that the owner consider the neighborhood and the acquaintance of it and not overwhelm it. It's possible to do that. The preferred choice is to reduce the building height and locate the structure downhill from adjacent properties to maintain views. New construction should be positioned to maintain views from adjacent properties when feasible. I repeat that guideline number nine. Attempt to preserve some portion of neighbors views by carefully positioning or limiting the width, depth, or height

of those building elements. Okay, got the message. Thank you. Is there anybody else in the public that wishes to speak? Yes, sir. Come forward. And if anybody else uh wishes to speak, just line up behind the gentleman there. Good evening folks. I also do a crossor and the bottom.

Excuse me, sir. If you could just get step away from I mean you can still speak into the mic but you don't have to be so close to it. Go ahead.

The bottom line is this. There's about eight properties over the fence that are going to lose all or part of their view, that'll be about 50,000 per house. And as far as the building, if they just redo the the one that's there and then make an ADU that that is a onestone, I think everybody be happy. and it would work out just fine. So the take the whole building it's there and that dilapitated garage and the rest of it all the same story and I think it would handle everybody's problems.

Thank you.

Thank you sir. Um anybody else line up please? Hi, I don't not good at this. My name is Mickey Janad. I live on in behind the house, this house. I lived on Mermaid for almost 50 years. That little yellow house on the corner that you see in the pictures. And um we when you live in a neighborhood, you consider your neighbors. And I don't mind people coming from out of town and buying places and doing things like that, but they don't know the neighborhood. They don't know the neighbors. They don't care. And I was going to add a second story to my house. And I went to my neighbor behind me and I it would have cleared it would have taken their view. So I didn't because it was a neighborly thing to do. I didn't have to. It wasn't it was just something I thought about doing. And um I think I'd like to know Mr. Sakamoto. Sakamoto, is that his name? The owner. I would like to meet him and and talk to him, but it's we don't know the neighbors. And a lot of us that live in Monarch Pines are not rich and all we have is our little view. There's 12 there's 10 or 11 houses that are going to lose all their views if he builds that. And I know the view is not guaranteed to anybody, but it's it's part of the mermaid is a I lived there 50 years ago when it was crazy down there and everybody lived there at least once. It was a great place. There's a lot of history there. Joan Bayz lived there. It's just a great place and I just I love living there and I I hate to lose my view but and I if he put one story in a flat flat top on top with he could have this view without really impacting the rest of us that would be nice but

you know I never talked to him so I don't know but you that's just what I have to say it's just it's just Mermaid is a great street and it's my grandfather built three homes on there and it it's Like there's just a history down there. I hate to see it all going away. That big gray square thing in the middle took all the little cottages that used to be there. And there was so much history there, you know. It's just I just that's all I have to say. Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor Potm and members of the city council. My name is Marian Mo. I'm another neighbor and I support the appeal. Um I will be very brief. Um I think the main point I mean the single point that I I hope you understand and I I don't think you've been given enough of a background um to fully understand the impact of the fact that this build this building site is protect is a in a protected historic district and it is a locally registered historic resource. That gives it a different legal protection than anything else that you've been hearing from your staff tonight, which is it's not about the zoning. It's not about the size of the lot. It's about whether it meets the secretary standards. And it is not a subjective standard that you can just wiggle around. There's lots of case law. It's federal federal law, state law, and because it's locally registered is also your local law here. um you've been sort of been given apples and oranges and you know zoning in lot lines are are one thing. Federal law and state law under SQA incorporates all of these the exemptions that were cited uh by the applicant don't apply. Um they're trying to say that because it um is using the sort of the conclusory thing that it's not an significant impact on the law. The historic preservation requirements and the secretary of interior standards were incorporated into SQA about 10 years ago. they are part of SQUA and and that you need to meet the fact that it's um more than 50% um is being of the fluoride of structure is being added which is one of the criteria under under sequence. You've got it's not just some abstract um concept out there. You def

by being a part of a historic district. You've got to comply with SQA and the secretary standards and the coastal act. And under the coastal act, the neighborhood considerations are are really important. So you've got some documentation that this neighborhood is is being eroded away. that is an could be an issue specifically for this project. So I really urge you to fully understand the implications of it being a locally registered historic resource. Um the state office of historic preservation uh would is is the sort of the state overseer of this and they may very well be able to help you understand more clearly your obligations for buildings that are in the historic district. Um, thank you very much. And and I just want to make one more thing. One of the reasons that the extension was requested was to have the historic preservation or the histo qualified historic um historian who did all this work background on this was not able to be here tonight and I think she would have been a tremendous benefit to you and if there's any way you would want to continue this to allow her to speak to you about this your obligations.

Thank you very much. Anybody else uh in the public that wishes to speak? Seeing none, is there online wishing to speak? No, sir. Okay. This uh proceedings is closed. Um now we'll bring it back to the council and um who wants to go ahead. Councilman Mor.

Thank you, your honor. Um I do have a couple of questions for Mr. McGowan, as I look at this, it looks like they lowered the ADU height already. It looks like, if I understand this correctly, that they could have went up to 25 ft in height. They limited the height to 20t 11 in for the second story. Is that correct?

That is correct. And all of these uh all of these um all of this met our code and it there was no there was nothing that was outside the code. I see that it uh the coverage is 59% 1,047 uh square feet which is 1% less than it uh the max um and I think it's you know a couple of people said it and I think it's important to realize that there is no guarantee of of you is that correct? Um

yes, that is correct. And it looks like um I mean with a phase two historic uh assessment, we've had two historians. We've had it go to the HRC twice. We've had it go to the planning commission twice. Um planning commission once. Once it didn't go in 2024. No, it never made it. Uh well, we took it back because uh the applicant got a new historian. So in light of the new historian and new information, we thought it would be we wanted to bring it back to the HRC to get their recommendation before moving forward to planning commission.

Okay. And it was approved by the planning commission December 11th at a 4-1 vote. There were two absences. Is that correct? That is correct. Um, you know, it seems like this project, although I'm I'm not insensitive to the folks that live behind it, but it seems as though this project has been vetted and vetted and vetted again. Um, I can't uh I can't really um I can't really support not letting it move forward. So, okay. Who else? Um, yeah. Uh, Council Member Duri,

thank you. Uh, I think I'm in concurrence with what, uh, Councilwoman Ra was stating here. Um, I just wanted to ask um, there there was some mention around um, effectively like, uh, this is a special community and it needs to have this village-like feel uh, which needs to be preserved. Um, does that have a bearing on the proceedings here? Uh it you're correct. It does have a village-like feel. It is a special community and we have uh several zoning provisions that protect that community. We have our site development standards that are found in the regulations for the the mermaid district. We have our historic preservation regulations that require or define when a historic property is demolished. In this particular case, the original historic property is not being demolished per our definition. We have design standards that um the project has complied with, has been reviewed by our historic resources commission and reviewed twice as Mr. Macauan had mentioned uh and recommended approval of this to the the planning commission. Uh and then we also have the um the the sequent provisions that provide a requirement that we at the staff level review a project to determine if it's going to indeed result in a significant impact in the review of this project against the sequions that we have in place. We found that it did not result in a significant impact. So it is um compatible with the neighborhood. Uh coupled with that, we you know, again, we do have discretionary review on the part of our planning commission that is charged with looking at a project and all of these various rules and policies that the city has in place and kind of weighing in the balance whether or not the changes and additions that are being proposed uh result in a structure that is compatible. In fact, the the planning

commission as reflected in their vote did find that the project has proposed and as you're considering considering it this evening is is compatible with the neighborhood.

I I appreciate that and thank you for mentioning that uh on the on the record. Use things have come in the past too and and I always find and thank you for everybody for sharing your opinion. Um unfortunately views are not something that that technically we can protect. Um there there exist um what I find is um ultimately the the applicant has to live in this neighborhood. You you would want uh cooperation on on all sides to to live there. U unfortunately it seems like we're in a certain direction here which which can be reverted. Um and I do see that uh there were concessions made by the applicant to uh effectively take uh what appears to be like a a deteriorating kind of like place or environment to make it uh more more better uh and and kind of bring it up to the standards according to what the city expects and according to the code that we have. And and I I read this to uh kind of like see it to the way I I got this was we're complying with the uh the secretary of state's uh interior standards. Uh objective standards were were met. For instance, uh there were um I actually read something which said that we're restoring the home to the original board and batten kind of wall cladding which seems like there's some something coming back which was not there before. Uh and then the the the SQA seems to be like a a debate but uh per staff it looks like the SQA exemptions do apply. So, so to me like it's kind of like checks the boxes uh with respect to the fact that uh and seems like the applicant has gone through uh somewhat of the mill to to get this going. So, I think we're in a spot where

we need to uh deny the appeal and and kind of like move forward with uh what the applicant has proposed. So, anyway, those were all my thoughts. Uh but thank you.

Okay, who wishes to go uh next? Uh thank you your honor. Um first of all I do appreciate the uh uh the board and batten treatment of the original uh structure trying to respect its uh original design. Um and yes it does appear that uh uh uh SQA exemption does apply. I I agree with that as well. And uh this is this has been an incredibly difficult um decision to make because um one we did we did provide a thorough process. The processes were followed. Um we we the public were involved in that decision-m at every step of the of the way. Uh it's it's difficult because one it's hard to uh 100% agree with the outcome or the design. Um and it it seems to this process has seemed to poke holes in our code and process and uh lay bear some of our our weaknesses. Uh if this is what can come forward. First of all, that's I don't mean to demean the efforts and the uh uh uh uh the compromises and and the attempts that were made to be uh as respectful to our historical uh the historical integrity of the the property itself. However, um the the addition to the building does lie in sharp contrast to the historic character of the original structure. Um and this would seem to provide a way forward for having historical resources then become uh to to to to degrade the historical significance and viability of a property through this type of mechanism. So So I'm concerned with

that. Yes, we followed our processes, but our processes allow a situation in which the uh historical significance of the property itself uh in my view seems to have been damaged. Um I think uh uh something that would help that would provide clearer, more prescriptive design standards and that might be something that we bring forward. I don't think it has bearing on this case right now. Uh but it is something that needs to be addressed. Um, we need to have clearer guidelines to help respect the history of a building and historical character of a property. I did have a question for uh for the city. Uh, is this going to be two addresses or one? Is the ADU going to be a separate address?

We do declare a separate address to be with the ADU. Okay, that's excellent. that that actually does help alleviate some of that issue and that the uh the first address is still adhering to the uh uh uh the HRE whereas the new address would be separate from that. Okay. All right. So, uh much like with uh uh council members Ralph and Padori, um I don't see a legal stance for uh for not approving and supporting the city in in approving this permit.

Thank you, Councilman Walk. Go ahead, Lori. Okay.

Thanks very much. Um, yeah, there are so many like questions that I want to make sure we address because this is very important. It it is a hearing. It has to be based on legal findings. So, we're not necessarily at liberty to say we would prefer something different than what our code allows. And so, so we have to be careful to adhere to that. Um, so in that in in light of that, um, a lot of this has been addressed, but I think it's helpful to hear it from the city and and legal if that's if that's important, too. So there was mention of the mass being greater than the original and that removal of the garage even though it's been converted um whether or not it holds the historic integrity now takes it to greater than 50% being demolished or I'm sorry the 50% um coverage issue. Um, and that would potentially make it not eligible to have the SQA. I'm sorry, I've got so many things running through my brain, my words are not coming to me tonight. Um, so with regards to the issues raised around SQA, are there legal guidelines that would say we have not met our due diligence? Um we are relying on the two categorical exemptions for SQA. The first one is the class one exemption. Um I just wanted to note that uh in addition to what the appelllet mentioned, there is also a provision that says that uh additions or alterations up to 10,000 square feet can be done to existing structures if there are services that are available to that site. And so that qualification applies in this case for the um other exemption

we relied on exemption uh categorical exemption 31 that's a historic resources um that asks us to evaluate whether or not there going to be is going to be a significant impact to a historic resource. We first rely on our own code requirements and our definitions for what a demolition is. and this project did not rise to the level of a demolition of a historic resource. And then it also asks us, is this project compliant with the Secretary of the Interior standards? And there's quite a number of standards. One of them relates to uh the rehabilitation of a historic resource. Um from our standpoint, and I think uh we've received agreement from the applicant's historic preservation consultant that the project does comply with the Secretary of the Interior standards. There isn't so much a relationship between the size of an addition to the historic resource and what the original historic resource is. It's whether or not the historic resource is retained. And in this case, that historic resource is retained. In fact, the only alterations being done to it are the demolition of uh inappropriate addition at the back of the structure and then the removal of the non-compliant garage and then the connection that little hyphen between the existing historic structure and the um area where the uh the second story of the second story space for the the existing home is plus the ADU and then the garage. So, we think that if you were to take away that additions, you'd still have the historic structure in this in this instance. Um, that's coupled with the fact that they are restoring some of the elements of that historic structure, the the board and bat sighting, the restoration of the window and the retention of that door in the front. So, we we do feel that it is uh compliant with the secretary, the interior standards and um the categorical exemptions we've identified are appropriate.

Okay. And I see the the city attorney nodding his head too. Um and and I think that that those are some relevant points because they are making the effort to restore more of the integrity back to the initial structure. Um from my understanding of the item and from what we've heard tonight. Um and as much as we would like to be able to protect views, unfortunately that is not under our purview. And from my understanding there are a couple of things that maybe apply to that. It is a separate lot which in theory can have its own structure. I'm not sure how the it's sorry how that property is actually um I I would presume that there could be something built there. There just hasn't been to date. And I know there's the issue of the ADU and there are some state regulations where we do need to approve ADUs that are submitted. I also understand that it could potentially be a first story ADU, but then there's the issue of the parking with the garage. So, it's hard because as although like you're saying in overall mass, I appreciate you talking about the Secretary of State information because that was going going to be my other question. Are there any valid violations of those Secretary of State guidelines? And I would have preferred to be able to hear from the um the um applicants, sorry, the appellants um historian again just to make sure there was clarity on that. But it sounds like the main issues that they had were addressed. Um so yeah, I I guess when it comes down to it, if if it follows our code, we're required to vote according to findings which are are legal requirements. So, I'm not finding the grounds based on the questions we've asked to be able to um not uphold the

decisions by the historic resources committee and the and the um the the planning commission. Um I think I had one more question. So, just to make sure I'm doing due diligence, I want to make sure I address them all. Um, so we're saying that the removal of the garage does not violate the historic resource and so that isn't something we have to be concerned about in a potential appeal to the coastal commission.

That that's correct. As um Mr. Separitz mentioned, the page turnbull surveys that were done were windshield surveys. Uh so it got the property on our historic resources inventory. And when a project like this becomes or comes forward, then we do a much more detailed analysis of that building. And in the case of uh this site, we found that the the garage was no longer a garage and it had been altered to the point where it was no longer retaining its historic significance because one, it wasn't a garage. And then there were there were changes made to it which altered the character of that portion of the structure plus its condition. And um those are all things that the city has evaluated for other properties on the historic inventory in the past and found that those alterations uh made made that portion of the building no longer um a qualifying element of the historic property. So we did carefully look at that

and removal of the garage will not in any way affect the qualification of the original house for for still being listed on the HR as a historic resource. Yes. because I think that that was an important point to make sure of as well because it sounded like there was concern the house would then not be eligible with the garage removed, but it sounds like it will indeed still be an eligible listing. Yes.

Okay. Yeah. I mean, um I think those I think you've addressed the questions that I had. Um and and there is an appreciation that the owners are trying to make sure they are upholding the character. Unfortunately, driving around too, so many buildings in that neighborhood have grown into large. And I I totally understand the the loss of some of that village feel, but it seems like they have tried to design. And and just one more clarification because they had mentioned that the the new addition is actually taller than the original. And is that the case or was that prior to the the changes between the two hearings? I think as originally submitted the addition was taller but in response to comments from um neighbors the HRC and then uh their new historians uh review they designed it so the bill the addition is now lower than the original structure.

Okay. So yeah. So, it sounds like now through all of this lengthy process in the various stages that all of the things that would potentially be problematic from a legal standpoint as far as being overturned if we were to go with the decision of the um HRC and the planning commission have pretty much all been addressed. Would that be the city's assessment? Yeah, one of the one of the ways to think about that is that the project is consistent with the regulatory environment that being the municipal code, the standards and things like that. So, if you can make the finding that the project is consistent with those regulations, then you have what you need to to move forward.

Okay. All right. Thank you very much for that information. That's very helpful just for making sure we're really really weighing all of the essential aspects of it and staying within our guidelines of following the actual findings of the project. Thank you. Thank you. Uh council uh member Garfield has a question online. Um just a comment just a comment if I may. My sort of my turn.

Yes. So along this um here we are three different of our um boards and commissions have reviewed this and passed it along. We rely on them for their expertise. We build their expertise with their collaboration with our staff and our staff has done a marvelous job of getting it through this process. Sorry. Um um I'm I hear you that this is not a satisfactory outcome for the neighbors. However, this is a satisfactory outcome from other neighbors that want to see that building not fall into disrepair that it be salvaged. And so I know we've talked about it being rehabilitation um versus devolution. I think this is a rescue. and if we let it go any further, this building is going to fall in on itself um to the detriment of salvaging any of it. So, I think we need to move forward. Certainly, the appellants have the option to consider other appeals, but I think we've been well informed and I vote to uh deny the appeal.

Thank you, uh Council Member Garfield. Um, I'm last up and um, first of all, I want to thank all the people that have spoken and uh, the staff, including the appellants. It's um, uh, we take all this into consideration. There's no doubt about it. Um, I want to just reiterate what some of my fellow colleagues have said, but I do want to bring up uh, Council Member Garfield talked a little bit about this that um, from all indications of and I've read the report several times and it takes a lot of time, but I did it and um, I think it's important to realize that this is going to improve the neighborhood, you in that neighborhood that will be improved. Also, I want to complement which member Garfield talked about is the heavy lifting of the uh architecture review board and planning commission and the staff that has spent so much time on this and this has been going on since uh February of 2024 uh for for several years and I know it had to be stopped and so forth. So, um, I'm not going to repeat what everybody else said, but, uh, I agree to deny the appeal. Do I have a motion?

I motion, your honor. Okay. Go ahead, ma'am. Uh, I would like to make a motion that we deny the appeal and affirm the planning commission approval of architectural permit and coastal development permit CDP 24-0044 based on findings conditions of approval and class one and class 31 categorical exemptions. I'll second that. Uh, yes. Council member Ralph. Hi. Mayor Petilio. Council member Walking Stick. Hi. Council member Puri. Hi. Council member McDonald.

I. And council member Garfield. I. Motion carries 601 with Mayor Smith absent. Thank you all. Um, we are going to take a 10-minute recess at 8:00. We will return at this time. We'll be taking a 10-minute recess. Your honor. Recording stopped.

Okay, I'm going to call this meeting back to order. Recording in progress. Our next item on the agenda is 11 B, recreational drones. And um I know Matthew uh I'm sorry, Mr. Morgensson, city manager.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor Prom. That's a lot. It's a mouthful. Um this is a simple item to introduce. I think you did the most of the review at the last meeting, so we're following the direction um from that meeting. So to give you an overview though, on October 1st of last year, Council Member McDonald presented an item requesting staff to return to the council with an ordinance that regulated uh unmanned aircraft systems, so drones. And then um January 21st, we came forward with an ordinance that provided those regulations. And after the council deliberated, um it was decided that uh for to direct staff to come back with an ordinance that only looks to regulate the recreational drones at this point in time. And then we'll have further discussions on research and business regulations. So the ordinance that's before you tonight is just that it it has um very simply is just banning recreational use of drones. Um so there's there's not a whole lot to describe beyond that. Um but the the purpose of this is um is again to to prohibit the operation of recreational drones except as expressly prohibited by federal and state law in order to protect the privacy of residents and visitors of the city of Pacific Grove and to protect wildlife birds and birds including but not limited disturbing animals during breeding, nesting, rearing of young and other critical life history functions. So, um this this ordinance that is proposed before you tonight is an urgency ordinance and with that it requires a four-fifth vote. So, because we have um seven council members and there are six present, it'll take a vote of six in order to pass this urgency ordinance and the city attorney can fill this in more, but it basically makes the the ordinance um effective immediately versus a standard process of yeah, two reads in 30 days. With that, um, I'm available for questions and so is our

special counsel, um, Alena from the last meeting as well. I think what we'll do first before we go to the council is go out for public comment. Okay. Uh, is there any public comment on this particular ordinance? Hearing none, let's bring it back to the council. Is there I'm sorry. Is there online either? Okay. Thank you. Oh, wait a minute. We had one person here. Okay. Uh, Ingga Lawrence and Dare.

Thank you, Mayor Proam and Council. I urge you to vote unanimously for this urgency ordinance. We need it for protection of our wildlife and our public. Thank you. Thank you. No further hands. No further hands. Okay, let's bring it back to the council. Who wants to go first? Better to make a motion. I think there's some discussion. I have a couple of questions, but go ahead. Okay. Should I make the motion and then we discuss or

we should probably um discuss first? I would think so. Discussion then you can make your motion.

Okay. Um is are there any question or comments? Go ahead. Yeah, I do have a comment and I do want this to be included in the in the ordinance uh before I I vote yes on this. Um so I do want the uh this motion to not uh impact the ATC project and as a result uh I do want uh the ATC uh project to be um grandfathered. Um so so if if that's the case my my suggestion is the ordinance should reflect uh that the ATC project is uh excluded uh under this ordinance uh and u possibly a definition of uh if if if that exclusion cannot happen then I want a definition of recreational US operation uh and that to be including the ATC project. So anyway, I I I had communicated this earlier in the week, but that's what I'm looking for to be present in the ordinance. I have sample language. If you want, I can recite that right now or um whatever you suggest.

We could there's a couple other comments to be made. I have a couple of comments, too. Um why don't you go ahead uh council member Baduri you had uh some language to put

um so in in the previous read there was an exclude there was a actually an exceptions um kind of section it was 11.72.020 020. Uh what I would like to the exceptions clause to say is uh that uh the prohibitions and permit requirements as set forth in this chapter shall not apply to any project or activity for which a valid city issued use permit, architectural permit or coastal development permit was approved prior to today which is February 4, 2026. Okay. Um, Council Member uh, Garfield.

Um, thank you, your honor. This may dovetail with my concern is that we've got three categories of, um, drone licenses or drone practitioners. One's recreational. We're we're on board with getting that off the table. But commercial and research are things we're still working on. Would something working on the um the ATC fall under a commercial drone license where it's used by a construction and therefore it's covered in that way. That's my Was there anything else? Uh me council member Garfield.

Oh yeah. This other one is I'm dying and I'm here so you got six votes but I still want a couple of these ideas fleshed out. Thank you. Um, Council Member Walking Sick, did you have a comment? Yeah, my my comment was that uh because this covers recreational, I don't think uh it affects ATC. ATC would fall under commercial. I think pretty clearly I would like confirmation on that from the city. I don't think uh ATC is in it for the fund. Um, so, uh, again, I think we're already covered by that.

If the use was recreational at the ATC site, that would be prohibitive. It was a commercial use at the ATC site, then that would be cover then that this would not apply to that because it would be a commercial use. Go ahead. I just want to ask uh, Mr. Mogensson really uh quickly an additional drone ordinance will come back before the council that'll tighten up maybe a little bit of the commercial piece of it. Right. But this is just recreational only.

That's correct, council member. That's that was a direction to staff is to come back after we consult with some of the stakeholders with a a revised ordinance for commercial and for um and for um research uses. However, I believe the way um Mr. City Attorney characterized it that that's true that if it was, you know, a recreational use on ATC, this apply and if it's not, then it would not. Right. Can I go ahead council member?

I just so I have been through the essentially a lot of time on the ATC project. Um there were several and I mean there were several constraints already on the project. Um I I do not know and I do not know if any of this recreational I I kind of agree like it it's commercial it should not happen but I do not know based on all those restrictions that were applied like site survey there was uh photography there was biological monitoring uh there were and those were just the three that I'm counting on but like there were others too and I don't know what will actually apply or not apply commercially or recreationally on this. Um, so if everybody agrees that this is recreational only, then you should not have a concern to actually add a language to say that the ADC is uh part of the exception. So, I don't see why there's a there's a protest there, but but anyway, like I said, I I want that clause there, otherwise I'm not voting yes.

Okay. Um, before I speak, go ahead. No, you go ahead. Um, yeah. So, I'm confused because we said we were coming back to do recreation only. We said we were tableabling the commercial and the research until later. We're meeting with Hopkins this week um about the research part of it. So, this doesn't impact ATC. The idea was to have an urgency ones. We're in the middle of popping season already now or in the beginning, I should say. Um, the boy nesting season is also in the beginning. So the ATC is a is a commercial enterprise. So there why would they I'm understanding why they would be flying recreationally and when we come back with the commercial part of it that will indeed include um if ATC is commercial that absolutely would include them as well. So this particular one is for recreational. So I'm not understanding why we would include a commercial entity on something that's for recreational drone prohibitions. So I I totally agree with what you're saying. I'm just saying going through having gone through the exercise of the ATC project approval. I'm not willing to take the risk of uh not having a clause here which says this does not apply to ATC at this point in time. So I don't want that clause. It needs to be explicit to say we're we're permitting the this does not impact the ATC in any way. And if everybody feels that this does not, like I said, like if everybody feels this does not impact ATC, then why can't we have that clause?

Okay, but in rebuttal to that, then what happens if somebody just claims I'm with ATC, so I can fly a recreational drone all I want because I'm on ATC property? That actually opens the door for anybody recreationally to potentially fly a drone because they say they're at the ATC,

right? So, so that's why I the the language that I proposed does have uh for example, it cites the fact that you need to have a valid city issued permit or a coastal development permit. So, the the conditions of the permits need to be satisfied and they need to have been approved prior to today for anybody to qualify under that exception. So, um I I don't think any somebody's going to get a coastal development permit and say they're they're with ATC. I'm going to do anything they want.

Okay. I'm still not sure how it replies to recreational drones. So, I'm not sure how we would add that in to the existing ordinance since the ordinance is for the proposed ordinance was for recreational drones. Madori, is your is your thought that operation of drones within that the physical airspace over the ATC would be carved out regardless of the use whether it's recreational or commercial?

No, I I so this is not like carving out um some space or some type of operator. I'm just saying unless somebody has reviewed the entire ATC project, the entire permit and has tells me for sure that that is not going to impact this ordinance in any manner now or the future, I'm not willing to sign off on this. And I'm saying as because I'm not willing one one way to go look around that is to just say look who what whoever we have blessed in the past, they're excluded from this and and I want the ATC to be excluded. Go ahead, Council Smith.

We're we're we're addressing one single group here in PGU through ordinance. So why

let me um Yeah, I let me stop this for a second here. Um he's made a point. If there's a motion to add that to the um ordinance, that's fine. I have a couple of things I have to ask about the ordinance also. Um now I wasn't here for the first uh one because I was in uh the legislature and um but I I was made aware of what had happened. So my question is um the financial impact. Okay. Um, it says there's no direct financial impact as a result of the ordinance. Enforcement of the recreation drone ban will take staff time, but it is not possible to estimate the magnitude of the time. I understand that. So, if a recreational drone is found and and they don't have a permit or whatever it is, uh, who enforces that? I mean, who would enforce that? Does the police police department deal with it or uh community service? Who who would who would enforce that?

Well, um that Mr. Mayor Prom, I would I would say typically it would probably be a police officer or cso. However, it could also just be our code enforcement officer. I will say the deputy city manager and I tried to enforce it last night at the Kimton grand opening. So, we just walked over and talked to the person. Um so, it could be as simple as that or it could be actually tickets and Okay. The um the other question I had is uh under the ordinance number four uh the city determine the light in light of the increase of the use of uh the drones. Uh there's two questions I have there. Do we have an amount how many drones have been flown in the area? Do does anybody have an idea? I I been in town since quite a long time and uh I haven't seen any. Have you I'm sorry. Go ahead.

100%.

100%. That's why this ordinance is coming before council. We see continual We see continual disturbances. We have people who monitor the Black Oyster Catcher Colony. It's a a project that's already happened for 10 years. I think we're going into our 12th year this year that documents the drone disturbances. Um Noah uses the reports that the SEAL team collects for the disturbances for the seals. So yes, it's very well documented the disturbances. Um at the meeting last time, Vicky Pierce gave a a moving unfortunate rendition of a drone pulling a a black oyster catcher pair from their nest and while it was off chasing the drone, which it sees as a raptor and a predator, they lost their clutch that they had laid eggs for. So the problem is is that disturbance. They see it as extremely disturbing. They see it as something they have to do to protect their young. They often will leave their nest and leave their young unattended for up to half an hour to not draw the predator back to the nest in order to protect their young. We get a lot the people who are on the trail all the time get complaints from tourists actually even like why are these drones flying over our heads because people are flying.

I believe. Okay. I'm okay with it. Okay. Um the um question is I had one more question. Um so you kind of answered it. Um Council Member Lori, you you already uh answered some of the questions. Um and we're talking strictly recreational drones, correct? We're not dealing with anything else. That's correct. As a subject matter of this urgency ordinance,

right? That's that's what I read. So, uh, and the commercial was I know Mark Hop Mark Hopkins Hopkins Marine was talked about. They're great partners with the city of Pacific Grove and, uh, we're going to be dealing with the commercial end. Do you know when the commercial drone um will be coming forward? That's been talked about a little bit. That's a um I don't have a definite um date of when we'll bring that back. We are having our first meeting tomorrow with the stakeholders. So um from that you know it could be within the next two meetings or if it depends on how much more development or less

I see. And will that include um any of the hotels that are being built? For example, council member Paduri mentioned ATC. Will they be contacting the Canary Row? Will you be contacting Canary Company? Um we had not reached out to Canary Row Company or to the ATC developers. We had talked to the aquarium in the on the first draft and they didn't have concerns because I guess they don't really do operations in Pacific Grove typically. So,

um so we thought we would start with the Hopkins folks because they're more in the prime location there, but we could we could definitely reach out to others as well and understand their concerns. Yeah, I that's my suggestion to uh because I know Canary Road Company has quite a few u locations both in Pacific Grove and uh the ATC project. So um I I don't have any more to add. Yes, the opposite. Um so yeah, that this is is clear. Oh, sorry. Council member Garfield had her hand up. You want to let her talk?

Yes. Yeah, go ahead. Uh, council member,

it would it be appropriate in this uh facts to note that this emergency ordinance does not impact the use of research drones or commercial drones, each of which requires a license. Um it clearly specifies that this is only about recreational use and that um research and commercial ones are exempted from this ordinance. They are however required to have a license. So that would specify that an unlicensed commercial drone is not going to be covered. Um, by the way, have we changed this from puppy to pupping season?

Okay, thank you. Okay, great. Thank you. Um, so I hear concerns that we don't weaponize getting rid of one kind of uh ordinance, one kind of user. I also don't know how you tell the difference. So, if you're on the coastal trail and you see a drone, how do you know who the operator is? Is it recreational, commercial, or research? Because it speaks to the ability to effectively enforce. Was there anything else, Council Member Garfield?

No, that would be my final question. Thank you. Okay. I think that's an important part in regards to uh if you see one on the recreational trail, whom do you call? Um, council member what Rob uh this is for the city attorney. Which way do you feel would be better as far as the wording to ensure that there is no impact to you know current construction projects or you know do we need a qualifier in there to say that this is recreational only and it doesn't apply and you still need a commercial permit?

If it was the pleasure of the council to go in that direction I would suggest that section 11.72.030 030 the existing language becomes subdivision A and then subdivision B could start with you know notwithstanding subdivision A and then and then whatever language you wanted to to include there. Okay. I'm sorry which which se section was that uh Mr. Lurca?

Section 11.72.030 as it deals specifically with with drones whereas section 72.02 O2 is aircraft in general. So I would the existing language there I would turn into subdivision A if that was the pleasure of the council and then the new language could start in in subdivision B. I I personally think that this is a an urgent situation. We need to get it done tonight. I want council member Padori. I agree with him that, you know, this needs a a layer of protection, but I just want to figure out the best way to to include that so that the ATC is not impacted.

Okay. Go ahead. I was just going to say if indeed that's the pleasure of the council then then uh we would ask that council member Padori read that back slowly and that so we could insert that in the new subdivision B. Okay. If that was the pleasure of the council, we're we're ready to jot it down. I'm I'm okay with it. How about the rest of the council?

Excuse me, Mr. Mayor and council. Sorry to interrupt. Um, I I would ask clarification of council member Paduri regarding whether his um suggested language relates to just the properties or people that have permits in general such that if they would be if they have a permit, they would be allowed to use recreational drones all over the city or is are we just talking about the area of the specific development? Is that what we mean? Uh so if I may. Yeah. Go ahead.

Yeah. So I so I didn't so this is a urgency ordinance u slated for a certain kind of area or or kind of like region and so whatever exceptions we're qualifying are related to that ordinance itself. So whatever the language is for the emergency ordinance it'll pertain to the same. What what what we're really doing here is an opt out clause for uh effectively the ATC. uh in in my my language had had like a coastal development permit in there. So so I think that KDC will fall under that exception and and again like um I know somebody said um I mean council member McDonald said like somebody can pose as an ATC and and kind of do things but technically nothing is happening at the ATC right now there. So I mean effectively anybody who's doing recreational droning right now, we can use this urgency ordinance to enforce whatever we need to enforce. And if uh anybody has a problem with the the language, we still have time uh to rectify it in the future uh to see what what needs to be done. But what I do want to have in place today is something which protects the ATC. I know we're we're I'm totally in for the urgency ordinance. I just need protection for the ADC2.

And Mr. Lorer, you mentioned um it'd be under section

uh of the ordinance. Um section two of the ordinance which references section 11.72.030 of the new municipal code. The existing paragraph could be subdivision A and then council member Pador's uh suggested language could be in the subdivision B. So we would have the general prohibition followed by a subdivision talking about the exemption the exception and if if that was the pleasure of the council I think staff would appreciate it reading it back slowly so we could make sure it's published right and

absolutely. Um so my my language was uh the prohibitions and permit requirements set forth in this chapter shall not apply to any project or activity for which a valid city issued use permit architectural permit or coastal development permit was approved prior to February 4th, 2026 through the mayor, council member uh Padori.

Uh so that the addition is specific to drones. Um it might be prudent to say prohibitions uh you know uh set forth with respect to UAS or UAS's and that way we're limiting it to drones and it's not applicable to other aircraft uh more broadly because I think that's what what is that?

Okay. Is there isn't the emergency ordinance for chapter 11.72 which is aircraft landing which is more broader which is broader. So so this needs to be more broader too right

72.030 is is drones specifically rather than aircraft that could include helicopters and things like that. You know what what I'm saying is um the the urgency ordinance which starts by saying an emergency ordinance XYZ repealing and replacing chapter 11.72 and it says sites aircraft landing regulating aircraft launch and landing and to prohibit recreational US that's the title of this urgency ordinance. I want this exception to reflect whatever that title is. Okay. not not specific to whatever we're again qualifying it against.

Yes, Council Member. Yeah, the uh your your uh choice of language of saying chapter is um feels overly ambigu not it feels overly ambiguous like that could apply to the whole code. In other words, uh no further changes to our UAV code would then affect the uh the ATC just as a blanket. Not not uh just um um that sounds like it wouldn't just affect recreational activity, but literally all activity. Is that your intent?

So, okay. So, let me just make sure I I So, when I say it's set forth in this chapter, I'm I'm talking about the urgency ordinance under which this is under. And so, if you want to pre-qualify that by saying chapter 11.72, I'm I'm fine with it. But it's it's the new ordinance that we're developing now where we're excluding this. That does that make sense?

Yes, it makes sense. I guess I have another question for the city is uh are the rest of the commercial and um uh research UAV um uh UAS ordinances going to be under 11.72. Can you repeat that? Repeat the question. Yeah. Is 11.72 also going to cover the uh commercial and the um the research uh UAS permits?

Um so council member I don't you know I could I could see if Elena has already mapped this out a bit but I'm not sure that we've actually mapped that yet in the code in the way it's all going to fall together when you have one cohesive recreational research. Um so it it may be within 1172. I think though that maybe to towards where you're going here is when this comes when it does come back is one more comprehensive code that's not just going to be um or banning recreational. You'll have another opportunity to make changes to the overall code and then you could make those adjustments as needed. But we don't know until we

Okay. You know, my my concern is that we create a uh um a categorical exemption for a party here in Pacific Grove. And I don't want a categorical exemption. Like if we want to address this, that's that seems reasonable. I mean, I you can get me to go along in so far as that um so that we can get this uh so that we can get this passed. However, um I I don't want to give a uh a categorical exemption for all future um um uh ordinances as well, right? Because there can be some things that come up that are important, but we haven't got there yet. So, I I don't want to throw get out of jail free cards out now. you know, we can discuss those later things later, but uh if we're going to make an exemption, I want it to be specific to what we're talking about right now. That's my concern and that's that's my goal. I I don't want to start prescribing wording on how to accomplish that. I'll leave that to you. But would you be receptive to that? Are you okay with where where I'm at on that? So through the mayor um the so I I do want to um I think it's better if you put this as in as an example because um I'm I'm by this language I'm saying anything which was effectively approved before today are the only ones that are coming into play. Whatever is happening in the future is not coming into play. Whatever has happened in the past is coming into play. And the only past item right now that I know of is ATC. So I I I want to understand your categor categorical exemption that you're referring to. What is that exactly? Can you site an example?

Uh sure. No, I can further explain. Uh what I'm talking about is we've we do have permits that have been assigned, right? That's we're not revoking any of that. Uh but there may be uh ordinances that come up in the future that they would then have to abide by. You know, it's like let's say that we uh start codifying things like um uh they can't be used in the commission of a murder. You know, some simple things like that. You don't give someone a pass on uh on everything. You don't say in the future everything's going to be fine because you already have your permit. So any future code does not apply to you. I'm I'm really not comfortable making that kind of statement.

I'm sorry through the mayor, but but I'm not quite following and I think I'm I'm comfortable with the the language that I proposed. So, yes. Uh, council member Donald.

Thank you. So, if I understand correctly, the concern is that somehow the recreational drone ordinance will be misappropriately used and include the ATC. So although it's not included in this, I think that the language that was discussed wouldn't hurt the recreational drones except that I think it needs to specify that it's for commercial and research permits because the point of the ordinance is to not allow recreational flights. And I don't think you're supporting recreational flights either with with what your concern is. Do I understand that correctly?

Sorry. Sorry. There's a lot of back and forth. Hey I so this a simple point I I want ATC protection and all the other items that we're discussing right now I know there's going to be future action items commercial uh research etc that are going to come in the future where we'll be certainly looking into language even this perhaps uh we'll look into language to refine it today for this urgency ordinance I just want ATC protection and I'm suggesting this language. That's all that there is. We we don't have to delve into what is happening uh a year from now because within a year from now, we're going to have other uh potential agenda items which will address commercial, which will address research and which may there may be other use cases too that that I don't know of.

Let's um we'll bring this back kind of bring it back here. Um Mr. Let me ask you. Um, you said you might be able to add something to language 11.72.30, was it?

Yes. However, pursuant to council member Pador's uh desire that this be that the amendment be applicable more broadly, perhaps it could be couched under section 11.72.02 B new 3. So, an exemption that would be it would live there and then apply more broadly than just drones. Okay. It's a spirit of compromise. What do you think, Council Member Bedri? That's perfectly fine. I I think that's where I was originally going with was the there there are exceptions. There's exception clauses here anyway. We can as well include this as an exception. Thank you.

Thank you for the discussion. Uh did you get direction on this then, Mr. Lora? As long as staff has written down the the language exactly, then uh you can entertain a motion. Okay, I'll go ahead and entertain a motion on this item. I I would like to make this motion with the uh addition of the clause as I described under 11 section 11.72.02. Uh and that exception being uh whatever I recited earlier. And I'll second that. Discussion. Yeah. Can we please have that read back so we know what we're actually voting on?

Certainly. I have uh under 11.72.02 as an exception uh and the new three um the following. The prohibitions and permit requirements set forth in this chapter shall not apply to any project or activity for which a valid city issued use permit, architectural permit or CDP and I apologize that I'm drawing a blank on that development permit.

Thank you. Coastal development permit was approved prior to February 4th, 2026. I I can see that working in that context. My concern was and I might not have expressed that well previously is that particular wording opens it up for existing recreational drone permits to still be valid too whereas we're currently doing a prohibition on recreational. That's why I was asking can we clarify that that's for commercial which ATC is definitely commercial or research because that does not apply currently. By not specifying, it's basically saying any existing recreational permit is still in effect and that would be of concern.

Do we have any recreational permits out there at this point? I do not know if we have any on file recreational permits. I'm not sure if anybody in the chambers tonight would know that, but I believe the permits we're talking about are development permits that are previously so properties that are entitled but not yet constructed. Yeah. So, can you tell me a city issued use permit, an architectural permit, a coastal development permit? Does that qualify as a recreational permit? No, those are separate permits

and that's exactly what I have in the language. So I have to ask the rest of the council, are you okay with council member Maduri's addition on the that particular subsection or the section? I think council member Garfield. Oh, I'm sorry. Uh, one moment, please. Council member Garfield, did you have a comment?

I I do. I'm I'm increasingly uncomfortable um with giving um the ATC or anybody in that category that's permitted, architectural permit, coastal development permit. Essentially, what is not specified as being that is a commercial use. And so it would seem to my perspective on it is that having a commercial license allows us to ascertain whether they understand the rules. they've got the FAA coverage. They um understand the rules that we give them on animal harassment, marine mammal, blah blah blah blah blah. So having a commercial permit gives us an opportunity to say this is what you can do, this is what you can't do. And I don't think it has anything to do with whether they have a coastal development permit. I think it has to do with whether they have a commercial license. And I don't want to mix those up because I think any project that is a commercial project that uses a drone should have those drone users should be commercial flat out. Period. And this is about recreational use. So maybe it doesn't belong in here.

Is there anything else? Councilman Bill was that was that Thank you. Okay. Yes.

Thank you. I I feel like we've gotten so in the weeds, which I understand we needed to do that, but it's really essential that we don't miss the critical point of the item before us tonight, which is to have the ban on the recreational drones. So, if this language will um reassure Council Member Paduri that it's not going to affect the ATC or other commercial permits that already exist, that's fine because I mean technically it doesn't already do that anyway. So, we're not really um it's not necessarily changing anything effectively, but it makes that clear. Um, and so if that means that we can move forward with getting the ban on the recreational drones so we have the protections in place because remember we're doing this because it is a violation of the Marine Mammal Protection Act to be disturbing the wildlife which we are seeing on a regular basis and that's what we're trying to avoid. We're trying to protect that and so if that gets us there then I think that it's it's worth moving forward and then we will bring forward the the commercial and the and the and the research in the future with Council member Paduri's add-on.

It's it said as long as it like you said that it applies to essentially you did say it applies to commercial. So yeah, I mean this this isn't about the commercial. It's about commercial. Sorry. Can we just add the word commercial in there? Um I I don't want to add the word commercial. uh whenever we get get to the commercial permit kind of like uh language uh we can decide if we want to further refine this language. At this point, I'm comfortable with what I have. Okay. Why don't we bring it back to the council?

Uh I'm okay with the add-on. I understand your point about the um we're here to um do the um recreational drone. Uh, who would like to make make a motion on that? I I don't know how you made the motion. Yes, council member made the motion. Um, correct. Yes, I've already made the motion. I I don't think there was a second, but I made the motion. I'll go ahead and make the sec the second motion. Should I call for

call? Yeah. Call for uh council member Padori. Hi. Mayor Poameio. Hi. Council member Garfield. Hi. Council member McDonald. I. Council member Ralph. I. Council member Watin. I. Motion carries. 61. Mayor Smith absent.

Thank you. Um, next item is the electric bikes 13A. Um, oh, Mr. Morgusen. Sure. On the electric bikes.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor Prom. Mom, I'll kick this one off. Um, so this is an item that's being brought before you um due to concerns and and discussions over the last I would say nine months or so since at least since school started about some of the dangers of ebikes around town and um people who are who are concerned about their usage and then where and where they're used and the appropriateness of that. So, we've been um working with a special counsel Elena who's on the the line here with us to um kind of review what the regulatory framework is and she's going to go through that tonight. Kind of what the box is that we have to work within within state laws and our local laws and you know what what types of changes the council could potentially direct us to look into further. Um, from here the idea would be that we would go develop an ordinance and we would um at your direction we might go to the traffic safety commission if that's in your motion tonight. If not, we would just return to the council on a future date. So, um, with that,

no. Uh, okay. Um, Elena, do you have your presentation? You could share your screen or we're trying to grab it here while I'm um, yeah, if you give me a second, I can pull it up. Okay. Okay. And also, good evening, mayor and council.

So, while she's doing that, I'll just say this is a kind of a a little bit atypical. It's more of a general discussion item. It's not a public hearing tonight. Um, we just want to hear kind of general consensus from the council on on if you're interested in changes to the ordinance. Perhaps it's not changes to the ordinance. It's it's other things you want to look into a little bit further. So, if we could at the end of the night have um a consensus on which direction we're going, that would be really helpful to us to move forward. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Morgensson. Uh was there was a special counsel going to um Yes. Yeah. Go ahead.

I'm pulling it up and then I'm going to switch this over to um slideshow. Make sure everybody can see it. All right. So, is everybody able to see it? Yes.

Great. All right. So, as the city manager already mentioned, there have been increasing concerns with the impacts brought on to pedestrians and traffic by, uh, electric bikes. And so um this evening basically I just want to give you a sort of big picture um regulatory framework you know what what we have to work with what we're able to do and what we're not able to do and then ask that the council give us some direction as to whether and to what extent you want to update the current uh regulations that you have in your code. So the first thing I want to tell you is that um you know the we're a little bit well we're somewhat limited in the way that we can regulate bicycles as well as ebikes. So for our purposes I'm going to say I'm going to refer to um humanpowered bicycles as bicycles and then electric bicycles as ebikes. In the vehicle code they're one definition but just to make things a little bit easier for this conversation those will be separate um for now. So the vehicle code is is unique because generally what you'll happen what you'll see is that um with respect to city regulations or local government regulations if the the field of law that we're dealing with is not preempted by the the state law then we can do you know we can regulate. The vehicle code is flipped on its head. And basically how the vehicle code works is that unless the vehicle code expressly allows local regulation, it's just not allowed. And uh this also applies to charter cities. It applies statewide because of course, you know, we have vehicles that cross borders all the time. So um now I'll I'll go over what we are in fact allowed to do. So uh first of all, definitions. These are from the vehicle code. These are not verbatim of course, right? So, a bicycle

is a device upon which a person may ride propelled exclusively by human power unless we're talking about ebikes through a belt, chain, or gears and having one or more wheels. And so, in the vehicle code, an electric bicycle is included in the definition, but like I said, just for our purposes, I'm going to say bicycle for humanpowered and ebikes for electric. So, ebikes are their definition is actually pretty long, but very uh basically they're bicycles that have an electric motor of maximum 750 watts. And there are three different classes of um ebikes. And it has to do with uh pedal assist or not pedal assist. But for our purposes, I think the important distinctions are that classes one and two are at a maximum of 20 miles per hour and class three is at a maximum 28 miles per hour. That's the fastest they can go. Um, you know, when you look at them, it's really hard to tell which classes they are, right? So really, that's why I'm saying I think the the important distinction for us is how fast they can go. So there's a few more definitions and I'm putting them in here in part because we're are going to have questions about whether and to what extent you want to regulate these things and some of these are already in the code. So pettic cabs are two or three wheels. They include a sidec car or trailer to transport passengers four or higher. Um or four-w wheeled pedal power devices up to eight seats that won't go faster than maximum 15 miles an hour. And I think you've seen these before. There's sort of like, you know, a a few pe, you know, four people on one side, four people on the other, and they're all pedaling and they're, you know, drinking margaritas and having a good time. Those tend those fall under this definition. Motorized scooters, I think we all know what these are. They have the two wheels, uh, the handlebar, there's a board to stand on, and you see them

zipping around on sidewalks and streets, uh, fairly commonly. um an electric personal assisted mobility device. So, this is a lot of words to describe those uh self-balancing two- wheeled devices. They have those two big wheels. Um and they usually, you know, they have a higher handle and they transport one person. You'll see them being used by uh tour groups very often and they're uh frequently referred to as segways. That's kind of the the most the most commonly known make of those. And then electrical motorized board are boards are essentially hoverboards, right? They're electric um uh skateboards essentially. Any questions on the definitions? Okay. All right. So, we do have some regulations in our code and currently bicycles and ebikes are prohibited in Perkins Park and Lovers Point Park as and also we have a regulation that prohibits ebikes only from Pacific Grove Links, El Carmelo Cemetery, uh property leeward of Ocean View Boulevard from the city boundary to 17th Street except on paved portions of the recreational trail. So this this is existing in the code. These these regulations are found in um section 14.8.15 through.25 I believe or 24. Um, in addition, uh, there's Oops, excuse me. There is a definition of the recreational trail in the code, which is the recreational walking and biking trail running along the city's waterfront from the city boundary on the east to 17th street on the west. And the current regulations provide that class one and two ebikes are permitted on the recreational tree trail, as are

electric personal assisted mobility devices. the Segways and the motorized boards, which is, you know, the electric skateboards, as long as they do not exceed 12 miles per hour. And one thing I wanted to bring to the council's attention is that this speed limit apparently is a result of a a speed survey that was conducted when we first adopted these uh regulations. So, just so you know where that comes from. Um, also, uh, the code says pedestrians must use pave this the paved section of the recreational trail so as not to impede bicycle traffic. So, this doesn't mean they can't use it. It just means that the bicycles essentially have the right of way. Um, of course, the bicycles need to be careful too, but you know, the the recreational trail is intended primarily for bicycles. We also have a regulation that says pettic cabs and motorized scooters are prohibited on the recreational trail, all public parks, golf links, and Elc Carmelo Cemetery. So, um, you know, we've got this Monterey Bay coastal recreational trail that crosses several cities. And just for your information, we looked at the regulations for that that that are from the city and from the county with respect to the trail and with respect uh with respect to the ebikes. And in the city of Monterey, uh the city's code prohibits riding bicycles in areas designated by council resolutions but not including bikeways.

And then um so there are also some bike rules for the Monterey Bay Coastal Recreational Trail on the website. So for example, be careful of other riders, you know, pass on the left,

make sure people can hear you. You know, they're basically civility rules. And the city allows all classes of ebikes on the trail and on what they call class one multi-use paths. Um, so the city has different classes of bicycle paths and they're defined, but you know, just I'm not sure that it's super relevant for you guys, but I thought you'd like to know this. And then motorized scooters are also prohibited on the trail. Then the county of Monterey actually recently changed their their codes and now they allow the use of ebikes to the same extent and at the same locations as the use of bicycles and require both ebikes and bicycles to yield to pedestrians and equestrians on all county trails. So uh what does this mean for us? So what is it that we can and can't do under state law? Um, so for bicycles and ebikes, what we can do is regulate or prohibit the operation and parking of bicycles and ebikes on sidewalks, bike paths and trails, equest trails, hiking trails, and other public property. And there's a little caveat regarding the bike paths and trails because I mean honestly, I don't think that we would ban bikes from bike paths. Um but we would put for example we would we could regulate where bikes can be parked right some a lot of the time bike paths will have you know little side um uh you know little side parking areas where people can park their their bike. So remember that you can regulate and prohibit operation and parking. So it doesn't have to be all of it. It can be either or. One thing we cannot do is limit the use of ebikes on bike paths that are on or adjacent to roadways. This was specifically prohibited by the the vehicle code. Um, and generally speaking, we cannot

regulate operation on roadways. Uh, so public streets and highways. And this this uh applies to bicycles and, uh, ebikes, pettic cabs. Um, we can regulate or prohibit the use on roadways, trails, bike paths, and public property. And in fact, in the vehicle code, it says that these cannot operate on roadways at all without an ordinance allowing it. So unless our ordinance says they can operate on the road, they are not allowed on our roads. Motorized scooters. We can regulate and prohibit the operation and parking of scooters on sidewalks, bicycle paths, trails, or bikeways, not on the roadways. The segways, we can regulate the time, place, and manner of operation. It's sort of interesting that they use time, place, and manner in this particular section and not some of the others, but okay. But they also have a section that says that we can prohibit operation either in certain areas of the cities or throughout the city. Um, and then the final electrical uh motorized boards, there are no provisions to allow us to regulate them, which is odd, but that's where we are. So before I ask for direction or just kind of run through the questions that we're going to be asking for council, I'd like to make sure there aren't any questions or clarifications about anything that I've said so far.

And um Mr. Mayor, maybe vice mayor, maybe you can. Yeah. Yeah. Go. Excuse me. Thank you for your presentation, but before we go out to the public, um, uh, Council Member Gfield. Yeah. And I still want to go through the the questions that we want to ask, but I just wanted to pause here for a moment to see if there were any clarification questions. This is a clarification about what you've just presented. So, it's Yes. about what you've said. Yeah. Um, it's you say in here that pedestrians must use the pave section of the recreation trail, but our ordinance 14.08.061

says it's unlawful for any person to walk, run, jog, permit animals, or otherwise convey him or herself on foot along the portion of the recreation trail that's paved. So, I'm not sure how you meant that phrasing, but my understanding is is that except for an area that's near um the um the mural. Mhm. Getting closer to Lover's Point that the pave section is for wheels and the DG section is for feet. Right. Um and and those two things don't seem to come out here,

right? Well, the the language that I read is from the current code, but you the the council member is pointing out that there's there may be some uh additional um conflict in the existing code and I didn't go as far as 061 and I should have apparently because that might be something that we have to go and look at to make sure that it's it's made consistent. So, I'm glad that you brought that up. Thank you. Yeah, if when you're walking down there, there are plenty of people walking on the pave section, right? Um it's a free-for-all

and there's no signage. So, um Council Member McDonald and I went to a very instructive conference with some members of staff on enforcement. Yeah. And certainly before we start making new ordinances, I'd like to know why the current ordinance hasn't served well.

Okay. Um well, I I am going to lob that back to uh the chief and um let me just quickly go through these questions that we want the council to consider. And you know, the council can decide of course not to make any changes, right? That's an absolutely open option. So these are just questions for the council to consider. Um so the first question has to do with uh regulations that may not be consistent with our neighbor. Um so for example the neither the county nor the city of Monterey include speed limits and we do. So, one thing to think about is uh does the city council still wish to maintain the speed limit? Um, you know, it was based on a speed survey, so that might be a yes, but that's completely up to the council of course. And another question for the council to consider is do you wish to limit the class of ebikes permitted on the trail as they are now, or do you want to be consistent with the nearby jurisdictions? Then a couple of the questions are, would you like to regulate prohibit the use of bicycles, ebikes, and other electric mobility devices on hiking trails or equestrian trails? These are separate from the bike trails. Um, and would you like to regulate or prohibit the use of bike, bicycles, ebikes, and other electric mobility devices on sidewalks? And then um and then if you have any uh changes to the current regulations, uh you want clarifications, if you want to keep some of these, not keep some of these, I just kind of um summarize them here again just for your convenience. And those are some of the the the directions that we're going to be asking about assuming the council does want to

make a change. And so, um, if you don't mind, I would like to have the the chief maybe respond to the question regarding enforcement of the current ordinance.

Well, we continue to uh go through this and we want to hear from the chief, but I think we need to go out to public first. Uh we've already had some discussion on from uh the presentation, but first before we have it to the council, let's go to the public. Are there anybody on the public? I see someone online. Uh Sandra. Uh yes, your honor. It I have two hands online or two hands raised online. Uh Rivka Ravivo. Yes. Hi. Can you hear me? Yes.

Okay, great. Thank you. Um, so I just wanted to say thank you for this opportunity to address the council and I apologize for not understanding the the rules for things earlier. Um, so tonight we heard a presentation on the regulatory landscape of ebikes and other electric powered mobility vehicles such as Segways and motorized scooters and boards. Um, so there's there's going to be an opportunity for the city council to discuss and provide direction to staff regarding amendments to the current current ordinance and whether such an amended ordinance should be presented to the traffic safety committee. Um, I am tremendously pleased that after several months, this topic is finally being revisited by the council. Um, it is really critical that the council carefully review and consider what amendments may be made to the existing ordinance to improve public safety, especially in hightra areas such as the recreational trail. However, I think it's also really critical to point out that while any updated ordinance hopes to improve public safety with respect to ebikes and other motorized devices, um, no ordinance will have any effect whatsoever without enforcement. Um, so as some of you may have seen today, KSPW uh reported that their public records request revealed that there have been zero citations issued in violation of key municipal codes related to ebike and other motorized device usage in our community during the 2023, 2024, and 2025 calendar years. Um this is highly significant because the lack of citations in the face of growing public concern underscores the crux of this issue which is that the lack of enforcement of these ordinances is occurring. So put plainly the fact that

there has not been a single citation issued in over three years despite overwhelming agreement among our community and many city representatives present here today um highlights the dire problem that needs to be addressed. Um, we really need our city police to take appropriate action with respect to enforcing ebike and motorized device ordinances. Um, this means being present in hightra areas such as the recreational trail, especially during weekends and holidays when there is expected to be more activity on the trail. This also means issuing warnings and for those who fail to comply um citations and um without enforcement, we really are risking the safety of our residents and visitors. I myself last summer was struck by a cyclist and injured. Um, and have not felt comfortable being on the recreational trail since. Um, so I in a previous letter I sent to the city council and the chief of police, I noted that we do not post speed limits for cars without enforcement.

Excuse me, your time is up on the recreational trail. Thank you. Thank you. Uh Sandra was one more. Uh looks like we have three more hands raised. Okay. Uh Christy Italiano Thomas.

Hi, I'm Christie. I'm a PG resident. I'm 74 years old and I've had a RAD ebike um for six years. Um have over 5,000 miles on it. And the thing is is six years ago there wasn't five local places renting these and nor did all uh or many young kids have them. And so um the key word like the previous person said and is there's no um enforcement. When you said um the presentation said those scooters the I th those absolutely not should should not be on there. I was riding all day today and one of those scooters went by. But again, there's abs there's no enforcement. And in defense of ebikes tonight, there was also an athlete on a regular 10-speed that zoomed in and out and passed me faster than I've ever gone on my ebike. So the bottom line is I don't think it's just the ebikes. It's the problem of no common sense, a person not choosing good judgment and um considering safety and the pedestrian. So I I it would just kill me to not be allowed on that trail. I've I have a hard time biking on my regular bike and well, okay, you do get a little spoiled on the ebike, but again, I am aware of pedestrians and most older people are and they're not on there to to race and to get there. I mean, I have the throttle, but I put it in heavy pedal

because I want to get exercise. So again, it's just the common sense and they get away with it going on there because I don't know, there used to be a policeman. I it was a Monterey uh policeman on a bike. I don't know if that's only on summer watching what's going on, but now there's a lot going on, but absolutely no enforcement. So that has to be considered and then maybe that'll solve the problem when people start getting kicked out or get tickets. But to prohibit uh safe uh senior ebike riders would be so sad by Thank you.

Thank you. Um Sandra, was there someone else on

two more? Okay. Thank you. I agree with the last callers. There definitely needs to be enforcement. I spend a lot of time down there at Hopkins obviously and I have seen a lot of little accidents where the speeding bikes are hitting little kids on their bikes and it's ridiculous. The recreation trail is for everybody at every level. So there needs to be a speed limit because we have people that are flying down there doing wheelies, skidding out in the DG area, which they shouldn't be. Running along the fence and jumping off the rocks, going up the embankment onto the road, and then coming back down. We've even had motorbikes on the wreck trail. um and including the little yellow sea cars which don't belong there. Uh but definitely the answer is enforcement. So please do that. Thank you

Kyle Menstöm. I just wanted to speak on the issue of enforcement on the fact that a lot of this seems to go back to um some of the policies and I hope the chief can speak to this um about pursuit policies and a lot of this I know goes back to the use of the motorcycle and how the a lot of those policies don't allow two- wheeled pursuits and so I don't know as I read it it seems unclear if they even allow bicycle pursuits without using a four-w wheeled vehicle. for enforcement. And so rather than a new ordinance, this might simply be looking back at the policies for the police department and maybe putting in writing specifically to protect officers and saying they're allowed to chase on a bike. Thank you for your time.

Okay. Thank you, Sandra. Is there anybody else on No further hands? Okay. Uh let's go out to uh any more on in the public in the audience? No. Okay. Thank you. Let's bring it back to the council. Um who wants to start this? I have some questions, but maybe they might be answered. Uh yes, Councilman Mayor Walking Stick.

Well, my question was uh for for your honor. Um, should we have Chief Day address this first? Uh, and see if maybe he answers some of our questions preemptively. Sure, we could. Uh, Chief Day, are you Looks like you're ready.

Yeah, Mr. Mayor, he walks up. I will add that, you know, we didn't come prepared tonight for a full presentation on our enforcement challenges and what we can do to make those better than the city. So, while we can broadly talk about these things, if you're looking for details on these, you might be a little bit let down. So tonight we really wanted to focus on are there parts of the ordinance that you think we could do to adjust that help with the enforcement as well because some things are going to be more black and white, right? And I'll give you an example. There might be times when the trail is is more congested than others and perhaps those are times when bikes need to be walked in certain sections of the trail. There are certain things we can do that don't that are a little bit more, you know, like I said, black and white versus saying, is that guy going 12 miles an hour or is he going 13 miles an hour? It's a little bit more difficult for the most part. Um, so you know, I knew I know that Chief Day has been doing quite a bit with the high school this year with the kids and trying to educate them. Um, so he can talk a little bit about that. But in terms of like full enforcement challenges, like I said, we could return with a full item on that. Um, but but um, just to give you a little bit of a little bit of um, reference, I guess, to start with. And the other thing I'm trying to understand um, that I can look up a little bit closer is this section of the code that says you can't walk on the trail.

Yes. Um, So, I can I can we can look at that a little bit deeper also. And because yeah, I I'm not sure which section we're looking at, but it seems to go on to say that, you know, you could you it's unlawful to walk on a trail if you're impeding bicycles. So, I think the two things could perhaps be working together, but there could be some more there. Go ahead, Chief Day. Go ahead, Chief. Thank you, Mr. Muggginson. Yeah, I'm here for rapid fire, so go ahead. whatever questions you guys have. Yeah. Oh,

go ahead. Uh I I have a I just want to make a general comment. We should try to keep it focused at this time. We may have to come back with this again

because I think there's many questions just from us and I have several too, but we may have to um revisit this again. I I would truly believe that. Yeah. Uh but um you know, we've heard I've been this isn't, as I always say, this isn't my first rodeo and uh on the ebucks because I've been here for a little bit and we've dealt with it many times. Uh I'm going to go ahead and start. And um you know if you look at the what is there over a billion uh bikes in the United States, 40 states have exactly the regulations and I was just at a uh conference in with the legislature uh down south in in Sacramento and uh they're all over the place on ebikes. You know, they don't have a consistency. My thoughts on it just short I think we're going to have to revisit this um is that uh with with Exmas time Christmas time we've seen an increase of uh the bikes I see them on I live in Delbontani Park everybody knows that I see them on David Avenue I see them through the streets and there and it appears they're flying I think there's a more uh regulations on the on the uh people that own the bikes. My suggestion was going to be, and I think this has to be revisited because it's going to go all over the place, but my suggestion is that if they're 12 and on up, they should be receiving some type of maybe twohour training about ebikes. I think that's very important because I see um up and down Lincoln Avenue all the way

Delm money for they're they're flying and they're 12 13 14 years old but I think I personally have seen an much more increase even around town because I since exmma time I think everybody decided they're going to buy get bike and if they're under 12 years old my thoughts on it is that the parent should go through the the parent, a parent or parent or grandparent, whoever they live with, go through uh a couple hour training and whether that's with the police department or fire department. I know I'm I'm going back way back um when I had my uh Stingray bicycle. I had to go I went to the Monterey Police Department to get a license and they handed me this is what you should do when you're riding on the streets, you know. No, thank you very much, sir. That was it. So, uh, I I think this could go all over the place and I I really think we need to revisit this. And the other thought on it is that we're just Pacific Grove. That's what we're interested in. But this trail goes on forever. And I just wonder if the trail is wide enough for any bike, especially someone mentioned 10 speeds. I have a I've been bypassed by 10 speeds going like faster than 28 miles an hour on than an ebike. So I think it it takes a a larger discussion. I truly believe that. Um that's my thoughts on it uh initially. Uh I know you wanted some direction, but let's hear from the rest of the council.

Yes. Uh council mayor walking. Thank you, your honor. Um, okay. Chief Day, bringing it back to you again. Uh, it was brought up earlier. Do you allow Chase on a bike?

Yeah. So, um, as long as I'm the sitting chief, we are going to use, uh, best practices, our policy, and, uh, those those, um, you know, things that we do to balance, uh, the need to capture a suspect in a pursuit as it pertains or compares against the safety of our public. And so that has been the issue that uh you know law enforcement has as as a whole has had to you know kind of use as a tool to analyze. Is it worth the chase, right? Is the liability is the danger to the public? Is it worth uh catching the suspect in that moment? So, I would bring kind of the reality for everybody back to, you know, for the most part with ebikes or traffic violations. This is the lowest level of criminal violation in our state. It's an infraction. And so, you know, the days of chasing somebody over a simple infraction uh does not bode well when you consider the risks of pursuit driving uh especially through a small congested community such as Pacific Grove where the population traffic and pedestrian uh pedestrian population is very dense. Um it's it's it's just not something that you know you can honestly say this is worth it's a worthwhile effort. Are we putting the safety of the community at the forefront by chasing somebody for an infraction? So, um, as a general rule of policy, we will not pursue for an infraction.

Okay. I, uh, I'll go ahead and talk real. Did you have anything else? Yeah, I did have one followup question, but uh, as we're reviewing this, is there uh, something in the policy that you would have on a wish list that would make your job easier, enforcement easier? having having heard everything you just said. Yeah. You know, but uh is is if you could weigh in on it, what would you want to see out of this?

Yeah. And I hope the council doesn't mind, but I'm going to kind of segue to answer your question. You know, I do want to because I think it's healthy for everybody to hear that, you know, I really I think we're focused on one aspect of the issue and really I see it as two different issues um or compounding issues here in the city of Pacific Grove. Yes, we do have the issues in the recreational area, but we also, as we heard from some of the public comment, uh have the issues uh that are going on um in town, you know, not in the on the rec trail, not in the coastal areas, um you know, that are associated with our educ educational institutions. And so, you know, kind of getting back to the comment that was made about all the work and education that's been done through my office, uh, through partnership with the school district has really, uh, you know, been it's meant to be a tangible, uh, sort of outreach to curb and deter some of the other activity that's going on in town. So, I mean, yeah, there there's a wish list. It's a mile long, in fact. you know, I mean, I've been working with uh the city manager and special counsel for for quite a while on this, looking at uh you know, best practices and things that, you know, other jurisdictions are dealing with through like Cal Cities, uh the League of California Cities. Um in fact, we just attended about an hourong conference remotely uh with hundreds of electeds and city executives about two weeks ago at lunchtime. So, it's very interesting to hear that um you know, these problems aren't localized to Pacific Grove. This is really a statewide pro problem. Um but you know, some of these um areas in California are also taking uh very significant action. For example, uh the county of San Diego has outright banned the operation of ebikes by anybody 12 or younger. And that's through a pilot program that was pushed through the legislation. And so we've seen similar pilot programs with

like speed enforcement cameras in some of the cities in the Bay Area and things of that nature. And so um you know again getting back to answering your question directly uh council member walking stick other issues that we struggle with are the modifications of this equipment and the identification of the equipment. you know these business unfortunately these manufacturers manufacturers are in the business of making a profit and so they're selling these items uh it's my professional opinion that they're you know the the education or the uh sought out educational piece by you know parents who are purchasing this equipment for their their children um or the information that's offered by the manufacturer isn't often um thorough and so

you know the idea is uh everybody's riding them. It's a trend, right? And you know, little Johnny or Susie wants one. And so we're going to we're going to go out and make that happen. And so understanding though that once this type of equipment is acquired, it's very easy to catch a YouTube video on how to, you know, within 10 12 minutes modify that to supersonic speed. So, we're no longer dealing with uh you know the definitions that special counsel went over tonight on you know output uh watt output wattage output and and speed capabilities. Um two other points are there uh non-ebikes that are exceeding the 12 mph speed limit? Absolutely. you know, and so there are areas and that's why this discussion is so important and you know, I support the the council's um notion that maybe this this needs to be part of a bigger discussion. However, um you know, we are looking to deconlict uh some of the things that were talked about like yeah, I mean our code that is a factual thing. It actually talks about people walking on the paved portion of the ebike trail which is designated or for bicycles rather um and to not impede uh that bicycle traffic. Well, I mean what is the expectation of the council in the community that the police are out there, you know, citing families that are walking around uh because they may intentionally be impeding. um you know, if I'm out there walking with my family, am I looking over my shoulder every 3 seconds to make sure I'm not in the way? So, it does seem to me like there could be some clarification uh through suggestion and recommendation by the council for maybe deconlicting or cleaning up some of what we have on the books. Um and again, you know, to the uh the enforcement aspect, you know, remember this is something that has to be observed in our presence. So,

u just my quick comment is um PD Pacific Grove Police Department does not have the capacity. Uh let me just ask you is there's usually what three beats in town. Yeah.

So, they got to cover quite a lot of town compared to the recreational trail. I'm not discounting the recreational trail, but um you've got other priorities. The PD has other priorities. And I just think uh this this has to be a further discussion. I mean we could hear from the other councils uh but I see uh uh chair Tully is waiting patiently for what the thing that it's going to be coming up. But uh I do I'm not trying to rush this but if you have any quick comments I think Mr. Manson Garfield the center here.

Oh okay quite a while. Okay, why don't we go with the council here? I'll go to Garfield. Uh, Council Member Garfield in a second. I will acknowledge you. Thank you. There are two groups that I'm particularly concerned about, and that's the pedestrian bicycle interface, whether it's on a hiking trail or the rec trail or on a street. But, um, the schools and our school kids, keeping them safe is absolutely paramount. So, I appreciate the work you're doing with the schools and so I hope you can bring back to us what the schools need from us to keep kids safe.

Was there anything else, Council Member? Those are my comments. I was really I think we're headed in the right direction. I think we got a lot way to go. Um, yeah, I agree with you. I think the school kids are are a group that we really want to protect. Okay, council member um Ra and then council member Paul and council members.

I I think we need to first address the the part of the code where pedestrians must use pave section of the recreational trail as to not impede bicycle traffic which is counterintuitive to everything that goes on on the trail. So, I think we need to clean that up and make it more consistent with, you know, how they manage it through Monterey Seaside and all the way to Marina. Um, yes, I agree. I mean, we're down on the rec trail a lot. We walk, you know, we walk the tater down there and, you know, there's guys riding a thin speed that think they're on the tour to France. I mean, I'm serious. And it to me, and I think in a perfect world, I'd say everybody get on the street where you should be riding a bike and leave the wreck trail for pedestrians only. That's not realistic. And I know that there are a lot of reasons why we can't do that. And I get it. But I just think that, you know, I think maybe it it has to be us, you know, policing ourselves to say, "Hey, dude, you know, you want to ride 45 and you're, you know, on the trail, then, you know, get on the street." But I think the the I think that regulation about using the pave section and I think the signage down there is so confusing that you can walk by and really not understand where you need to walk. We walk on the BG because it seems to be safer than and staying out of the way of the Now that's counterintuitive to what we're supposed to do, but it seems like there's a a general community rule that that's how it's supposed to go. And so I think if we can clean up the signage, you know, clean up the and we'll ask,

you know, Mr. Go, I know he's over there plotting, but if we can ask him to, you know, improve the, you know, the the striping, the, you know, the messaging down on the trail, then that might be helpful. Um, but I think, you know, I think we need to look at this holistically. We need to clean up the code and then we need to just and and you know I think the education needs to start at the schools but I think it also needs to start with the companies that are out there renting these ebikes and if they've got people that are not you know then I think we we tell them that they do have some responsibility to communicate the rules and if they can't do that then you know maybe their license is in jeopardy. I don't know. But just like the speeding down pine and forest and central and lighthouse, these aren't tourists. These are the same guys that are down there all the time for the most part. You know, you see the family of eight on the Suri going three miles an hour because when you've got four little kids on there, that's about as fast as you can pedal one of those little things. They're not the problems. The problems are the people I think that that have gotten used to it and think that that's their it's their personal roadway and that's how they're going to treat it. So, um I you know I really think we need a better message. You know I I'd look to us on social media both from the police and you know the city to make sure and and get there and I understand we've got a ton of new followers on Instagram thanks to the boosted posts and all of those things. So, I think we need to start using the technology to start messaging out, but we've got to clean up that code because it's so confusing as to where you need to be.

Thank you, uh, Council Member Ra. Um, we'll go with we'll just go right across. Council member, well, why don't you go?

Okay. All right. Thank you. Uh I I I was just wondering like I mean if we um we charge the the ebikers with uh can we charge them with battery and that way we can avoid some of these infractions. Um but but that was just a that irrelevant. I think the the enforcement part I get it because that was one of the biggest things that I noted and and and to me like the the bigger piece here is uh uh really this goes into an overall I would say a city-wide kind of issue which is effectively widening I mean the mayor prom mentioned it this is widening like the roads right making dedicated pedestrian kind of pathways I think that's where we need to kind of like get on with this item u but I think whatever cleanup we do with the code we can do it but the practicality is like are we going to still face the same reality which is probably the same it's going to be the same thing so we need to think about elements other than this uh the other thing is uh obviously Monterey is operating at a 28 mile per hour pace and then suddenly they enter PG it's a 12 mile per hour pace so are they like uh are the signs there for like saying this is a lower reduced speed can we do something better there to to make things uh uh there was some mention in this uh presentation that uh we can only regulate adjacent to roadways. What does that exactly mean? Which which kind of paths are exactly adjacent to roadways that we can regulate? And if we do uh only a certain path then how are these bikers who are going on that path transition to the roadways more safely? Anyway, like a really broad item. I don't know if there's a quick and easy answer. Uh my my suggestion is uh there needs to be some kind of effectively we

need to have the community together here. Maybe even include the biker biking community to make sure that everybody understands that this is a a need of the town. uh and and probably do a community survey or a community gathering to collect more input uh and kind of like decide what we want to do next because ultimately no matter what we do, everybody needs to be on board and I don't think we're there. Thank you.

Okay, council member uh hold on. Um, yeah, I will say before I get to my actual comments because I I actually did try to go through and answer the questions that were asked of us, but um I found it interesting that suries according to our definition are considered to be a pettic cab and pettic cabs are not allowed on our trail and yet we do have the suries that often are blocking up the entire trail and so because they're so slow that actually does create a lot of a problem. So, so that kind of stuck out to me as something maybe we do need to address um if we want to um talk about how we're going to do this because if we're going to have bicyclists going at high speeds when the suries are taking up usually the middle, not just one side. You've got pedestrians trying to go around them and then bicyclists trying to go around the mall. So, that is actually a point that we see very commonly, especially as we get more in the summer months. So, an important thing probably for us to address. But this gets back to kind of my my kind of bigger picture that gets at it. So it's a good point about the speed limit. I know we can't tell whether somebody's actually going 12 or 13, but to me the point is to make it clear that the speed limit's lower here on the trail. So to me, if we had something that says the speed limit on the trail is 12 miles an hour. If you want to go faster, you should be up on the street. Because I actually was on the street the other day doing 25, watching my speedometer and watching a car slightly ahead of me, slowly pulling away, but an ebike right on its tail right with it like it was going to try and run through the car. So, luckily that one was on the street, which seemed appropriate. Um, but what happens when they're on the trail? And the pedestrians, I agree 100% with the signage. I've been an advocate of the signage for some time. Um because

there's only a little sign as you come into town and I think there might be one at the start of the trail at Lover's Point. We have people as um one of the callers mentioned who will kind of jump down off the road, go down the embankment. They're going up the embankment and creating the ruts in the road which actually makes it dangerous for the pedestrians to get down on the trail which is an additional issue. But anything where it's a shared trail where we can make the markings clear at every entry point, there needs to be a marking so the pedestrians know to stay on the DG. And um sometimes you can't do that if you're pushing a wheelchair, for example. Um if you have unstable gate and the DG is is not in great shape as it gets later in the year after the rains. Um that becomes a problem and people are on the trail. But I think a large part of it is people just not being aware, being completely oblivious. Sometimes I'll point out people there's bikes coming up behind you, so they'll get over and they're, you know, they're just doing their thing, not realizing because we only have very occasional markings that say the paved part is the bike lane. So I think I agree that the better signage would be really helpful in that regard. Um, so I don't know if the rest of council would one of the questions was, should we keep the speed limit? I think that's important so that we keep some semblance of safety because if you have bicyclists going that fast, you also have to come down and cross the trail to get over to the DG no matter where you enter unless you came from Monterey or um earlier on in Lever's point. So, so that addresses a lot of it. Um, I do think it's important to be consistent with the Monterey regulations to the extent that if they allow a certain type on the trail, it gets a little confusing to go, "Okay, now I'm not allowed on the trail." Um, I was going to ask a question about scooters. I think you might have already answered it because a lot of people now commute on the stand scooter. So, it's funny. You look up scooter and it actually includes things like mopeds um because

those I guess can be electric. But if we're talking about the kind of where you stand tandem and hold the bars, um something that I had read said you can't use those either on the trail or on the street, which led to the dilemma. Well, what do people who commute on those do then? So, do I understand correctly that they can indeed ride on the street because we are not allowed to regulate that? I was thinking I think that was something that Ellena had mentioned.

Yeah. I mean, if um if it So, what I'm envisioning in that question, Council Member McDonald, is like the bird bird scooter style um like the ones that are commercially for rent. So, those are all uh that on the roadway, that would be uh the statutes of the California Vehicle Code would apply. um unless they're otherwise through some ordinance that is uh uh as special counsel talked about you know this the vehicle code in the state of California does allow us in some uh instances to uh have tighter controls locally but um otherwise it would refer back to the California vehicle code

and can you so this is what really struck me too so what is the difference from a standpoint of regulation between a board that you stand on so you can't regulate a skate board for not being allowed even though it's electric. You put a stick on it with a handlebar and now you're not allowed to use it. But if you are sitting on something with two wheels that's electric, you're allowed to have that. So, I'm not really understanding. Is there some clarity on why that's a good thing to have and um some logic that maybe we could apply more consistently across types of transportation? Yeah, I'm not sure I would want to uh speculate or try to provide any type of factual explanation to those definitions. I think maybe coming back at a later time with uh you know some statutory definitions would be more appropriate. And I think that was the idea was to bring up the issues that I kind of thought about as I was reading these and we were addressing the questions because knowing that people might commute on a bicycle, they might also commute on a scooter and if they're technically not allowed either place, what do they do when they get to? So just making sure that we have allowances that cover all of those. And the one part I can answer to that is um as it pertains to the motorized scooters um because we see a significant uh part of the youth population that are that are riding those on sidewalks or on the public road. So there is an age restriction to that. And so that's been another part of our educational campaign with uh the uh school district. And so some of the parents that you know we've contacted and letting them know that you know it actually is unlawful uh for somebody who does not have a driver's license is under the age of you know 15 16 or I think there's a provision for a permit in there possibly. Um but you know the majority were finding you know small children. Uh few weeks ago I actually took one home um and spoke to the father. So I was just pulling into

the PD um and this was a middle schooler. So no driver's license, no driver's permit. Like you cannot do that. So uh for those type of scooters though, there is a California vehicle code statute that covers it.

Okay. So I think that would be helpful for us to know too as we're kind of deciding what we what we need to do ordinance-wise. And there was the question about them on um hiking trails. And I'm wondering if by hiking trails they mean like the Perkins Park type of hiking trails if they mean up in Rip Van Winkl Park, George Washington Park. So I think they're already I mean it doesn't make sense to have them on there because of the compaction, right? But they were talking about do we want to keep doing that? But then they also referenced hiking trails. So then I wasn't it would help it would help to have clarification of where that is so we know what we're talking about. And then um should they be on the sidewalks was another question. And we have so few sidewalks as kind of a safe refuge for pedestrians as it is. So I would be inclined to say that yes, we would want to restrict especially the ebikes um from the sidewalks. And is it my understanding that technically bicycles aren't supposed to be ridden on sidewalks anyway? Does that apply for children on like young kids bikes? I don't know what the

I I appreciate that question most of all. Uh thank you for asking it. So, um, you know, this is a great time actually to just kind of reinforce, uh, the fact that ebikes, bicycles, they are mandated to follow the rules of the road. And so, the rules of the road that apply to a motorist also apply to bicyclist or ebikes. And so, normally I wouldn't do this, but because it ties right into your question and it was a comment that was made regarding a p public records request that was put out by one of our local news media, it was very narrow in the scope of the request um citing mostly municipal codes and I think there may have been one or two other vehicle codes but um you know and it came out that oh no citations are issued or whatever. So, anytime there is any other moving infraction, unsafe entry, a helmet violation, those can all be citable. And I and and we have written those citations. I know because I've written them personally. So, um I just want to clarify that misnomer. And so, also back to your point, yes, technically when you're saying a bicyclist has to follow the rules of the road. So common things that we see riding on the sidewalk. We see riding through crosswalks. Technically, letter of the law, you can push your bicycle or ebike through a crosswalk, but otherwise you're supposed to be riding with the flow of traffic as prescribed by the rules of the road and the vehicle code. The problem with the sidewalk is is that um you know a lot of parents with small children that are trying to teach their child the joys of riding a bike or um you know it really to them uh feels and can be in some situations the safest place. um you know because a small child maybe isn't ready to be riding in the roadway and I know

as a father of four when you know even my boys were young like I would rather take them to a park or parking lot or use the sidewalk. Um, you know, it's a it's it's one of those things where, you know, officers are given discretion, uh, broad discretion for a reason, and so some of that discretionary, uh, power or discretionary decision making can be appropriate in certain circumstances. Okay. Thanks. Let me uh try to and I know you probably have something to say. I I just wanted we have two more items left on the agenda and our time is ticking close to 10 and I want to try to wrap this up. Um go ahead council

actually you're watching me get Thank you your honor. You're watching me get answer because I'm just thinking about uh all of us just answering their questions and yeah kind of getting I think we're kind of ready right and I had finished

Okay, go ahead. going through the questions that they asked because the next one that I think was important was um do they want do we want them to take it to the traffic safety commission at some point? So I think that they're asking for us for guidance on whether and I don't maybe it's too early for that. Maybe that's later. Sorry I'm not talking to my microphone. I don't know if it's too early for that. If if if you think we need to have another more targeted discussion on some of what's been talked about tonight and then make a decision about the traffic safety commission, but I didn't want to ignore that question. Could I wrap this up real quick and then you uh Mr. Musen and city attorney uh Lurca if you could I what I would like to do is um revisit this item. I think we have too many questions to this whole item. You know, I mentioned about getting the other agencies together so that we're all consistent between the three, but now as I listen to everybody, sometimes I think the recreational trail should just be used by pedestrians because pedestrians have to look out from have eyes like a, you know, in the back of their head. So, I I I would like to wrap this up and revisit this at a future council meeting. I I think uh you know, we're we're shooting for quarter to 124 quarter to 124 quarter to 10 right now and getting a little bit on tired side. So, I would like to um with the just bring this back. Mr. Moinson, what do you think? Have you heard enough? I don't think you have. Well, you've given us a lot of good stuff to go on tonight. Um, I was going to suggest because it was mentioned earlier about different um, constituencies out there that might have interest as well that perhaps it is a good next stop for us to take it to the traffic safety committee and have a similar discussion like this, inviting

those groups in or maybe inviting Tamzy. It really is a park discussion like you mentioned. It's not just about the trail. Um, so we could do that more of a informal study session style versus coming back to the council meeting and it might not be as um efficient. You know, we could come back with more information for you. Traffic safety commission because I'm the leazison on is is almost all new. It's going to be starting in soon. So I mean it's okay to bring them to but I had the knowledge but either way whatever. No, we don't need a motion. Did you get We would like I know we talked about getting a motion together, but it's from what I can gather, we're not there yet.

You don't need a motion for staff direction, right? Unless the direction is to come back with an ordinance and some specific soon time, then I would say if Yeah, that would be fine. You don't need need a motion. It's just as long as there's a consensus of direction to staff, that's sufficient to come back with something to come back with that. That's fine with me. I don't know. Do you have something?

Well, yeah. So, to to um Mr. Moinson's point, I think it might make sense now that we've raised some of the questions we have um to have the traffic safety commission, like you said, they have the flexibility to have maybe a more of a working session where they can get some more feedback and maybe even also address some of the questions we brought up so that when it comes back to us, we may have more robust information. Would

rest of council agree that that's a worthwhile idea? I I think it's okay, but like I said, it'd be like uh somebody a whole new group in the recreation commission, you know, they they have to learn the law of the land. I know the traffic commission has a I don't want to take anything away from them, but they're they're all new. I haven't met them all yet, so next month. Um so I I like the idea, Mr. Morgans and you said if we could bring some groups together uh you said traffic safety but other groups u it was similar to when I brought up the skateboard park whatever it was a year ago with this place was packed with 200 people and I'm just wondering if there are some representatives of 10 speed group and ebike group and maybe getting some input from them. I I don't know. Um, so I guess I would say that we do have quite a bit of notes here on things that were said, themes, you know, different thoughts that we want to put into it. Um, if it's okay with the council, um, we'll take a step back and we'll think about some different venues. Maybe it's a workshop, maybe it's a traffic safety commission. Um, and and we'll we'll try and go about it that way in a more informal way of fleshing out some ideas and getting some some different input from people before we come back in a written document. Yeah.

To the council. Um, but I don't have it defined yet until I talk to staff about what is the right tool. You know, is it a a workshop on a off Tuesday maybe? Right. Yes. Sure. Can I provide my feedback really quick? I had questions for Casey Day, but I didn't really state my view. Go ahead. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Really quick,

uh, to answer your questions directly with, uh, 1A, uh, prohibition on all ebikes on the, uh, the recre, I'm very receptive to that. on uh 1B, maintaining the 12 mph speed limit seems reasonable, but uh as uh council member McDonald brought up, u uh being able to post it for the public and make sure that that that's that's uh uh apparent is is going to be helpful for that. Education is going to be helpful. For number two, uh uh prohibition on equestrian and hiking trails seems reasonable. And uh three, prohibition on sidewalks. That's already kind of covered by code, but we could cover it again. Uh I would want that to apply to both uh ebikes and electric scooters. Um some things that came up tonight that I really like are uh uh age limits on that. The the problems that we're mostly seeing seem to be issues of maturity, you know, mis misuse of the ebikes themselves and I find it difficult to legislate that away. However, putting an age limit on it would help that. And uh yeah, that's what I've got.

Okay. So, Mr. Morganson, you've got some of the things we've done. I, you know, I have a a question and I know there's probably people online for 13B. Um, I don't know if we're going to get to the next one. Can 13B with the Takata Hall be placed in two weeks? Uh, or is that pretty packed? Mr. Mayor Pto, I'm looking at the author nodding yes and I believe answers 13 point comments u

this is an information piece to let you know what's going on doesn't need to be solved right away no urgency on it but wanted to let you know on on 13C 13B I mean 13B Yeah, it's getting late. It could wait. Um, I'd rather do 13B now because I think there's a lot of people online that have hung in there and then roll 13c to the next one. But that Mr. uh chair uh he's been waiting for Can we just drill through both both the items? I'm fine. Okay. Okay.

Okay. Let's let's power through it. Yeah. Jakqua Hall 13B. Mr. Moson, it's actually me. Well, I'm sorry. You had 13 speed. Yeah. Okay. It was very confusing in printout, but yeah. So,

the everybody's been working on Chiakaco. We've got groups that use it. We have groups that are not going to be able to use it. There's a time coming up when there's going to be demolition. And so talking to groups about where they're going to go during demolition is becoming more important. Um, and in doing so, we've discovered that there are some really old documents and they're included here. One of them is a 19 29 22 that prohibits doing business with a addict. Um, and so we really need to clean up the ordinances and data and things that have come along with this to make sure we have all the information from all the different parties that have been part of Chiakqua Hall and that we can craft an ordinance for its use going forward that returns it to its um historic use which is an educational center um entertainment, um, things like that. So, you'll see at the very bottom of the first page when talking to the library, the museum, and the Shiitaka Hall donors, what do they think they're seeing in Pa Shitaka Hall Futures? And it's like returning it to the purpose of being the Chiakqua movement. Um, lectures, conversations, group meetings, things like that. So that has been shared with the architect. Um but we need to also make sure that our um documents allow that. And so that's where we are right now. Um if you have any other ideas about

allowable uses, this would be a good time to throw those in there. Um and you don't have to do it tonight. You can think about it later. Um, and also just to point out that the fee schedule and exemptions from a fee are part of the fee schedule. They're not part of the or would not be part of the ordinance going forward. Even though in past that has been the case any questions? Okay. Um, let's go out to public. Uh, anybody um in the public wish to speak on this? Sandra, is there anybody? Nobody online. Mayor.

Okay. Nobody online. Uh let's go. Um I'm ready to make a motion. It's just a discussion item. It doesn't require a motion. Well, it does say direct. Oh, yes. Okay. Go ahead.

I just had one one comment and I'll be quick. Um but I I thank you for bringing this item forward, Councilwoman Garfield. I know you're not feeling well and still continuing with this. So, thank you. uh the uh so I I just while we're on this topic right like and we're looking into uh rectifying what what is what has gone wrong in the past uh I I just noted that can we also look into any deeds or grants uh which have any clauses u that uh revert back ownership if certain conditions are not met uh because uh I mean we're already in that exercise we might as well finish that exercise properly to make sure we're not getting into any soup later on. Um and then just a side side note to say that is this something that we need to communicate to uh who we awarded uh the the project to the the renovation project Hunter Porter Eldridge. Should we communicate this to him too to ensure that nothing actually I mean obviously you can do designs and all that but nothing actually begins until this this work is complete. Thank you.

Go ahead. I just want to say that I wouldn't want to uh u prohibit the uh the scouts from the use of the southwest room or the upstairs attic. That's uh not kind of that has been a tradition and that's been something that's been part of the hall forever. And uh yeah, I I hope that we're not trying to remove that. I can see first priority

and I think if you notice the dust upstairs, it's been a long time since it's been actively used. It's it's a storage unit right now. No, it's it's being used. It is dusty and it is dark, but it's also being used. So, let's um bring this back real quick. Go ahead. Did you have something? Yeah, I was just going to say that I think it is a good idea to kind of look into the documents were were so from my recollection the items to um discuss with staff about coming back with the information so we better understand the ownership better understand like I I thought the same thing if some of the things we violated potentially could mean it could go back to formerly Delonte company now the um um uh the Golf Links but um sorry Petal Beach Um uh is there anything so I had talked to to the um staff about this behind the scenes. So my understanding is that there was the newer ordinance which superseded it although it seems to have gotten that wrong as saying that we bought it from the Boy Scouts which

wasn't correct. So it seems like that ordinance maybe superseded some of the older things that aren't legal and socially acceptable in society anymore. However, um there are some errors in that as well that need to get. So, I think that the idea was just to give guidance to staff to please Was that the idea to to get guidance from staff and and council agreement that we should ask them to research that so we can make sure everything's in order as we we have it, you know, built and and ready for use. Making sure that allows all the uses like alcohol at weddings, not not a time of my weddings these days. and and dance halls because that's one of its primary uses currently as well.

Okay. I'd like to this up. Um uh motion it's not a motion. It's direct staff to investigate indocership it allowable activities and responsibilities for the use of alcohol and number two. So Mr. Mo Morgensson is that we're on if you'd like to take a quick vote on those motions that'd be great. I I think it was just a It's just a direct staff. Okay. It doesn't say motion, but if you want me to make a motion of it, we could do that. It's probably cleaner that way. For the record,

I'll go to direct the staff to investigate and document ownership rights, allowable activities and responsibilities for the usage of the hall. And then number two, direct staff to return this future city council dates to city council policies 100-1 to the Takah building and it will also document a movements to the future to the hall. Second, we had a time. Okay. Could we have a um uh roll call? Yes. Can I get the second?

Second. Yeah, I'll give it to Council. Uh, second goes to Council Member Ra. Okay. Mayor Promillio. Yes. Council member Ralph. Hi. Council member Walking Stick. Hi. Council member Pedi. Council member McDonald. Hi. Council member Garfield. Hi. Motion

carries 601. Mayor Smith absent. Okay. U okay well uh it's oh okay let's take let's take it at 10:00 we need a motion to continue the one item and chair has been waiting patiently along with uh our staff u but we do need a five minute break break are we okay with that can can we first of all do I have a motion to extend this past 10 o'clock All those in favor? I.

And then uh Sandra, could you check with Councilman Member Garfield? Yes. Uh I'll just do a roll call for a clean. Okay. Council member Ralph. Hi. Council member McDonald. Council members Walking Stick. I Garfield. No. Mayor Prom. I. Okay. So motion carries. 51. Okay, we're going to be back here at 10:05.

It's undemocratic because you see people I am going to see Let's go back to u Grove City Council meeting. Um yeah, are we still recording uh Sandra?

Okay, thank you. Uh let's go ahead and get started again. Uh thank you for coming back uh so quickly. Um this is uh Mr. Go for Mr. go in and dealing with the recreation board committee recommendations request. Mr. Go, would you like to go ahead?

Sure. Thank you, Mayor Promilio, members of the city council tonight. This uh item is a prime example of how the board committee recommendation form should work. The recreation board voted to bring this item forward requesting additional matrix to be presented to the recreation board. three times a year. City staff reviewed that. Um that was passed along through the recreation board council liaison who is mayor promilio. We evaluated it and then we prepared what we felt would be needed to provide these matrix to the recreation board which is in the staff report. Um and then and attached to the report is the recommendation form that was prepared by Chair Tolley who's in attendance tonight and could maybe elaborate a little bit upon that and be here to answer questions. So Katie and I are available to answer any questions if you have any specifics on the requested matrix or what it's going to take for us to provide that. Um otherwise that's my report. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh, let's go out to the public. Anybody in the public wishes to comment on this section? I don't hear anybody. Anybody online? Nobody online. Mayor, nobody online. Okay, let's uh go ahead. Uh, let's see. Did uh Chair Chair Tully, did you want to come up and speak? Just giving information. Yeah. Okay. Sure.

Super. Well, thank you all for uh staying extending the meeting. I really applaud you for your work. This is it's really commendable how many hours you put into this. So, I I very much appreciate it. Um so, like uh like Dan said, this was a recommendation of our board. And just to give you some background on why we came to this recommendation for you all. Um so, I've been on the board almost 10 years now. And one of the ongoing challenges we've had is how do we know if we're doing a good job. Um we've got subjective and objective criteria, right? The subjective stuff, we see kids playing soccer in the new soccer league that's been developed recently. Fantastic. Everybody loves it. But the objective stuff is harder to get to. Um getting some numbers is tricky. So one metric that has been uh used over the years is just dollars. So I'll just give you a quick background on on dollars. So, the budget this year was about 1.8 million. That's a lot of money. Um, just going back some years, I was just going back through some old emails and I think we were at 500,000 um back in 2018. Um, almost 600,000 in 2017. Um, 2018, um, almost 800,000. So, it's gone up quite a bit. And we've done a lot of growth since co a lot of it has been really great, but we're still we don't really know how we're doing with just those numbers, right? We need some other type of metric other than dollars. So there is a report that goes out to the um to the council every year. So, the adopted budget report from 2526 um I put a link in that um in that budget uh that recommendation form I sent to you all back in December and on pages 89 and 90 there's a little table

that says these are the metrics that the rec department or the rec um yeah the rec uh department tracks. There are four metrics. Paid special events. So just the number of paid special events, the paid uh sorry park reservations, facility classes slashuses and program participants. And every single one has gone up uh from 2021 through 23 24. It's great. It shows, you know, how we came out of COVID and we've done a lot of uh investment into the program. However, there's some ambiguity in those numbers. So for example, program participants, it went up from 414 up to 2009. But when we drill down into that number, we realize that's not really participants. That's not unique participants. That's program registrations. So if someone signs up for dance class and then they sign up for swim lessons and they sign up for um you know, chess club or something, that's one person, three programs. But the actual registrations is even more than that because for example when my daughter did dance class we had to register 12 times a year or I think it was 10 times a year. I think there were 10 months. So every single registration gets counted. So we don't really know how many students or how many kids are signing up. We don't know how many adults are signing up. We have no breakdown of these numbers. We don't know where they're coming from. We don't know if they're all coming from maybe one of the elementary schools and not the others. So we don't have any way to analyze this because we're not tracking this data. um we don't know what programs are actually doing well and which ones are not. We may have a few students or a few participants in one program and and the other ones are have a long wait lists. We don't know these things. So what we would like as an advisory committee is to is to help this program continue to grow but grow smartly and the only way we can do that is by having information to make these decisions. So this is not coming down as

some type of you know micromanagement. We want to be able to, you know, hound Dan and Kitty. They're doing great. We we really want to do is understand where do we need to put more marketing dollars? Where do we need to uh focus? What programs are doing really well? We need to expand because they've got waiting lists. So, I put down um or the sorry, the uh the board listed 10 metrics that we would um sorry, nine metrics that we would like to track. We initially had a list of 12, but in discussions we dropped them down. um six of them um are the data is already being collected in civic wreck but I think like the staff report said they just need to and invest a little bit to be able to pull the data out. So working with civic wreck you know you'd have to spend a little bit of money probably to get some of those reports but we could actually pull out some of the data that's in there. Um, one of the metrics we listed just the facility utilization. I don't know if that's in civic correct, we didn't think so as a board, but the recck department tracks it. Um, the subsidies and financial aid finance department has that we've been told. And then the partnerships are the recck department. So, we listed these actually in the prioritized order starting about, you know, starting out. We would just like to know how many total registrations not um, you know, in in each program, not just annually. um how many unique participants in each program per month um participant demographic so you can I don't have to read them all you know this is our recommendation to you all and um be happy to answer any questions or give any more insight but I really appreciate your um your time and attention to this

okay I'm going to go ahead and um start off um I got a actually a couple questions uh Mr. go or recreation uh coordinator Katie Clark. Um, you know, I understand we we have uh four employees with the recreation. Is that correct? Or I I understand. I was looking online and saw that there's four yourself and there's four other recreation people that work at the place. Uh that's correct. We have four coordinators and one office manager.

Okay, that thank you. Um, my thoughts on it is would you be able to work with Mr. Go to provide the correct information? I mean, I've been to a couple of meetings and I know it was great that you provided information about how many registrations there were in preschool, etc. Um, I mean, when I was less on listening to you. So, um, do do you think that the I want to hear from the rest of the council, but do you think the your staff and um yourself be able to gather up the information that the recreation commission would like?

Mr. Council member Alio, Mayor Prom Alio, if it's the desire of the city council for us to gather this information, then we will do that and bring it forward. This will take time. This will take no no offense, Cherley, but this is going to take away from other activities that we're currently doing. But if it's the desire of the city council to have us allocate our time towards this effort, by all means, we will do so. Okay. Um, I guess it's hard to estimate how much time. Is that correct?

It's hard to estimate how much time. We have over 60 programs that we would have to go into the system and extract this out, but we will be able to do so. It's just going to take time and effort. Okay. Uh, go ahead. Uh, council member. Thank you. Uh, Mr. No. Would it be safe to say that if the staff were to do this, it would cost more than $2 to $3,000 in staff time to do it?

We've these are unchartered territories, so yet to be determined. I I guess my point being that if it was going to take the staff $3,000 in staff time to do it and that was just once, wouldn't it be better to layer some technology with it to make that process a little bit more seamless?

I know that's kind of a dangling I could try and help a second here. I think the software we use is one of the better ones in the industry. I think civic wreck is something everybody uses. It's probably more a matter of we need to find somebody who's a whisbang at things like Excel and all that stuff to be able to create the right formulas and tables to make it more automated. Um I don't know if we have those anybody on staff, but we could look around and and find out. Sounds like a great job for the youth ambassadors. Council member, can I make Yes.

Um a comment, please, if I could. Um I actually contacted Civic Recre just as an anonymous person and said, "Can you extract this stuff?" and they gave me a positive response and then they said you know what are you looking for and then they said you have to be an account holder and so I I stopped there said okay I'll I'll bring this forward but the board as a board chair I would be perfectly happy I use Excel all day long at work I'm a engineer and so this would be a something I'd be happy to take on if it would ease the burden from uh staff

yeah thank you um thank you for uh staying staying with us for four hours I'm sure these were the best four of your life. Uh but the uh I I wanted to ask the um so the way I read this is right I mean what what they're essentially looking for is key performance indicators which is really KPIs are really common across the industry. I'm I'm sure um I actually like the point where we're at because you're bringing in the right questions. Uh we're we're increased our recreation activities. it's logical to assume that something like this will come up is to say how are we performing and so my view is that I see that the in the agenda report you've you mentioned that it takes uh some manual effort like 10 to 15 hours or something every month to extract some reports this 2000 to 300 addition first of all will it automate that task? Um it would the two to 3,000 was the estimate that it would take to work with civic wreck to have them specialize reports. There are quite a lot of reports it can do. Um but they spit out information exactly in one way and to specialize them to get them to the numbers that we would want for our programs. We have to work with one of their consultants.

Okay. Um and so this just hear me out here. So my view is that if it's 2,000 to 3,000 I'm totally fine first of all. uh just just just get to that point right like uh and then just uh from a I know we have we have or maybe we have not um using AI effectively but this is a prime kind of candidate for AI to analyze any data without any additional resources to actually use it and effectively produce information for us. So if uh civic wreck is able to provide some data, I I think you can actually put it into an AI tool and provide some meaningful information to us. Uh the the what I see here is that really we are measuring success and and I actually uh I mean there are certainly a lot of indicators here but I'm actually curious to know how many are residents and how many are non-residents that are participating in the program. Uh what's kind of like the minimum enrollment? uh what what is the u our inquity from lower income that we can do something better for. So I think there's meaningful information we can extract through civic wreck. So what I'm saying is I'm supporting the 2,000 to 3,000 with civic wreck today and I want staff to get back to us with saying having from that investment what else can we do to make it better. So incremental steps rather than going all in uh considering a lot of money being spent etc. Thank you and thank you for bringing this.

Go ahead. Sorry.

Um, thanks. And and to those points, so also using Excel a lot, if if it's something that civic wreck can export, is that something that we could have the rec board take on if they have the Excel expertise, would we still need to pay the 2 to 3,000 extra to have them do specialized reports or are we allowed to get our own data extracted into like a CSV format that the recordboard can then work with and automate and and create our own stuff? Do you know? I I think the the issue is more configuring the data that comes in. I don't think all that data is currently collected in the forms and stuff. So, it's probably more the configurations on the exporting. I mean, you ask good questions. I don't it might be something we have to look at first to make sure there's not confidential information and things like that about people.

Um the AI um idea is is a good one. We're coming back very soon with AI policy. So, that could be one of the places we launch off from. Um, so I think all this is, yeah, key performance indicators, all good stuff and we we can come we can look into what we can do to make it as easy as possible. Okay. But I don't know the answer in terms of I don't know what information is collected if it's any confidential stuff that we could turn over to outside people. I just real quick um then I'll go with you. Something came up uh I'm in support of this. I want you to know that. You mentioned uh Katie that uh you don't know what the costs would be to extrapolate this information.

Uh the in the report our estimate was based on what we've done with Civic Rex in the last couple years when we've had them um create specialized reports that would speed up the process. Um that was our estimate on what we would need for those reports. um without having doing these the other estimates of the staffing hours is what we thought it would take to pull the reports out and then make them into a useful format. We can pull out a lot of numbers, but it also requires a report to support the numbers, the narrative to go with the numbers so that they make sense. It might make sense to me that we have one class with a ton of weight list, but we're not adding more classes because we're focusing on another area. So, it's the information that goes along with it, the narrative that goes along with it that also takes time.

Okay. Before I continue, go ahead, Council Member.

Uh, yeah, I would uh also support a uh a measured approach launching off on this. I would like to know what data that's being requested. Uh we are already tracking. What's what are what information are we gathering and is in our database now? Um, I don't want to go out of our way to start uh uh uh inventing new things right off the bat right now. Just an examination of what can we provide that's on this list now through through our our current partner. Um two, uh can we do a uh a raw data export so that we don't have to format anything? Just hand Jay here's here's our data. Jay can then take that and and create a um u an Excel document, a a workbook that can take that data, how it's presented from them, how it's delivered from them, and manipulate it from there. And it should be every time you get a new batch of data, it should come roughly the same format, right? So once he's adapted to that, we're we're good to go. But first and foremost, uh what data are we actually gathering right now versus this this wish list? Uh and then two, um can we do an export while not not compromising uh sensitive or personally identifiable information? PII, uh we need to block that out. Um yeah, if it's sensitive, if if it's personally identifiable, uh we of course don't want to pass that on. We want to have it as uh uh uh anonymous as possible. And those are my two points. Thank you.

Go ahead. Um and one of the questions I had um for you, Mr. Tully, is so you you're requesting it to have it three times a year instead of one time a year. So I was curious, can you just give us a general overview or what are the added benefits? So what's the ROI on having it three times a year versus one time a year? Yeah, that was that was actually Katie's suggestion at our last meeting because of the seasonality of the programs. I think you do a summer, fall, spring. I don't remember the exact um uh calendar. Maybe you could

uh that's correct. So, we usually in terms of when we we are planning for our programming, we have our fall which is August through December and then we have our like winter spring which is January through May and then we have our summer which is June and July. So, those are the most natural places to gather them and then to look at them. um as a chunk of information.

Okay, great. That's really helpful and I agree that's something that's really ripe for AI to work on. Um that's something they would have us use AI for work. So, um, yeah, if we could find a way to get around because we always talk about utilizing our experts in the community and this would be a great example of being able to use a community expert to help us with a task that wouldn't eat into staff time if that's kind of a a public private partnership, if you want to call it that, that would allow us to benefit our community without adding extra cost and time, you know, for staff where I know that's already limited. Thank you. So I think it's it sounds to me like what I've gathered is that first find out how much information you could get from this recreation um civic recreation. find out how much you have is what I hear. And then um have um once you have that information and if it turns out that it's X dollars to extrapolate this information, then come back to the city council to say, hey, it's actually $800 to I'm just throwing out a number because I'm in support of this, but I think we need to a little bit more extrapolation. And then um Chair Tully mentioned about he could do an Excel sheet on it too. So I don't know if we've got direction on that, Mr. Mayor Pro Tim. If if um I think we're comfortable with the direction is to go forward and try and make this work, you know, so find the data. Yeah. Make it work. So

make it work and then if it's more then we need to council could look at it. It may not be as much as what's mentioned, but at least we can go forward with it. It's a plan. A motion with a amount not to exceed. Mr. Go has a question.

No offense to the member of the public that would like to do this, but we are talking about family and children here, and I think it's best if a staff member was to extrapulate the information and bring it forward. So, if if it's the direction of the city council for us to try to determine what kind of information we can get here, I'd feel more comfortable having internal staff do it than members of the public. Yes, I I totally agree with you, Mr. No offense, but we're talking about the children, families, right? Private information regarding financial situations, so on and so forth. Yeah. with names, addresses, da da da.

We we did have a when it was the recreation board uh many other lives before uh we did put together lowincome uh families that would benefit uh with this. So um one more quick one

just a quick comment to that point. I do appreciate that because we have to do this work all the time with PHI is you can deident you could take all the deidentifying information out. So, if we're just talking about getting reports that give kind of the type of information Mr. Tulie was asking for, I'm not sure that that would require having the PII attached, but that's something that would be helpful to to inform council about if there are concerns about we can't, you know, include outside people for this once you look at what the task is. I think that would be helpful, too. If you need more guidance from council, would that be agreed? I'm okay with that. Is Mr. Go, did you get enough information? And Mr. Minson.

Yes, Mr. Mayor. I think um did you take the action that was recommended on the agenda or should we skip that? Well, it's um Mr. Mayor for example. Yeah, it's just to receive the recommendation report. I think we gave Okay. that but I think we did give recommendation about extrapathy and the information and I agree with Mr. go about it's a lot of stuff is confidential and that needs to be done by the staff. Okay, we're good.

So, um I don't see anything else on the agenda. Thank you very much for participating and everybody have a nice evening with council meeting.