Okay, then.

Are we uh ready?

Can I go ahead and call it to order?

Okay.

Well, good evening, everyone.

Uh, this is the uh special meeting of the Pacific Grove City Council tonight, Wednesday, August 20th, 2025.

It's five PM.

We're here in Council Chambers at 300 Forest Avenue in Pacific Grove, California.

I'm calling this meeting to order.

I'm looking for a motion to approve the agenda for the closed session.

Move to approve the agenda for closed session.

All right, we have a motion by Mario, second by Paduri.

Any further comment?

Hearing none, uh, I'll take a voice for it.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

Seeing no dissent, go ahead and proceed on this agenda.

And what we have tonight is a special meeting.

Um, and we have one item, a initiation of litigation pursuant to government code section five four nine five six point nine, subdivision D, one potential case, as outlined here in the in the agenda, and I will allow uh public comment on this item at this time.

I see one member of the public here in chambers, and I will allow her to speak first.

I didn't realize until this today that I was entitled to know which of the four types of litigation you will be discussing.

Had I known that, I would likely have written different comments.

Um that's my first reason for requesting that you not discuss that tonight, but instead postpone this until a future date when the public can have seventy-two hours advanced notice of what type of litigation it is that you'll be discussing in closed session.

Um, ninety-one years old, so um, would you help me out?

No, if I and I'm hard of hearing too, and I I think I heard you say something about a map.

That's not the second reason, but I put the second reason in my email that I sent you approximately 345 this afternoon.

I had been at the dentist when oh, about the correction, about the correction in the amount paid to Mr.

Perrick's firm and um Mr.

Um Laredo's firm, they the amount is much closer uh closer to being equal than I had been told earlier, the earlier email from the city um misstated the the difference.

Um, so for those two reasons, my reliance on the accuracy of what I was told several days ago, which was misplaced reliance, and my reliance on the adequacy of the notice, which did not conform to that section in the government code.

Those are my two reasons for requesting that you not proceed with this closed session, but that you postpone it until there can be 72 hours advanced notice to the public.

Um so that's my request.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Uh Mr.

Bear, could you please address certainly let me see if I can provide some clarity here?

Um it's uh government code section 549 56.9 uh D, like dog, um lists the four types of litigation.

Um one is litigation um uh which has been formally initiated.

So this is clearly not that because the um description in the agenda uh is um initiation of litigation pursuant to uh government code section 54956.9.

So it's initiation of litigation, it clearly says that's what it is.

So that's not litigation that's been initiated formally, it's potential.

Uh the second one has to do with exposure to litigation, and there's nothing in the agenda description that says this is exposure to litigation.

The third one is the legislative body is meeting only to decide whether closed session is authorized, and the agenda description doesn't say that's what this is.

So the only remaining description in that subsection is four, which says based on the facts and circumstances, the legislative body of the local agency has decided to initiate or is deciding whether to initiate litigation.

So the answer to the question of which of these sections applies, it's D4, and that's clear on its face from the agenda description when it says initiation of litigation.

Uh also I'd point out that subsection G of the uh government code does allow for the identification of the subdivision uh to be done uh as at um when it's publicly announced before you go into the closed session.

So you know, if that's uh as authorized, it's being publicly announced, it's section four.

It was clear, I believe, on its face, that when it says initiation of litigation of the four choices, that's the only one that it could be.

So that's um the answer to the agenda description on the um question about the fees for um Mr.

Laredo's firm.

The August 15th um uh report uh response to the public records request um advised uh Ms.

Haynes of what the uh amount was for the dates that she requested.

The dates that she requested were the most recent 12-month period for legal services rendered um by former advisor Laredo, and that information was provided um for those dates that had been requested from October of 22 to uh August of 23.

So I think that and it was uh in round numbers around 15,000.

Um so that was correct, it responded to the public records request.

Now, there was additional information provided today with respect to other dates of when of what the Laredo uh fees were, and those were for the year before I became city attorney.

Um I was appointed in July of 2022.

So the for the period of July of 2021 through July of 2022, the uh amount of the attorney's fees for Laredo firm was six hundred and twelve thousand six hundred and eighty-nine dollars and thirty-three cents.

So um I hope that clarifies that the amount, the 15,000 was dealing with a different time period, and that the uh information that was provided to Miss Hayes today covers the period that I've mentioned of July 21 through July of 2022.