City - Regular Meeting

recording in progress.

We'll just hold on for a sec. Council member, can you hear us? Yes. Uh, now I can hear you. There was no voice earlier. Thank you. Um, council member, can you state for the record the um issue with the person alone in the room or whatever that there's no one in the room uh over 18 with you? Pardon me. over 18. Under 18's okay. There's there's no one in over 18 year. Correct.

All right. Thank you. And um I will also reflect for the record that council member walking sticker is absent tonight. Um so we do have six members. We're going to be taking all votes. Uh and I will ask council or mayor protolio to lead us in the pledge of allegiance. which still stands for indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you may now at this time entertain a motion to approve the agenda. I'll go ahead and approve the agenda and I would like to move um uh 12 a to the beginning of the regular agenda. Excellent. All right. Motion. We have a motion. Second by Ralph. Motion by Alio. Uh any further discussion? Seeing none, we'll take a roll call vote. Thank you, Mayor. Mayor Prom Millio. Yes. Council member Row. Council members Aduri. Hi. Donna.

She said I Ralph. Yeah. Okay. Got them mixed up, but we got two eyes. So, we have two eyes. Okay. And then, um, Mayor Smith. Hi. Council member Garfield.

I. Motion carries. 601 with Council Member Walking absent. Okay, we'll go ahead and move on to item two. Uh 2A is Mayor's proclamation. I have a proclamation that I've signed for the government finance professionals week and I'll go ahead and read at this time and then I'll invite uh Mr. Marsh to step up. Uh this is government finance professionals week. Whereas the California Society of Municipal Finance Officers is the state's leading professional organization dedicated to promoting excellence in financial management for California's local governments. And whereas government finance professionals help to ensure financial transparency, accountability, and responsible stewardship of public funds. Um, and whereas these professionals play a critical role in managing complex budgets, complying with state and federal law, maintaining accurate financial reporting and compliance with government standards, administering fee studies and enterprise funds, and supporting long-term financial sustainability. Now therefore, I, Nick Smith, mayor of Pacific Grove, hereby proclaim the last week of March as Government Finance Professionals Week and encourage all residents to recognize and appreciate the hard work and contributions of these finance professionals. Thank you very much for all your work and please step forward, Mr. Marsh. Yeah, you can clap at this time if you'd like.

Oh, so thank you very much for coming up, Fred. Uh, here's here's your proclamation. Thank you. and we'll take a little photograph. Great. Thank you very much. And can I just say Absolutely. Go ahead. Just really quick. I just Yeah. I just want to thank basically in particular all of my staff in the admin services department. I mean, they just do such an outstanding job for the city. As you know, we've really been recognized for our quality of work and it's doing large effort to our staff in admin services. So I'm really fortunate to have those staff and it's a great recognition that CSFO has recently started this year. So I wanted to just make sure that our department was recognized for all their great efforts. That was it.

Thank you very much. We appreciate your work. And now at this time I'm going to have another proclamation. This is going to be uh developmental disabilities awareness month. And uh we're proud to join the state of California and other states around the country raising awareness about the many ways in which people with intellectual and developmental disabilities can contribute to strong diverse communities across our state. And March has been designated as a time to recognize people with disabilities, including individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities, and to highlight their contributions, their vital contributions to our communities. And also, Gateway Center has long-standing roots in Pacific Grove and throughout the county supporting adults with intellectual uh and developmental disabilities throughout through residential day and community based programs. So, at this time, I'd like to welcome up representative of Gateway Center to come up and receive the proclamation and also a chance to make a statement. And I believe it's Michael Gonzalez. Is that correct? Are you the CEO? Okay, here you go, Mr. Mr. Gonzalez,

also one of our one of our members. Hi, how are you? Take a group photo, both of us. Yeah, come on over.

Thank you so much, Mr. Godz. Would you like to address the council? All right.

Paul, thank you all so much for uh uh recognizing this. Um I am uh the new executive director and president for Gateway Center of uh Monterey County which we're located here in Pacific Grove. Uh my name is Mike Gonzalez and I started here just about a year ago and for decades Gateway Center has been part of the community supporting adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities and Gateway Center has been part of this community supporting adults for many many years. Our core our core our mission is very simple. We're here to really ensure that every individual with disabilities has the opportunity to live an independent life, one that's full of inclusion and access to our community. Across Marne County, thousands of families are living um are part of the intellectual disability community and supported by a network of partners like the regional center and gateway center. Together, we work to ensure that people are not only receiving services but are fully included in as neighbors, employees, and active members of the of the community. But importantly, our work is about people, individuals with talents and goals and voices. And this this moment is really important because we're uplifting them and making them feel valued. And I have the honor of inviting actually Whitney Clark, one of our members, a participants of Gateway Center, and she's here to say a few words. So, I want to invite Whitney up and say a few words.

Thank you, Michael. All right. Hello.

appreciate it. Thank you so much. Thank you again uh Mayor Sam and the council members and I invite you all to Gateway Center anytime. Thank you so much. Thank you. Appreciate you coming down. Congratulations. Um, we move to item three, council and staff announcements. Uh, does anyone on the council have any announcements? Yes.

Thank you. I realized I hadn't um written it down, but one thing we do want to point out for the public is um well, a couple of things. We're we're in the popping season now. You've probably seen the fence go up. Um, so thank you very much to public works um for taking care of that for us and for getting the adorable little seal signs that people like to take pictures with up and out. We wanted to let people know that we do unfortunately um have instances of aven flu in the marine mammal community now and um they have found an otter in San Monteo I believe it was and an elephant seal down at on Noeo. So there are concerns that this could be happening more locally as well. So, we really want to make sure that the public is aware of this and if if community members see people approaching a dead or an injured animal, um to please be aware to call, for example, the SPCA, they can guide you to the right place or the marine mammal stranding. Even the the police department, the the non-emergency number can can lead you to the right place. But just want to make sure the public is aware of that so that um we can keep an eye and keep everyone safe. Thanks. Yeah, go ahead. My personal

U. Last Friday we had uh congratulations go out went to PG uh lunchon by the um Pacific Grove Chamber. I'll just read real quick. Uh excellence of the year hospitality Charles Pacific uh Charles uh the Charles and then the restaurant was the spotted duck. Excellence in business was the Monterey Aquatic Therapy nonprofit, Pacific Grove Pony, uh Paul Black. Uh new adventure achievement was Colette's Ice Cream. Outstanding business partner was The Quill. Thank you for that. And we'll go ahead and uh appreciate the announcements. We'll go ahead and recognize staff for announcements. Mr. Morgensson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We do have a couple announcements tonight. Um the first thing I want to let everybody know about is we have two study sessions that are tentatively planned for our next two council meetings. So on April 1st, um we're looking at bringing us a a study session to the council that will discuss our um overview of basically our communication strategy and philosophy and walk through um quite a bit of information with the council which includes um an overview of what we're currently doing. um some some places where maybe we could improve and then talk about kind of a common strategy at the end of it all and come out with um somewhat of a um strategic plan if you will on communications focused type stuff to help us to continue to improve our communications here in the city which I I will say I feel like we've made some good leaps this year. Um the other one is um April 15th we are going to have uh um Monterey one come and and kind of continue discussion that Paul Shidto started began at our last council meeting about the um electrical station that they want to relocate. So the idea will be that our residents can come and ask questions about that project that time of the actual project proponents. So that'll be on the 15th and we'll start that one around 5:00 too. Um, last item for me and then I'm going to turn it over to the deputy city manager is I

I just wanted to to highlight something that I don't always do this but uh the other day we received an email from our chief Moore and he was passing on appreciation for um Sergeant Nagamini and so you've all probably heard about the Kasanova fire that happened where 90 people were displaced they lost one um so I guess Paul did a did a great job that night and he was instrumental inter instrumental in organiz izing all of the PD units that responded. He worked with the incident command that helped facilitate the accountability of displacement residents. So, it was probably a pretty chaotic scene and he did a great job there. So, I just wanted to also recognize that and pass it along. With that, I will turn over to Joyce.

Good evening, honorable mayor and members of the council. I'm here to make an announcement on behalf of the recreation department to highlight two of their new program offerings. The first is open recreation basketball. This is a new program that's for youth grades 6 through 12 and runs March 31st through May 26, Tuesdays and Thursdays at the Pacific Grove High School gym. Coaching to be provided by the Pacific Grove recreation sports staff and PGUSD coaches Dan and Aubrey Powers. Um weekly clinics will include skills development and LA play. And the second program is our youth track and field program which is targeted for ages 5 through 14 and runs March 30th through May 27th, Mondays and Wednesdays at the PG High School track and this season includes four or five track meet local recreation department. So it sounds like a lot of fun. Registration for both programs can be found online at city of Pacificrove.orgreation. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any further announcements? Mr. Mogensson. All right, we'll go ahead and move it on to uh item four, general public comment. Uh general public comment must deal with matters subject to the jurisdiction of the city that are not on the regular agenda tonight. So would anyone like to make uh general public comment at this time online or in chambers? See a couple hands go up online. So we'll take that.

Yes, sir. Um Carl Lindstöm, you have the floor. First of all, the cost of special measure C is a disgrace to the voters of Pacific Grove instead of it being included in a general election. But I'd like to speak to the cannabis retail application permit process generally as a less motion to pause the process was shut down without public comment as an information topic. From March 4th meeting, residents learned that application stacking was an intended part of this process and built into the rules to incentivize revenue at $10,000 per lottery ticket for an opportunity to do business in an effort to maximize revenue to the city. What we all learned is that along the way, one entity bought eight of the 10 lottery tickets. During the meeting, a council member as staff, each one has a different EIN. Is that correct? Staff answered, "They have a different LLC." That is correct. But that wasn't the question from the council member. The claim that the FAQ on the application website that city staff informed all applicants that multiple applications from the same entity were permissible, allowing an applicant to stack the lottery deck by submitting multiple $10,000 application fees, essentially buying out the city's lottery process. City staff asked were city staff were asked what if owners, individuals or applicants with no common ownership in the applying entity have common ownership in other other entities or a parent company or private contracts. Does that constitute economic ownership? City planning staff answered that there's no restrictions in the existing ordinance that would prohibit this. staff did not utilize the same understanding definition that supersedes

with the state standard of the definition under the medical and adult use cannabis regulation safety act which says that ownership is not only by equity state but also by level of control management or authority over the business. In the city's own ordinance, it's written in subsection 23.92.020 020 that in the event of a conflict between these provisions of this chapter and provisions of the medical adult use cannabis recreation or safety act other applicable or state law the restrictive pro provision shall control. I hope that this process is paused to see why the state definitions and state standards govern the ownership in this process clearly overseen by the state of California were overlooked by both the consultants and the staff overseeing this project. Thank you for your time and your consideration in this matter. Thank you. In the Lawrence Endowment,

thank you. I was informed by the city clerk that the city notification signups, you know, on the city site, the one that this the staff has pushed us to sign up for, which I have signed up every committee board notification, everything for years. Okay? But they push us to do this. But I was informed that it's only a so-called courtesy and could be delayed by several days. Legal noticing has occurred, but the public must go search through the city website, and I mean the entire city website, to find their own timely notification. And this is supposedly good communication. and I didn't receive the agenda for the city council meeting until Sunday in my notifications. And of course, it went out on Friday, which normally it would come to me, but these notifications are no longer timely and pertinent. And I'm wondering why this is supposedly a transparent process. Thank you very much.

Thank you. No further hands, mayor. Okay, I'll go ahead and close general public comment. Take it to the consent agenda. The consent agenda deals with routine and non-controversial matters, may include actions on res resolutions, ordinances, or public hearings for which testimony is not anticipated. Uh, does anyone on the council wish to pull an item off of consent? And does anyone in the public online or or in chambers wish to pull an item off of consent? I have Jane Haynes has her hand raised. Uh Jane Haynes, can you hear me?

Yes. All right. I wish to pull item uh the written comment that I submitted earlier this week. It's consent and agenda item 9A. I I want to pull that off of the consent agenda and to have a hearing on it. So 9A, correct? It's the letter of support for SB 922 layered vehicles. Is that what you'd like to pled?

Uh would you say that again? I'm hard of hearing. The a letter and written general comment is notable. That's item 4 A. You can't pull that. 9A is the letter of support for uh layered the SP 922 Senator Lair's vehicles local agency charges use of streets or highways. No, that's that's not it. What I'm what I'm referring to is Pacific Crows 2023 30 to 2031 housing element program. Uh 90.

Okay. housing progress report for you, ma'am. Thank you. We got to get a vote first. So, um, yes. So, okay. And do I have a motion to approve consent accepting there from 9B? I'll go ahead and make the motion. Second. Second. All right. We have a motion by Amelio, second by Ralph. We're going to go ahead and take consent uh accepting there from 9B and we'll hear 9B right afterwards. I'll take a roll call vote, please. Thank you, Mayor. Mayor Promillio, I. Council member Ralph, I. Council member Garfield, McDonald. I, Aduri. Hi, Mayor Smith. I.

Motion carries 601 with Council Member Walking Stick absent.

All right. Thank you very much. We'll now that we've passed the consent agenda, we'll take up item 9B and I'll invite Mr. Biggs, our CD, our community development director, to come forward. Good me, members of city council. John Biggs with your community development department. Uh this item this evening is just a report for the city council on the annual housing element report. lists the status of the various programs of the yettobe certified housing element by the state and then gives you account of the affordable or not the affordable units but the new dwelling units that have been uh promoted and final over the last I think this report covers the last three years and I think one thing you'll notice from the report which is a bit complicated like all things housing element related from the state um you'll see that the majority of new housing units in Pacific drove our accessory dwelling units. Those tend to be the ones that we are seeing the community is constructing the most of. Tonight, we have staff's report and I'd be happy to answer any questions from council.

Okay. Thank you very much. Go ahead and go out to public comment. We'll hear from Miss Haynes on the matter. Thank you. Miss Haynes, Jame Haynes, you have the floor. Can you hear me now? Yes.

All right. I submitted a comment. uh written comment earlier this week. After trying honestly with a magnifying glass to understand the housing element annual progress report, I came away with three concerns. First, the numbers don't reconcile. The report says 20 units, but it also describes what happens what appears to be 24 units. Secondly, at roughly 20 units per year, we are on track to meet only about 16% of our RHNA obligation by 2031. And third, and most important, I could not clearly identify measurable pro progress on most of the housing element programs. Therefore, I request the city council please to request that staff give a clear report describing Pacific Grove's 2023 to 2031 housing element program, including a clear summary showing exactly where we stand, what has actually been acco completed, and what will be done and win Pacific Grove's RHNA goal of 1,125 additional housing units. I believe that I am not alone in wondering what is going on and I think that many members of the public would appreciate a clear explanation of what has happened so far, what is currently happening

and if possible a way that the public could participate in decision making. I believe that currently the public has no this is a document is that correct that we were required to establish when we submitted the housing element. So the dates won't update but as we go along we will be able to measure and it's a little bit hard to do that now because the program hasn't been approved. So some of the programs haven't started yet because we're pending the approval. Is that correct?

Um this report in front of the castle see me is an annual report. but goes back to probably the 1970s when cities were to report on the progress they were making towards uh the programs that are part of the housing element. Um the it's allow for the state to track the city's progress towards achieving those and since the housing element period the sixth cycle runs from 2023 to 2031 they want to see those dates that were in the approved housing element remain so that in the future I think if they can you know get a chance to take the city to task they can say oh you have not completed x number of um the programs within the time frames identified That doesn't mean however that we are not working on the programs. We will begin once we get the certification from the state uh developing a timeline and a list of the programs to tackle first. There's a few that we're working on currently. Some are currently in progress such as the housing rehabilitation loan program and we're going to be going out and the council approved a resol resolution authorizing us to submit an application for a CDBG grant this year. So those are the things you know or an example of things that we are going through right now to to achieve and comply with all the programs but it's it's an ongoing process. There is a lot of work and it'll take a lot of resources to get it completed.

And one of those upcoming programs will then we do have it on the council goals is to identify a housing project and other things that would actually then once it's approved start accelerating the building. Correct. That's correct. We're we're hoping that we'll be able to get some projects of some size so that we can kind of whittle away at that that arena number. Okay, great. Thank you. You're welcome.

Okay. U Thank you for the comments, M. Holler, Mr. Biggs, thank you very much for your report. Uh I say we approve this. We've been dealing with this several years now. How's the law and uh August will be approved? That's my motion. Move recommended action. Do I have a second? Second by Ralph. Um, any further discussion? All right. Seeing none, we'll take a roll call vote. Mayor Proio. Council member Ralph. Hi. Council member Paduri. Hi. Council member McDonald. Hi. Council member Garfield.

Mayor Smith. Hi. Motion carries 601 with council member walking sick absent. Thank you very much, Mr. Riggs. Go ahead and um we're going to take item 12A next. Now that we've completed the consent agenda, we we're going to take item 12A due to time constraints by our consultant. And so at this time, uh we are going to hear the presentation of revenue measure survey results by True North Research and discussion of next steps. And I believe I'll recognize Mr. Now, Mr. Mogensson.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the council. um you've adequately described this item, but on November 19th of 25 and January 21st of this year, the council considered this professional services agreement with props and measures and a subconsultant of True North Research. Um and the purpose of this was had several phases but the first initial phase um of the agreement included the polling of Pacific Road residents to determine the knowledge and understanding of the city's fiscal constraints to understand their perception of the city's services and infrastructure to understand what outside external and internal factors would impact their support of any kind of potential revenue measure and to to determine overall if the if the um the pulled respondents would be in support of any kind of a revenue measure based on the um questions they were pulled on. So, we have completed that now at this time and we have a presentation here to provide for you tonight. So, I'm going to go ahead and recognize and turn it over to uh Timothy Mclarney. He's a PhD and he's the president of True North Research and he'll walk us through the presentation and get to explain all the fun facts about the numbers.

Well, thank you and good evening mayor, members of council. Uh Tim McCclar, president of True North Research. Um, by way of background, we are a firm that for about 25 years has specialized in working with California cities as well as other types of public agencies around the state in using surveys to help them develop a statistically reliable understanding of the communities and the customers that they serve. Uh, to date, my business partner and I working as a twoerson team have designed and conducted over 1500 research studies for public agencies. And about twothirds of the work that we're doing these days is what you call revenue measure feasibility studies like what we'll be talking about here tonight where uh the goal is to understand if it's feasible to move forward with some type of revenue measure and if it is feasible to understand how might you go about structuring that measure in a way that it's consistent with the type of measure that your community is interested in supporting. Um happy to say that we've um got a long successful track record of doing this with public agencies. to date of the measures that we've recommended go to ballot 93% have ultimately been approved by voters and we've uh helped our clients raise about 42 billion in voter approved measures around the state and so I mention that mainly because for context because as I go through uh tonight's presentation I may make reference to how the results we're seeing here in Pacific Grove compare to what we might normally see when we're do these type of uh studies for other cities uh and I just want you to have a sense from the experience base from which I'd be speaking Finally, um I welcome questions from council along the way or at the end, whichever is your preference, mayor. Okay, so on to the results here. Um I guess I need to share my screen here first. Sorry. Uh let me do that for you. All right, you got that big blue screen?

Yes.

Okay, great. So um so before we talk about the results, helpful to take a moment to review the purpose of the study as well as the methodology in terms of the purpose of the study. These uh revenue measure studies are designed to really address the three bullets that you see here on the slide. The first is to answer that basic question of is it feasible? And what I mean by that is if you as a council were to choose to place a measure on the November ballot, does it have a reasonable chance of success? The answer to that question isn't always yes. Sometimes we do this work and when you get the data back, no matter how you stare at it, there's really no path to get you from where you are today to where you need to be to be viable on election day. And if that's the case, I'll be the first person to tell you that. I find that, you know, I think it's the last thing council wants or uh staff want or even the community wants is to invest in a process like this that ultimately doesn't have a reasonable shot at success. When we do find that there's feasibility, that second bullet kicks in gear. Uh what we're trying to understand is how might you go about structuring this measure in a way that it's consistent with the type of measure that your community is interested in supporting. Uh there's a lot of components to a revenue uh measure. There's you know obviously the tax rate itself, how much is the the price tag so to speak, u how you intend to use the funds, what sort of accountability provisions are built in, etc., etc. So these are all decisions that ultimately need to be made before you as a council could place a measure on the ballot and the survey can help guide those decisions. And then finally, it's also an opportunity for us to understand the role that information plays in shaping voters's opinions uh about your measure and that in turn can help with future communications. Um so uh in terms of the methodology, we use the same methodology here that we always use when we're doing revenue measure feasibility studies. And the first question I always ask myself when you're sitting down to design a study like this is what election are we thinking this measure could be on? The reason for that is different elections have different turnouts and as you expand or shrink turnout, you will tend to get a somewhat different profile to the group of participating voters that

would ultimately decide the fate of a measure. And so in this case, we're looking ahead to that November 2026 general election that's coming up later this year. And the way we pull our samples is we ident we identify um among all registered voters within the community. Those who based on their registration date what elections they've participated in since that point as well as other demographics we expect are actually going to cast ballots in this gubanatorial general election in November. Once we've identified those likely November voters, we use a process called stratified and clustered random sampling. I can get into the details of that if you like, but suffice to say what it ensures is that both at the sampling stage as well as at the end of our data collection, we have a sample that is representative of that likely November universe on all the dimensions that we know tend to drive how voters behave when it comes to these types of tax measures. So the balance in our sample by age, gender, partisanship, household party type, where they live within the city, that balance matches the balance in the November universe. And that is one of the keys to making sure that this research is reliable. Um once we pulled our sample, we use three different recruiting methods. Email, text, and telephone. Uh the email and text invitations have a hyperlink that folks can click to come in and take the survey. Each one of those is unique to that respondent. That allows us to protect the integrity of the of the site so that only those folks who are ran randomly sampled could access it. They could complete it one time only. Um, folks had the opportunity to take this either by uh telephone with a with a professional interviewer or online, whichever was their preference. Um, we wound up completing 427 interviews as part of the survey. And with a random sample of 427, it allows you to estimate the opinions of all of your likely November voters with a certain margin of error due to sampling. In this case, that's plus or minus 4.6% at the 95% confidence level. So, what that means is we can be 95% confident that the results we'll talk about in tonight's presentation are within 4.6% of what we would have found had we

spoken with every one of the likely November uh voters in Pacific Grove. Okay, on to the results. So, we like to uh start out these surveys with some warm-up questions, get folks thinking about their community, kind of get them into the groove of taking the survey. The first of these was uh how they how oh sort of overall how they would rate the overall quality of life in Pacific Grove. Would they say it's excellent, good, fair, poor, very poor. As you can see here on the slide, uh you had about 46% who rated as excellent. Another 47% who rated as good. You combine those and the decimal points, you got 93% of your likely November voters rate the overall quality of life in the community as excellent or good. You had about 6% who said fair and you have less than 1% who said poor or very poor. I get to ask this question for a lot of cities around the state and I can tell you this is at the upper echelon of the quality of life ratings that we would see in most communities. So, this is also something that's usually um a good thing when it comes to the well there's usually a a pretty good correlation between the perceived quality of life in a community and a community's willingness to support these types of revenue measures because if they really like where they live and you have a measure that's designed to sort of maintain the quality of life you're you've grown accustomed to having. um those types of measures tend to uh bear u bode well when you're again you have a a group of voters who have a high opinion where they live. So after that question we went on to ask if the city government could change one thing to make Pacific Grove a better place to live now and in the future what change would you like to see? Uh this was asked in an open-ended way. Um what I mean by that is we didn't present them with that list of issues you see on the left side of the slide. we they could just tell us in their own words or type into the online uh survey uh whatever issues or improvements that came to mind. We went back and looked at those verbatim responses and then group them into the

categories you see here. So number one uh top of the list 11% can't think of anything. Right? And a little further down you see that about 4% said no changes are needed. Everything f everything is fine. So you had about 15% of voters who when you kind of hand them a a soap box and say step up on the soap box tell us one thing we can do to improve the quality of life in Pacific Grove and they're sort of stuck for an answer right that that in is in some ways is ideal. The other thing you notice about this slide is there isn't any single issue that specific issue that clocks more than 10% of responses. That's also generally a sign I have found of a city that's done a good job balancing your efforts, right? Because you you haven't neglected an area because if you neglect an area, I promise you it shows up on this slide. I was uh doing a a survey presentation for a city last night where their top issue was mentioned by 47.8% of people. So nearly, you know, half of every respondent top of mind without prompting would say the same thing. That tells you you've kind of got a burning problem in your community in that particular issue. So we don't see that here. Um among the specific things we do see mentioned it's about 10% mentioned they'd like to see more affordable housing. Uh 7% mentioned enforcing traffic laws. Uh 6% would like more sidewalks and on down. So after that last sort of the warm-up question was we asked them generally speaking are they satisfied or dissatisfied with the job the city of Pacific Grove is doing to provide city services? Because we are asking them to comment on the city's performance overall. we're not sort of zeroing in on streets and roads or parks or um public safety. Uh this can be thought of as an overall performance rating for the city. And as you can see here, you had 71% of respondents say that they were satisfied with the city's overall performance. You've got about 21% who were satisfied. The rest were unsure. Um I get to ask this question also for a lot of cities

around the state. And I can tell you that the upper upper level at this point um for top top performance is is high 80s. So about figure 87 88%. And I see it uh in the 40s for some cities. Right. In fact, I yeah I had one earlier today that was around 43%. So point in that is that if you're clocking seven out of 10 respondents saying they're satisfied with your performance, you're doing a solid job. Okay. So, after these warm-up questions, we get right down to business with what we call the initial ballot test. And the idea here is before we get any deeper into this interview and start talking more detail about how the funds from a successful M measure might be able to be spent or conveying arguments pro and con related to this proposal. We want to present to respondents a mockup of what we think that 75word ballot statement could look like and get their reaction. The initial ballot test is a really good gauge of where your voters are at on the natural with respect to this proposal because they haven't seen anything about this measure beyond what you see here on the slide. So you can see here that this measure is structured as what we call a general sales tax. Um it is to fund general city services such as the things you see here in the bullet. It's set at a rate of 38 cent uh and it provide about a million dollars annually for city services and has a duration of of 10 years. So that's the language we tested and here are the results. So at that initial ballot test we had 68% of likely November voters say that they would support this proposal. You had 24% who were opposed, the rest unsure. In the state of California, for a general sales tax measure to be approved, you need a simple majority, 50% plus one. So, we're sitting about 18 points north of the simple majority required for passage at the initial ballot test. Um, so after the initial ballot test, we get into what we call the projects and services section of the interview. And the goal here is really twofold. One is

we're now going to start to educate respondents more about what this proposal would accomplish. Up till this point, they only had that 75word ballot statement. We can only use about half of those words to describe how the funds could be spent. Here, we get to unpack it into all of these potential uses. And then that way, they're getting a better idea about the proposal. The other thing it allows us to do is understand all the ways you're considering spending the proceeds of this measure, should it be successful, how do voters feel about each of those potential uses, and which of these are ultimately their priorities. As you look down this list, one of the things that stands out is everything on this list is is popular, right? Even the lowest rated item here had better than twothirds of respondents say that they would favor spending some of the money on that item. But as you look down the list, it is kind of striking that, and we see this often, normally um we see that the response from the public sort of tends to fall into one of two camps or there's a a primary theme here. It's either public works or it's public safety, right? In your case, your residents are sort of leaning more into the public works side than the public safety side. All the top rated items there are all kind of public works items of one stretch or or of one stripe or another. Um, again, not that they don't care about public safety. They rate that really high as well. But again, it's usually the public safety stuff at the top then public works or the reverse. And in your case, it's the reverse. So, if you as a council were to choose to place a measure on an upcoming ballot in November, there's going to be an election cycle, right? And during that election cycle, there will be a lot of discussion and debate in the community about this proposal. You'll have some folks who will step up and advocate on behalf of this measure to their neighbors and friends, talk about all the reasons why it's needed and why they should vote yes. You might also get some critics who step up say it's a terrible idea, shouldn't be doing it, and here's why. For this survey to be a reliable gauge of the feasibility of general sales tax measure, we need to simulate that discussion and debate in the space

of the interview. So we have a good idea not only where are your voters on the natural, which was that initial ballot test, but what happens to their support for this proposal once they've heard positive arguments as well as once they've heard negative arguments. So you see here on this slide are the positive arguments we tested. Uh the nature of the question is supporters of the measure say blank. You insert a positive argument. Do you think this is a very convincing, somewhat convincing or not at all convincing reason to support the measure? Um, as you can see here, a lot of these positive arguments get traction. The ones towards the top are are usually a combination of either accountability arguments. You know, the idea that all the money stays local. If it's if voters approve this, they all the money stays local to fund essential services here in Pacific Grove. By law, it can't be taken away by the state or the county. Or talking about some of your infrastructure needs, right? The top one being about your storm drains being installed 50 years ago and are starting to fail. Uh measure provides the funding to help fix storm drains. And the third one down is just talks about the fact that you have a $21 million in unfunded infrastructure projects and maintenance needs that need to be completed over the next 10 years. And the longer you wait to deal with those things, the more expensive they become. Right? So we've got some good positive arguments here that resonate. So, at this point in the survey now, voters have heard more about your proposal than they did at that initial ballot test. We had a chance to talk in more detail about how the funds could be spent. We got to convey positive arguments. So, we circle to what we call the interim ballot test. We present that same 75word ballot statement, say, now that you've heard a bit more, where do you stand? As you can see here, support ticks up about a point. So, we're sitting now at 69% support uh at the interim ballot test. Um, which is a full 19 points north of the simple majority that's required for passage. And then we get to the negatives. And the idea behind the negatives is I want to pressure test voter support for your proposal by peppering respondents with a series of negative arguments. Right? The kind of arguments you would expect to

hear from a critic um if they came out and and opposed this measure. The reason for this is, you know, we always want to kind of be eyes wide open going into an election cycle. Should you get opposition? Should they be vocal and get their message out there? How might that impact voter support for your proposal? So, you can see here we tested a series of of negative arguments. Um, you've probably heard it uh that affordability is sort of the the flavor of the of the election cycle this time, right? and we expect that it's going to be is concerns about affordability and cost of living are going to be playing prominently in the 2026 election. So, we created some negatives that were going right at that, right? Uh top one there, Pacific Grove is an expensive place to live, especially for young families, seniors, and those on fixed incomes. Passing a tax is going to make it even less affordable, right? So, we're not shying away from the negatives. We're actually sharpening our knives here and trying to see how much support we can carve off your meshes off your measure by hitting them with these various negative arguments. And you can see some of these get some traction, right? So the real question though is what happens afterwards? And that is here. So after the negatives, uh, support cools down as you might expect. It goes down about six points from where we were at the interim ballot test. But it's instructive that even after opposition arguments, we're still landing at 63% support for this proposal. That is 13 points north of the simple majority required for passage. Okay. So, um, couple wrap-up slides here. So, what does all this mean? Um, I'm going to circle back first to that overarching question I mentioned at the outset as being the main motivator for why you do this research, which is to answer that basic question of is it feasible? If you as a council were to choose to put this measure on the November ballot, does it have a reasonable chance of success? I think the answer based on this data is clearly yes, right? For all the reasons you see there under the positive signs, right? We saw that voters have an exceptionally

high opinion of the quality of life in the city and they value the the services that they re receive from the city, but they also do see some room for improvement. Those sentiments translated into really solid natural support for this proposal right out of the gates with just the 75word ballot statement. We had 68% of voters say they would support this measure. When we tested various projects and services that could be funded voters um those were popular with voters. We have positive arguments that resonate. And most importantly, at each point in the survey where we circled back and we presented that same 75word ballot statement and said, "Now that you've heard a bit more, where do you stand?" Each one of those ballot tests were well above the simple majority that's required for passage of a general tax. So when we see those pieces in place, those are the kind of pieces that we want to see in place for a measure to have a good shot at being successful on election day. Now having said that there are also a few challenges and unknowns that we should you know keep in mind as you think about moving forward with a measure. On the challenges side some of these come out of the survey itself. Some of these are sort of stepping back and thinking about what a 2026 election cycle is going to look like. So we did see that there was some receptiveness to those opposition arguments. Right? Uh they cooled us down about six points. We also know that we're going to be headed into what is yet another hyperpartisan election. Right? And what we have found in I've been doing this for 20 plus years and the last 10 years are very different than the the prior uh period of my career when it comes to the role that partisanship plays in driving how people behave on these types of measures. What we've tended to see is as you get closer to election day and the campaign drum beats get louder, the partisan appeals get stronger, you tend to see that we do see a little bit of a drifting apart between say Democrats and Republicans on lots of local issues. Tax measures can be one of them. And so we just want to keep that in mind. Um, and then thirdly,

there's all these things that are I've labeled as unknowns but with the un in parenthesis. And the reason for that is to some degree we already know about all these things, right? We know about tariffs, we know about inflation, we know about uh concerns that people would have about the economy. We don't know is what's going to happen in the next six months, right? It seems like there's a new shoe dropping every other week. Um, right? things are a little volatile in our in our economy as well as our uh political situation and you know these things can create headwinds for a measure later on depending on what happens with the economy depending on what happens with inflation. I mention all these challenges unknowns not because they create insurmountable obstacles for your proposal. I think you have the kind of numbers here and a proposal that can withstand this. But that's important, right? Anytime you put a measure on the ballot, you want to put a measure up there that has the strength to withstand some headwinds should some of these other external factors, um, you know, go in a direction that, you know, isn't favorable. Um, you never want to put a measure on the ballot where you're throwing the Hail Mary, right? You're just crossing your fingers that you're going to get blue skies and tailwinds all the way to election day because that just probably isn't going to happen. And so um I think you have the kind of measure again that can withstand it. Your numbers are really solid. But it's important to keep these things in mind. Now um last slide here. So with that I've got a few observations and recommendations. The first observation is it's important to keep in mind that a survey like this is a snapshot in time. It is not a crystal ball. Right? It is not looking forward to election day saying you're going to get 68% on election day. It's telling us where your voters are today on the natural. Right? It tells us how they react to the types of information we would expect them to encounter during the election cycle, but ultimately what happens on election day isn't dictated by what your poll says today. It's dictated by everything that happens from this point forward. And so it's just a a nice reminder that we need to make smart decisions about the

measure that you put in front of voters so that it reflects their priorities uh and is cognizant of their concerns. And you got to put the work in in terms of communications. And that really takes two paths. Um there's communications that you as a city and a public agency can and should do to sort of start a conversation with your community about what your needs are, what your infrastructure needs are, what your public safety needs are, and how this measure is that you're considering could be um a solution to those. But you as a city cannot advocate, right? You can't tell folks to vote yes or vote no. um you're simply providing information to help them come to a well-informed decision. There would also separate from the city private dollars, private uh time would have to be an independent campaign that actually could advocate for this measure during the election cycle if you choose to place a measure on the ballot. So with that, um I end my presentation. I I certainly welcome questions from council if there are any.

Thank you, Dr. McLaren. Appreciate you making that nice presentation. and we're going to actually take out to the public at this time. Check on any public comment. I do have a couple of hands online, Mayor. Okay. Carl Lindstöm, I was just curious if the voter um resolution that the voters have gathered enough signatures, that being on the ballot, if you've taken that into consideration. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Mayor, city council members and staff, since my letter to council and mayor and staff sent on Sunday does not seem to be included in publishing in this agenda item for this meeting. Um, I will read it so the public can easily hear it as my public comment. The city has already expended $53,150 for a scientific survey of a few resident voters. I was one of them and I was not impressed. We have done better in-house surveys in previous years at much less expense. Does staff really think that spending $88,380 more to this consultant to try to cram a ballot measure down our throats is a fiscally prudent way to expend taxpayer dollars? Does council really think that spending another $88,380 is going to change any voters's mind? It just might backfire on you. The survey consultants came to their self-serving conclusion that Pacific Grove needs their services to pass a sales tax increase at the next general election. We already retain the services of a city attorney who should be capable of creating a ballot measure, although one of our previous city attorneys didn't manage the last tax increase measure very well. and had to do another to correct his mistakes. A very costly delay. You can see from the survey the Pacific Row

voters are split. No surprise here. I would suggest to you that you terminate the contract with props and measures true north. Save some money and have staff continue forward with a ballot measure. It looks like you have majority support to pass from the scientific survey of $53,000 spending and you know it's not going to pull this city out of debt. A sales tax measure only more prudent spending and living within our means, not creating more debt will accomplish that goal. Give us voters some credit. We love our city. The pricing is broken down by phase and the city can stop work at any time and not expend further taxpayer funds if that is desired. The first phase, we do not need to spend this $88,3680 more to do a ballot measure. We have or should have the capacity to do this inhouse. you have from this survey that's already spent.

Thank you. Thank you. That's it. Thank you. Is there anyone else online? No further hands. Mayor,

thank you very much. We'll close public comment, bring it back to the council for action. I'm going to make a few comments first. Um I I really think listening to this presentation tonight was very e an excellent presentation. Very well done. Uh it was super scientific. uh it was not it was a large majority uh in favor of the tax and the way they I think the way that they um went about doing it was was extremely uh was great and obviously these people are experts. Um so for tonight I want to keep the discussion focused because we have a lot of things on the agenda and and these are relatively long items. Uh recommendation number two is what we're looking at. We've done number one. We've received a presentation which was excellent as I pointed out and as we all know uh based on watching it and so tonight we're just looking at recommendation to authorize staff and the consultant team to proceed with phases two and three of the approved and reauthorized scope of work. And Mr. Morgensson, is that accurate what this recommending?

That's accurate, Mr. Mayor. Okay. So that would be assist the staff with communicating the city's fiscal needs to address resident expectations and basic infrastructure needs. Is that correct? as stated in the report. Yes, Mr. Mayor. Okay. So, given that backdrop, all council members, if you have questions of the uh presenter or comments. Council member Brown, my question is for Mr. Mogensson, can you just briefly go through the cost of phase one, two, and three just so that we where we are and where we're going?

Council member, yes, we can. So, um, through phase one so far, I can report that, um, we have spent $48,150. So, that took us through tonight, what you've witnessed. Um, the the next phase, if you will, which is a would be a combination of two and three, but it really is just one work product. uh would be another four months of the consulting fees plus um potentially one mailer and and that would uh be a grand total of $36,730 should we continue on with this effort. Um we think that that's reasonable in terms of what it will take to get us to the end of June when you would vote whether or not to put on the ballot. Um, but I also note that overall then the total cost for this this effort would be $84,880 which is about 56,000 less than the original not to exceed contract.

That was 56,000 less less. Yes.

Okay. So, I'm just going to just summarize that because I think there's a misunderstanding out in the public. We we were looking at 140, now we're looking at 88 84. Is that correct? That's correct, Mr. Mayor. So, just that the original contract was always set up as a not to exceed kind of menu of options. As we've gone through this, we've kind of whittleled that down and this is what we believe is the final product, you know. Great. Um, Council Member McDonald, you did you I'm sorry, you had your hand up, right? I did. Yeah. Okay. And we'll go over you. Sorry about that.

Um, and just to confirm, the next stage is not just writing a ballot measure. The next stage is really I I kind of understand it as a transparency thing with the public. It's the opportunity for more education and input from the public so we better understand what their needs, what their goals are, what's important to them so that we can make sure that whatever ballot measure should we decide to proceed actually reflects the goals and needs of the community. Correct.

I I that's I believe you characterize that correctly. So the next stage will be a series of meetings um presentations talking to the community and helping them understand more of the issues that we're faced with in our longtime fiscal sustainability issues. And it's also I think sets the groundwork. It's a great investment for our future. So this conversation doesn't end with the ballot measure. This is bringing the community into the the fold of what's happening behind the scenes and help them understand some of these long-term needs. A and for that reason, I appreciate it because for a small additional cost, it brings in the actual part where it brings in more of that overall community involvement because we're here to represent the community. We're looking at what are the things that we can do that best support the needs of our community. Um maybe further enhance how highly the the citizens value our community. Um, and so to me, that small initial additional investment for potentially raising a large amount of money to meet more of our needs is a good thing. And the one thing I think that's not clear in a lot of people's minds is we're asking for that 38 of a cent cent increase because that's what's kind of left on the table and we're looking to pull that in now so we can keep that money local versus somebody else taking up that portion of tax which then goes to an outside entity. Is that correct?

That'd be correct as well. It is potentially um possible that somebody else, another agency within the county could try and absorb this money themsel that could then be spent other places in the county. This would keep it here in Pacific Grove. So, so I kind of see it as a way what can we do to make sure we're meeting our citizens needs and really making sure of that small extra amount that there's the capacity for really does help further what supports um making our community continue to be great. Thanks. Thank you. Council member Garfield.

Thank you. I have a question for uh Dr. McClernney. Um will the participants that helped with the survey uh be communicated with to tell them what the final result is of the survey? Because that's 400 some odd people in the city that might not have been tuned in um participated and we thank them. But are we going to tell them what the end result was?

Yeah. So obviously there's a confidentiality issue where we don't release the names of people everyone who has you know is given that guarantee of confidentiality when they're participating and on their answers. That said what we typically see with cities if they want to broadcast this is you know we can you can put this up on a website you can make the data available as a city um and so for those who had taken the survey and were interested to follow up on the issue it's there and available.

Okay. Um, you've put your finger on one of our constant challenges is how do we speak to uh people in the community and we find over and over again that something comes up that's slightly controversial and people have no idea um what's been going on in the background and they're very surprised, shocked, appalled, elated, whatever, but it's it's not on their radar to spend time searching. So I

appreciate the um plan to do more outreach. It will something will teach us better and engage the community on an issue that's very important to everybody. So I support this because it's an opportunity for us to be more revealing, more educational, more engaged with the community and vice versa. Um so learning from experts It's a great opportunity for all of us, I think.

Yeah, I would just say that the survey itself, you want to think of this as the beginning of the conversation, not the end of the conversation. Right. And that's sort of what the next phase is is sort of now we're going to widen this beyond the 427 people that we spoke to as part of the survey. Now you get to engage the entire community. Thank you very much. A lot of positives there. Um, Council Member Buri.

Yes. Uh thank you mayor uh and thank you Mr. McLaren for the presentation. Appreciate it. U to me this sounds like a logical next step for noting how the survey went. Um phases two and three. Uh also noting the fact that uh um the survey itself points out that there's a lot of infrastructure or I would say public works related gaps uh that that we need to address which are all costly. Uh and so we need to find a way to kind of keep the momentum going and the revenue coming in. So, so I'm supportive. Uh, I just had a question for Mr. McCclar. Um, the obviously there's 427 voters and I just wanted you to comment on like uh that's 427 voters, right? It's not just 427 folks and then uh it is it like uh I think two things related things. Is it like representative of the like the Pacific Grove demographics? So, we have some unique demographics. So, wanted to make sure that it was representative of that. Uh and then just a comment from you if you can like is that the for a city like Pacific Grove and and with your organization generally that's is that where the mark is with respect to like a sample like our voter base is about 10,000. So this looks like about 5%. Is that where where you're leaning towards?

Sorry I muted myself. Um let me let me I wrote a couple notes here. Let me respond. So the survey itself is as I mentioned at the outset we we are because we're thinking about the potential feasibility of a revenue measure. We want to think about who are the voters that are going to decide the fate of that measure. Right? It's not all voters, right? And there's voters who might uh like u participate in a presidential election that won't participate in a ginatorial election. Right? So, we want to identify those voters that based on when they register to vote, what elections they've participated in since that point and some other demographics we anticipate are actually going to be casting ballots in November because that's the group of people that would decide the fate of this measure should you as a council choose to put one on the ballot. So, we identified all those likely voters. I use that stratified and clustered random sampling method. What that essentially does is breaks down your voter file by all the key demographics that we know tend to shape how voters behave on these tax measures. So we break it by age, gender, partisanship, and household party type and geography. Household party type is the big one, right, in today's world. And what that is is if I know somebody's a Democrat, for example, it tells me something about how I might expect them to vote on this measure. knowing that they live with another Democrat actually tells me a lot more because what you find is that that household dynamic really shapes how people behave. And so if you share the partisanship of the people you live with, when you talk politics, you tend to reinforce each other, right? So Democrats who live with other Democrats, they're your most liberal, right? Republicans who live with other Republicans, they are your most conservative. And if you live in a mixed household, God help you. What do you do? you fight about politics and the act of fighting about politics actually moderates your behavior. You tend to be more in the middle and so we pay a lot of attention to household party type as well as other those demographics. We then build clusters that are

multi-dimensional profiles. And so if I know that 5% of your likely November electorate are Democratic females who live with another Democrat or between 40 and 50 years of age, live in a particular part of the city, I make sure that 5% of my clusters match that profile. Then we randomly select people into their clusters. And then and the reason why this really works well is because if I'm trying to reach somebody who's got a certain profile and I can't, right, we don't get to them, we can replace them with somebody who shares the same profile. And it's that profile that is so predictive of how people tend to behave on these tax measures that allows this this approach even in an age where we're not going to reach everybody and not everyone's going to agree to take this survey and we only have 127 interviews. Nevertheless, highly highly predictive of what we would find if you went out and talked with all of your voters. In terms of your total likely voter sample size or universe, you have 8,520 individuals that we flagged as likely November voters. We have a sample here 427. That gives you as I mentioned that margin of error of about plus or minus uh 4.6%. That is actually as a percentage of the total electorate higher than we would normally do in a community because the neat thing about inferial statistics is it's not how many people you talk to as it is how you choose the people that you talk to that allows you to extrapolate from this what is a admittedly small sample size compared to the total universe of people and still know within a certain margin of error um you know what uh what they would think and so um I had set out to hear I think I'd actually set out and I think my I'd set the goal at 250 because being a small and affluent community sometimes those are the toughest survey uh communities to survey and so we had contract to do 250. I walked back in the door with 427 because your community was willing to talk at a higher rate than I thought they would. So, um I think it's a you

know for your for your community size it's great. It's also worth noting that population size doesn't really matter much in terms of your margins of error. I could take 400 interviews and interview in the city of San Jose, which has a million people, right? And have a margin of error that was pretty close to what we're seeing here in Pacific Grove with the same sample size. So, population size doesn't matter so much. It's your sample size plus um the uh the way in which you pull them in a random manner. That was probably a longer answer than you wanted, but I apologize. Uh no it it was actually a great answer and thank you for uh sharing the science behind uh what what what is going on with the demographic the sampling also the family dynamics. So appreciate it and uh I'm supportive of this. Thank you.

Thank you. Yeah, it's uh I did little what everybody else said, but I think this is common sense that we're going to do the best for Pacific Grove. And I'm ready to make a motion to authorize the staff on the consulting team to proceed with phases two and three of the previous approved in the reauthorized scope of work. Do I have a second? All right, we have a motion by Neil, second by Garfield. We'll take a roll call vote unless there's any further discussion. Thank you. Go ahead. Mayor Brent Millio. Council member Garfield. I.

Council member Israel. I. McDonald. I. Mayor Smith. I. Motion carries 601 with council member Watkins absent. Thank you, Dr. Matan. We appreciate the report. Great job. Thank you so much. Thank you. Have a great night. All right, we're going to go back to item 11A. This is the ordinance to amend section 16.52.02 speed zones of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code. And I'll recognize our public works director, Daniel Go.

Thank you, your honor. Members of the city council, I have a quick presentation. It seems to be stuck. Okay. Okay. Very good. Tonight I'm here to present the speed zones uh for the city of Pacific Grove. Little bit of history here. Okay. Speed surveys are required to be updated every seven years, but they can be extended to 10 years. I'm going to give you this background because this is something we don't see or do very often. Um, so they can be extended to 10 years. We have extended our current speed zones um till March of this current year. We're actually in 10 in year 10 of our current zones. Um the evaluation is completed based on engineering and traffic surveys. Speed limits can be adjusted to the nearest 5 mph interval of the 85th percentile speed. So we evaluate speeds on the prescribed uh road segments and then we can adjust five miles an hour one way or the other. Uh the surveys consider road alignments, pavement widths and physical characterist characteristics of the roadways. Um the city must have these speed zones certif certifications on file with the traffic courts to validate the use of radar by the police department. Hence why we're doing them. So, what are our major changes today versus the code that you're looking at? Um, so what we would like to do is we're going to make some changes in the code. We per your guidance, we would like to adjust 17 mile drive from Sunset Highway 68 to Lighthouse from 30 miles an hour

to 25. We would like to adjust Juwel Avenue from Pacific to 17 mile drive from 30 miles an hour to 25 miles per hour. Patterson Lane from Funston to David 30 to 25. Forest Avenue from Laurel to Lighthouse. So right here to Lighthouse 25 to 15. And then we're combining numerous roadway segments just so there's consistency when the police department is trying to enforce um the radar and that those combinations are noted in the staff report. So what are the next steps? I took this to the traffic commission at the February um meeting and they agreed with the recommendations. I'm bringing it forward today to city council. It needs two reads of the ordinance to be approved. So, your second read of the ordinance would be the 1 of April. Then we have 30 days and we'll send it to the courts. In the meantime, we'll send that to the courts and get that all processed. Um, and then public works will go through, we'll update the signs and make any of the changes to the road markings. Minimal expense to do that, probably less than $5,000. All can be achieved within our operation budgets. So again, the recommendation today is introduce and hold a first reading of the ordinance to amend section 16.52.020, 020 would specify the speed zones um of our municipal code and that concludes my presentation.

Um thank you Mr. G. So right now can we go out to the public and see if there's anyone wanting to comment on this? Okay, come on up. Yeah, you've been waiting here. How you doing? All right, anyone online? S I do not see any hands online.

Okay, go ahead, ma'am. Hi, I'm Gene Haskell and I've lived here since 2014 and I love living here. But I have to tell you, I try to walk early in the morning on Lighthouse. People are going 40 to 45 miles an hour at 6 to 7 to 8 a.m. in the morning. And so the idea to change the speeds anywhere lower seems somewhat ludicrous because we don't enforce the current speed limits. So, I'm not really addressing the motion. I'm just telling you it's not working. I mean, and I know a lot of people who walk their dogs in those times. And I mean, and it's not tourists. It's people in pickup trucks and sedans and they are speeding at ridiculous rates in the morning. And I don't blame our police. I know they're doing the best they can and I know we have, you know, they're trying, but you can make all the changes in the world, but if you don't enforce existing laws, what are you teaching the residents of the community?

Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else, Sandra? Uh, no hands raised online. All right, we'll go ahead and close public comment. I'm going to come back to council member. I do have one just want to say one thing about this. Uh, you know, we get a lot of speed complaints in our emails. So, um, I think this is probably a step in the right direction. We're not getting people saying we need to speed up. So, you know, the surveys are probably right and um, so I'm going to be supportive of the item tonight. Go ahead, Council Member Bro.

Yeah, I have one question and concern. Uh, number four, Central Avenue, Early Avenue to Forest Avenue, that combined corridor and I understand combining corridors when it's like for like on a particular traffic pattern or speed. But the corridor on Central from Early to Second is not the same kind of street as it is from Third Street to Forest. And when you look at a median lane in the middle where people are uh double parking so that they can deliver packages, you look at the four different uh animal service businesses. You look at the people coming to and from the aquarium, walking to First Awakenings, all of those things. I mean, in my mind, I think you look at this and say that you should maintain early to second or third at 15 miles an hour and then have it go to 25 miles an hour to forest. So, I have a real concern about the Central Avenue um speed limit and the combining of the uh the corridors and I'd like to know, Mr. Go, I mean, what was the conversation around that? And I mean, is there an opportunity to to take another look at this?

Council member R. There's always an opportunity to take a look at it. Um, the previous speed limits that were set in 2006 had Central Avenue at 25 miles an hour and the current speed has Central Avenue at 25 miles an hour. Um, we did the evaluations back in 2006 and also recently and Central Avenue is not worded at 15 miles an hour. Unfortunately, we've got average speeds of 28 and 29 miles an hour through the whole corridor and we can't adjust. We could adjust, but then that roadway is not going to be enforcable. If we were to take it to 15, we can. Here's how it works. So we have 28 and 29 miles an hour. You can adjust it to what you do is you take it to your next closest 5 mph increment. So that would then set Central Avenue at 30 m an hour. But then you could adjust one way or the other based on conditions and what you're experiencing. So then we know that we want to adjust Central Avenue down to 25 miles an hour. We can't adjust it to 15 and have it be enforcable. That would be considered a speed trap, right? So then if you were to write a ticket at that 15 miles an hour, it wouldn't be upheld in the court of law. So with that being said, we also need to think of the being having that like consistent speed going from Lighthouse Avenue and Monterey into Pacific Grove. If that's 25 mph and we drop down to 15 and we don't have the documentation to support that 15 mph, it's just thrown out in courts. So yes, I understand the concern with the

speeding, but we have to base our decisions on setting speed limits on engineering and observations.

So I understand all of that. I'm just saying that the the methodology is a little from the person that's on the outside looking in or online looking this way. It it seems a little ludicrous, but I get it. But I'm just saying that I mean it doesn't take a, you know, an engineering degree to look at that central quarter and know that it's dangerous. It's dangerous for pedestrians. It's dangerous for people walking their dogs and I just want to be on record as saying I think it's problematic and I'll support it because of that. But I think that you know that's another area where we need to ramp up some kind of enforcement whether it's putting up you know solar powered you know signs that you know highlight the speed limit or you know additional painting or whatever it takes. But um there's a I mean there's a real concern as you're driving down that I won't I won't go past 15 just because I I think it's super dangerous. So anyway, I'm sorry for the people behind me on Central Avenue. I apologize for not driving the speed limit and I I don't want a ticket for going too slow.

That's taken. You know, so we're bounded by laws uh state laws and things like that. unfortunately that we're going to keep us from changing that that particular area. Um, Council Member Garfield,

thank you, your honor. Um, I I appreciate the sort of smoothing that you've done with some of these where um as people are driving along, they don't have to guess what the speed limit is, if the conditions are the same, um, if the roadway is the same, you're combining corridors. Um, so that so it's predictable for those driving. As an aside question on um not my car, but my husband's car, the speed limit for where we are shows up on his CarPlay. How does that happen? I know it's magic, but but what what makes it possible? Because the more cars we have like that, the better people will be informed as they drive along. Is it is it magic or is there something else?

I do not know how to answer that question. I I really don't I think that maybe it's it's all done by GPS and yeah, but I would not go by the speed limits that are noted in your cars because that sometimes they are incorrect. I've noticed that on my vehicles and so Oh, so not observation.

But my real question is um enforcement. So, as Miss Haskell pointed out, it's we can tell anybody what they can be on their car on their their car play. It can be on a sign, but if we're getting people not obeying it and we're not enforcing it, all we're doing is saying it doesn't matter. So, can you tell us what where we stand with the signs that say your speed is

when the new fiscal budget rolls around in July? We anticipate purchasing a few of those through the public works operations budgets and then we'll let the traffic commission decide where they would want to place them and I have heard the city council today may be requesting one on Central Avenue as we enter town. So that could be a very great location. And those are movable, right? So you can have it in one place for a while and then move it to another place. No, we were anticipating getting ones that were permanently affixed into some locations where the police department already has a few that are movable that they move around through town.

Where are those? Uh I've been seeing one on Sunset Avenue by the church for the last week. Okay. And they they come on a trailer. You you haul the trailer in. You can put it someplace. That's correct. and the police department moves those periodically throughout town based on their observations and perhaps they've heard a couple spots they might want to highlight tonight. Um, okay. Thank you. I think this is an, you know, we do this every 10 years. We learn things, we make accommodations, but um, we really need to educate people and then enforce. So,

thank you. Um, I'm going to go ahead and move recommendations one and two, but I'll have discussion comments. Um, mayor proto have a second to that motion. Well, I'll have a second that nation do um uh I'm familiar with the the CDC code regarding engineering traffic survey. I'm very familiar with that. So, uh it hasn't changed for quite a I'll second that emotion. Mayor, thank you very much. Any further discussion? Yes. All right. Seeing none, take a roll call vote. Thank you, Mayor Smith. Yes. May promilio. Yes. Garzfield. Hi. McDonald. Hi. Haduri.

Hi. And Ralph. Hi. Motion carries. 601. Council member Walking Stick absent. Thank you very much, Mr. Go. Appreciate the work. glad that we're taking some action here and we obviously enforcement is going to be critical to the success of this uh of this endeavor. So, we'll go ahead and go on to item 12b uh ownership analysis and compliance for cannabis business license applications and my colleague Council Member Puri will present from the Zoom platform.

Yes. Uh thank you. Thank you all and uh uh sorry for not being there in person for my own item. Um, thank you all. Um, the I did I don't have a presentation per se, uh, but but I just want to at least reiterate a couple of things, but which is that, uh, we're we're somewhat in a pivotal moment for the cannabis licensing process. Uh, and this this agenda item is to just ensure that we're the processes, uh, fair and and legally sound. So, so as the agenda item stated there, we received 10 applications. uh they were for just two two of the locations. Two locations had 10 applications essentially. Uh and so there's a concentration so to speak uh at one location which is the 1157 Forest Avenue. Um so really the intent of this agenda item is to make sure we we take a closer look at uh who's uh who like who's actually behind the submissions. Uh and so the agenda item states that uh we we proceed with a formal u documented ownership analysis uh before we actually conduct the lottery. Um so the the whole reason for the lottery uh to I would say I've been through the process the whole reason for the lottery to exist is to really make this competitive uh and not just uh make it a lottery by volume. So, so I just want to make sure that everything is sound and the other side of me is also to just ensure the fact that uh we want to if any problems are discovered, we rather correct them now rather than doing it later, which could be more disruptive, so to speak. Um so, and the intent of this agenda item is to also uh return the the the findings as as stated with some scope for for the staff to to review by by the end of April. uh which will give us some all of us like some confidence on on how to move forward with this. So and therefore

suggest uh the third action of this item is really to pause the lottery so that we complete the other two action items uh in order for us to to make a a more informed uh I would say vote uh towards the lottery process. So that's my little spiel there. Uh but happy to take any questions. I'm actually I'm going to ask you one clarifying question. Um as to the recommendation number two. Uh it says to direct staff to return to council with written findings and recommendations. What what what is the scope of those uh findings and recommendations that you would like council to return or staff to return with?

So I I think the it's borrow the agenda item, right? So it's uh the scope would be the I mean the the intent really the basis for that is to find out whether any of the application share common ownership or not. Uh and so if the the when I say direct staff to return to council with written findings and recommendations, my intent is to adhere to the the points which were described in the agenda item uh which are in the bulleted uh below. And uh those are what came to me as what we can do to make a decision. But if staff has other kind of items to add to that analysis, I'm open to that too. And then finally, I just wanted to mention that um I I I my understanding and this this may be off, but my understanding is we can we can also have the staff request the the Department of Cannabis to review the process to see whether common ownership or items like this matter or not. So if that is feasible and possible, I would like to suggest the staff undertake that action too. Okay. So, I'm just going to summarize. I think what you're saying with number two is written findings and recommendations basically to conduct a formal ownership and control analysis as you put in number one and also to take a look at your bullet points there too as potentially to that.

Correct. Okay. Excellent. Thank you very much. Is that does that conclude your report? Yes. All right. And we'll go ahead and take it out to the public. Thank you, Mayor. Carl Lindstrom, you have the floor. As Mr. Buri correctly states, Mr. Lindstrom, I believe we spoke to this item previously. Not directly. I mean, in generally, but not directly to the ownership issue, which is what I'm just trying to speak to.

I believe did actually direct, but we'll work for the city attorney. Do you What would be your recommendation? the prior comments were more broadly to the whole licensing scheme although it did include ownership conver you know points regarding that it's up to your honor whether or not you you view that as having spoken to this but because it is a new public comment period I think that the safer bet is just to allow okay we'll go ahead and allow Mr. Winston go ahead I just want

I just wanted to go back to the issue under 23.92.020 020 under the relationship that city staff should have never stated that there is not an issue in regards to the ordinance because there's a conflict. It's specifically stated under medical cannabis and adult use regulation safety act which really there needs to be some sort of review of ownership standards which there hasn't been and I really want to go back to the EIN issue because obviously seven of the organizations if they had been background checked they'd know they don't have any yet. So, thank you for your time and that should have been part of the basic background information that the cannabis consultant had looked into in basic discovery to do due diligence. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Lawrence Turner. Thank you, Mayor and Council. Well, you know that uh I have never been impressed with HDL, but this one is I see this and mind you, I support Padur's stuff here, but I see it as a major CYA for the city to make absolutely sure about litigation and uh fairness because obviously this is not fair as far as stacking permits. So this is a very interesting process but yeah I think it's one that's needed. Thank you.

Thank you. No but the hands are raised.

Go ahead and bring it back to the council and recognize council member row. Um, you know, the the only thing that I've heard from the community on the canvas piece, from people that have spoken to me, is the frustration of why this takes so long. They've been waiting for years for this to get up and running. And it's the number one issue when somebody brings cannabis up to me. uh it has withtood multiple legal reviews from multiple different uh legal firms. Um we're down the road on this process and I think the time to bring this up was you know probably whoever wrote the original ordinance uh should have anticipated some of these issues coming up. Um but I'm thinking about the fiscal issues, the refunds of all of the money that are going to have to go back. I'm thinking about the more delays um and you know before there's even somebody's complaining about the rules of the game before we even draw the the the TIG the ticket. So you know if if the one wins and there's a one out of 10 chance that you could this would all just be for not. So, um, did we speak with the Mr. Morgansson, did we speak with the state board of cannabis, council moral? Um, I believe we talked a little bit about at the previous council meeting that we were contacted by an attorney. Uh, the city attorney was contacted and maybe I'll let him speak to it. So,

yeah, we were contacted by general counsel for the state department that regulates cannabis. The nature of the call was inquiry into the lottery system that happened. Once we explained what happened, the hourlong Zoom meeting lasted about 10 minutes and that was that. And the state board did not have a concern. Is that my understanding? That's correct.

So, um I just I I think this sounds a little bit kind of like sour grapes. It's like one of those don't hate the player, hate the game kind of situations. So, um, from my perspective, I think this is is adding more time, more money, money back, and we're going to end up probably back right where we started. So, I'm in favor of any more delays for this, and I'll be voting no. Council Garfield, did you have your hand up or not? I do. Okay. have a

so this has been a very confusing um issue for me um and I and I wonder if we can get some clarity on what is actually being asserted about this um and my belief is my understanding is is that there are the definition of owner is clearly defined that we are following that um I think uh as far as I can Well, um there are existing use permits, existing enforcement that that are referenced in in the ordinance that I looked at. Um, and my biggest question is if we change the definition of ownership to be more restrictive and have an additional requirement for those who are who applied, are we changing the terms of the application process to the point where we're just sw bait and switch, which would lead us to have, I think, more vulnerability to lawsuits that for adding at the last minute a new consideration or a new um requirement. Um that concerns me that that if you say, "Oh, we're getting to the lottery period, but now we're going to change this and so um seven of you can't apply because you don't fit some new requirement." We give their money back. Well, do we have the money to give back to them? um what are the consequences for that? What are the legal ramifications of of changing this at the last minute? And so I'm if I'm going to frame this as a question for our city attorney, it would be if we change requirements at the last

minute, what are the legal consequences? Doing so would subject the city to a challenge that the process you know that the applicants um you know what you said is that the rules changed at the last minute. Generally less risk would be associated with either if that was the case either starting starting a new um there would be less risk to the city. So in other words, if you wanted a change in definition, the the less risky option would be to start at the beginning rather than try change the definition after the applications are in and midstream. Thank you.

Thank you for the explanation, Council Member McDonald. She was just that first.

Thank you, mayor. Um, and I sort of understand this concern a little bit differently. So, the way I see it is not that we're asking to change the definition of ownership, but they're really asking to clarify the definition of ownership. So because we're sort of adopting or did adopt the same um definition of ownership that the state board did which does say is there any management oversight which implies a sort of connection that's the thing that I don't feel has been fully addressed. Yes, they are multiple different applications and yes, they may have a separate ownership listed, but because in our ordinance we did say and use that definition, it does imply that if they have a common oversight, multiple of them, then that should potentially cost constitute ownership. So, I see this item as being more about trying to really define are we following our own definition of ownership as it was put forward because that hasn't fully been addressed. Um, one of the callers mentioned that multiple ones may actually not have separate EIN. If that is part of what constitutes ownership, then I think that's really important for us to know before we proceed because we're only asking in this item for a very slight extension of less than a month probably if we have this information back by the 30th. It could easily be heard um in have the drawing in April in I'm sorry um yeah, April instead of March. So um or I sorry my brain is like mixing up the dates but um so we would only delay instead of April 30th to potentially miday. Um so we're talking about maybe two extra weeks and I think that as stewards of what the community wants. What I'm hearing from

people is the process doesn't seem fair anymore. They thought we would be vetting the people who come in. We would have distinct entities applying. And I'm hearing that people don't feel that's what's happened here. and they feel that it's not a fair process. So I see this as being something prudent just to take an extra couple of weeks to make sure that we are ensuring that it meets the definition to protect us from challenges later and so that the public feels that we've taken the time to make sure it's a fair process. So for that reason I support the recommendations in the agenda item. Thank you. Um, may I protect the mic?

I was going to say um this process of the cannabis has been going on for several years. It started off with the election in uh my first term as a city council in the city uh agreed at 64% I believe it was to have cannabis um on in city of Pacific Grove. So this has been several years. I uh agree uh with uh council member uh Lori here. Uh I agree with you what you've said. I I truly believe we need to because I have heard different that we need to take a pause by this. In fact, I won't mention any names, but um I even got some Texas uh city that other people have asked me about this and I think to make it clear and transparent, we should put a pause on this. I mean, we've waited for so long now. I agree with uh M uh Council Member Badur's recommendation. That's my where I'm at.

Thank you, Council Barrow. Mr. Morgensson, can you get this done in a in a month? you've got basically five weeks to be back by and that's not even true because it's going to be longer than that because we don't have a council meeting after the 15th. So council I think yeah if we were to deliver by the end of April actually would be March um I guess 6 or something

May. I'm sorry. Um, in terms of your question about could we deliver this, you know, I'm gonna look at some of my colleagues and I I believe this is not that large of an exercise. Um, you know, we we've issued memos on the same topic a couple times now. So, it's more probably of charting it differently or showing a different picture, but um I don't think the analysis is going to be very different. Council Garfield.

Yeah, thank you. Um, so just following the sequence of events in May, we hear back that there's that the ownership definition keeps all the same people in it. They're more like franchises than shared ownership and so they can all go ahead with their application and we just have made the delay. My concern is when we've changed the ownership definition, which disqualifies some of the people who previously have been qualified by our processes. Um, and I don't know if there are any of those. I don't know how many of them there might be, but that is my concern. Um, and it does seem like we're uh instigating a change of rules that will impact some of these applicants and I think they'll have something to say about it.

Thank you. Um, would anyone like to make a motion relating to the um, recommendations? Mayor Promilio. Yeah, I'll go ahead. Would you make the motion to recommend uh move all three one, two, and three? Yes. I would uh go ahead and make a motion to uh recommend number one, two, and three of the recommended actions. Yes. Thank you. We have a motion on the floor. Do we have a second? A second.

All right. We have a motion by Alio and the recommendations. We have a second by Council Member Dury Proponent. Any further discussion? Before we take the roll call vote, I'll just uh state just kind of my thoughts. Um I think this is a close call for me too, but uh like it was for everyone else. I I'm not as so concerned about the legal elements because we're not really not making any real changes yet until we perhaps we do change the definition or something like that down the line. Then that could be a problem or whatever. And at that point, if we got that far into it, we'd probably just decide to start over again. But I don't want to say that cuz I I don't want it to go out. I don't want it to be dragged out either. I've been involved with this for quite a while now. And uh but I do I'm kind of where the mayor prom is as far as we've we've already taken all this time. Let's just let's uncover that other rock and look underneath it and then move move from there. So um with that, go ahead and take a roll call vote. Sandra.

Thank you. Mayor Poachio. Hi. Uh, council member Pedi. Hi. Council members McDonald. I r and Mayor Smith. Hi. Mr. May to confirm that's the first meeting in May in which we would be back to you. Uh, it just the motion was just that the findings in Rex would be in no later than end of April. Thank you. Yeah, that's all that we did. Does that clarify your question? All right. Yeah. Did you have something, Mr. Morgansson? You

We've already taken the vote. So, yeah. Okay.

We're going to move on. Okay. Let's We're going to take a break. It's 7:50 p.m. We're going to take a break before we get to the next part of the agenda and uh let's come back at 8:05. Recording stopped. People don't really want to talk Arabic.

recording progress. 13A. This is an award of agreement regarding sewer infrastructure 17 milei drive CIP number one. And I will recognize again our public works director, deputy city manager Daniel Go.

Thank you, your honor. Members of the city council, this is a big one I'm going to present to you guys tonight. Um 70 mile drive sewer rehabilitation project. to have just a brief presentation. I can figure out how to put sewer in but not do a PowerPoint. Trust me, I don't know why it doesn't want to scroll.

I don't think she's going to be able to help either. There you go. Okay.

All right. Okay. Our sewer system, just a little bit of background, 58 miles of sewer pipeline. We have 94 manholes. We serve residential and business waste water. So, all the waste water from your house, our businesses go into our system. They're conveyed to nine pump stations, seven owned by the city, two owned by Monterey One Water. Ultimately they go through the m the city of Monterey Seaside so on and so forth go to Monterey One Water and Marina. All of our infrastructure is funded by the sewer enterprise fund. So what is this project? This project was initiated in fiscal year 2324. Um and what it was it was initiated um and we retained the Wallace group an engineering firm out of St. Louis Abyispo who has been instrumental in quite a few of our sewer infrastructure projects are bigger projects like this and some storm drain projects. The focus of this project is 17 mile drive in Pebble Beach. We have infrastructure that runs through Pebble Beach when Delmmani Park used to be part of the county. Also, Pebble Beach was part of the county. All of that sewer infrastructure went from the bottom of David Avenue through Pebble Beach ultimately down through 17 Mile Drive. Um, so this project located in Pebble Beach and Spanish Bay Golf Course. They built the golf course right over the top of our infrastructure in 1987. So what is the project? Replaces 250 ft of sewer line via more traditional

methods, open trench technology and directional drilling. But we're doing a new thing here with this one, micro tunneling, because it's 30 feet deep. And I'll show you a map in a little bit. And this is a technology that is geared towards these very deep um drillings. We're also putting in 12 new manholes. We're reconstructing four manholes, all access points. Um and then since we're in Pebble Beach, they're going to make us redo their roadways. 3,830 square feet of road rehabilitation on 17 mile drive basically from Mahela which is right there by Spanish Bay's entrance to um where kind of like the gate just shorter of the gate on 17 milei drive and then we're going to have to do some slurry seal. So I know this is kind of fuzzy um but here's the project the green Let me see if the cursor shows up. It does. So this section right here is open trench. Then where you see a purple is the so that's Mahela and then the purple is the directional drilling because it's going through like a wet land there. So we can't open up any grounds through that area. So we're doing the the drilling the directional drilling right there. Then we're going into 17 mile drive. Here's the entrance of Spanish Bay right here. 17 milei drive. This is all open trench. The yellow is our current existing sewer system. So it has a 90 right here at a manhole and goes into Spanish Bay. The 12th fairway was always like this. And they built the golf course over the top of our infrastructure. As you can see, the yellow goes here. In

that big blue circle is a manhole that is exposed in front of 12 green of Spanish Bay in the Mella Slooh. Yes, it's that line is 100% inaccessible. We cannot maintain it. Hence why we're doing this project. It's definitely a liability. For 40 years, it's been here underneath the golf course. Yes, we get in there and we maintain it the best we can. So, you could see that where the manhole is and then that yellow line goes into the public works. I have manholes in the public works and I can try to run that line up, but it's only so we're only so successful at it. So, we're going to abandon what you see in the yellow in place, remove the manhole out of the creek, do a concrete slurry on the infrastructure that's under the 12th fairway of Spanish Bay, and abandon it in place. Obviously, we've been working for a year and a half with Pebble Beach. Spanish Bay Golf Course is closing if not like this week, next week for one year because they're doing a renovation. So, we've been timing this all to be right in line with their schedule and what they're doing. So, we're going to abandon all that infrastructure that's in place in Spanish Bay. What you're seeing on the red here is the micro tunneling. We still have to keep all of this gravity fed. So, if you know, when you go into Pebble Beach from the 17 mile drive gate, you're going kind of downhill. So, if you're going the opposite direction, you're going uphill. This sewer line is going to be 30 feet deep to get our velocities, our flows that we need to have to keep that

gravity sewer line moving. We're going to have manholes here that are 30 plus feet deep that we can use then to do our cleanings, but everything's going to be accessible. We're going to then run it behind the 12th green at Spanish Bay and then drop it into the public works yard. Once we get to the public works yard, we have our main sewer line that runs through the middle of the public works yard. That's all going to be replaced and then tied into infrastructure that's on Sunset Highway 68. And from there it goes down Grove Acre down to Syllamar ultimately to the Coral Street pump station and away it goes. That's the project in a nutshell. So we released an RFP in January of 2026. We received three bids. This is a big project. KJ Woods was the low bidder. They're a very big construction company that's based out of San Francisco that specializes in this type of work. Um, and we've qualified them as the lowest responsible bidder. And next steps will be to execute a contract. will hold a preconstruction meeting that would include the city, the Wallace group because the Wallace group back in 2023 when we approve the agreement to do this engineering, they're also going to be doing the construction management of this project. It's a big one. So, we want boots on the ground observing daily right here. Um, they'll finalize a construction schedule. We'll send that to any residents that are affected in Pebble Beach because there will be some affected in Pebble Beach and then we'll be begin construction. It's a very tight

timeline on this because they're trying to get Spanish Bay open by April of 2027 because they have US open in June of 2027. So, we got to get this thing done. This is our tight window and it's not like we could have started earlier because Spanish Bay Golf Course is open, right? And then we've got all of their events. We've got car week, we've got the AT&T, their Callaway event, all these weeks where we can't work also that have been noted. So that's it. Thank you. I'm open for questions.

All right. Great job. We appreciate the item very much. Um, public comment, please. Thank you, mayor. Uh, I do not see any hands raised online. Thank you. All right. There for the record, uh, only two members of the public in in chambers and I believe they're here for the next item. So, we'll go ahead and close public comment. Bring it back to council for action. Obviously, this is a great opportunity. We have our sewer fund and this is what we we were uh this is what we're here for. So this is uh what we always talk about and we're going to do it. So uh council member Puri online.

Yes. Uh thank you. Uh what I got Dan from all of this is uh we need to increase our handicap on the infrastructure but uh the the the one thing I question I had was the the budget right because this is a a large amount. Uh is that going to be spread over years? How how do we account for this uh as we and we're going to award the RFP, but that's a large number. Is it going all going to be accounted in in this fiscal year? How is that planned plan planned to be done?

Council member Paduri, we've been saving for this project. We haven't done a big sewer project. We've for a few years we've done some smaller phase projects that have equated, you know, a few hundred,000 here or there or some sewer spot repairs associated with our street rehab projects. Knowing this larger project was coming with the 2-year budget that we approved last July, um we allocated funding for this project. We allocated a larger majority of the funding into next fiscal year, fiscal year 2627. But with your midyear budget adjustment where you just approved the second read today, we shifted quite a bit of that into this fiscal year. So, we're able to get started now and then carry that funding into the next fiscal year. I think we have over $7.7 million allocated for just the construction of this project. And the money's already been allocated for the walls group with their um extra engineering that will be needed and their construction management.

So in other words, it's already budgeted for along with the the contingency uh through 2027. Correct. That is correct. Okay. Thank you. That's all that I need. Thank you, Council Member Ra. Thank you, your honor. Um, I know the Pebble's going to be closed for 13, 14 months, whatever that to. How long is our portion going to take? We're anticipating it taking the three to four, five months. Um, and we have a tight window because they want they're doing their golf course work in phases.

So, they're going to come in and do like the 12th hole area, I think, in phase two. So that's when we got to get in there and do that work and remove our infrastructure. We have to have our new line in place and the old line will still be active and working. So the one of the first things we do is the micro tunneling and get that in place. So then when we go and do all our open trench, we just connect right to that and then we can go in and abandon that existing line that's underneath Spanish Bay. Okay. Um will will there be any service disruption to our residents and if so how will they be notified and how long will it be?

No service disruption whatsoever to our residents. If we have to do any um bypass pumping it would just be temporary and there would be no disruption whatsoever. Thank you. And I appreciate you doing this while Pebble is closed and the planning that's gone into this. I think it's perfect. You know, we always talk, you and I talk about dig once, and I think this is a great, you know, sewer is not sexy, but boy, people lose their bananas when it doesn't work. So, I'm I'm all in and I thank you guys for the work that it's taken for the last year and a half to get this done. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mayor Prom.

Yes. Um, Mr. go. Um, you mentioned um, is Pebble Beach going to contribute any dollars? No. Okay. It's not their It's not their infrastructure. Okay. So, there's I had to ask that question. Spanish Bay obviously is

one of my routes. Not that I live in Spanish Bay, but uh, I don't. But, um, they are remodeling some of their rooms and stuff. So, um, I'm all for this. Um and um like uh council member Ralph said, uh you know, if the sewer gets backed up, look out. Um so I'm all for this. Um thanks, Council Member Garfield.

Thank you. This is an example of precision planning. Um I mean, I think you you've brought the team together and um it's incisive. You've got it planned down to the the wire. Uh very complicated project. I just want to point out that this is exactly what the survey we heard about later says we should be doing with our time and money. So, um, yay. Fully support this. Yeah, in fact, we did hear about that tonight. I agree. Um, would you like to comment? Okay. Make a motion uh recommendation one. Do I have a second? Second.

All right. We have a motion and a second on recommendation one. And again, thank you so much for the planning and all the thought that went into this. and and I know it's on all of our campaign uh slogans that we're supporting streets and sidewalks and sewers. So, it's a way to this is great work. Um I'll take a roll call vote now. Thank you, sir. Mayor Smith I, Mayor Promillio, hi. Council members Garfield, McDonald. I and Ralph.

Motion carries 601. Council member Walking Stick absent. Thank you so much. Very important item with this important work and I'm glad that we're doing it. Um and at this point I think we're down to our final item tonight. Uh which is we're going to have a presentation by Robin McCrae, the CEO of Community Human Services and Gathering for Women. So I'll invite Miss McCrae to come up uh to the podium to give her presentation. Thank you very much, Mayor and City Council. I'm Robin McCrae. I'm the CEO of Community Human Services and joining me tonight is Stacy Alzbler Perkins. I'll let Stacy introduce herself.

I'm the executive director of Gathering for Women in Monterey. Glad to be here with you. This is a little easier for us to do it this way. I hope it's okay. Um, but Community Human Services and Gathering for Women partner to operate one of the shelters that we're going to talk to you about and that's Kasa Noa. So, we're here to talk about Kasa No Buena and Schuman Heartouse tonight because we are facing a fiscal cliff as local people in the homeless shelter or the homeless services um arena are calling it. Um, it's recognized by the board of supervisors in several cities throughout the continuum of care, the Monterey and Sanino County's continuum of care. And we just want to make you aware. Um, we're not here to ask for money tonight. We're here to ask you to put on your thinking caps, hear what our problems are. Um, help us come up with some creative solutions and also understand that if we're unable to sustain the shelters and and we have other programs as well that are facing the same. But the biggest impact that the cities probably will feel is the closure of the shelters. So anyway, that's why we're here tonight. And Stacy, do you want to take it away? So I'm sure you're all aware that the both Casados Buena and Schuman Heart House are shelters for single women and families with children. Each one serves 35 beds approximately and a typical stay is about 6 months can be longer or shorter depending on their situation. Annually each shelter serves 25 women and about 15 families and approximately three members per family. Can be larger or smaller depending on the children. The program goal is stabilizing them and getting them to transition to permanent housing and improve their income, their self-sufficiency and well-being. There's also wraparound supports, basic needs. They've got showers, they've got meals, they've got laundry, clothing, computer access. There are also housing focus

support, so they can see their case manager and their housing navigator and find new ways to get back into housing. And there may be some rapid rehousing funding for them. and also stability in case they have mental illness, they have uh any kind of addiction, if they need employment services or some other financial planning stability, finding that income that will keep them in the housing once they get it.

So, we're very proud of our housing outcomes. There's a statewide benchmark that uh shows it's it's um cal isich from 2324 that 23% statewide exit to permanent housing. Um for kasad no buena which we operate um we co-operate um our numbers are 50% to permanent housing and another 25% to temporary housing. And we count temporary housing because um it's it's a win. It's a win in progress. We have some slow winners sometimes. They do everything they've been asked to do and they've got their housing voucher and they're just looking for a landlord that will accept their voucher. Uh, and there are complications with that, including finding tenants, which we all work to we also work to find um suitable tenants and to encourage tenants to accept vouchers. At Schuman Heart House, which we operate um independently, 57% move to permanent housing and another 17% to temporary. But if you add the numbers for both uh shelters, it's 75% to temporary or permanent housing.

So this the catstone was actually opened partially about of heat funding about 1.3 million and there was an additional 400,000 raised. It was part of uh the county's it's a building that we rent for a dollar each year for 10 years. And so we repaired the building. We actually totally tore down the infrastructure. I'll never forget walking in with a hard hat and I thought we were just going to rearrange a couple things and it was broken. But we did open in a very rainy day in January similar to what we experienced this this year and um we've been serving them ever since. Sheen Heart House was primarily um private funding and a little bit of government funding.

The private funding came from a gentleman who lives with his family in Karma Valley, Mark Schuman. And um they've been very very supportive. Um but it does take a lot to sustain the shelters and Mr. Schuman can't do it alone. So we do a lot of fundraising both government and private and both CHS and gathering for women to um sustain both programs. Each program costs approximately $1.2 million a year to run. Um they're not inexpensive. They're not um extravagant by any means, but um you know, we do have personnel and case management and we do feed people and they use electricity and water and there's insurance and 24-hour supervision so that people are safe. Um we established a special purpose fund CHS and gathering for women at the community foundation and donors can donate to that fund um safe and and secure in the knowledge that those funds will only be used for Buena. And we also have government grants that include things such as well heap was the original grant that renovated um CASA but we've had several rounds of HAP funding several rounds of ESG the emergency solutions grant funding and CDBG monies from primarily the city of Seaside and the city of Monterey and then some PHA money. Um don't ask me what the acronyms stand for but if you Google them you'll find out. um ULA money from the city of Monterey and the city of Pacific Grove. I think it's permanent local housing. Yeah,

Europe. Oh, I got two in a row. Um so we do have this current and near-term funding gap. And so that on the next slide you'll see um we're we're projecting annual funding shortfalls in 26 27 27 28 28 29 and 2930 and um of several hundred thousand. It just grows um each with each year for both shelters. We can't sustain that without additional help where whether it comes from government sources or private sources. That's not something either of our organizations can do individually or collectively. Um, and it's a structural deficit that just keeps growing without the introduction of new funding. So, we'll be looking for government sources. Um, we are both members of the homeless coalition and we check with them frequently. We're on top of every RFP or NOA that goes out. We're both uh awardees of the funding that comes through the um coalition of homeless service providers. And um so some of the key drivers of the gap is um HAP monies um are h about half of what they were um last year. Next year um there's no guarantees they'll be around seven. HP six was just released. You might have seen it in the media the last couple of days. Um you know this is making everyone nervous including the county of Monterey and the city of Monterey that run the share center which is the county's largest shelter and CHS has the contract to operate that for the city and county. Um I mentioned our Cassid Noi Buena special purpose funds. Um so without new funding streams um the start of the structural deficit begins next fiscal year. We are making it this year. Next year it starts.

So as as Robin mentioned, we know that we're not the only ones. There was an organization that shut down in October. There's another one that's facing closure. Uh I believe it's in the end of April. Um, so we're not the only ones, but what we want to avoid is is having to shut down because we feel like these programs have proven success and it would be devastating to the families and then and the women that are there and who could be in there. Um, so our intent is to, like Robin said, to try and find different ways to to collaborate, to find partnerships, to find ideas to make this um, work to, of course, avoid service reductions and shelter closing or if we have to to phase in those reductions over time. um without additional funding or some sort of uh collaboration, we will face a reduction in services, elimination of case management, moving it to an overnight shelter only rather than a a full-time shelter or partially or full program closure. So, I mentioned at the top of the program that what we're asking for is your partnership in maintaining the two shelters, some your creative input and ideas, any guidance you could give us. I think Mayor Carbone in Sam City mentioned her police department has money that is intended to um support um homeless uh initiatives in her city. Um and so we're talking with her about that. It may or may not be appropriate, but she had an idea we're following up on. And there may be things like that in other cities, your city that we're not aware of. So, if it's on your radar, we hope you'll keep us in mind because uh we're absolutely committed to preserving services that foster housing and economic security. And I'll just say we serve probably the most vulnerable um population except for runaway and homeless youth and and that's also a population CHS serves. Um but the women and the children um and the families are very vulnerable. Um, and the kids still need to go to school. And we're not, if

they're not your shelters, they're special. We're having an open house Thursday, April 2nd at 3:00. You're invited to come. Uh, you can see the facility. You can take a tour. You'll meet a a guest or two that will share their stories. We'll share some of our statistical successes and you'll get a really good idea of what we do there and the impact we have on your community. Thank you very much. And we're here to answer questions. Thank you. Uh, we appreciate that. Um, and I know, uh, Council Member McDonald would like to make a comment to you. Thank you for the report.

Yeah. And I just wanted to say that I've been, uh, fortunate to be on the board of community Human Services and and getting to work with Robin and been really impressed at the amount of care and dedication that everybody on the staff, everybody on the board makes sure that some of the the least served people in our community are really looked out for because what they're doing really makes a difference. these this really puts people back on the path. Um, and the other thing I wanted to point out is that um, Robin, who unfortunately will be retiring, um, she actually was just awarded the Ruth Brea Memorial Public Official of the Year award at the the chamber dinner. And so that's a really big deal because the county also recognizes they don't generally give these to um not for profofits. It's generally for businesses, but they recognize the great value that this brings to the community. So I just wanted to u make sure everyone is aware of that great honor and the great work that CHS is doing.

Thank you. Congratulations on that. Thank you very much. If any other council members, Council Murray. Yes. Uh thank you, Mayor and Miss McCrae. appreciate, acknowledge and uh all your contributions to the community over the years and both of you thank you for doing the tireless work. Um I just had a question related to the funding aspect which is the um it appears that even though statistics point out that homelessness is decreasing statewide, we're still the state is still cutting down the HAP funds. Is is that a fair read of what's going on?

A lot of the funding was um issued in during the COVID response years and that's obviously gone and you know I think that there's both federal cutbacks and state cutbacks and some of the federal cutbacks impact the state's ability to to continue to funnel these monies. Um I think there's shifting priorities. So I don't think it's necessarily all um you know based on a lack of funding. I think it's a shifting of funding. For example, Prop One that voters voted a couple years ago to shift mental health services act money away from prevention, early intervention, and mental health services and took a big portion of it for housing for homeless, but a lot of that's going into infrastructure, not services. So, they'll build the shelter maybe, but there's no funding to operate the shelter. And homelessness was so bad um just before and during COVID that the the main thing was to build beds and get people off the street. And I don't think there was a lot of planning locally with our continuum, but really across the country in the continuums of how to sustain those programs. So, you just got a perfect storm and a fiscal cliff and every other bad cliche you can think of. And I think I I don't know how familiar you are with gathering for women, but we're a day center for homeless women and their dependence. And we are seeing an up increase. Actually, in January, we saw 30 new women. And of course, the recent fire in in the building in Monterey is going to be a huge problem with another 78, I believe, people that are displaced, all elderly and some disabled. So, um there's not a lot of places for people to go and so it's it's a continuing problem and the funding is going down and that's a huge issue for us. If you have the ability to impact policy, advocate for the um preservation of existing resources over building new resources because we need to think about the sustainability of any new resource.

We're having difficulty sustaining existing ones.

Understood. I appreciate that insight too. Um and I think the other thing that I'm hearing here is like there's a structural deficit statewide and which is going to impact things in the future. Um so, uh I would say we need to do what we can from a city perspective to see like programs like this continue to be uh funded or nourished. Uh and and and so I I would say whenever we get to it from a council perspective, I'll be looking to see what we can do here to help help uh CHS, Gathering for Women, any such organizations that that are here in the community servicing broadly what is happening not only for our city but but for other cities too. But appreciate the presentation and this is a timely kind of like uhformational item for us to know that like this is not just the only not for-profit organization that is facing these kinds of challenges. Uh what I'm seeing is generally across the board a lot of not not forprofits are being impacted by by cuts. So we need to have a broader action plan on on what we need to do here. Thank you.

Thank you Council Brown. Um, thank you for what you do. It's not easy work. Um, and I think, you know, any support that we can give, any ideas that we can have, we have a lot of people in our community that that have great ideas and and great skill and, you know, maybe it's something that we can all get together and work on. But, uh, congratulations on your retirement. wish you all the best and and um keep doing the good work. Thank you.

Thanks very much for coming out. We appreciate it and we'll we'll continue to think about this issue and what we can do to help. All right. Can I thank uh Lori McDonald for being your representative on our board? Of course. She does a great job representing your interests and the interests of the residents of Pacific Grove. She spends probably five hours a month, I'm guessing, maybe more, but reading the packets, preparing for the meetings, being in the meetings, on her committee work, maybe more than five hours a month. Um, and she she does it as your representative and um, she does a fantastic job on your behalf. Good job. Thanks a lot. We appreciate the feedback. Thank you very much. Thank

All right. Well, that brings us to the closure of the agenda. So, the meeting is a journ. Thank you everyone for participating tonight. Connect.