City - Regular Meeting

Good evening everyone. It is May 6th, 2026, 6:02 p.m. This is a regular meeting of the Pacific Grove City Council. You're here with us at City Hall, 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California. In Council Chambers, I'm calling the meeting to order tonight. We have five council members present. Council member Emilio and Council member is walking so well. Emilio is not present. We're down to five tonight. Um, I'll at this time I'll go move on or I'll lead you in the Pledge of Allegiance. Please join me. Thank you very much everyone. And we'll go on to item one, approval of the agenda. Do I have a motion to approve the agenda as stated? So moved. All [snorts] right, was it tied? Um, Council member Rao, second by Council member Peduri. Um, we'll take a voice vote. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, passes unanimously. Let's proceed as stated in the agenda. Um, let's go ahead and skip down to council and staff announcements. And I will recognize the city attorney for any closed session announcements. No announcements. Okay. Um, and Mr. Mogensen, do you have any staff announcements tonight? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We do have a couple. First, I just wanted to thank everybody who showed up for our push-in ceremony. That was a great event to see the new fire truck get pushed into the bay and then now in service. So, we're good for 20 years, I think. Um, also, of course, what I what I you know, I'm I'm sure this will be echoed, but you know, thanks to our police officers and our public works people who spent the whole weekend making Good Old Days happen. You know, that was um, you know, we know that that is that's a lot, but um, it was a well-attended, very well-celebrated event. So, thank you for

that. Um, additional thing then I I'd like to pass it over to uh, George first so he can announce a little bit about Arbor Day stuff. Mayor Smith, Councilmember, I just want to thank everybody that turned out for our tree planting event to celebrate Arbor Day on April 19th. We planted 20 27 mid-size cypress trees at Esplanade Park. And I think everybody had a had a good time and learned a little bit about trees and tree planting from our urban forester, John Kenny. And we're also celebrating our 25th year of recognition as a Tree City through the Arbor Day Foundation. And then this year, thanks to the work of John Kenny, we we also received the Growth Award, which recognizes cities that go above and beyond the four core tenets of the Tree City um, award. So, thank you. Thank you very much. Any further city staff announcements? I will I will now recognize my colleagues up here. Any council announcements today? I'm seeing none, I'll just go ahead and say thank you for to staff for Good Old Days, for another eventful and entertaining Good Old Days. And you know, we always loved it every year and it's a great time. So, thank you so much and we'll now move on to item four, general public comment. This is a deals with matters subject to the jurisdiction of the city and the council that are not on the regular agenda. I see one hand went up. Anyone in chambers wish to I'll take chambers first. Come on up and give your public comment. I'm going to thank again. I'm Christine Metsner, Pacific Grove Chamber President and CEO. And we did have a wonderful Good Old Days weekend. Weather cooperated. Crowds came out in full force. We had over 40 bands and shows, over 210 vendors, carnival rides, beer gardens. It was so fun. I didn't want it to end. My team thought otherwise. Um I enjoyed every time, but we cannot

do it without our city staff. And the whole team. And I have some special thank yous tonight. One is our public works and they are just amazing. We have the best. And Martin Gonzales and Austin Hurtel were kind of the leads and the rest of their team that was there. Anything we needed, I rang their phone, they answered immediately. Um everything went on really smooth. Pacific Grove Police Commander Don Delfino Um she is awesome at leading the whole team. We had Sergeant Orlando Perez. Um they brought in CERT and the community emergency response team to help shut it down on Sunday. And they stood at all the streets and kept everything smooth. We had all the roads open by 6:00 p.m. And then we had our Monterey Fire. I don't know if I remember fire hanging around the whole time off and on there. And that was Division Chief Justin Cooper. He rode around the golf cart, checked vendors all the time. Um and Fire Marshal David Jones. And then we had our Monterey Firefighter Community Foundation that did the kids spider fighter challenge. And then our council, thank you for always supporting us. And all of our events, we appreciate you. Have a good night. Thanks very much. I have another person in chambers coming forward. Okay. They're getting close. about cost of elections here in PG. I'm sure everyone has heard the assertion or

claim that the cost of having a ballot initiative to a general election is negligible. And that's always kind of created some doubt in my mind. And I went over to Monterey County elections to learn more about it. Uh their definition of negligible, by the way, and they have said that is that anything that comes in under the top end of their estimated range uh is clearly a negligible increment over any other version of the same item. And um the range is $6 to $10 per voter. That's $40,000 for Pacific Grove. So, that's a pretty broad number. Uh and where the threshold this is negligible is hard to tell. We then looked at the cost for the November uh general election of 2024. And it was very interesting because the amount and on the chart um that was charged the city was $58,000. And then down in the super fine print at the bottom, that's the way it was presented to me, uh there's an item for the VIG, which is the voter information guide. That's $28,000 of the total charge. Now, the question I asked was of the four items we had on that election, uh what how much did each contribute to what we were billed? And there was silence in the room. I think they don't get that question very often. Uh but what eventually came out as somebody said, "Oh, let me give you the page count in the guide." And page count was mayor, two, council, four, measure Q, 14 pages. Measure Z, 21 pages. So, 35 out of 41 pages, 85% of the voter information guide was devoted to our ballot measures. And that's $24,000 out of the $28,000.

It's 41% of the cost of the total election. So, I don't know where your personal threshold might be on what's negligible and what is significant. That is well into significant in my book. Uh I think uh you can draw your own line on that. But as we move into uh uh situations where we're looking at putting things on the uh uh measures on a ballot, uh we ought to be aware of uh a realistic estimate of the impact on costs to the city. Thank you very much. Okay, thank you. Appreciate it. Okay, we'll go ahead and go on to the online callers. Any Any who are on? Thank you, Mayor. Yes, let me stop sharing my screen here. Uh telephone number ending in 902, you have the floor. Good evening. My name is Nina Beaty. International events are impacting Pacific Grove that the city cannot ignore. On May 1st, UN investigative journalist Richard Medhurst reported that the goal of the US attacks on Iran and the kidnapping of President Maduro is to create the petrogas dollar and make the US the sole source of gas and oil for the world, including Europe and Asia. The US has done this by the Navy's blockade of oil and gas from other countries in the Arctic, the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipeline, and the capture and sinking of oil tankers, as well as the destruction of Levantine ports and US enabled destruction of oil and gas infrastructure of other countries. Why is this important? The price of gasoline is escalating, but what happens when there's no gasoline at the gas station? Ask Scott Ritter, geopolitical expert and former UN weapons inspector. What happens when there's no aviation fuel? Spirit is out of business. Thousands of flights have been canceled. The Monterey Airport expansion may end up being a waste of public money. PG&E's businesses don't have the luxury to ignore this. When people can't get to their jobs, when

visitors don't or can't come to the Monterey Peninsula and the hotels and the TOT tax is zero, when Salinas Valley Ag can't grow crops because they don't have fertilizer, when food can't be shipped to stores and restaurants, remember the US Navy and the Pentagon did this. And local, state, and federal officials supported this. Yet the Navy and the Pentagon continued taking the public's money, the Pacific Grove communities' money for their endless wars. The Pentagon has also put this community at direct risk for attack. Other countries will take action against the US government and military to for adopt this piracy and the crimes against their nations, including the grooming and arming of seditionists in their country through the Defense Language Institute training. The military missions and facilities pose an unacceptable security risk to all of this to all of us. Don't put this community at terrible risk by supporting their continued presence here. As Mother's Day approaches, a new study found 1,800 babies have died in Cuba since 2017 due to sanctions by and blockade by the Navy. Please take action to stop this action internationally. Thank you.

Thank you. I have no further hands, Mayor. Thank you. We'll go ahead and close general public comment, bring it back to the council. Now onto the consent agenda dealing with routine non-controversial matters. Um do I have any council members that wish to pull an item from consent? Okay. And do we have anyone in the public wishing to pull an item from consent? Nobody online, Mayor. Okay. Um so, we'll go ahead and uh all entertain a motion to approve consent. Motion to Do I have a second? Okay, we got a motion by Rowles, second by Garfield. Um further discussion? All right, seeing none, we'll take a voice vote. All in favor say "Aye." Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. Thank you very much. Um move on to the regular agenda. We're now on item 11, public hearings. We have a public hearing scheduled for tonight, 11A, appeal of the planning commission's approval of coastal development permit 26-00- or sorry, 26-0011. And that I will recognize uh our uh chief of planning. Thank you very much, Mayor Smith. We have on the line Joe Sidor, who is our consulting planner. He has been uh prepared the agenda report for this appeal of the planning commission's approval of the uh coastal development permit for the Crest de pond management plan, and I will let Joe begin his his presentation as soon as I can get the um PowerPoint up on the screen for him. Great. One second. Where did it go? Great. Let's Joe take it away. Okay, thank you. Um good evening,

honorable Mayor Smith and council members. Item agenda item 11A involves an appeal of the planning commission's decision on March 12th, 2026, to approve a coastal development permit for the management of vegetation within Crespi Pond, including the adoption of an initial study mitigated negative declaration and the associated mitigation monitoring and reporting plan. Next slide. The proposed project consists of removing vegetation to enhance wildlife habitat at Crespi Pond. Vegetation would be removed around the pond's perimeter and within a central portion of the pond to maintain approximately 70% open water habitat and 30% vegetation. The work would be performed using barge-mounted excavation equipment and the removed vegetation would be hauled offsite for disposal. After the completion of the initial round of maintenance, vegetation removal would occur no more than once every 2 years to maintain the ratio of approximately 70% open water and 30% vegetation. Next slide. Now, Coastal Commission background, please. To maintain an optimum level of open water and vegetation habitat, the city obtained coastal development permits and waivers from the Coastal Commission prior to certification of the city's local coastal program when needed to perform vegetation management in Crespi Pond. The proposed permit is based on the previous Coastal Commission approvals, including the balance of open water to vegetation and the avoidance or minimization of potential impacts to coastal resources. Next slide.

The city prepared a draft initial study and mitigated negative declaration or IS MND for this project, which was circulated for public review and comment from November 3rd through December 3rd, 2025. The city received six public comment letters and revisions were made to the draft initial study to correct an error in the acreage of vegetation to be removed from 0.55 acres to 0.78 acres to achieve the target habitat ratio of 30% vegetation and 70% open water. And the environmental analysis found that potential impacts to biological resources and water quality during management activities could be reduced to less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation measures and that all other environmental analysis topics would have less than significant or no impacts. A mitigation monitoring and reporting plan or MMRP uh has been prepared and incorporated and requirements of the MMRP have been included in the condition conditions of approval. Next slide, please. On March 12th, 2026, the planning commission adopted the IS/MND, approved the project as proposed, and adopted the mitigation monitoring and reporting plan. On March 20th, 2026, the appellant submitted an appeal which raised four general points. Regarding work time limits, the first general point, the city has initiated an application for regulatory review of the project by the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. This review is pending submittal of additional documentation from the city, including the coastal development permit and the

sequa notice of determination, which would be filed after the city approves the project. The city would be required to implement any restrictions imposed by the Central Coast Water Board upon completion of the pending regulatory review and imposition of any other requirements at this time would be premature because we don't know what the decision of the Water Board or the California Department of Fish and Wildlife will be yet and their final decisions may impose different restrictions from what the city applied for. Regarding biological monitoring, the IS MND identified potential impacts to nesting birds and sensitive habitat and included mitigation measures from a qualified biologist to reduce the potential impacts to less than significant. No other potential significant impacts requiring mitigation were identified and the proposed work would occur and is planned to occur outside of nesting season. Regarding the listing of the Coastal Commission as a responsible agency pursuant to CEQA, as explained in the staff report, this is not required nor applicable. And regarding the identification of requirements as explained or as explained in detail in the final IS MND the required information was and is provided and the proposed project complies with the applicable applicable federal and state requirements. Next slide. Therefore, staff recommends the City Council deny the appeal adopt the initial study mitigated negative declaration pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15074 approve a five-year coastal development

permit subject to the findings and conditions of approval as recommended and adopt the associated mitigation monitoring and reporting plan. And this concludes staff's presentation and I'm available for questions and the public works staff is also available to answer any questions. Thank you very much. Here from our appellants at this time. I'm going to allow 10 minutes total time to the Chianis. Thank you. Anthony Chiani, you have the floor. Good evening. Can you hear me? Yes, sir. Thank you. Well, hello and good evening. My appeal supports the city's project for the vegetation removal at Crespi Pond Estuary with additional conditions in to fully implement the LCP land use plan policies pertinent to the protection, preservation, restoration, and enhancement of the Crespi Pond Estuary and adjacent wetland areas. As the 2024 Crespi Pond biology report states, "quote, the city has not performed vegetation maintenance at Crespi Pond since approximately 2015. This appeal requests three things. First, require the work to occur between September 1st to September 30th. Second, require the vegetation revegetation of the native plant species around the ponds that are typical of local coastal and wetland habitats. And third, require a qualified biologist to be the designated monitor.

Look, these three requests are based on science and empirical evidence and seek logical and reasonable conditions of approval. First, the two primary adverse impacts that the project must avoid are harming wildlife, particularly during the bird nesting season, and degrading water quality of Pacific Grove's adjacent special biological significance area from an overflow of Crespi Pond's poor water quality. In addition to the city's CDP, the agencies that provide permit oversight of those two aspects of the project are California Fish and Wildlife that requires work to be performed between September and February to avoid nesting season, and the Water Quality Board that requires the work to be performed between June and September 30th to avoid the rainy season. Overlaying these periods provides a common time frame for the work to occur between September 1st and September 30th. I am requesting that the Crespi Pond CDP condition number bio-1 to conduct the vegetational removal activities to occur from September 1st to September 10th 30th for the first year, year number two, and year number five. Along that theme, Public Works Director Dan Gault told the Planning Commission on March 12th, {quote} "We have a tight window to get this done. I've got to do this outside the rainy season, so my September to February window just went like Sep- tember to

like October." {end of quote} Not to mention a super El Niño is forecast, potentially bringing in increased moisture to the West Coast. In fact, Mr. Go has submitted both the required applications to wildlife fish and wildlife and water quality, not just water quality. For as staff said just now. So, they submitted both of those for the work to be done in the month of September. Want to reiterate that. They've submitted both applications for the work to be done in the month of September, not September to February. Therefore, it is both logical and reasonable to correct the coastal development permit conditions to be consistent with the required permits from fish and wildlife and the water board to be September 1st to September 30th. The appellant's second request is based on PG municipal code 23.9150 water quality and marine resources and the LCP land use plan policy number MAR-6 that staff provided in today's report. You can look it up. By the way, before I discuss the policies, I want to clarify two LCP standards of review. One, LCP section 1.4 clarifies that the following rules of interpretation shall apply. One, when used in the land use plan, the word shall is always mandatory. And more specifically regarding water quality and marine resources, the code provides quote in order to protect water quality and

marine resources in the LCP coastal zone and to maintain consistency with the LCP's land use plan, development shall conform to all applicable land use plan, water quality, and marine resources policies, and the following requirements. My words are the guiding words for the city council in the code is the phrase shall conform, which also means makes it mandatory. Now to the central point. Land use plan policy mar six ex- explicitly provides in part, "The quality of coastal waters, streams, wetlands, estuaries shall be maintained as well as quote maintaining natural vegetation buffer areas that protect riparian habitats." That's really important. This is why we're here. One is to improve the water quality, which according to the empirical evidence in the scientific results of the water quality test provide that Crespi Pond exceeded objectives for fluoride, Kjeldahl nitrogen, sodium, total dissolved solids, and total nitrogen. Secondly, to remove the overgrowth of vegetation in order to restore the past damage to Crespi Pond by not removing vegetation for the last 10 years. I'm also here to seek restoration of the natural vegetation buffer areas that protect the riparian habitats. Now, the good news is that Mr. Goe informed the planning commission on

March 12th he believes that the recommendations of the Monterey Audubon Society and the California Native Plant Society. To quote Mr. Gwell, "That is a good goal that would have to be allowed through the city council. Absolutely, if that's desired by the city council, we would start that process." End of quote. The Monterey Audubon Society and California Native Plant Society goal is spelled out in their letters and it which I will briefly state here to quote, "Restore Crespi Pond beyond the basic tule removal that will enhance habitat for birds, other wildlife, improve water quality, and benefit the entire committee." The other good news is you can make the necessary consistency findings that you can't make unless you do this by adding a condition to implement what Dan Goad described to the planning commission as a good goal so he can start the process to carry out the sage advice of two knowledgeable environmental organizations. I need I see no need to dig into the work that will be carried out because that will be covered under the best management practices plan for the project except based on my experience designing and working on projects directly on the shoreline in the Pacific Ocean, not only have I, but also various regulatory agencies required qualified consultants consult, conduct the inspections for their field of knowledge, not a member of the construction group.

The contractors do their work, the consultants do their work. The building inspectors do theirs. I don't think you should ask a biologist operate tobacco or dump trucks, nor should we ask the construction workers to monitor the estuary for sensitive birds or nesting birds. In conclusion, please approve the CDP to incorporate the provisions and conditions to fully implement the LCP land use plan policies pertinent to protect, preserve, restore, enhance recipe bonds, asha, and adjacent wetland areas. You can do this by simply adding a condition that would uh direct the plant the public works department to start the process. This was done for the um by the coastal commission in Pacific Grove to create the shoreline management plan. That was decided in August of 2017, and you did it. You hired the consultant. You hired engineers. You did the work by 2019. Thanks. Stop. And if someone wants to say just come forward. If you do. And if not, we're going to the online. We're We're taking public comment right now. Okay. You can You'll get a chance during uh Yeah. You can speak of the applicant. Sure. And and and uh Yeah, and I I didn't know if if Mr. C was going to do that or Oh, I see. Yeah. Okay, before we go to public comment, should we take that this first?

So that they can I've already done that. Okay, go ahead. Go ahead and roll tickets for the public's benefit. I need 1 minute. No, they're not going to get any more time. Go ahead. I apologize for the interruption. I was going to just make my comments during public comment, but as the applicant I've been seeing this through for the last 3 years as your public works director. We were asked to bring this forward by the appellants to move forward with this work. Um I've done this work numerous times in the past under a waiver that was granted by the Coastal Commission. At this time we didn't think that was appropriate, so we went through with this full MND and came up with the mitigated monitoring program program which we anticipate implementing during the construction of this work. We're going to be teaming up with Corusco to do the work. They're the purveyor of the golf course. They initiated this when I brought it to them after members of the public asked us to begin this work. I said public works would take on the environmental aspects and the permitting. That's our forte. They could initiate the actual construction. Fast forward it 3 years later, here we are today. We're ready to get this thing going. The MND clearly has us outside of the nesting bird season, so the biologist can do his pre-construction evaluation for the nesting birds, and if they don't find any, then we could proceed with the construction. That's 100% typical of how we move forward with every single construction project that has this form of mitigation. If we have to have a biologist on site for over 20 days monitoring this, it's a it's a no go. We're not going to be able to afford that at $250 an hour. I mean, we need to be cognizant of what I we do the I the initial study with the

mitigated negative declaration. So, we avoid these impacts. And to lessen the impact and make it less than significant, we're doing it outside the nesting bird season. The other um items that are addressed in the appeal, like the rehabilitation of the complete Crespi Pond, that's fine, but that's significant. That's going to be a full environmental impact report with all kinds of planning associated with that. How to remove the invasive species, what goes properly back in there. This isn't that project. So, I just wanted to address those um items. When we started this process, we weren't sure what parameters were going to be placed by the Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Regional Water Board. That's why none of those are in the permit. Let's see what they say. We need to get the coastal development permit approved, and then provide our notice of determination to the state and the county prior to us even moving forward with those permits. So, how can I determine what's going to be on those permits and put it in the coastal development permit. This is step one. I appreciate your time. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay, we'll go to the public comment. We do have one caller online, Mayor. Uh Inga Lorenzen Dyment. Thank you, Mayor and Council. Sometimes it takes an appeal to give a really deep overlook because the city has been so remiss with Crespi Pond for so many years. And we get roped into things, too, because without

the correct permits, which Dango, of course, is now scrambling to get. Um you know, some things should be done and planned ahead of time and not put together at the last minute and oh, we've got to do it right now. And that's exactly how this city council is reacting to everything is, "Oh, we've got to do this right now, period." Well, yes, this needs that. However, have you ever stepped back to think of how many projects could have that have gone south could have gone better if you had just stepped back. And yes, the appeal was necessary so that you were forced to take another look, so that Dango is forced to take another look and say, "Oh, well, we didn't What we put them in and we're waiting for them." So that Joe Sedor can do that. You know, sometimes these things are just necessary and this mayor and council just do not seem to want to listen. I'm not sure why, but rush through it. Okay. Thank you very much. Are there any more callers? I have no further hands are raised, Mayor. All right, go ahead and close public comment. Bring back to council for uh discussion and action on the appeal. Um Who would like to lead off? Go ahead. Um thank you. As I understand this, so this is a Hold on a sec. May I ask Why does Mr. Chani have his hand up? Can Can ask him that?

He's going to ask for Okay. Can I have 1 minute to rebut? You did you ask for? I would like a minute to rebut or not? No or any council comment. Thank you. Mr. Channing. Mr. Channing, you have the floor. Oh. Oh, thank you. Um I I'm only asking for you to add a condition that Mr. Go can take the next 3 years to do or or longer to develop a project that he says is a good goal. And that is the project proposed by the Audubon Society and the California Native Plant Society. It's a good goal, then just start and do it. That's all I'm asking. Add a condition that it will be done and he can go ahead with this project as he's decided to do. So, I don't that's how we got the shoreline management plan. Thank you for the extra minute. You're welcome. Okay, Councilman Garfield. Thank you, Your Honor. So, our job today is to appeal is to answer an appeal on a specific project. Uh we received some letters with some ideas on what a broader scope, a more elaborate project, uh a long-term renovation restoration, but we only have two letters and they're both inspiring, but they don't they're not a project. They're not specifying what actually would need to be done. And I'm reminded that we we need to keep our our um lane lines clear on what we're doing here today. Um

I do not think that it is our scope to start creating projects. Um our scope here is to answer the appeal on a specific project that has been 3 years in the works. Um and I appreciate the amount of work and time that has gone the stop start stop start little detours. And all of us agree on one thing. We need to clean up that the the lake the pond so it works the way it's supposed to work. And I think that the um massive amount of information that's been created here to figure out how to do this right how to guard against problems how to prevent problems how to address potential issues um has been extremely well done very thorough. Um so I think that we're in good shape for going ahead with this particular project. And if um I'm hearing Mr. Johnny correctly, he says all he is asking that all of the work be done in the month of September. Um that's not ours to say because that comes from the water board and the water board hasn't weighed in yet because we haven't done our part. So our part here tonight is to deal with this appeal so that the rest of it can move forward. It's it's a pretty narrow job for us. Um And so I I appreciate it the the the broader scope that's been brought to our attention. I think maybe we could ask uh anybody who's interested to come up with an actual project look at it in the future but not right now. This is we got to do what we got to do right now on this particular thing. I think that tonight I had to support this staff recommendation. I I know if she's actually said that. I'm putting words in a row. I support staff recommendation. Um moving over to

Councilmember McDonald. Thank you, Mayor. Yeah, and and actually I do appreciate um staff's answering and and the mitigations that have gone into making sure that we're complying with the regulations. Um and I can see the sentiment that there is concern that we haven't done this for so long and that is why the appeal is being raised. So, the idea of having the further projects don't get basically forgotten. It's easy to kind of not get to those and I know we we haven't had any CIPs this year and in this 2-year cycle. So, I feel it is on us and I appreciate the goal of this appeal actually being to make sure that we put something in place so we move forward with making sure that we're doing that. So, there were things raised such as the restoration work recommended by the Audubon committee. And an important context for that is it does state that we are responsible for the overall health and I kind of see this project as the first step in that. So, having the vegetation removal to get it restored to its proper ratio of of water um to vegetation is the first step in that process, but I think it's really important that we don't stop there and that we have some kind of mechanism in place for us to look at how do we meet our obligation under um the LCPs bio forward preserve and maintain the wetlands. Um and so that actually requires um basically preventing significant disruption of habitat values. And so because we've gone quite a while without any of that restoration, um we're kind of behind the curve now. So, this is the first step. So, I appreciate the appellant's goal, which is actually to get us to take the next step that was recommended by the Audubon to look at what will that actual restoration be. So, we're doing the removal, getting

things in the right ratio, and now the next step is having that habitat restoration. So, I don't know what it takes for us to make that. I don't know if it needs to be a condition of this in particular. I think it's very important that we move ahead with this. And and it may not be the place within this particular project to add that, but I think it's really important and incumbent on on council and staff to make sure that we don't drop piece of it so that it moves forward. Thank you. Would anyone else like to discuss? Councilmember Murray. Yes, thank you. Um I I must say that the first time I I read this in um my my thoughts were, I mean, could we have tackled this over email instead of coming to council? Uh but I think there's a legitimate point here, which is that uh what happens to all those goals that we're defining here, and where do they funnel through? Do they all have to come to council to be tackled, or can they be addressed through a committee, etc.? Uh and so I I think there's needs to be some clarity at least and this is besides the point of this agenda item, but there needs to be some clarity at least to say if the community needs certain goals to be met like this, which is the right committee or board or commission that actually is handling that and takes it forward. And I would say the council itself has defined broader set of goals that we're all working towards and therefore within that broader set of goals, if this is a certain goal that comes in, I think it'll naturally fit in. But I think going through the motions with this, it seems like a lot of energy that has been go going through from staff, from us, from the public to just get to just convey one point, which I think could have been done better. Anyway, I'm supportive of the way that the staff has addressed those concerns. I just had one question, which is uh it does say that vegetation removal would occur no more than once every 2 years to

maintain the ratio. Uh and and my question really was like this this entire agenda item talks about extreme conditions like drought. It talks about extreme rainfall. So, obviously vegetation and like water will vary depending on those extreme conditions. So, if anything like that happens within the 2 years, are we prepared to do something related to this? And And that could be something that the Water Resource Board may come back to us on. But, I just had a question. Is that something that we're tackling or is it a set time limit that only every 2 years will review this? I understand that this program is designed to address the situation as it exists right now. If there are changes to the makeup of Crosby Pond in the future, we may have to go back and through Mr. Goa adjust how we go about uh tackling the uh and making sure we have that appropriate 70% open water to 30% vegetation. So, it's just a kind of a wait and see what happens in the future here. But, right now this coastal development permit is intended to address the issues that we have at hand. And as Mr. Goa said, I think he's doing his best to try and get this done this year so that we at least get the the restoration effort started there. Right. And so, to just so that just to confirm, so once we get this started, it's the 2-year mark before we assess what the ratio is. Correct? I I think yes, um that would be a good way to phrase that. I know that the Planning Commission as a condition said that requested that the um the Mr. Goa or Public Works Department come back and report to to them in either January or February of 2028 on what steps they intend to take that calendar year to address the the vegetation at Crosby Pond. So, that's that's been at least in part on the part of the the planning commission a good check-in to make sure that their plans are in line with what is trying to be

achieved. Okay. And that actually helps. Thank you. I'm supportive of the staff recommendation. Uh Councilmember Row? Thank you, Mayor. Um I agree with Councilmember Garfield. I think she uh asked three out of the four questions that I had. Um Thank you for that clarification. That was going to be my answer my question. So, knowing that this is going to come up before the planning commission uh in early 2028. Um I'm ready to make a motion. Yes, please. And um and then we can deal with it in the next CIP project for the others, but I think we need to keep this at the narrow scope it is and move forward with this work. Would you like to move the recommendation? I would like to move that uh we follow the staff's recommendation and deny the appeal, adopt the initial study and mitigated development declaration pursuant to SEQL guidelines, approve a 5-year coastal development permit subject to the findings and conditions of approval, and adopt the associated mitigation monitoring and reporting plan. Thank you. With the staff rec, do I have a second? Second. Thank you. All right, any further discussion? All right, seeing none we'll take the vote. Uh We're all here, we can take a voice vote. Uh all in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Seeing none, passes unanimously. Thank you very much, everyone, for your time. Thank you, staff, for working on it. And uh Okay. participating. Okay, we're on to 12A. We are on to the process for submitting applications to fill the vacant council seat that you see up here. And I'll uh uh it'll be our city clerk who's going to give this report.

Yeah, she's moving into seat here. Mr. Mayor, I'll wait till Okay, Mr. I'll go ahead and pinch yeah for her. Um so the this item tonight um speaks to speaks to the timing for the vacant council's process for opening up an application period and for ultimately um choosing an evening when you're going to select a council member to sit beside you. So, we have proposed as of right now that we would open the application period tomorrow, which is May 7th, 2026, and that application is attached to the staff report tonight. Um in in terms of when that application period would close, that's something we'd like to hear feedback from the city council on. And I think that part of that would be depending on when you would like to schedule the hearing to actually vet the applications and select somebody. So, this is a pretty simple, straightforward item, so that's the extent of my report. Okay. Thank you very much. We'll take it out to the public uh for comment on this on this timing of the submission of applications essentially is what this is. That's about basically all it is. I don't see any hands raised online either. Okay. We'll go ahead and close public comment. Um so I'll go I'll lead off on this one. Uh I think it's a good idea we take the applications starting tomorrow. Um run them until May 22nd, a Friday, close of business. I always like the Friday deadlines. Uh

[clears throat] then uh we hold the hearing, the selection hearing, on the regular meeting June 3rd. Um we have a lot of meetings in May, so and other things going on, so we're going to be here a lot. So, I'd like to make sure to keep that week open that last week open. And have the selection during a regular meeting when there's more participation. And on June 3rd, and it'll be the primary item of the night. And then uh the person would then begin on June 17th. I uh assuming there's anything They're sworn in that day.

They're sworn in that day. That's right. That's right. They They come up here for a sec. Yes. Yes. Okay, got it. All right. I I had forgotten that little component, but their first full meeting is June 17th. And um that's what would be what I would recommend for this item. Anyone else? Yeah, I mean I'll go first. Um I like the dates. Works, you know, people have been aware of this happening, so we can proceed. I think it's not not news. Um I do have a question about this um the process. And it's just I'm it's a question question. Um is applicants will be posted This is the last page page 518. Um the application process on in the um policy. That's on the next item.

Next item. Oh, that's item three. Okay. This is just schedule. Forget I said that. Okay. Try Try Councilmember Roth. Schedule works for me. Okay. We had a vacancy the last time and we were in the process of filling it. I just want some guidance from the city attorney. Um that when you file to run for city council, it's public record. And Generally, it is, yes. The personal contact information and things like that would be redacted.

Redacted, and that's fine. So, the last time we were not and the public was not aware of who had been applying. So, I just want to get your thoughts on is that okay to make that public record? I know when you're running for city council, it goes out onto the website. You can see who's pulled papers. You can see when they've submitted the papers, and you can see when they've been uh verified as a candidate. And uh I think that we should make sure that we continue that process as transparently as possible. That would be up to you folks how you wanted to to handle that, but generally that's right that that when you submit that to the city, you're making public those those qualifications and those responses to the to the questions. And And like I said, the personal information would be redacted. Absolutely. That was my main uh I think that was my main question in this that came up last time. I had several people tell me that they didn't think it was fair that they didn't know who had a had thrown their hat in the ring uh until that night that we did the deliberation. So, uh thank you for that guidance, and I I think we should take that as as our task moving forward. Okay, the only the only thing I would say is that um I'm okay with that, too. Um except we have to If it's a weekend, like if someone gets it in at Friday at 5:00, which is a popular time to submit something, or 4:59 p.m. Pacific Standard Time, that we they know staff can take a day to turn it around and all that. And so, if we if we go with the like, you know, 24 to 48 hours to uh have them post online, I think that would be fine. And then, of course, at the end, when everything is done, and maybe we have a few last-minute, those can be posted as soon as possible. They don't have to wait until the publication of the agenda. Right. Okay. Go ahead and Councilmember Donnell.

Thank you. Just a follow-up question to that. Um it would be helpful if we have an awareness of where the the can go to look at those. Where will they be as they are posted? Because some said their decision on whether or not to run might be based on whether they saw other qualified candidates were running and didn't feel they needed to, for example. So, do we have a place there is a more of a county website where you can see when council has applied, but I don't know what the city has as a mechanism for posting them kind of in real time for the public to be able to know who has submitted an application. Yes, we have a standard page when elections occur. There's a green button that's created specifically for elections. I wasn't planning to do something that elaborate for this because it's sort of temporary, but I could do something similar at the top of either council page or or the city clerk's page. Whatever your preference is. Yeah, I think that would be helpful so that the public knows where to look for them. People can verify their own applications were received. So, I think that since that is what indeed they asked for the last time around, having more transparency, I think it would really be beneficial. So, thanks for that. Yeah, maybe maybe we should allow staff to think think about that and not lock them into it so that we can publish it to the applicants and give accurate information, but also ensure that our staff can meet the expectations of the audience. What do you think, Mr. Argeta? I appreciate that, Mr. Mayor, and I'm also going to just make sure I clarify what I heard. So, were we saying that basically rolling as applications come in within 24 to 48 hours we post them or all at once when the application period closes? I I think they want more more rolling. Okay. Yeah, which might only be two or three times. I mean, it's only 2 weeks. Yes, Councilman Perera. Yes, I might be contrary to popular opinion here, but I do think and I get it that this is a charter kind of compliance item. So, but

I think it's really a short time of window for us to really examine applications, review applications, and then really short time for somebody who is appointed to be on it, too. I also think that technically we are appointing somebody and then the election is really not too far away, which creates some bias to say is this our favorite candidate for for the election that is ensuing. So, anyway, I have my reservations, so I I'll be voting no on this. Thank you. All right. Would anyone I I'm just going to go ahead and move to uh make a motion. I guess I'll have to spell it out a little bit. Um since it's a little nebulous. So, I'd like to move that we uh hold the selection hearing on June 3rd. Uh that we take applications beginning May 7th and ending May 22nd at close of business. Um that we have a rolling process for the uh publication of such applications with redacted materials um on a 24-to-48-hour basis at the discretion of the city manager. I think that covers everything, but let me know if not. Do I have a second? Did you include the post the application on the council's webpage and make it available? Yeah. Okay. Second. All right, thanks. Any further discussion? And seeing that, we'll go ahead and take a voice vote. All in favor, say I. I. All opposed? Okay, we have one nay. One nay by majority. Four eyes. Thank you. Yes. Now, moving on to the second part of this, which is the uh Yeah, that's good.

Um now, this is part B, 12B. This is the council policy on the vacancy um which it will suggest a uh process for uh the nominations and such. So, go ahead and recognize Mr. Mogensen again and staff. Thank you. Uh honorable mayor and members of the city council staff and members of the public. Um I have before you tonight a draft city council policy uh entitled vacancy in an in elective office and appointment for your consideration. Um we all know city charter article 12 provides that the council shall fill a vacant council seat for the remainder of the term or until the next general election. However, the process for how the city council does so has not been previously established. As the agenda report states, this draft establishes a policy for how that that will assist with deliberating on applications and selecting an applicant to fill a vacant seat. The draft policy includes past practices and prior discussions with the goal to establish a clear and structured process for council appointments when vacancies arise and it was also considered for future um because we are moving into districts as well and and may have vacancies there. Um it's um designed to foster transparency, inclusivity, and equitable opportunity for all eligible candidates. And so, staff's recommendation tonight is to adopt a resolution um approving the draft city council policy entitled vacancy in an elective office and appointment. And that concludes my staff report. Thank you. Thank you very much, Everett. Um look for comment on the item. I see no hands raised online. May Okay. Um we'll bring it back to we'll close public comment on the item 12B. Bring it back to the council. I'm going to flag something because it's it's not

the draft There's something about the draft that I want to flag for the my fellow colleagues up here. Um So, when I was looking at this draft um that was prepared, and I appreciate taking a stab at it because it's a difficult thing to do, and we dealt with it last year, and it was it was a challenging process trying to figure out what's the best process for this. Um so, one thing that I think could be very clear and a little bit let more simple is rather than um having two nominations uh from each council member, we simply take one because there's a number of reasons for that. One is that you may not have two that you would support. So, then you're being forced to pick two when you only really want one. That could be something, and I think that's kind of really important. Um but, I would I would just say that we simplify this, that we we select our top nomination, and then the way it would be logically would be if you pick your top nomination and four of us pick cuz this can take a four to to win. So, if you pick the top and four of us pick the same person, we're done. And then the there'll be a motion to ratify it, and there will be a vote to ratify by the council. If not, that's when if there were more than one that make it to the next round, then when we take the vote. That's And that's going to take some word-smithing in the policy, but rather I don't I would rather prefer not to word-smith it tonight. I'd prefer to have staff come back next time, but just set those basic parameters, and then just have staff rewrite it, you know, edit it. It's not a I don't think it'll take too many edits. But, um more than I want to do on the dais, but um but, I think that we have plenty of time to do so. So, that would be my my suggestion just looking at the draft tonight uh over the past few days and just thinking about it. I think that having one nominee

from each person would narrow it down either to two or three, or would pick somebody and we'd know, "Hey, all four people agreed." And that's that's all that it takes to to win a nomination, to win an an appointment. So, that's where I'm at. I'll listen to everyone else as well. Uh Councilman McDonald. Thank you. Yeah, and I had kind of a a similar thing. Thanks so much for taking a stab at starting this. It's really helpful to kind of have a framework um to kind of look at what process will work best going forward. Um that was one thing that I noted is rather than having a rush for somebody to make their nomination first. Um I like the idea if if everybody kind of picks their top candidate, whether one or two and the one actually does potentially make sense, they do find out who people thought were the top candidates at that time and if needed have additional discussion. In that way, it's not kind of a rush to nominate first so the others don't get voted on. So, I like that part of the process. There were two additional things I caught. Mainly because we're laying out a process, I didn't see after the mayor will seek public comment an actual step for council discussion of the applicants. So, I want to make sure we work that in cuz I think that's an important part of the process for transparency, just making sure that we have that step in there versus going immediately to voting. I mean, it's sort of obvious, but if it's not spelled out when it's a process, it kind of leaves that out. Um the other thing that I was concerned about was the um it was specifically under the mayoral vacancy. Um I I think it also applied in the other one, too, the 30-day. We have three periods of time during the year where we don't likely have a meeting within 30 days of when this would happen. So, if it happens over where we have the first week of July, the first week of August, and especially the last week of December and the first week of January, when we don't have um meetings, we would fall outside of the 30 days. And

although we don't have that problem on this council, there could be a future where the mayor takes the opportunity to just decide on their own because we've created a process where we set that up to be the the case. So, I don't know what regulations we may have. I had a discussion with the city manager and there may be some charter requirements for the 30 days, but I just want to make sure we don't back ourselves into a corner where we set it up that the mayor gets to make the decision without council because of the policy. I I I'm going to take a stab at that comment. It's the charter is is trumps all and because of the way it's written it's already it's already like that. So, there's really nothing we can do about that. We just have to um that we can do this policy, but we can't override the charter with our with some language here at the day that's only important that's the problem with that. So, go ahead Councilwoman Gardner. Yeah, thank you. Um so, my original question that wasn't in the right place was actually what you asked about which was the posting of the things, but that's in the policy as well. So, covered. I'll I'll just covered. Sorry about that. I would like to ask staff why if there's a reason that we should consider why you put in two people being nominated by each council member instead of one. If there's a something that you foresaw that we're perhaps not considering. No, not really. I mean if you guys are agreeable to the one, that's fine too, but we just thought if there were a top two, it was just a number we kind of picked out. Right. And and and my question was based on there have been other cities that have done this. There have been a sort of a few instances and perhaps there's a wonderful way to do this that has occurred to some other city. Um I I do appreciate the not having a race to get a name in there. Oh oh mine mine. Um just have a very deliberate process where we hear from everyone

and then proceed in a regular way. Um and I also really appreciate having a chance for all of us to weigh in and approve of a of a a process before the day that it's going to be used. Yeah. So so I'm supportive of this. I think it's good. I I like the idea of as a constructive suggestion. I don't have any reason to believe that there was a reason for a a double nomination just to get more names in. Um and I appreciate your point about being forced to put in a second one when you have a clear first choice or only choice. So um I'm supportive of this as is. Okay. One thing with the changes

changes it. Got it. All right, perfect. Council member Gregory. Thank you, Mayor. Um the first of all I appreciate the staff putting this together. Uh obviously last time we went through the the rounds to decide what what we need to do. Um so I I I I had a couple I think two or three comments here. One is uh um So the last go go around like everybody presented, but there was no room for Q&A for us. And I think it may not be a bad idea to Council member McDonald's point two is maybe we should have a set of five questions and There was Q&A. Okay. Okay, so so will that be here in this then? We we can we can do it for sure. After the public comment. Okay. So yeah, and I I think we should also keep the questions the same for everybody. Um so that like it keeps it consistent. So So anyway, I I I I didn't see it here. So So just wanted to call that out. Um the second thing was uh the five minutes for qualifications any I mean if there's somebody's a community member is five minutes enough or not is all that I'm debating like if anybody could explain somebody to the people ratio Chris people on to me in five minutes, great. But uh but it's it's it's one of those things where is 5 minutes enough or not? So, just something to consider and and by policy if we say 5 minutes, and are we able to extend it to a couple of minutes if we wanted to on the dais or or not? If we wanted to. I think as a yes, as a council we can as a person. I could put 5 to 10 and the council can decide depending on how many applicants maybe. Mr. Chair, do we have a It depends it's depending on the number of applications, right? If it's only two, I'll be able to hear a little bit more, but if it's like 20, obviously I want to keep it to 5 minutes. So, so I think at the council

discretion might make sense. So, however we want to word it is but I was just calling that out. And then third, uh is uh it seems like we've somewhat addressed this year, but must be conducted without bias or undue influence, etc. But, whenever I I think I when I were I ran or after I ran, I did and I continue to file form 700s. So, it can we have the applicants file a form 700 or something of that sort that says there are no potential conflicts of interest from from each applicant. That would be helpful for us to review to see if there's any undue influence or not. So, but there is a bias or undue influence listed in here. I don't know how how that that is captured. It would take some research and and some time to draft something along those lines to make sure we didn't run a foul of everything. I see what you're saying sort of if you came to council, would you you know, would there be things, but there are a lot of um ethical rules that prohibit folks from participating in decisions if they did have a conflict or if there was bias. So, it's something that we could look into. It would be sort of not a typical thing to sort of preemptively say I have these Right. bias type things, but I do think there are mechanisms in place and in in in in in in the FPPC regulations and things of that nature that guard against that. And and is it as simple as like some candidate declaring I conform by the FPPC rules instead of us getting into all of this?

It It It would be premature until such time as they were an elected official or or of the city or appointed official of the city. Okay, I understood. Anyway, so those are my thoughts, but I appreciate really appreciate formalizing this. It's really constructive. Thank you. So I heard that one thing that we probably may we may all agree on is that then I'll go to my colleagues, but was that we're going to we like the process so far, but we want to have a Q&A section and I forgot how we did that last time, but we'll try to weave that in. Okay. And then um and then the time thing. And Council member Rael. Yeah, your honor, the last time I believe all of the council members submitted a question. Uh and then those questions were all put together and then everybody went in a um kind of a round robin to ask. After the 5 minutes, correct? Yes.

Yeah, okay. Yes. Understood. I think that will work again. Is that your recollection? Yeah, and everybody you asked the same question to each candidate the same question each candidate.

Yes. You had the same question and they at that time they were based on what questions you'd been asked while campaigning. So it was a sort of way of bringing someone up to speed. Um but I I would suggest that we settle on a time that people have because they prep it. Um We can do Yeah, let's wait till the policy comes back again fresh because um they're going to have to We We want to I want to see how many people are like applying. I don't I don't want to set a 10-minute timer and then we have 30 applicants. We'll never get out of here. So, but my suggestion would be to give people enough advance notice of how much time they will have, even if it's decided after the application period closes. Um so that they're not coming here with a 5-minute speech and only get 4 minutes. Um Okay. Or that one. But But I think your point about letting somebody know and then having a flexible But they need to know while they're doing their preparation of the the 5 or 7 minutes. They haven't submitted yet. So, I think that I think we're okay, but go ahead. So, once the once the application is submitted, by the time we come to the by the time the agenda is posted, we're going to know how many. And I don't think it's unreasonable to say at that posting, we can say it's going to be 7 minutes, it's going to be 5 minutes, it's going to be 3 minutes, depending on how many people. So, to me, that should be I mean, it's We always post before typically before Friday at 5:00. That gives you, you know, 5 days. Yeah. I think we can get it done. I'm not worried about it. Um So, at this time, do we want to have a motion? I know you have a good disc- You might have a discussion point, but do we want to have a motion um that we're going to go down to one

nominee, draft um and make those amendments that we uh that we talked about? And that the time allotted will be decided when the agenda is posted. Okay. So, I'm going to make a motion then that we're we're going to um ask staff direct staff to revise the policy as drafted to reflect each council member receiving one nomination, to reflect that questions will be asked of each applicant by the council during the process, somewhere in the process. That the time will be set um that the amount of time given for the comments from each person, not not um including answering questions, would be set at the time the agenda is posted. And uh for the meeting itself, that way we can discuss it more on our own. So, I think that's what I have right now. I think that that covers everything. So, that'll be my motion right now. Do I have a second? We got a second by Peduri. Okay, it's discussion. Go ahead, Lori. Great, thank you. And to follow up on um Council Member Peduri's point, That's my work. Thank you. To follow on Council Member Peduri's point, um for the most part, the questions were consistent last time. There were certain ones that were like maybe almost like a gotcha question for a specific candidate, and I want to make sure that we have a fairness and consistency when we do the candidate forums, all of the candidates get the same question. So, I think it's important that when we set the policy, that we do have a set of questions that are consistently asked, kind of like we've been in other forums where maybe one person picks and asks the same question of each candidate. But, I want to have that fairness and that consistency in it. And I don't know if we need to add it as a separate item, but also I think it may be important to add the point about council discussion. Even though

it's obvious, it's not in the policy, so up to um you to decide if you wanted to add that as well. So, just to discuss the last point that you made about discussion, I There There's going to obviously I think there would be natural discussion if if a motion and a vote were to occur. However, if four people if someone were to after all the questioning and the speech, and there were four nominations, we're not going to be having a council discussion in that instance. But, I think that if there is a vote, there could be discussion. However, I don't I don't feel that I'd like to impose that. I mean, it's like could be a gut feeling between two very similar candidates or I don't know. I don't want to try to force people to try to verbalize why they chose somebody. I think they have the right to choose who they feel is best based on their own internal um mentation or whatever they think or analysis. So, I I don't really want to put that in the policy myself. Um so, I wouldn't be interested in that and then that isn't any kind of amendment. And what what was the first Um the first one was um making sure it was a consistent set of questions.

Okay, I think we might have to talk about on the next meeting. I'm not going to I think I want to vote on this motion before I'm trying to add that in it any point in any way. And if I can make just a counter argument, not to say I would change the motion, but um my reasoning for thinking it's important to have council discussion is to provide transparency to the public as to what qualities, for example, we think are important about the candidates for me. So, for me it was more of a transparency thing. So, it doesn't look like, you know, a popularity contest or whatever if we're not clear on our reasons for selecting. It's less transparent. So, that was the only reason for the recommendation.

Well, I'm not sure it's less transparent, but go ahead, Jeff. Yeah, I was just going to suggest that there's language in here which says all stages of the nomination process must be followed without bias. Similarly, all stages of voting process must be conducted without bias. We can just add fairly and without bias. And I think that fairly will address these questions. Every it says every stage of the process. So, technically it it'll address what you're looking for. Okay, let's go and take a We'll call her Sandra. Okay. I have uh Mayor Smith. Hi. Council member Pedari. Hi. Council member Garfield. Hi.

Councilmember Real? Aye. And Councilmember McDonald? Aye. Motion carries. Okay. Um I think I'm going to move it on to the next item. Um here we are. Item 13A. We are Mr. First, we're we are this is the Region TAC subgroup recommendation on the 2030 collection. Honorable mayor, councilmembers, next on the agenda is consideration of the Region Technical Advisory Committee's recommendation to initiate a request request for proposals or RFP process for the franchise waste hauler agreement with the current agreement set to expire in 2030. As background, the Technical Advisory Committee is comprised of representatives from the participating agencies within the Regional Waste Management District, Pacific Grove, Carmel, Sand City, Del Rey Oaks, Seaside, Marina, and Pebble Beach Community Services District. In September of 2025, the City Council approved the Technical Advisory Committee's recommendation to engage the consulting firm HF&H to help facilitate this process. With the support of the consultant team, the Technical Advisory Committee has evaluated the available options and is now recommending initiation of an RFP process. Present in the audience tonight, we have Zoe Shoats of Region Monterey and Nick Becker of the Pebble Beach Community Services District, who was the Technical Advisory Committee Chair, who both of them, along with myself, will be available for questions after the presentation. Also, thank you to the representatives of our current franchise waste hauler green waste who are in attendance and the representatives of other interested waste hauler organizations who are also here tonight. Thank you, guys. Um at this time, I'm happy to introduce Sarah Peral from HF&H Consultants who will be giving the presentation. Thank you.

All right, testing. [laughter]

Thank you, George. All right, um thank you, Mayor and council members. My name is Sarah Pral with HF&H Consultants, and I'm here today to give a report out on our efforts with the stakeholder engagement process, as well as the recommendation of the Technical Advisory Committee's uh subgroup. Next slide, please. Uh so, we'll go ahead and look over the engagement results for the four sectors, residential, multi-family, commercial, and industry. And we'll also look at the key considerations that the subgroup deliberated on. Um we'll talk about infrastructure and readiness at the Monterey uh the Monterey Regional Facility. Um we'll look at timeline and next steps, and then ultimately that final recommendation of the subgroup. Um so, we'll start with the engagement results. Um so, our first phase of the stakeholder engagement was to conduct a statistically valid survey. Um this included all seven of the member agencies. There were 450 uh survey respondents, and this was uh conducted by Probolsky Research. Um so, we asked uh the the survey conducted um had several questions, but I'm only going to go over a few of the slides uh that are pertinent to this discussion. Uh the first question that we had asked was general satisfaction with GreenWaste Recovery. And what we uh saw reported was there was 93% satisfaction. Um we do often see this as um high satisfaction with waste haulers. That was the case uh when Waste Management also conducted a similar survey 15 years ago. And we really accredit this to um the the staff, the collection um drivers, the customer service department, all of those frontline workers that interact with the community day-to-day. They are providing um great quality service and have done so since they many of them worked with Waste Management at the time um when Green Waste took over that transition. And so we expect to continue to see um quality

service and that often is a result of high satisfaction. Next slide, please. Um among those that were satisfied, this is to represent just kind of what those intensity levels were. Um we saw about 66% were saying they were very satisfied um where we had um only about 29% or 28% that were very unsatisfied. Next slide, please. Um to look at uh what folks were saying um that were unsatisfied, um the number uh one reason was high cost compared to the level of service they were receiving. And that's a theme that we're going to talk about throughout the presentation. We saw several different um sectors that provided this feedback uh specific to affordability and cost sensitivity. Next slide, please. Um so here's an example. We also asked the community um how they felt about their uh quarterly garbage bill. Um and we saw that 47% are saying that it's just about right, um but we're also seeing 29% say that it's uh too high. And this is um something that we're seeing regionally and nationally that there's a cost sensitivity and affordability concern. Um and so that's something that we'll continue to talk about. Next slide, please. Uh we also um we're trying to understand the value of the community um when it comes to affordability, convenience, service quality, and environmental impact. So we asked um several questions to um try to understand what priority um the community feels about those four items. And affordability did come out on top as the most important um priority to the community. Next slide. I'm right below that was quality of service. And so continuing to keep those frontline workers uh serving the community and providing that quality of service is important to the community. Next slide. I'm convenience was third in

line. Next slide. And uh finally at the end it was environmental impact. So we're seeing that the community still values environmental impact, but it is a lesser priority um when considering affordability and service quality. Next slide. Um so the next step was to um have some engagement with the community. So we offered some community meetings where they could um participate and provide a little bit more of an open forum um feedback to us. Next slide. So we hosted three virtual um public meetings um various days and times. Um we had 17 members of the public join those meetings and provide feedback to us. Um in that last meeting we did offer that in Spanish. Next slide. And what we heard from the community was that they do have a general um high satisfaction level with green waste. Um some of the uh concerns that were voiced was um specific to the residential sector uh was some uh education outreach um awareness around programs that they are paying for but aren't utilizing um mostly because they aren't sure how to use them or that they're available. Um they would like some uh more customized services, uh some additional features um to make customer service more convenient like the phone app, and then um higher response times for customer service. Next slide. Uh we also did some targeted outreach um to the multi-family property managers. Next slide, please. Um so we uh made attempts to reach 46 different property managers. We were able to conduct seven interviews um for property managers that have properties all over the peninsula, um, and those properties ranged from eight to 106 units. Next slide. Um, and what we also heard was that they have a general uh, high level of satisfaction with the current service provider, um, but they also voiced

similar to what we saw in the survey, that there is a cost sensitivity, um, to uh, the property managers. They are concerned about rates increasing significantly and not being able to uh, transfer any of those costs to their tenants. Um, they also voiced that consistent, um, service is very important to them, um, because, you know, if a container is missed for any reason, there's high volumes of material being disposed of at those sites, and so that's really important. Um, and we also heard that education and outreach to not just the property managers, but to the tenants is, um, really crucial. And they also had some, um, kind of varying, um, messaging about, uh, illegal dumping in certain areas of the, uh, service um, amongst the seven member agencies. Some see illegal dumping as more of an issue than others. Um, we also conducted some targeted outreach to the commercial businesses. Next slide, please. Uh, so we made 34 attempts to connect with the commercial businesses and were able to interview 15 of those. Next slide, please. Um, and we did hear a little bit more mixed, uh, feelings about their satisfaction with GreenWaste Recovery. Um, often this is because businesses have, uh, some very specific nuances to service issues that they may have. Um, but some of the common, uh, concerns was again cost, uh, impacts. And they're concerned also of having, um, their rates raised. Um, they also voiced reliable, consistent service is important, uh, particularly in, uh, the restaurant industry. Having any missed collections really, um, impacts their business quite a bit. Um we also heard quite a bit about those difficult to service and hard to access businesses. That's where they're seeing a bit more of that you know, service inconsistency. Um we did hear from some members

of the community specifically about the cardboard collection program and that's um a little bit unique for Carmel and Pacific Grove specifically but finding some solutions to that which changed when the contract uh was set in 2015. And then again some education and outreach efforts so that they can be supported in their regulatory compliance. Next slide, please. Um as kind of the last sector that we communicated with in the stakeholder engagement process was industry stakeholders. Next slide, please. Um and so what we were trying to understand is if we were to go out to a competitive RFP is is this a desirable market? Are there other service providers that are interested in proposing on this service area? Um so we had five different service providers come out to the subgroup and present and all of those service providers did express interest in a future partnership with the seven participating member agencies. Um we also had several other service providers reach out and voice interest as well that did not present to the subgroup. Um all of those service providers noted that because Regen has this collection yard at their site, it really provides this turnkey operation to where they don't have that barrier of creating a facility themselves. Next slide, please. And so this is just a map so that you can kind of get a feel for what the marketplace looks like in the surrounding area. There are several service providers that are providing service um right around um your service area. Um GreenWaste of course, um there's Monterey Disposal, Recology, Republic Waste Management. Uh they're all in close proximity and then right outside um there are several other service providers that have voiced

interest um in San Benito County as well. Next slide, please. Uh we also um of course had GreenWaste come out and present to the subgroup um and they voiced enthusiasm to continue to be a partner uh with the member agencies. Um they're open to sole source negotiations. Um however, during their uh presentation they did provide a um estimated uh potential rate increase that was much higher than a CPI type of increase and so um that was something that the subgroup really um spoke about in their deliberations. Um we also asked about um if there was a risk of acquisition. Uh they recently went through that process a couple years ago and at that time had voiced that um they typically hold their assets for about 7 to 10 years and we're getting close to that end of 7 to 10 years. Um and so there was um just a question about whether that's a a uh risk in the near future um and that item was left pending. Next slide, please. Uh so now I'm going to talk about some of the key considerations that the subgroup um spent several months talking about. Um the first one is is really just good governance. This is one of the uh I would say highest priority to the subgroup. They um really feel like they need to have a transparent process in order to select a uh service provider that's defensible to the public. Um they feel like a competitive RFP process will deliver the best of value and they can say to the public that they got the best value value for their service provider opposed to a sole source negotiation, you can really only say that you got the best deal with that specific or the best, you know, deal with that specific service provider that you're negotiating with. Next slide, please. Um affordability because we saw that be a consistent theme throughout all of our

engagement efforts. Um that was something that the subgroup felt was really important to take into consideration. Um and with an RFP process, you're able to really get that best pricing. And so, um that's one of the reasons why they feel it's important to go to a competitive RFP. Um also because we were provided um a much higher than CPI increase by GreenWaste during that presentation. Um that was something that they felt in order for us to um have any rate increases, it was important for them to have a transparent competitive pricing process. Next slide, please. Um there was high levels of satisfaction with GreenWaste, which was represented also through much of the engagement efforts that we did. Um and so, the subgroup is very interested in having GreenWaste propose on this RFP process. Um you know, there's the frontline staff has provided quality service to the community, and that's also was seen in our survey results. Um we would um make sure that all of the labor protection provisions are um in any future agreement. And so, if there were a different service provider that was selected other than GreenWaste, all of those frontline staff um would be offered the opportunity to stay um serving the community. Next slide, please. Um and then the assignment risk, which was uh definitely a lesser priority um when we were thinking about these key considerations, but still something that was discussed by the subgroup. I'm you know, if it does happen that there was an acquisition, some of the questions that were raised were would there still be the same labor relation values of a new company? Would there be local decision-making or would it be more bureaucratic? Those are all unknowns. And so that was something that was discussed during those subgroup meetings. Next slide, please.

All right, so now we'll talk a little bit about the Region Monterey infrastructure and readiness. As I mentioned, Region Monterey does have a publicly owned collection yard. And this really was designed so that in the future there could be a competitive opportunity for any service provider to come in and provide quality service to the participating member agencies. And that was the goal when designing that. And so that's something that's really valuable. It offers this turnkey solution where there's the collection yard, there's landfill, recycling material facility, and organics composting all on-site at the same location. Which means anyone can come in and really provide that service. Next slide, please. Let's go over some timeline and next steps. Next slide, please. Thank you. So in the immediate, we are in the process of going to each of the elected bodies and presenting the stakeholder engagement results and the subgroups recommendation. Assuming that the elected bodies approve the subgroups recommendation in late 2026, we would be issuing that RFP, developing the RFP, and issuing it to qualified service providers. In 2027, we would be reviewing all of those proposals, conducting some evaluations, interviews, and then working with each individual agency to um, craft any of the nuances that would go into their specific agreement. Um, in uh, early 2028, we would be coming back to all of the elected bodies to present a recommendation for a service provider. And then, uh, from 2028 to 2030, which is when the current agreement expires, uh, we would be, um, allowing that new service provider to have a transition

period, which, um, gives them time to procure vehicles or any other infrastructure that they may need, um, as well as conduct some community outreach, uh, to each of the communities. Uh, throughout that process, the subgroup does recommend, um, adopting the process integrity policy, which helps govern, uh, communication with any potential, um, proposers. And so, that's, uh, also for your consideration. Next slide, please. And then, the final recommendation, next slide, please. Uh, is from the subgroup to adopt a competitive RFP process, as well as, um, that process integrity policy. Thank you so much, and I am available for any questions. Thank you very much. Full presentation. We're going to go to the public. Um, see if there's any hands. Got one hand online. I do have one hand online. Inga Laurenson Danner. Thank you so much, and thank you for that really good presentation of all the things that I have been railing against for the last, at least, 10 years of this franchise that the city has with green waste. And through three environmental program managers, at least, whether George First, Caleb, or Milos, I mean, I have been saying in public meetings absolutely alone, and that we need They have not been affordable whatsoever. They changed that we I'm a senior resident homeowner of 70 years plus. And I have to have garbage, but I don't

create garbage. However, they made everything less convenient and more expensive, and they leave my can in the middle of the street. They pick it up and dump it in the middle of the street. They don't care. It's just open, and my neighbor, thank God, brings it to the curb for me now. But this is a competitive process. I have said there is no For a while there with green waste, I made it that that I could have it my little one, my smallest can, which is all the garbage I have, picked up once every other week. But then they found out that Pacific Grove doesn't have that in their franchise agreement. So, I was back to the full thing. I don't even need my 32-gallon can out there every time. I put my But I have to pay for it, and I'm a low-income senior. This is absolutely ridiculous. Affordability? Thank God other people are talking about this, finally. I have been trying to talk about it for 10 years or more. And here, you have just presented that your biggest thing. I was not part of any of your meetings with this consulting firm. I was not part of any of your survey, but believe me, you have been speaking to me. Absolutely. Yes, we need an RFP. Yes, we need to get rid of green waste. Absolute. When Emily from Green Waste came in with her décolletage and her husky voice, that male City Council drooled over her and just

green-lighted everything she said and has been for years. I am so thankful that times have changed. Thank you. Yes, we need the RFP. I gather we the city's already committed with the MOU to paying for this consulting firm anyway. We need some change. I'm going to summarize that later. Take it to the council for discussion and action on the on the matter. Yes, Jeff's that's my priority. Thank you. Was there And could we open up for public comment in in the building? I would yeah. Okay. Go on. I would say potentially. Got to be quick on the draw. Council, thank you for the presentation. I just like to ask the either the council or through the RFP process to help us understand a bit more about the parado which indicates the high customer satisfaction on the residential usage. I'd like to understand what some of the key performance indicators are that were surveyed by the public. Certainly for the RFP if it's competitive to understand how the current and competing firms would address the most important components that make up customer satisfaction. I also like to see if we could be transparent about any future environmental regulations that are coming up that may affect the RFP that are not part of the current scope of work that's being provided by uh by Green. Uh so that we have that as a indicator, too, if it's going to be a cost driver to a residential or to commercial waste rates, uh that we're aware of that up front and we can understand that as a potential driver. Thanks very much. Yeah. In the name of what? It's Craig Dureau.

For the record. Thank you for the comments. Uh Zoe, uh Ms. Schouts. Thank you, Mayor Council. Great to see all of you tonight. Uh my name is Zoe Schouts. I'm the Director of Communications at Region Monterey and I just wanted to share our role in this process. Uh we are a coordinator of this process, but not party to any of the recommendations that were being made um tonight. Um but as a coordinator of the TAC subcommittee, um just wanted to let you know that your staff member George First, uh as well as others from the seven-member jurisdictions uh that are served currently by GreenWaste have um not taken this decision lightly. And um this is quite a process. Um as you saw from the survey results, we have some great partners both in GreenWaste and as uh other regional partners in our area that are serving um our cities. And uh want to acknowledge all of them tonight. Want to also acknowledge HF&H. They have done quite a bit of work for us. They were part of this last process. Uh so they've been instrumental in uh guiding us all in um making this recommendation. And um lastly, I wanted to share that the Region Board of Directors is uh has supported this recommendation. Um it has gone to a few of the city councils and boards uh that we represent so far uh has been approved uh by the Pebble Beach Community Services District, City of Del Rey Oaks, and last night at the City of Carmel. So you are the fourth of seven to hear this recommendation. They all so far have also supported this recommendation. That said, you should make this decision autonomously for your own city and with your own considerations um at play. Thank you very much for your time. Mr. Committee member, we appreciate that. Um sir, or Um uh Miss Schultz, actually I have one question for you. With sir, but can may I just put you just to the side for just a sec, sir? Um Miss Schultz, so Mr. Jared in the audience he raised a question and I

think if folks want to give you guys ideas for when you do the RFP, they can just simply reach out to Mr. First or to directly to your subcommittee group, right? To give input on that. I think that would be appropriate. Yeah, we'd love to hear community feedback on what folks are looking for in the new in the new contract. Okay, thank you very much. Sir, come on forward. Okay, thank you. Good evening, Mayor Smith and council members. I will say that going to some of these meetings now, the level of different subjects that you all have to be knowledgeable on is crazy. [laughter]

I mean, so I respect it. I respect all the responsibilities you've all taken on. All right, my name is Tim Morris. I'm district manager for Waste Management. Um uh based here in Monterey County. Uh I'm here to speak tonight in support of the resolution to proceed with the competitive RFP for Pacific Grove. Although time doesn't allow me to fully explain the benefits of partnering with WM, I respectfully ask you to support the recommendation of the technical advisory committee. To initiate the RFP process, it's a transparent and structured approach that will provide our team as well as other teams the opportunity to demonstrate how WM can deliver reliable service, long-term value, and positive impacts for your community. In Monterey County, as you saw by the map, um W M R I services unincorporated areas. We do City of King City. We do the state parks. We do many school districts in Pacific Grove and all the other peninsula cities. We're well positioned to serve your community. Nearly three decades, um W M service Pacific Grove and the other peninsula cities. So, in realistically, it's the same drivers. Um I see the same drivers in my neighborhood, so it's they just kind of go from one company to other company. In 2014, the jurisdictions used the competitive process uh to select a comp provider. So, this history shows that the jurisdictions understand the value of testing the market, not avoiding it. Um a competitive RFP does not replace workers or disrupt service. It modernizes services, uh tailors solutions for to each community's needs, and strengthens accountability while ensuring value. As we saw, that's an important part. Our WM team consists of frontline, behind-the-scenes employees today who live and work in in and around the areas every day.

Many of these WM employees already service Pacific Grove in the past. Um personally, I moved to the area for WM, and I never plan on leaving. I'm from the Midwest. This weather is perfect. So, even when people say it's bad, it's not bad. Um and I do understand, and I'm learning more about the unique challenges of each each jurisdiction. I will say that, even though it's a in the in the in the end, every jurisdiction will be able to have their own unique and special rules and stipulations in the contracts. So, um I appreciate your time. And uh I know I don't take questions, but I appreciate your respect and respect your decision. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Any further folks want to make comment tonight? Okay. Here we go. One more. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, members of the council. You called me out. I'm Emily with the husky voice. Um and I will say that that represents continuity. Um I was here um I worked for GreenWaste from 2008 to 2021 and was involved in the original procurement uh negotiations, the transition into Pacific Grove and the other peninsula cities, and um had staying power. And I'm very passionate about this industry. Today, I'm actually here representing Republic Services. Um and we are a provider in the city of Salinas. We are enthusiastic and really excited to bid here. Um support the recommendation for y'all to go out to RFP. And um I can say that from from my perspective, I was there until 2021 when the acquisition happened. I know that um Sarah from HF&H mentioned that the management team had transitioned over, and I know it's been echoed time and time again here, and really important for you guys to remember that frontline workers stay intact. That's something

really unique about the HF&H um RFP process is it places priority on continuity of service. The fact that the region infrastructure is here, it's really a cost competition around just the collection service, but utilizing the same labor, uh the same metrics. So, uh I would expect that there wouldn't be too much variability in the proposals that you get. I know that there are a lot of really interested service providers, and um I'm absolutely blushing, and it takes a lot to make me blush. So, Inga, again, thank you for the call out. Um I'm memorable, apparently. Um but I do hope that y'all go out to bid. We're excited, enthusiastic about putting together a proposal, and um I know that me and a couple of other folks in uh Republic are very familiar with the intricacies of Pacific Grove. Um Saturday service, public litter containers, the bakery getting Saturday service for food waste and carts. So, really spent a lot of the time on the ground and making sure that we're meeting the needs back then. The cost competitiveness is going to be paramount. So, definitely want you guys to hear that we understand that and look forward to submitting a proposal if you support the recommendation to go out to RFP. So, thank you. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor and council members. I'm actually from GreenWaste. So, my name is Manny Govea. I'm the vice president of municipal franchises for GreenWaste. And as you've heard tonight, since 2015, GreenWaste has been proudly serving the seven region member agencies, including the city of Pacific Grove. I would just like to reiterate GreenWaste's long-term and unwavering commitment both to the city of Pacific Grove and our customers throughout the peninsula cities. We understand, acknowledge, and fully respect the lengthy amount of time that went into this evaluation and proposing the recommendation that you have before you tonight. We respect that. Obviously,

we'd be remiss if we didn't see there being some alternative options, whether that be through sole source negotiating a new agreement with GreenWaste or leveraging the nine years that remain in the existing contract and extending based on that. There are very strict guidances within our franchise agreement that maintains rate stabilization. And also, uh it outlines what the future holds for us from a standpoint of what we live and breathe by the franchise agreement terms and conditions. So, there is some safeguarding there. I would be remiss if I also didn't mention all of our frontline workers who work tirelessly every single day in these communities. Um We've heard a lot about the former company and us acquiring those employees, but there is a very large team and 37% of our workforce today came with us in 2015 from the previous service provider. But that means the vast majority of our frontline workers today have been hired and been part of the Green Waste team since that time. So again, I respect this process. We thank you guys for your partnership. We're going to continue to provide the best service possible to you. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? All right. A couple of minutes from Peaceville tonight. Is anyone else if anyone else please queue up. Yeah, good evening Mayor Smith, council members. Just allow me to introduce myself. My name is Nick Becker. I'm the general manager for the Pelpich Community Service District. Also as George mentioned, I served as the chair on the Technical Advisory Committee. I've been really involved in the last year of looking into this issue on behalf of all seven member agencies. I I just wanted to let you know that you've been well represented by your staff. And this has not been a decision that's come lightly to staff to present this recommendation to you today. I also want to recognize the results of the survey do indicate that we've been very well served by

Green Waste. And and we want to recognize them for providing service for the last 10 years, but we also want to recognize that affordability was was a major factor among all sectors surveyed and we felt like that weighed quite heavily into our recommendation today. The other key considerations were you've got a very competitive market right now. I think that's representative with a number of potential haulers that have presented to you here tonight. And the other thing just to mention is the the truck yard at the region facility really is a a key element to creating a low barrier to entry. It really eliminates the need for any capital infusion for any potential hauler having to come to the area and invest for a period of time. So, with those considerations, um we we weighed that all up and and really came up with the recommendation that's before you. Uh and really the last major consideration uh I want to share with you is that going out to an RFP through a a fair, competitive, and transparent process will really assure you that you're getting the best rates for your constituents. So, with that, I thank you for your time. Thanks. Appreciate that comment. Thank you so much. It's what we're very interested in doing. Is there anyone else? All right. We'll be closing public comment on you. And bring you back to the council. Um and uh anyone want to make a motion? That seems pretty unanimous. Absolu- You can do it every way you want. Councilmember Bednarik. Sure, just a quick question.

Sure. So, um the I think the work that the consortium of people from different represented groups has done an excellent job. Um it's really nice to see how much work went into uh figuring out what the best approach would be. And I'm appreciating that you're open to people offering you their suggestions about um how to prevent raccoons from knocking over the bins or something like that. And I'll be sending you a little message um cuz I have a couple things. But, how does this decision actually get made? I mean, we have a group that's working on this. They're putting out the RFP. The RFP comes back in. Who makes the decision and how do we end up with something that is in some way customized for Pacific Grove? I'm going to step on that one. I'll let Sarah handle this just knowing that HF&H was heavily involved in the process in 2014-2015. I mean, I myself was not, so I'm hoping she has a better answer than I would. Good question. Typically every expert is a Wait, your your mic's not on, so there you go. Thank you. You'd think I'd learn that. Um so that's a great question. Um there is definitely opportunities for feedback. We typically um continue our work with the subgroup, which has all of the member agencies involved. Um we create um a sort of template agreement based off of a design intake that we go through uh with the subgroup to really understand what the needs are. Um and then um we take that template agreement and meet with each individual agency um to kind of weave in any of the specific needs for each community. So there are definitely um many opportunities for the public to uh send recommendations, um to have you know, all of that go to either uh region or to uh staff here at the city so that we can take all of those

into consideration while we're developing even the template agreement, and then also another opportunity when we're um really focusing specifically on weaving those nuances in um for the city specific agencies. But the council will be the one voting on those things that are presented to

So then we would take So typically the subgroup would create a recommendation of what um what they would like to see, bring that back to uh the council, and then they would um direct. Okay. Got it. All right, thank you for that. That was helpful. Yes. Councilman Perera. Yes, uh I think we've established that at least um Republic Services has an official spokeswoman here uh through this uh through this exercise. But uh I I I remember because this came on regen, and so this is my second go around, so so less work for me to read this. But uh the I mean, the first question I had was this This a full 4 years uh ahead of like schedule to decide somebody. I mean, we're not even hosting the Olympics, but but I mean 4 years seemed like a long time and and so but I I I realized the value of like going through this now like I mean the exercise that we are taking it's really a combination of like jurisdictions coming together to make sure we're all doing the right thing. So so we we had unanimously like agreed to go to the RFP. I I really recommend nice also like everybody involved like the technical advisory group and everybody the staff that's going in behind the scenes going to every jurisdiction to present this and so on. Really a collaborative effort to the core. I my personal view here is that things happen when when you're looking at contracts for 10 to 15 years. So SB 1383 is is a prime example like that's a change that has happened during the course of the contract. And I hear when when I talk about SB 1383 to anybody the the first thing that I say that I hear is that the smell. We don't want to I mean there's there's too much smell with me doing composting within the green kind of box etc. And and so I don't know how we can address those elements like regulations within the

scope of the contract during the contract. Therefore an RFP makes sense to see if we can have some environmentally conscious solutions or or maybe better solutions that perhaps GreenWaste may have but is not addressable through the contract but can be done through an RFP exercise. So I think I'm I'm really supportive of that RFP in that regard which will address like future regulations. The other thing too is I I did not realize that the PE firm had bought bought GreenWaste. So again like the longevity of the contract kind of plays into elements that we do not foresee and I think we just need to be prudent to make sure that our contract is taking care of all those elements as we move forward. And I think I I the reason I'm speaking out is really uh no matter how much education we do, there's always like folks that that say we did not know about this. We we have not heard about it. I have not had a chance to provide questions and I think this I just want to speak up on this matter to say that this is here, this is now. We have some points of contact within even within the city and and at a regional level. So, I I would say staff, if we could do whatever we can to kind of publicize this a little bit more. No matter how much we do, it's not enough. So, but I would say let's just do it so that we can get all the feedback that we want so we can incorporate those items with within Pacific Grove. But, thank you. Yeah, yeah, everyone's on notice that you can send them send them your comments, uh whatever it is that you want to have input on and then so you don't come out in 2030 going, "What happened?" I agree with that. Uh Council member McDonald. Thank you. Yeah, and and I agree that this sort of provides an opportunity if you if you want to say that for a reset because there have been a lot of things that have changed and we have we have heard concerns from citizens. And actually when I started on council, they had us meet with members of the chamber and their number one complaint was actually that cardboard

waste. We no longer have a mechanism for disposing of our cardboard waste, but under the current contract, my understanding was there was no way to address that. So, so it seems like maybe this is the opportunity to do that. Um it's it's unfortunate that we're hearing the number of instances of garbage cans being dumped over in the middle of the street, which can be challenging for people who aren't maybe as young and as able as others might be in the community. I would probably have trouble picking that up as well. But, it would be an opportunity for us to look at those issues, but the bigger one I see is at least in Pacific Grove and maybe other places, we have a lot of renters and a lot of rental properties. E-waste. Um this is just one example as well as the green waste of things where we don't have a good process in place. Most people aren't going to drive to Marina to dispose of their e-waste. So, what does that mean? It goes in the garbage can. If you live in a house, you can have three waste pickups per year. I've checked on this. If you live in an apartment, your apartment manager can get it no matter how many units you have, only three times a year unless they pay for it. So, I would like to see us including in the negotiations thing that might be related to our climate action goals because as a region we have climate action goals and it seems like this may also be an opportunity for us to reset some of the services that we get. And I'm putting that out there since we have so many of you in the house now. Um, so it might be a really good opportunity to be forward thinking about how we meet those new requirements because it's good for the community, it's good for the environment. And another really big one I have to call out what Inga has been telling us for quite some time now is not having options for people who don't have a lot of waste. The fact that we are required to have one large bin regardless of how little we use is problematic for people for whom not only is that not efficient, um, but it also is a cost burden. So, I think that's something I would definitely want to see in the future contracts. I figured this is a good forum to put that information out there

on behalf of our community, um, so that we can look for that in in future, um, RFPs that are submitted to us. Thank you. Okay. Um, Aurelia? Um, thank you. Um, thank you for everyone that spoke. Uh, I agree with you on the, uh, that was going to be my point was we do need to look at some kind of a program for folks that, you know, need some help. Also being sensitive to the fact that gas is going up, you know, electricity's going up. We've got people water is going up. So, people are under a lot of price pressure. Um I think the fact that this is, you know, going to an RFP is not you know, it's not a it's a serious matter because we've already spent $534,000 as the collective to get to this place, and then we have to go out to the bid. So, um I take it really seriously, but I think we owe it to our citizens um to to provide that transparency to them and look for the best rate that we can uh maintaining the best service that we can. And so, at that point I'm ready to make a motion if

Please. that's uh okay. Absolutely.

I recommend that we follow the staff's guidance and adopt a resolution initiating a competitive request for proposal process for future solid waste recycling and organic collection services and adopt the related process integrity policy. Second. Perfect. All right, we have a motion and a second. Um any further discussion? Appreciate the comments, everyone. Um Okay, we'll take a voice vote. All in favor say I. I. Any oppose? Hearing no opposition, it passes unanimously. Thank you everyone for coming out. Appreciate the input from all the parties. Um and we've made a well-informed decision. So, we appreciate that. We're going to take a brief break, come back at 8:15 on our final item. Thank you.

Mhm.

Mhm.

This is a good start. This is a good start. Thank you. I I I would Getting out the jitters here. My will is out. Okay. How are we doing? Are we good to proceed? Okay, excellent. Thank you so much, everybody. We're back from the break. It's 8:16 p.m. May 6th continuing the meeting. We're in the final item of the night. Item 13 B and this is the installation of a four-way stop at Congress Central and Lighthouse. So, I'll recognize our public works director Daniel Go. Thank you your honor members of the city council. I have a very brief presentation tonight. Um kind of a weird format, but I'm going to roll with it. Hold on. Let me Let me see if I can figure this. I think you can. I'd like to see it. Yeah, it's an I know it's odd. Oh. So many ledgers. There's There's two of them. Let me try this one. There we go. What did you just do? Maybe There we go. Okay. Good cuz I I worked a lot really hard on this presentation tonight and I want you guys to see it in its fullest, all right?

Okay, you got it. Okay, so tonight we're presenting to you the intersection of Congress Central and Lighthouse. Um you guys directed the city public works department to review this intersection for a potential stop sign. So, what are the current conditions? This basically is the beginning of our downtown, right? The Lighthouse corridor which runs between Cedar for the most part and 13th Street. And this corridor is 15 mph. The downtown really does have high visibility crosswalks at all the intersections. So, all the intersections have some form of treatment for pedestrians. Um Lighthouse Central and Congress is controlled by two-way stops on the Central and the Congress side of it, but there's not the four-way stop on Lighthouse. But, the intersection does act like a four-way stop sign. People get to it, they don't know what to do, kind of confused, they figure it out. Okay, so our observations is that the mail drop creates potential conflicts, though I think we can address that. Um all the curb ramps are at the intersection, though they are curbed cut, they are not conforming to current standard, but that's okay, that's something we could address later. And we do need to update signage and striping, regardless of what we do we're going to do here tonight. Um public works will probably go ahead and do that anyways. You saw on the report that we evaluated morning, midday, and evening traffic and pedestrian results. The midday peak was the one that really s- struck out to me, stood out to me, so between 11:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. and I don't have the date on this presentation, but I believe it

was like a Tuesday in October, we noted 1,200 vehicles through the intersection in a 2-hour period, 225 pedestrians and 15 bicycles. It's busy there, right? Congress is busy, Central's busy, on a Tuesday or Wednesday midweek, the post office is busy, gas station, right? Okay. So, then we took it to the traffic commission and we provided them some information. The traffic commission noted that within a 12-month period we had the five crashes. That's what prompted the recommendation tonight. The traffic commission also stated that there's unintended consequences at the current intersection as it is. That's due to the queuing, such as like people stopping cuz they don't know what's going on, the heavy pedestrian and bicycle traffic, which creates near misses. But, they've also stated that all of downtown has poor sight lines, and that's contributed to the angled parking and the backup parking that's associated with like next to the curb and the middle median, right? Um the lanes are narrow, and people are backing in and out. Um so, they do state that a traffic or a downtown specific plan may be prudent. But, that could be something that we do down the line, right? So, what are the next steps? Is to advance if you give me direction tonight to move forward with a four-way stop. I'm not going in installing a four-way stop tomorrow, right? We would put up our advanced warning signs, the big signboards that say "Stop sign coming," right? And maybe say like the beginning of June or some date, right? June timeframe. We would then order the necessary infrastructure, and we already kind of have a layout that we

could use for the installation, which was in the report and also in this PowerPoint, which I'll get to. Um so, we those would be the next steps, right? Order the signs. That's all we would need to order. We have everything else. And then put out the advanced warning signs so people don't know it's just coming. It just doesn't appear. Ms. Hallaby could put it on social media that it's coming. Everybody would know. Nobody's going to come to the city council and say, "I didn't know you were putting a stop sign in." Right? Okay, so traffic commission motion for us to send this forward to the city council. That's why we're here tonight to install four-way stop. But, they also said to look at potential downtown specific plan in the future. Okay, so here's the layout. Um as you approach, we would have all the 15 mile an hour signs on the ground and then we would put up the stop signs through the turn lane. And then I think we could keep the post office box. They removed the post office box on the eastbound lane and I think that that was the bigger conflict. I think the westbound lane has enough room. Maybe we can get creative and put a sign up that says yield to traffic right there so you drop off your mail, you're yielding to traffic prior to entering that stop sign. Cars are going to slow down anyways because of the stop so I don't think it would be a conflict. I'd like to try it before we and observe before we relocate that mail drop off box somewhere else that's not going to be as convenient for the postal user. Okay, so the recommendation is tonight is to be turn the intersection into an all way stop. There's additional recommendations in the report. I'm just hitting on those right now, which was the daylighting law. We've already completed that, right? So that's done. We moved all the red curbs 20 feet back. We relocated

that ADA spot. That needed to occur regardless of what we were doing with the intersection. We did that in fall of 2025. Refresh all the markings and signage. We'll do that. We talked about the post office drop box and then develop a downtown specific plan. Those are the are the recommendations in the report. If we do future work downtown, we might want to consider upgrading those curb ramps, but right now if we're not going to touch any concrete or asphalt, we're only doing paint and putting up some signs. There's nothing I see that would trigger us to have to do those infrastructure upgrades at the present moment, but it would be nice to do a larger project there at some point. And that concludes my report. All right, thank you very much. We'll go ahead and take it out to the public for a comment on our final item, item 13b. Sally? I think this is a good idea. We've needed it for many years. I used to work in an office that was right where you go into Toasties. Believe me, I saw all sorts of action in that intersection. So, I'm hoping you can do it. I know that there may be a problem with the mailbox, but I don't know if any of you have tried to drop anything in, but you have to pull out far enough that you can open your door and get out and put it in. And that complicates things as well. So, I'm hoping consider that. And while you're considering four-way stops, how about Forest and Lighthouse? That intersection is awful as well. Thank you. Thank you very much. Uh good evening. My name is Nicholas Morlum. I'm a resident here. Um I want to speak in favor of the stop signs in your consideration. I think this is really forward-thinking and I really

appreciate you considering it tonight. Um I wanted to speak out on this because I personally have actually almost been hit at that intersection. It was actually So, I have a 5-year-old daughter. It actually when she was 2 in a stroller, we were actually almost hit cuz we live up on Park and walking down to Caledonia Park. So, I think this is going to be a a fantastic step in the direction of safety for our citizens, and I applaud you for considering it. So, thank you. Thanks very much. Next stop, online. Yes, we have one caller online, Inga Lorenzen Dymer. Thank you, Mayor and Council. I've been supporting this all through the Traffic and Safety Commission, through years before that. I agree with Sally Moore completely. This has been a long time coming. I think all of you know how often I sit at the post office gathering signatures for one petitioner or another over the years. And one of the problems is always

[clears throat]

that the 15 mile an hour is not respected and they blow on through going west when from the post office because they haven't been really doing the 15 miles an hour anyway. And yes, Sally Moore's got it exactly right as far as that post office box now. You have to get out of your car no matter if you have an SUV or a low car. You've got to get out to put your mail into that box to even do it. That's the post office. Okay, that got switched. Yes, there isn't one on the other side now. But it's the speed and going through and I couldn't possibly as a disabled senior adult walk across that street at intersection now. I've tried it about two years ago and almost got run over. So yes, this is absolutely needs to be done. And the curb cuts? No, they've always been wrong from they when they were put in and we spent all that capital improvement funds on. Um they haven't been utilized they they are not. They are not compliant, they are not whatever. It's kind of like the Forest Avenue bull bolts that we got that we had to take down again. I mean, it's like ridiculous how things carry on and carry on. Yes, we We a better downtown plan. How long has that been in the making? Well, let's do it. Let's go ahead and forward think. But yes, we need this four-way stop before then. And I appreciate that. Thank you.

I know further hands are raised online, Mayor. All right. Now, bring you back I will close public comment on the item. Um bring you back to the council. The way I see this tonight is uh there are some aspirational items and then there's the item that needs immediate action and that is uh number one what I would refer to as install all stop control and refresh uh pavement markings and signage. So, I'm definitely supportive of uh number one. And the aspirational items are time and budget uh issues as well. So, who else would like to Who would like to speak? Council member Rowe. Thank you. This was the first conversation that Mr. Go and I had after I took office and I am so happy to see this uh I've been going through this intersection um 39 years. And I think it's way overdue. It's always been problematic and it's probably the number two thing that people bring up to me about downtown. I fully support getting this done and getting it done as soon as possible. I think if you look at the um I I agree with the mayor that we've got some aspirational goals here. But if you look at the overhead um if you look at the overhead slide, you will see how long that run is from Passionfish to Toasties and from the post office to the Shell station. It's twice as big as it is from the post office to Toasties and the Shell station to Passionfish. And so, forward in that piece, uh Mr. Go, I would also recommend that there be a pedestrian safeway, safe zone, I don't know what you call it. You've got a word for it. But, uh we need to have a a halfway point where people can stop and gather themselves and then move on to the next section.

But, um all of those, I think, are for the next conversation, but for this final conversation, um I mean, I'm willing to make a motion. Well, I I would Go ahead and make a motion to get that for discussion. What was the motion again? Is the staff to install the four-way stop at the section of Lighthouse, Congress and Central, and all associated actions consistent with the installation of the four-way stop. Um and an amend recommended amendment that we add to it and including refreshing all payment markings and signage. Yeah. Okay. Then I'll second that. And we have a motion and a second and a discussion. Councilmember Garfield. Um thank you. I would like it uh Well, first of all, great, we're moving this forward. The letters we've received have been extremely positive about this important safety um improvement. Um and it's been very welcomed. We've heard a few people talk about Forest and Lighthouse. And my understanding is is that when you put in a stop sign, you start backing up traffic. Um and so, it makes it harder for people to get out of parking places. So, the Forest and Lighthouse really needs to go to Traffic Commission to have a full study um of of the the feasibility of it. Um I do think that this particular uh intersection can anchor a corridor, a north-south corridor, for improving the walkability of our city. As we try to get in sidewalks, we want to have a a destination. And as we've discovered going from up on Park down to Caledonia, this is a this is a good destination. Caledonia, the beach, all of that. And so this is a way of making that corridor a safe corridor, which then drives

people to use it more. So we can focus our improvements within that corridor instead of trying to do everything everywhere. I do want to ask if um in in this particular instance, when you talk about the daylighting law, have you done that with the center parking as well as the side parking? Because my impression is driving down Lighthouse is that the diagonal parking in the center a you can you can s- completely miss a pedestrian because of that a big car in the center spot. Um may not be appropriate to this particular conversation, but I think it's it it it's something I'd like to know more about. Um but can you quickly review or briefly review the process that you all went through to get to the four-way stop. Were other things considered? Um was this just well, let's just do the four-way stop? In in the world of traffic, are there other alternative ways to make a safe intersection that were considered and that this turned out to be the best choice? Sure. Before I get to that, I don't think the daylighting law is applicable to the center median parking because it's even though I see how it's Uh-huh. could be for our downtown because of the uniqueness of us parking in that center median, it's for people that are on like the sidewalk stepping off the initial curb. Mhm. So, there's not a car parked or truck parked right there that they can't see them crossing. Now, we're in a unique because of the trees and those like if somebody was already in the crosswalk, right? You would see them. But since we have those trees and those planners, that's our uniqueness. So, the daylight law isn't applicable to that center median parking for my understanding.

Okay. But if it's a something that council would like us to review review, we could. But that would take away some parking in our downtown, which could be controversial as we all know. To the intersection and your questions that you asked, we evaluated the intersection and all components associated with it. The city council gave us very specific direction to evaluate that intersection for a four-way stop. That was our primary goal with this. I'm assuming you're talking about other treatments like in-roadway lighting or something that would trigger uh vehicle to realize there's a pedestrian in that walkway. Um we didn't truly evaluate that. But I also don't think that's the theme here because what we're trying to do is get the people to stop and then recognize the 15 mph zone. And I think that that is what is going the stop sign's going to do. An in-roadway light system's not going to work if there's no pedestrians there to slow and calm that traffic. But it it would assist a pedestrian crossing the roadway, but not like a stop sign. Okay. So, we didn't truly evaluate that. I will tell you that to do a system this length across that sidewalk would probably be five to 10 times more expensive than us being able to install the stop sign. No, I really appreciate understanding the process better because it makes the end result um apparently the best thing to do, not just the quickest. So, thank you for sharing the process. I appreciate it. All right. Let's go ahead and take the

vote. Are you Would you like to speak? Yeah, just a quick comment. Uh First of all, Dan, thanks for the presentation. Since you said you worked really hard, I did want to say that instead of updated signage and striping, you had updated signage and stripping. So, just FYI. But, what uh sorry, uh just pulling your leg. The first version didn't have that, I'm sure. But, I I I I had a question. So, so this is like uh I mean, it's it's been there for a long time, right? So, we have the stop signs here, but can we also add just asking, can we also add uh say on Congress Avenue saying stop sign ahead in advance of the stop sign? There's already stop signs there, but if Let me take a look and see if

Yeah, so so everywhere possible if we because it's force of habit, right? Like folks who already drive there probably are used to it. So, maybe saying something is coming ahead might might make sense. So. All the stop signs will have the emblem that says four-way underneath them, which they currently don't because it's not a four-way stop. Okay. So, like if you go to a four-way stop that your typical says four-way or all-way underneath where those don't have that currently because it's just a two-way stop. So, those will get upgraded with that, and we will look at any roadway markings that enhance the safety. Okay. All right, thank you. Thank you very much. Okay, we're going to take a voice vote. Okay, all those in favor of the motion say I. I. Any opposed? Hearing none, passes unanimously. Thank you, Mr. Go. Appreciate it. I don't think I got a second on that. Sorry. Um I was the second. Okay, thank you.

Yeah. Yeah. And it was uh number one plus additional whatever signage and markings on the roadway was the other part of it. struct striping notes Yes, striping. All right, that's I think that's it. That takes care of the remaining agenda. Thank you, everyone, for sticking around to the end. And our meeting is adjourned. All right.