Recording in progress.

Yes.

Okay.

Welcome to Pacific Grove City Council Chambers.

There's a lot of faces in here, so appreciate you coming out tonight to the meeting.

It's Wednesday, August 20th, 2025, 6 PM.

This is our regular meeting.

I'm calling this meeting to order.

We're here in Pacific Grove City Hall.

And I will ask, it's exactly 6 p.m.

I'll ask my colleague Mayor Pro Tem Amelia to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Thank you very much.

And now at this time I'll entertain a motion to approve the agenda that we're going to work on tonight.

Move to approve the agenda.

Any discussion of the approval?

Hearing none, I'll take a voice vote.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Seeing none.

This is unanimously.

We will take the agenda as stated.

Now we're on to I item number two.

This is presentations, and we have one presentation tonight.

And this is item two A, in remembrance of Steve, Eugene Clatterbuck, Jamie Lee Tabbs, Scott, and James Vincent.

And I know that a majority of the audience today is here for that purpose.

And um, so at this time I'm going to turn it over to, I believe, my colleague may over time Emilio to have a presentation on this item.

Okay, thank you very much.

Once you get it up, I'll go ahead and uh start.

Okay.

One had a birthday, and dad was missing.

Um James owned uh the Aquarius dive shop, and Jimmy owned another dive shop.

Steve was a dive instructor, and I I believe there's some dive people in here, and I really appreciate uh your help in the matter, too.

Uh, to honor the victims, I believe a memorial bench should be placed near the airplane crash.

Um, the three victims that were involved in Pacific Grove.

All three victims were all in um involved in Pacific Grove, Monterey County, and um, I also want to wish um to acknowledge Mr.

Morgenson who found the location of the memorial bench.

And I don't know if Sandra, you're able to bring up the three victims or I'm having problems with both of these photos now.

I'm sorry.

Okay, that's that's okay.

Um, and I also wish to um there was a photograph of all three of the victims.

Um you probably saw in the Carmel Plain cone.

Uh and also um I had other uh photographs of other things, but I wanted to uh hold on those because they're just um too fresh in everybody's mind.

And um I wish to offer, if you allow me, Mr.

Mayor, that uh anybody that wishes to speak on this board, uh they may.

And um, I don't know if anybody would like to speak.

Um I know there's quite a few people, so I see more or more.

Would you like to speak?

Okay, so a couple things.

One do we have we don't have slides, so we're gonna go ahead and move forward.

The bench has been selected, that we're gonna put it in.

It's not a question because yeah, okay.

Just so you know that.

Okay, thank you.

And and we do, we do have a lot of business tonight, too.

So Mr.

Amar has graciously decided to speak for the group tonight um and take care of the comments.

Good evening, mayor, city council members, staff, and the public.

My name is Mo Amar, and it's my pleasure to represent the group that's here this evening.

I'd like to start by observing a moment of silence in honor of the three men.

Thank you.

Uh I want to thank Mayor Nick Smith for putting the item on the agenda.

It's not easy to squeeze an item with short notice.

I want to thank our vice mayor, uh, otherwise known as Mayor Pro Tem Joe Emilio for championing the cause.

I did ask him, texted him, and I said, Why are you championing this cause?

And he said, Because of my Italian heart.

We believe you have a big heart.

Councilman Emilio.

I want to thank our city manager, Matt Morgenson, who took the time from his busy schedule to go out and research the area and identify the best possible option with Linda Pagnella, who was a librarian, civic leader in the town of Pacific Grove.

My final thank you goes to uh a wonderful lady who's with us tonight, and that's Nicolette Eason, local realtor born and raised in Pacific Grove.

She agreed to take full responsibility for any expenses related to the bench today.

Thank you.

On to why we're having a bench.

So in talking to Kimber Vincent, Kimber is the sister of the pilot, and she is the wife of one of the passengers who passed away.

We asked her, what do you what would you like?

How can we help you?

What can we do for you?

And Kimber said, I would love to see a bench on the water.

So we wrote a text to our mayor and to our vice mayor, and they immediately responded.

She stated that a bench would be not only good for her, for her two kids that are 9 and 13.

It'll be good for the bring families, it'll be good for the friends and relatives to visit and enjoy that site.

As evident by the crowd that attended this evening, and I really had nothing to do with it, it's all social media.

I want to thank everybody that has attended.

Obviously, this bench means a lot to the diving community.

If you're in the diving community, please raise your hand.

Thank you very much.

Those are the silent people that you just never see.

What was really interesting is the amount of text that I got today saying, where is City Hall from people in Pacific Grove.

In my 68 years of uh on earth, I have to confess to you, uh Council members, I've really never met nicer people.

They're just simply nice people.

I had the distinct pleasure with working with Kimber at the Chamber of Commerce for a couple years.

Installing a bench shows the families and the public that we care and sympathize with their loss.

I'd like to thank all the wonderful people that showed up tonight, especially the families.

We have family members, we have daughters, we have sisters that showed up this evening to honor the three men.

And we hope that we will be able to visit this bench site in the soon future.

Thank you, Council members.

And I will be the last speaker in the interest of your time.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Mar.

I we really appreciate you guys coming out.

I'm gonna give an opportunity for any council members to make any comments.

And um, I wanted there was a slide showing that was the actual location of the bench, so that you all can see what's been planned, and it's really a beautiful spot.

Um, so any council members have any comments?

Uh Cynthia Verville.

Yeah, I think I speak for all of us when I say we really are sorry about your loss.

This is a tragic thing, and um, I'm glad we can make a very, very small way of helping remember these these three men.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Well, Councilman Walkingston.

Um, first of all, I wanted to say that my heart goes out to the uh the friends and family of these three men.

Uh there's really nothing I can say to um make any of this feel any better.

I hope that we're doing some small measure to recognize these individuals, uh, the community of Pacific Grove's uh appreciation for these men.

And um I want to say that uh a community uh is the people, it's not the buildings, it's not the streets, it's the uh the human beings that make a community.

And when you have three men like uh James, Steve, and Jamie that were such a core integral part of the community of Monterey Bay, the wider community of Monterey Bay, uh their loss has a disproportionate impact on the entire area and be missed.

Thank you very much.

Anyone else?

All right.

Well, thank you very much, everyone, for coming in.

Um, yes.

Can you come forward and come to the podium for that?

Thank you.

Thank you for giving me a moment to just say thank you because our community has been through um so much recently, and the there is a group of people that I just truly want to thank.

And those are the divers from Aquarius and Anywater, and that community specifically, and the group of people who recovered those bodies were the Aquarius private divers, and I just want their names to be stated, and that that's all.

Thank you so much.

So I just wanted to say the names of those divers and uh captains that were on the boat that day.

It was uh uh Phil Samet, who is the captain along with Dane Durand, um Ariela and Brian Simkey, myself, William Mariano, Kelsey Rosso, True Barnes, uh Mike Weber, um, and Brandon Huelga and True Barnes.

Yeah, so thank you all for for your help that day and bringing closure to the family our family and our friends of of divers in this community.

So thank you.

Well, um, so uh this there was a question asked about the timeline on the bench when when we expect to uh have that.

I know they take a while to fashion them and create um is there we thought that the appropriate time we probably want to talk to the family about getting it dialed in the way we wanted to read and everything, so okay.

I would say next couple months.

Okay, that's fair.

All right, thank you.

I have a quick uh question.

Is uh Nicolette in the audience?

Okay, that's okay.

All right, thank you very much, everyone.

That that uh concludes the presentation on uh the uh Steve Clatterbuck, Jamie Tabscott, and James Vincent.

So we appreciate you coming out and feel free to stay, stick around for the rest of our business tonight if you like.

I'm just gonna give a minute or two to clear out.

So I did a great job on that.

Thank you for joining us.

Okay, okay.

Uh there we go.

All right, so we'll bring it back to the council.

Uh we're at item three now at six fifteen p.m.

We're at council and staff announcements, and I'll recognize the city attorney on item three A report on closed session.

Yes, uh, I can report that there's no report out of closed session tonight.

Okay, and asked and we'll move on to item three B.

This is um other council and staff announcements, uh, and I'll recognize city attorney as well.

Do you want to see if council has any comments?

Well, sure, we can go council first.

That's fine.

Um, let's have council comments.

Uh Councilmember Rao.

Uh, thank you, Your Honor.

I had the pleasure of being uh at an event where uh somebody from Meals on Wheels was being honored, and I just want to put a call out to the to the public.

We keep all of our uh our bags that we buy at the grocery store.

They're looking for paper bags with a handle, new or like new condition.

And if you've got a lot of those sitting around like we did, and this has been a great thing for us because we, you know, got out of the habit of taking our bags during COVID, so um, we had a lot, and we just kept donating over the last five years.

So uh they spend an incredible amount of money just on bags, and so if anybody has got new or like new paper bags with a handle that they can donate to the meals on wheels, uh, they would really appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

You know, those always thought those Trader Joe's bags, get a few extra, you know.

Okay, um, any other council members wishing to make an announcement?

Anybody?

All right.

Um staff members, Mr.

Moganson, mission to make announcements.

Hey, Mr.

Mary, there's a couple of things I want to say.

First of all, is um, and we did this privately, and but I also want to do it publicly and thank all of our police officers, public works, recreation people, everybody helped make all the card week activities happen.

There's a whole lot of hours and stuff behind the scenes um to deal with that, and not only that, but then the after hours of police officers chasing around, you know, people.

So uh we do plan on on giving you a report in the next uh probably next council meeting on some of the stats and everything of the week, but don't have that quite ready tonight.

Other thing is um, I just want to just to kind of throw it out there a tickler for everybody on September 5th.

We're gonna have the butterfly annual meeting out at the um Butterfly Sanctuary.

So I believe the BNRC on the third is gonna talk about that first.

So just uh tickler to put on the calendar.

More information will be on our website.

Oh, thank you very much.

Uh, any further staff announcements, Mr.

Rogenson?

Okay, and then we'll go ahead and recognize the city attorney.

Yeah, thank you, Mayor.

I uh wanted to say that um I am standing down from the position of city attorney for the city of Pacific Grove.

That'll be effective toward the end of this year with the date depending upon when the city retains another city attorney.

This will give the city sufficient time to engage in a recruitment process to retain a city attorney, and for me to complete work in progress uh in coordination with the city council and city staff.

I would like to say that I have enjoyed my time serving as the Pacific Grove City Attorney, and I wish the council and city staff the best of luck in the future.

I will continue to serve as the Pacific Grove City Attorney until the city has retained another city attorney following the recruitment process to retain a city attorney, and I will participate in making for a seamless transition.

So thank you.

Thank you very much for your service, uh, Mr.

Perrick, we really appreciate it.

Um, and now we'll move on to uh general public comment.

This is uh items that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the city and they're not on the agenda tonight.

So this is item four, and at this time, recognize anyone in chambers wishing to make a general public comment, please come forward, come to the podium, and you'll be taken first.

May I?

Absolutely.

Uh esteemed council members, thank you for having me here.

I'm Lawrence Rock.

I am the uh co-director of the Carmel International Film Festival.

We brought it back after it um went on hiatus in 2017.

Uh, I myself am a uh former PG resident, resident of Carmel and a lover of the Monterey Peninsula.

Um, and I also work for Mr.

Eastwood, and I'm a multiple uh film director.

So when people begged me um and my partner Annette Anderson to bring back the festival, we teamed up with some of the local people here and we got it going.

So we do have a beautiful international film festival happening in Carmel October 2nd through 5th.

Now, the importance to Pacific Grove is Carmel International feels that we're representative of the entire Monterey Peninsula.

We have some of the best filmmakers in Pacific Grove.

We have Bob Franco here, who's the former editor for Candid Camera.

Bob, could you stand up for a quick second so I can completely embarrass you?

There we go.

Bob has two films in the festival.

One is Big Sur, the way it was, and the other one is about Wam Ming Chang, a very esoteric artist that created the metal sculptures for Hank Ketchum, the Dennis Amenis sculpture that kept disappearing.

Wam Ming Chang also was the creator of all of the headdresses for uh Cleopatra for Elizabeth Taylor and all of the special effects for Star Trek.

Now, in an interesting local historical twist, Wam Ming Chang's adept at adopted mother is Mildred Taylor, an avant-garde journalist from San Francisco that first had the Carmel International Festival in 1929, which makes it the world's oldest film festival, predating Venice by three years.

This is a little historical node that my partner, who's co-director, Annette Anderson uncovered.

And that is the co-director of the festival, and she used to run a little TV show called The Simpsons down in Los Angeles.

She was the assistant to Matt Groening, the creator.

So we couldn't be more pleased to celebrate our local filmmakers.

We're also scheduling a if he allows us a uh screening, special screening for Chuck Davis' film.

Chuck is that gentleman right there, and he's probably one of the preeminent underwater cameramen on the planet.

So we have incredible local talent.

We have a wonderful venue in Carmel, and we also look to expanding to Pacific Grove, but our real focus is honoring the entire community and everybody here and putting it back on the world stage for the arts.

So thank you for your time.

Pleasure.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Anyone else in chambers wishing to comment?

General.

Good evening.

My name is Susan Goldbeck, and I plan on coming to every council meeting to just announce this so that people will know that we now have an online newspaper, and it will be published five days after every council meeting.

It's an abbreviated version of the beacon that we had many years ago.

And I welcome everybody to go online at Pacific Grove.com and take a look at what we've done, and we're gonna get better every time.

And we need volunteers desperately because I can't do it alone, and we really need a paper because you can't really have a hometown without a paper.

Thank you.

Good evening, council members.

I'm Jeannie Anton.

I'm here to give you a little update on our fundraiser for Chautauqua Hall.

Um, first of all, the application that um that you approved for the putting the hall on the national register has been acknowledged at least that they've received it and they will be uh hopefully giving us the positive uh response when they meet again in November.

So we'll we'll be waiting with dated breath on that.

Um next, we had a couple of events the last week of July that were successful in raising about a thousand dollars for this project.

I have a special thanks for to uh rather Claudia Samers Samus of Back Porch Fabrics for sponsoring another quilt raffle and to Linda Garofalo for her donation of two quilts.

There's another quilt now on the wall at Back Porch Fabrics, another donation.

So if you're looking for something to graze the walls of your house, have a look either at Back Porch Fabrics or you can go on their website and uh see it.

I'm not sure what the final date is for the raffle, but um it's really a nice way that the community has offered to help out, and we have some more coming up in a couple of months.

Um, last month Public Works sent out an RFP uh requesting proposals for an architect for the Chautauqua project.

Uh Public Works received six proposals which have been reviewed by Public Works and also by members of my committee.

And so next month, Public Works is going to hold interviews with the top three applicants.

And I do want to especially thank Dan in the back row there, Dan Go for all of his help in helping this project move along.

And it I feel like it's really moving along and it hasn't even been a whole year yet.

So I'm pretty excited.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Very important project for us.

And we'll go online, see if anyone online wishes to make a general public comment.

I do not see any hands raised online.

All right, we'll go ahead and close general public comment and we'll bring it back to the consent agenda.

This is the next item here, and it is uh deals with routine and non-controversial matters.

It may include action and resolutions, ordinances or other public hearings for which testimony is not anticipated.

So at this time, I'll ask any members of the council or staff.

Do you wish to pull an item from the consent agenda tonight?

Members of the council?

Councilmember Garfield.

Thank you, Your Honor.

I'd like to pull 9C.

Nine C, Council, uh traffic safety commission rec?

Yes.

Okay.

And um, Mr.

Moganson, did you have an item that you wanted to pull tonight?

Oh, okay.

Okay.

Go ahead and we need to pull it.

Yes.

So can you pull 7B or D?

7B, like boy.

Okay, 7B, we'll go ahead and pull that's the um ordinance amending salary classification uh for the city manager.

So we'll go ahead and pull 7B as well.

Just for the record.

So everybody hears that we're pulling 7B and 9C.

And anyone else wishing to pull any other items.

Why don't you come forward, sir?

I'm chairman of the traffic safety commission.

What does that mean that you're pulling it?

Talk into the mic if you want to respond to it.

Isn't that called it so that we can have a more thorough discussion of it?

I'm not opposing it.

I just uh want it to be talked about instead of passwords.

She she has the power to pull the item, and then we have to have a we have to have a full dress basically discussion of the item before we vote.

Okay, this is very frustrating to us.

We've been trying to get this change for quite a long time.

I was sorry, I'm sorry, you can't make the you can go ahead and make you can make public comment when we I'll hear the item right after uh we finish it.

If you pulled it, how do I have cross talk?

I'm sorry, you can't crosstalk with me here.

Sorry.

But um, but I will let you allow you to speak and you can speak to it when we pull when the item comes forward.

Okay, but this is common that we pull in a consent item.

Uh you you mean it a different meeting.

No, tonight.

Tonight, okay.

Yeah, thank you for a few minutes.

Just a few minutes.

You can stay up close if you want and be ready to go.

All right, um, okay.

So anyone else wishing to pull any other items.

Do we have anyone online?

Um, Jen Haynes.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay.

I would like to pull 8A.

I just have one question I want to ask about 8A.

Can you maybe you would you like to ask the question and we can just answer it?

I wonder, yeah, it's uh the check register, and I can't find any payments to um uh the lawyers for the city, and I wonder why they're not in the check check register.

That's my question.

Oh, sorry, yeah.

Maybe staff can answer.

Thank you, Ms.

We're gonna try to answer that so we don't have to pull it formally.

Yeah, basically, this is Fred Marsh on the admin services director for the city of Pacific Grove.

Um, the timing and the um payment of our vendors can vary.

I mean, it kind of depends when we get the bills, so very well could have been that the bill from the lawyer may just be in the next month's run, but typically we pay our legal firm on a monthly basis.

This might have been just a timing difference for the actual payment of the services.

So it's not like we're not paying the attorney.

So, okay, so next time, Jane or Miss Haynes, you might see two payments.

Exactly.

It's just a timing of the check issue.

Are you okay with us just moving forward on that?

Just I think so.

Okay, um, so can I get a motion on consent?

Uh without seven B and nine C.

Move consent with uh seven B and uh nine C.

So discuss later.

Okay.

Well we have a motion about the worry second by Emilio.

Any further discussion of this motion?

Okay, we'll take a voice vote.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Hearing none, the rest of the items will pass unanimously.

And I'll go ahead and um we'll take up the traffic safety item first, uh, nine C, and then we'll take up seven B second.

Um we were gonna hear those.

We're gonna hear those before our other regular agenda items.

So at this time, I would like to uh take up item nine C, the traffic safety item, and I will uh turn it over to Mayor Protemo Emilio if you're ready, sir.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um the traffic commission um the liaison on, and they wanted to um uh direct uh it says direct the public orders to install swap signs and payment markings on the both westbound and eastbound lanes of lighthouse it's on the second page of I'm not gonna read the whole thing to you but the recommendation in this 9C is uh to direct staff to consult with the traffic engineer um I did look at there's some pictures attached um I did look at the intersection uh two different times on one day in the morning and at about 12 30 uh I thought it went pretty well but I'm not there full time and I'm not a traffic engineer.

So uh the recommendation is direct the staff to consult with the traffic engineer to assess the installation of stop signs and intersections uh we can figure and Congress lighthouse central and return to the city council with concept drawings estimated costs and additional information for the council uh city city council can reconsideration uh consideration also I I'm also I'm gonna editorize a little bit on this um I know we may talk about it later uh Mr.

Brown uh the the lighthouse enforce uh if we're talking about intersections that's also a difficult one but uh this is the one we're dealing with and um you see the recommendation on there uh uh gospel and Garfield did you need anything um he's given the report so I'm gonna go take public comment before I allow cost talk okay yeah is that okay you know yeah I'm gonna just augment on and just for the purposes of clarification I you know I'm working council member I mean mayor protonio and I worked on this as well and this uh this is the traffic safety commission's recommendation and we are recommending that we adopt it and it actually wasn't that long ago in the whole scheme of things so this is a good thing and now I'll go ahead and go out to public for comment on this item and I'll recognize Mr.

Brown first you're up Lester Brown I apologize for what happened before didn't understand the procedure so I apologize anyway um I think the real issue here with regard to that intersection is it's confusing and since it's the entrance into the town and it involves very you know routes through the town that the idea is look let's just make it clear uh so that because every time I go through that intersection I'm trying to figure out if I'm gonna cut across if somebody's gonna stop or not stop coming in the other direction and I think our concern is that uh something may happen that we really don't want to have happen just because it's not clear uh and thank you very much uh if you have any questions I'm happy to respond to them thank you no that was great um and anyone else in chambers wishing to speak on um 9c with Mr.

Murphy good evening Mayor Smith Council members my name is John Murphy I guess my only question would be and did the traffic engineer weigh in at the traffic safety committee meeting and if so what was his recommendation his or her recommendation thank you.

Any further comments online thank you um I'm so glad that this issue's finally come to you I've heard this brought to traffic safety committee um for years it seems like and I think it's it's super important for for safety because that's such a big wide open um intersection but also because coming in from the west a lot of people forget to slow down to 15 there's a nice new sign that I I'm not sure it makes a huge difference, but it's lovely.

Um, but this would be another opportunity.

Bringing people to a full stop.

If there's good signage, then um really uh can can make the difference.

And and 15 miles an hour is a really great speed limit for for uh uh downtown community like ours.

Um and and this also just helps with the blockability of PG's downtown.

So uh I I do help you approving.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mayor and Council.

I spent a lot of time out in front of the post office gathering some signatures and stuff, and I absolutely wholeheartedly support the four stop signs because as a mobility impaired getting to and my car, uh parked, you know, away, it was very difficult to get across.

And sitting out there is the 15 mile an hour speed limit, whereas when people are coming from east to west down lighthouse, and they well, they rarely use the 15 miles per hour, which is really a reasonable thing for downtown.

Um, right about the post office when is when they start speeding up through that intersection and sitting there watching time after time that happened in the morning and in the afternoon, it just absolutely brought it home that we need these stop signs for mobility for elderly people.

Um safety, absolutely, and I've listened and made comments at traffic and safety too, and I am all for this being the recommendation of giving it to the traffic and safety engineer and seeing what we can do definitively.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Hello, can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay, good.

Well, I find this to be an interesting topic because many people in town recognize me and know that I'm either on my bicycle or walking most of the time in the downtown area.

I agree with Inga and the gentleman from the traffic commission that we need better traffic control, and that includes traffic enforcement, which the city of Pacific Grove, the council, the traffic commission, and the police department have all been negligent in.

There are so many speeders going through town.

Why do they keep mentioning here in this session the 15 miles an hour?

Because there are few people who go through downtown at 15 miles an hour.

They go through with 20, 25, and I've seen people going through with 30.

And you have too if you've paid any attention to just getting out of your car and walking around the downtown.

Why do we have such a lack of traffic enforcement?

Not only for speeding in downtown, but on Pine Avenue, on Forest Avenue, on Cinex Avenue, and many other streets in town.

And sure, it's nice if you're in a hurry to get home.

I think I'll just go 30 miles an hour down Cinex, or I'll go 30 miles an hour down Forest Avenue.

Now, we don't only have a problem with traffic enforcement on speeding, we have traffic enforcement on people that don't stop for stop signs.

So you're gonna put in four new stop signs, is it?

And go just go take a look at any intersection.

Sit there on your lawn chair for half an hour and watch how many people run the stop signs.

And I never see anybody getting traffic tickets for either speeding or for running stop signs, particularly the ones that are on the busiest streets in town, like Central, Lighthouse, Cinex, Forest, David Avenue, and so forth.

We need more traffic enforcement.

What's happened to our lack of traffic enforcement?

Why do we have a lack of traffic enforcement?

I think it's abhorrent.

Sure, it's nice to know I didn't get any tickets for speeding, or I didn't get any tickets for running a stop sign, but when you want to talk about safety, within the last five years, we've had three people run over and killed on Pine Avenue.

And some of you who've been here a while may remember that.

This is shocking to me.

People speed on most streets, and many people do it, and we never have much enforcement.

So I want to ask for not only stop signs, but they're worthless if you don't have the enforcement.

So please let's address traffic enforcement.

Thank you so much for letting me speak.

And I hope I rang a few bells.

Thank you, and please continue with the meeting.

Oh, well, thank you.

Next.

Safety first is probably the most important concept that the city council should be considering.

I've listened to all of the comments.

Um I think what's really important here is to recognize that Pacific Groves throughway is an important site that invites both residents and visitors to enjoy the downtown area.

But the safety first becomes the most important thing.

So I'll stop is really important.

And I think that from what I've seen in my experience of trying to traverse forest across Lighthouse or Lighthouse across forest or any of the other intersections there, is the visibility is really difficult.

So I'll stop is really I think the way you need to go.

And I it's I think the direction should be to look at the at the guidelines that Caltrans provides.

Not the city of Pacific Grove, but Caltrans provides for these kinds of situations.

But what's really important is maybe that kind of distraction is what will lead to accidents on the road.

So please don't do that.

Get some experts looking at this.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Go ahead and close public comment on this item 9C.

Bring it back to the council for uh discussion and action.

We would like to go first, Councilman Rockingstick.

Okay, first of all, uh wholeheartedly support this.

Um that particular intersection is the uh uh uh the the intersection of two major thorough fairs right there at the base of uh Congress.

I'm an able bodied person and have had trouble getting across that street at times.

It's uh it is dangerous, but putting a stop sign there is also highly strategic.

That's where people first come into town uh changing speed from 25 miles an hour to 15 miles per hour, people come down that hill blazing and then just continue through the rest of town at that speed, getting them to stop, acknowledge the new speed, and then from a stop start rolling forward at the new speed uh limit, I think will be far more effective than the mere two stop signs we have right now to stop cross traffic.

Um, so I'm I'm in favor of this.

I think it's going to help um uh pedestrian uh safety and um um I think it's going to help tremendously with slowing cars down before they get to downtown.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We'll make a move.

Councilmember.

Yeah.

I think we have more feelings here.

Um as the one that lives probably the closest to this intersection, and I've talked to the traffic and safety commission before.

This is a really dangerous intersection.

And we shouldn't wait for something bad to happen before we address it.

It doesn't take a lot of common sense to look at it and say that that intersection is long, those crosswalks are long.

It takes a long time to get across them.

I appreciate Joe going out there and looking, but I can say that we walk the tater down there at least three to four days a week.

And if you're down there in the morning, there's a lot of traffic between toasties and the post office with folks gathering mail, dropping off mail.

And then in the afternoon from 2 to 2:30, it's all the kids that are let out of um, well, I guess all the the uh all the schools really, but Robert Down and the middle school primarily, they all head to Caledonia Park to uh to recreate, and it becomes a really dangerous situation as well.

And so if you're if you're monitoring, not during the times when those uh those those trap that traffic square is not as popular, then I think we need to take a look at it and make sure we're monitoring the whole thing.

Um it is a confusing intersection, I do agree with the chair, and I think that it's it needs to be addressed.

Um my only fear is that typically what happens is the traffic engineer looks at it and says, Well, the average speed is 27, so now we're gonna make it 30.

That's not the answer here.

The answer here is we're trying to make it safer and we're trying to slow it down.

So I think we just need to be careful as to the lens to which we look at this and make sure that we're addressing uh the timing and the issues.

Um, and maybe even a middle, you know, a middle stop, similar not as big, but similar to earthly, where there's a a stop halfway through because it's a long intersection to get across.

And and um, you know, whether you have mobility issues or just a crazy dog, I mean, it can be a little dicey.

So uh I'm in complete favor of this and can't wait to get started.

Great.

Uh Councilmember Garfield, you pull that on.

I apologize.

I recognize you now.

Thank you.

I think you've heard a lot of input that I thought was important to be heard, and so um let me sum up the reason that I pulled this was not because I don't wholeheartedly agree with it, but I think that we need to send something to the traffic engineer that tells them what the problem is rather than advocating for a specific solution.

In this instance, from what I've gathered from other folks who are talking, um, we have a confusing intersection.

We have people who are unfamiliar with the community visiting downtown and not quite sure what to do.

And it is kind of a dazzling intersection.

There's a lot of visual going on.

We've got walkers, we've got people who aren't slowing down, um, and the best solution may be a combination of things.

So I would like to send this to the traffic engineer to solve the problem of the intersection without specifying what the solution should be.

It could be a combination of things, it could be rumble strips, it could be stop signs, it could be signage, it could be flashing crosswalks, it could be an intermediate island.

But I'd like to know what the full range of possibilities are that are recommended and then get a real safe intersection for our community.

So that's why I pulled it.

Does your uh vision for this item include the recommendated action or you're in a different action that I would propose is we send it to the traffic engineer to um figure out solutions for the problems that have been raised.

It's a dangerous intersection for pedestrians, and we have speeding, and we have um lines of sight.

That's not really the recommended action though.

I know.

Okay, I'm gonna move on.

I'm going to move on to someone up to Councilmember uh McDonald now.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, and I I agree with with the sentiment that that the it is true, the the goal here is safety first, because um the safety of our residents, especially when you bring in tourists and you bring a changing speed limit, a convergence of people from different directions in different roads.

I think it's really important to keep that in mind.

So all of the topic traffic calming measures we stopped talked about, I think are good.

Anything where you narrow the road so people get a sense of needing to slow.

So I really appreciate the traffic safety commission's diligence and continuing continuing to pursue this.

I've had other people tell me they've nearly been rear-ended because they're going 15 and somebody comes flying down lighthouse from the west because you're coming a bit down a hill.

So I think that's really important.

And my original thought on this as well was before doing design drawings.

I think it's a good idea to have uh the information, like assess the situation with safety first in mind, and what are the best solutions based on the challenges that we're seeing, and maybe having that come to council um to kind of determine where to go from there.

Um, but I agree.

So I don't know how that would change the recommendation necessarily, but um more than just automatically going for just stop signs.

I think a more comprehensive approach is is a good way to go.

Let me go and make a motion, uh, Mayor.

Okay.

Um the recommendation is direct to the staff to consult with the traffic engineer to assess the installation of stop signs and intersection reconfiguration of Congress, lighthouse, and central, and return to the city council with concept drawings, estimated costs and additional information for the city council uh consideration, and that is that is a motion moving the recommended action.

Do I have a second?

We have a second by Garfield, okay.

Discussion.

Yeah, so clarifying, are we doing this second specifically to come back with the stop signs and drawings already, or do we want to do a substitute motion where we're looking at multiple alternatives before we proceed with?

I mean, that's if you'd like to do that, I think this is the time to bring it up.

Actually, could I address that?

Absolutely.

Do you mind?

Yeah, I was just gonna add it.

Just let me let me add one thing.

This is only to assess it's not to install stop signs, it's not to install anything, but it's for the traffic engineer to assess, just like the recommendation says.

And I'm gonna just go on in go ahead, Paul.

You go for okay, thank you.

Well, the the wording on this is specific to uh uh to assess the installation of stop signs, one intersection reconfiguration two, then later on, uh uh provide the city council with concept drawings, estimated costs, and additional information for city council consideration, which is a heck heck of a catch-all.

So, as this is written, as it has been uh proposed, I think we kind of cover our basis here.

I agree, and I also would just throw out there that I do want to see drawings and things at the next meeting.

I don't want to parse this into too many bytes because we had a lot of stuff to put on the agenda anyway, so we got to get through these things.

So I think it'd be great to have all that information for us to assess what we're gonna do.

So, and with that, I have a motion and a second.

Any further discussion?

All right, so I'll take a roll call vote.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh Mayor Proton.

Hi.

Councilmember Garfield.

Hi.

Council members round.

Haduri.

Hi.

McDonnell.

Aye.

Aye.

Mayor Smith.

Aye.

Motion carries unanimously seven zero.

All right, thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr.

Brown for coming in.

Okay, we're gonna go back to 7B.

We are not out of the consent agenda yet.

Um so we're going back to 7B, and there's there I believe there was a slight error on uh some of the on one of the pages of the documents, which is why we pulled this.

There's a couple of corrections, a couple of corrections.

Okay, go ahead.

7D.

So um on the first page of the ordinance, um there's findings.

There's a title of the ordinance, and there's findings, and there's ordinance, and there's what's called an enactment clause that follows that.

The way it currently reads is now, therefore, be it ordained by the city council of the city of Pacific Grove, and that should be modified to read now, therefore, the city.

Let me start that over.

Now, therefore, the council of the city of Pacific Grove does ordain as follows.

So that language can be changed here at the second reading.

Um it's not a substantive change.

And then the other change would be the signature of it would be for Mayor Nick Smith.

Um, the uh individual signing the uh the ordinance.

So those are the two changes.

Okay, thank you very much.

We'll go out to the public for comment.

This is item 7b.

And it's a ministerial changes to an ordinance.

All right.

Anyone in the chambers?

Seeing none, we're going to close public comment.

Bring back to the council for action on this item.

Do I have a motion to approve?

Motion to approve of the changes as suggested by the attorney.

So a motion by priority, second by Garfield.

I think he captured your motion to approve the recommended action with the changes I mentioned.

Yes.

Okay, we have um any further discussion on this.

All right, we'll go ahead and take a voice vote on this.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Hearing none.

Passes unanimously.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr.

Moginson.

Uh now we have finally made it to 11a, the regular agenda.

This is AB 2561.

Uh reporting.

Uh new thing, and I'll recognize our human resources director, Miss Livian.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Good evening, council members, staff, and members of the public.

Um, I'm gonna go ahead and hand it off to Stephanie, who's gonna do the first part of the presentation.

This is a team effort.

Good evening, Mayor, council members, staff, members of the public.

This is a public hearing to discuss vacancies, recruitment, and retention efforts.

This presentation is for informational purposes only.

And I have a presentation.

AB2561 was introduced to address the issue of job vacancies in local government, which adversely affects the delivery of public services and employee workload.

Among other requirements, the bill mandates that public agencies conduct a public hearing to present the status of vacancies, recruitment, and retention efforts during a public hearing before the agency's governing body, and identify any necessary changes to policies, procedures, and recruitment activities that may lead to obstacle and obstacles in the hiring process.

This went into effect January 1st, 2025, which is why we are looking back at 2024.

So let's get into it.

Please note these numbers do not reflect part-time seasonal employees, only regular employees.

Annual average vacancy rate for employee groups are as follows.

Which this includes senior management, senior program managers, police commanders, and confidential management analysts 4%, and department head group, 10%.

So overall, the annual vacancy rate for the city was 8% for the year of 2024.

In 2024, we had five retirements, 15 resignations, and two involuntary separations.

Eight of these vacancies were filled internally through promotional opportunities, and others were filled by recruitments or by using existing eligibility eligibility lists.

Okay, so here's a breakdown of the 2024 separations by department and classifications.

There were 22 in total.

We had five retirements, two in the police department, three in public works.

We had 15 resignations.

We had three in our community development department, one in our city manager's office, three in our administrative services department, one in our library department, one in our police.

Sorry, five in our police department, and two in public works.

And then we also had two involuntary separations, and these were classifications that were in their probationary period when they were released.

Okay, so once a vacancy is created, as you can see, here is kind of a generic view of the steps that are taken to replace a position.

As you can see, there are many steps to get to job placement.

Human resources works with the hiring manager to determine the recruitment plan.

So we look at all of these different steps and we work together to see what that's going to look like for a particular classification.

Again, this is a general overview for hiring staff, so it could vary depending on classification.

And yeah, just varying on classification.

For police staff positions, specific post-hiring guidelines and processes must take place, including a thorough investigative background check and various physical assessments.

So those steps are longer for those classifications because of this additional requirement.

So on average, the time to hire from when a job's open to when we put somebody in the position is about 66 days for regular staff and then about 122 days for swarm police officers again because they're going through that extended background check to fill the position.

Thank you.

Okay, so one of the requirements is that we look at potential obstacles in the recruitment process.

And so here are a few that we identified.

One of them is applicants don't consider public employment.

Believe it or not, that's when we go to job fairs.

A lot of the college students never it never crossed their mind.

So we do a lot of education there.

Applicants may not understand the hiring process for public employment.

It is a little bit more lengthy than it would be in the private sector.

So we hope to do a better job at educating applicants.

And then, of course, because there is so many steps that we go through, the recruitment process takes too long.

So solutions to address these obstacles are to increase exposure to public employment through social media outlets, career fairs, and proposed employee referral program.

And I'll talk about that a little bit later.

Revisions to the city website and information regarding recruitment process and timelines would probably be very beneficial for people can see all the different steps and then explaining what those steps mean.

And so we are looking to explore and revamp our website to capture all of that information so people have that information up front.

And then also just in general, looking at ways to expedite the recruitment process and communicating back to applicants in a timely fashion so they know what's happening.

We haven't forgotten about them, they're still in process and just stay connected to that applicant because it is a very competitive environment.

We want to make sure that we do get the top talent.

Okay, so what is next?

In addition to the remedies I mentioned in the previous slide, we're looking at expanding our social media platform.

We're not only are we looking to Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn.

We want to include TikTok because we know a lot of our younger generation are TikTokers and they have that TikTok brain, and we can try to attract some of those folks.

Also, we want to expand into YouTube, create city branding and marketing strategies and use them on these platforms to get more recognition about the city of Pacific Grove.

In addition to that, we want to create recruitment videos that contain relatable content to inspire potential candidates, highlight city benefits and positives about working at the City of Pacific Grove, like our beautiful beachfront community and natural resource amenities.

Additionally, we are looking at developing an employee referral program to reward current staff for referring qualified candidates.

HR will be making a presentation and recommendation on this soon to council so we could discuss the details of that at a later date.

And then lastly, talking about the recruitments web pages, we want to create dynamic, easy and engaging recruitment web pages that include the styling of our recruitment videos that are going to capture and create interest from our job applicants.

Currently, human resources working with police department to help develop a specific recruitment page for Swarm police officers, kind of explaining that lengthy process for them and simple, easy steps, and give them all the information in one stop.

And then we're also looking at creating one for general staff as well.

Okay, so this concludes our report and we're opening up for discussion.

Thank you.

And Ms.

Libyan, did you receive any responses to uh your notification to the three represented bargaining units given their opportunity to present this evening?

There were no responses.

Okay, so they've waived their uh chance to speak on this, and now we'll go ahead and take out the public for comment on the article.

I have to uh one online caller, Anthony Ciani.

I moved to Pacific Grove here in 2011.

I am amazed at how many people don't understand the amenities of Pacific Grove to move here and work here to contribute to the um beauty and conservation and improvement of Sue Grove is such an opportunity that I think that needs to be emphasized.

I think that it's it's I'm watching this.

I'm surprised that there aren't more people wanting to be part of the planning division, part of the enforcement division, part of the conservation division, and why that isn't happening, I don't understand.

I think this is a wonderful program.

I think you need to really look seriously at it.

Pacific Grove is a unique location, and everything you can do to attract more people to carry out the vision, and I think the vision isn't described well here, but to carry out the vision of the council is really important.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Not for their online commenters, all right.

Go ahead and bring back to the council for uh what this is is we're receiving this report for statutory purposes.

Um, so at this time, do council members have any questions for staff that they'd like to ask in public?

Uh councilmember.

Thank you.

Thank you, and thank you for the report.

Uh just a couple of questions.

Uh, the report says that uh we the hearing should uh review or discuss retention efforts.

Could you just explain out what kind of retention strategies are we planning or have planned?

Yeah, that's a that's a thank you for that question.

So, you know, one of the things that we try to do here is try to promote first um within the organization.

Um, so when we look at, you know, when people leave, we look at do we have the talent here available already?

And sometimes those um postings are internal only, so we can promote within.

So that's something that assists with the retention of uh staff here, you know, giving them a step um to promote within the organization.

Um we also promote our benefits um program, we're always trying to improve those.

Um we've increased our employment employee engagement um efforts.

Um we do some fun things on Fridays, where um we have people wear a fun shirt or uh we have different types of contests to get people engaged.

We try to get people together to get to know one another because it's hard to do when you're in separate buildings.

So kind of building more of a sense of community within the organization as much as possible, and then of course, offering like flexible schedules and things like that, so people can have work life balance, and there's a lot of the information on the employee internet about those um events and items.

Okay, thank you.

Um and then you start by saying you're representing this as a team.

I see that as a retention effort uh itself.

But uh one of the things that I've seen in other uh boards at least is uh employee recognition, like uh employee of the quarter items like that.

Perhaps we can we can do something better there too to I for one certainly want to see all of the staff and hopefully put our folks behind the name.

Um, that can help there.

The um the other thing is this is uh supposed to be a uh fiscal report.

Is that accurate?

And is if that's the case, or can we expect this to be in the same kind of time frame next year?

Is that how how it's gonna work moving forward?

Sorry, yes, this is a fiscal year report.

Next year we'll probably have it earlier in the year since this was the first year that we are required to do it, and it kind of came, you know, beginning of the year.

Um we did not do it before the budget, but that would be the ideal time to do the report.

So going forward, it will be done before the budget.

Okay, oh, thank you.

Any further questions?

Uh, Councilmember Rowe.

Okay, your honor.

Um I just I guess a general question.

Would you say that the biggest challenge that we have in recruiting people?

We all can agree that this is the most beautiful place in the world to live.

Um, would you agree that the main challenge is the cost of housing?

Oh, absolutely, yes.

Um I didn't want to get too deep in the the woods uh weeds about that, but housing definitely is a factor, and so you know, we have a lot of people commute.

I would say right now, about more than 60% of our employees commute into Pacific Grove because of their, you know, not a very affordable place to live.

So yeah, thank you.

Any further counsel questions on this item?

Okay, go ahead.

Thank you.

It's just bothering me.

Um what do you see as the uh uh the largest uh blockers you've got right now?

What are your biggest barriers to recruiting?

Like your top three call it.

Yeah, I I think that the top one is what I mentioned before is just getting the exposure to public employment.

People do not consider public employment as an option, and when we go out to the career fairs, we get a lot of that feedback from um from the folks that we're talking about.

A lot of people even within Monterey County do not know what a Pacific Grove is at.

So also doing a lot of education, you know, where are we at?

Oh, oh, I've been there before it's by the aquarium when we start talking about it.

Um, so really just getting the exposure of uh Pacific Grove, public employment, and again all the beautiful amenities that we have here, and really hallmarking um you know the work environment that we provide.

Okay, so exposure and housing.

How would you describe the um culture, the work culture here in PG?

Oh, I'm so biased.

I know, and it's kind of a put you on the spot question.

I'm I'm sorry about it.

I would say in general, I think the work culture is positive when I look at exit interview um surveys that are being conducted when people leave.

Of course, the number one uh reason why people leave is is basically um c you know pay, pay and benefits.

They're leaving for better pay and benefits somewhere else.

Um the second reason would be um looking for career ladders.

You know, we are a small agency, we try to provide career ladders, we try to provide promotional opportunities wherever we can.

Uh, but sometimes it's not enough, and people do um feel like their only option is to you know move on to another bigger city somewhere else.

Right.

Okay.

Anybody listening to this in the future, you will never find better benefits or retirement.

Um that is uh I'd like to have a longer discussion with you.

Maybe off we'll we'll take that out of the meeting.

Okay, I would be glad to have it come as well.

That would be a good thing.

Thank you.

Would you like to say something, Mr.

Morrison?

I I would if you're ready, just kind of if you're on the wrap-up stage.

But no, that's definitely on.

I was gonna about to wrap up right now.

Okay, we got a lot of other things to go to.

Thank you.

Um RHR director is one of the most fun ones in the area, that's for sure.

So that's a big recruitment tool.

But I think a couple of things that the council's done a great job, I think over the years is keeping us somewhat in the media and in the market.

And we say that we're looking at our local area.

So when people are leaving for more money, they're not leaving for Monterey, most likely, they're leaving for cities in San Jose.

Those are in a whole different ball game, and that's one of the places that it's a bit of a challenge for us because if somebody say lives in Gilroy, they're just going one direction or the other, you know, and they might choose a direction where they can make a lot more money.

It's a completely different market, those cities have a lot different resources than we do.

So I think that's that's one thing to kind of button it up.

And um, in terms of um like the overall the vacancies that we're experiencing, it's kind of an ebb and flow thing, and we're required to give this report, and our numbers are you know, we have a hundred employees, so if you lose five employees are gone, that's a five percent.

It just it's all ratios, right?

But you know, we there's certain areas that were challenged currently, and that might be different in three years.

So currently it's police officers.

You know, it's harder to recruit police officers today because of the climate for police officers of the last, you know, decade or so has built it.

So today it's harder to get an engineer because an engineer can make a whole lot more money working for a private firm up in San Jose than they can for a city.

So it ebbs and flows, you know, and it really depends on the position, and we have to target those things, and that's what we you know work on.

So I just wanted to paint the picture that we're not in a terrible state.

Um the police chief has got a bunch of officers in the pipeline.

You know, we're working through a lot of that, and um we're we are coming up a lot of different programs, but I just want that takeaway to be that nobody wants to work with Pacific Grove and we have a terrible time.

This is a report we're trying to give you, and you're the high level.

No, we appreciate the reassurance.

And uh, you know, I will say that I know that a lot of energy is in the city CMO city manager's office is spent on this topic.

There's a lot of discussion about it, and it's certainly something that's like way high on the radar just for the community to understand.

So that's it's being worked on, and it is uh it's a problem that is very difficult to solve in a high cost area.

So um, but anyway, I think that we've we've talked this one through, so we're gonna go ahead and move on.

We we receive the report for purposes of the statute.

We'll move on to item 11b, and thank you for the presentations.

Okay, and I'll invite Mr.

Biggs to come up for item 11B or building permit fee increases.

Good evening, Mayor Smith, members of the city council, John Biggs with your community development department.

And I wanted to bring to your attention that we discovered an error in our combination building permit fees.

Um the feeds for the higher range projects, those over million dollars changed in 2024 from for, for example, one multiplier was at $9.

That changed down to 50 cents.

So that change in that multiply for the higher value projects results in us not being able to charge building permit fees that would cover the cost of going out and our consultants going out and doing the building permit inspections.

Um we've got a little bit of experience with this, especially with the uh hotel project down at um on Central Avenue behind the Holland's building.

So we're here tonight seeking the council's assistance and having you adopt a new food schedule for a cloud motion building permits that would allow us to um to generate a revenue that would be um allow us to do the work that we are charged to do in the community development department specifically division.

Um there were some sort of general changes to the fees.

Uh there was about a 28% change to the fees from 2024.

And that reflects a change of the fees that were adopted into 2024, plus keeping out changes have occurred since that point in time.

So now we're asking that you adopt the resolution that's part of the packet.

Um, with the fees and schedule, look at what we have in the packet, and that kind of ends my presentation.

I'd be happy to answer any questions that the council members may have.

Okay.

Um, we're going to take it out to the public on item 11 B, combination building permit fee increases.

Take it out to the public for comment.

I have one caller online, Mayor.

Uh Anthony Gianni.

Council.

Please understand that most cities implement an pay as you go process for all commercial development projects.

It should whatever it costs to promote a project, to get the permits to carry out the project, should be the cost of the developer, not the cost of the city.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Can you hear me now?

Yes.

Okay, great.

I'm not that familiar with the Zoom program, so I wanted to check with you.

Well, I think this is ironic here on one side of what's going on in the city and the county and the state.

We have the legislature in Sacramento mandating that we have a new building program of 11 approximately 1,100 housing units within the city limits of Pacific Road.

And then the surrounding communities, Monterey is being expected to build 4,500.

Carmel, Little Carmel, one square mile, is being expected to build over 300 new housing units.

This isn't going to be financed by the city.

This is going to be financed by state grants, by contractors, by the private sector in most cases.

Okay.

So now we're complaining about not being able to hire employees because we're such an expensive community.

Well, how is it that people in the private sector can afford to live here if it's such an expense and expensive community?

I see a real lot of contradictions.

So how are we what are we going to do about it?

We're going to raise the fees for building and improving properties that will raise the cost of housing, providing less opportunity for people to afford to live here who don't work for the city, who work in the private sector.

And I'll bet that if you take the average city employees' compensation, including salary, retirement, health care, sick days, and so forth, and compare that to a resident in the community who doesn't have the privilege of working for the city or any other municipality, and take a look at what their struggles are with salary housing, so on and so forth.

I think trying to raise fees so that the city will have more income so that they can raise salaries and pensions and benefits for city employees is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.

At the same time, you're going to be building eleven hundred units.

Well, what about all you're going to get a lot of money from the property tax from those units without even considering the fees?

I've I would say this is not a good idea to raise fees in the city, making housing more expensive to create.

Thank you very much for listening to my comments.

Thank you.

Mayor and Council, as I was listening and reading this, it seemed that this was that we haven't been collecting enough on these high-end projects combined and big, you know, commercial developments.

Now, if I'm wrong there, well, please set me straight.

But I don't think we're I don't think we have been collecting enough.

I mean, I can't afford a permit to do anything, so it doesn't matter, but I'm low end.

Everybody knows that.

But I'm saying it's these hotel projects and everything else that I don't think they're paying their fair share.

And uh I might be wrong on this, and as I said, please correct me if I'm wrong.

But yes, I think the city needs to cover its costs, they should have their costs covered.

Thank you.

I don't think very much for coming and close public comment on this item.

Um, and I think that uh the last caller actually kind of put her finger on this.

I um bring it back to the council for discussion.

Uh the there were nominal increases in the fee all the way up to five million dollars and five million and one dollar to ten million dollars, and then the fee jumps a little bit more according to the chart that we have in our packet, and then there's one for ten million and one dollars that jumps up as well.

So I think that that's kind of what's happening here.

Is that pretty accurate?

Exactly.

Keep in mind this is resetting us back to those 2024 fees that we used to be able to collect in 2024.

There was that error for some reason we haven't been really able to um identify what that error was, but it does um does get us back to charging appropriate fees.

Okay, Mr.

Mogison, you had a comment?

Yeah, I was gonna just try and zero this in and what the what the topic is here, and that's just these three fees that had basically typos in them when we adopted them last September.

So these fees on the very high end that no projects have come in under.

Um, there's a typo on them.

So long story short, we haven't lost any revenue.

This is preparing for the future, so that we don't in the future, but they were just straight typos that as they should be corrected.

But you can see in the far right column, it was nine dollars and it dropped to two by a typo.

Okay.

So we're trying to just fix typos here.

Okay, and what was the typo?

So in 2324, we we the fees all the way on the right hand side of that chart, uh-huh.

Uh those were what they were established as.

When we updated our fees last September, we um they were updated based on the costs that it took, you know, to provide those services.

When you got down to those lines, it appears that we dropped a one on the um the projects that were over.

Uh I guess that's a half million over five million.

Over yeah, five million.

And then on the next one, um, it appears we have probably dropped that two.

So twelve dollars would have been more in line with the if you took the ratios and what they should have been.

So they were just typos on three that we found, and we want to get those fixed before any projects do come in.

Okay.

Any further counsel comments?

Ready to make a motion.

So I'm running the entertainment.

All right.

Well, if you're entertaining, I hope I don't have to tap dance, but I would make a motion to adopt uh approving them to the city's uh fiscal year twenty five twenty-six master fee schedule to reflect changes to the city's combination building permits and other changes.

And to adopt the uh the XL table uh of the recommended changes, all right.

We have a motion on recommendation one to approve and second by secondary.

All right, any further discussion on this?

Seeing none, we'll take a voice vote.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Seeing none passes unanimously.

Thank you very much, everyone.

Thank you, Council.

Thanks for clarifying all that.

All right, now we're moving on to item 12A.

This is the amended protocol recommendation to council for boards, committees, and commissions, and I'll invite uh deputy city manager Halliby forward.

Good evening, Honorable Mayor and members of the council.

The item before you is the amended protocol for recommendations initiated by the BCCs to the city council.

The recommendation associated with this item is to approve the proposed amendments.

Alternatively, council can discuss and take other action.

So a little bit of background about a year ago, the City Council approved a resolution 24035 that amended council policy 000-5, and that's the council policy pertaining to boards, committees, and commissions.

That amendment added section seven, which is on the screen here and in the agenda report, but essentially it created a framework for the council to establish a process for BCC initiated recommendations.

At that same meeting, the council approved a very high-level protocol through the agenda report.

And that is the protocol that's in process today.

It's on the screen here, and I'll go over it very briefly.

Essentially, the BCC approves a recommendation through an agenda item and a formal vote at their respective BCC.

The chairperson for that BCC documents the recommendation via the recommendation form and submits it to their council liaison.

And then the chairperson and the council liaison discuss the next steps, which may include discussion with the city manager and/or city attorney.

So that is the spelled out process today.

I quickly want to note that the protocol applies to recommendations initiated by the BCCs to be submitted to the council.

It does not apply to staff initiated items to reactionary items that are already within the purview of the BCC.

So a great example is like BNRC reacting to a tree permit appeal or the planning commission approving a CDP.

And it also does not apply to items that are associated with city council goals, work plans, CIP, or other staff initiatives.

So why are we looking to amend the protocol?

So we've had about a year of implementation of this protocol at this point, and we've had approximately a dozen BCC forms submitted through council liaisons.

And in that last year, and over the course of receiving those 12 forms, the city manager's office and the mayor have identified several ways to strengthen the process, enhance operational efficiency, and ensure closer alignment with the council's already approved priority areas for the next two years.

I quickly want to reiterate that the protocol is designed to enhance the existing process.

So a year ago we approved something, and now we're trying to build upon it and make it better.

It is not intended to dismantle the current process.

And again, all of these proposed changes are based on the year of application that we've had.

And I also want to note that this proposal does not replace any of the current available avenues for the BCCs to inform the council on what they're working on.

That includes using the council liaisons as a mechanism, BCC biddings, and then in the organizational assessment that was done over the last year.

A recommendation included quarterly reports that would be submitted by the BCCs to the council to provide another avenue or means for communication.

So those are all options on the table that are still available for the BCCs.

So a little bit about the proposed amendments.

They are included as attachment one to the agenda report.

What we're doing essentially is creating some more guardrails, some submission guidelines, and an annual review process and timeline.

So I'm going to quickly touch on some of the bigger changes that are in the protocol.

One of the bigger changes is we're looking to limit the number of recommendations per year per BCC, and the proposed amendments include two per BCC per calendar year.

The reason for this limitation is that it ensures that the BCCs are prioritizing items that they want to bring forward to the council for consideration.

The other element of that is it creates a manageable total.

So we have about like nine BCCs.

If everyone were to submit to per calendar year, that puts us at 18, potentially 18 new projects in addition to the essential city services that staff's already provided and the items that were approved on the city council's goal and work plan.

So really trying to create a manageable list for consideration annually, um, establishing an annual cumulative review of submissions.

So right now the process is the form gets submitted, and then there's no necessarily a timeline that's established for when that might come forward to council or what that looks like for review.

So this allows council to review them all at one time to more effectively evaluate and prioritize the proposals that are submitted.

It enables a holistic assessment of both the workload impacts potentially from taking on new projects, any fiscal impacts as well, and any other considerations, and it creates a more predictable cadence for the BCCs who are currently submitting upwards and maybe wondering what's going on with the proposals.

So it establishes a very clear feedback loop and sort of next steps for everybody involved in the process.

Lastly, we're creating a timeline where the annual review of the BCC aligns more closely with the quarterly review of the currently established goals, the biannual goal setting process and the mid-year budget process.

So this allows council to weigh the BCC recommendations against the current work priorities and their progress.

So if we get a bunch of goals done, then maybe there's opportunity to add more, you know, in terms of a manageable workload.

And it also allows for a mechanism for more timely implementation.

If the council does want to proceed with something and there is a fiscal component, that is something that could then be accommodated in the mid-year budget, potentially.

Um, last slide is that we did consult with the BCC chairs for feedback.

So we held a meeting on August 4th with all of the BCC chairs staff and the mayor to discuss the proposed changes and obtain any feedback.

Um that meeting did allow for a good discussion about questions and allow an opportunity for us kind of to discuss why we're recommending these proposed changes.

Ultimately, there were no substantive substantive changes that were requested to the protocol.

There was some discussion about maybe two being too small of a cap.

Um, so putting that out there subsequently, I did send an email to the BCC chairs that were unable to attend the meeting and requested feedback.

We received two comments through that email and they're attached to the agenda report.

And that concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Joyce.

Um, go ahead and take it off to the public for comment.

This is uh item 12a.

We'll take chambers first.

All right, Mr.

Mayor, uh council members.

My name is Don Murphy.

I think this needs a little a little more thought, a little more work.

I'm not sure why you would limit uh good ideas to two a year.

It's possible that a group could have three good ideas or four good ideas, and why limit them to two?

It just doesn't make sense to me.

Based on the current year, there were only 12 submissions.

I don't think you're dealing with an overload of possibilities.

Um, the other issue is the timing, having an annual review.

I I can't get my hands around that.

Um, for instance, if this suggestion tonight about stop signs done in Lighthouse and Congress under this new proposal, you could maybe wait for 11 months before that would even come to you.

So that doesn't make sense to me either.

Seems to me uh the chair of a border commission and the council liaison should figure out is this a short-term thing or long-term thing?

Is it an emergency?

But waiting a whole year to judge them uh together.

I just it doesn't really make sense to me.

And as far as matching with your goals, it's hard for me to look you in the eye and say, I don't think that's a great idea, but I think there are things outside of your goals that are important that probably should be done.

Most of these recommendations are coming through the boards and the commissions, but they're coming from residents.

It's their ideas that we're trying to get to you.

Just because it doesn't perhaps fit into the goals, all that means is it might be something you haven't thought of.

It means maybe things are more different things are important to residents that aren't important to you.

So I wouldn't insist on having them, you know, match, although you could probably fit something into everything, but those are my comments.

Thank you.

Thank you.

More people in chambers coming forward.

Thank you, Sally Moore.

And I'm questioning, too, why would you do an annual review?

I would assume that those have to be done here in chambers and with a whole string of them.

Then you'll be limiting us probably to a minute and a half to talk about these things that we've waited all year to talk about.

So I think too, you need to consider doing this more frequently and perhaps more than two submissions from each commission.

Thank you.

Good evening, all Dixie Lane, a resident.

And I didn't plan to speak on this topic, although sitting here I'm going, oh my.

This comes across to me as doing deaf.

Okay.

And I look at this council and I go, there's not a lot of institutional knowledge sitting up here.

Okay.

So I'm going to share some of that with you.

When these BCCs were created and they were created, so the residents had a place to go and discuss what they thought was going on, what they'd like to see happen in the city, and kind of um just that a little bit and also bring forth a lot of good ideas.

And I remember those days, and they were really positive and really great.

And with the different um cities, we were able to uh come up with some really great ideas, and um, and if they needed to, then they came to council.

Um also the staff was not that involved in the VCCs, their one role was to sit there.

If there was a question that didn't needed to be answered, they would answer it, but they did not participate in the setting of the goals.

They did not participate in the setting of their agendas, which they now control, and um it those were the residents um BCCs to get information to the council.

So that's why a lot of them are the people still refer to them as the mayor's BCCs because that was how the mayor often communicated with the public.

And over the years, I'd say about the last 20 to 30 years, they have been chipped away at they are um the management of those BCCs are not with the BCCs and the chairs themselves.

Um, I think a lot of people like myself no longer bother with them very often, um, because it's it's not productive, and um the the staff have too much control, and it's not that open dialogue that we used to have.

So I really think that um it would be um you could tell the residents you you've heard them and that and you need to hear more from them, and this is the way we used to get information to you.

So I think maybe looking at this, you need to stop worrying about whether they're in sync with the the um the city schools and are they really in touch with the residents who they are supposed to be listening to and then bringing that to you.

That's my two cents, okay.

Uh anyone online wishing to comment on this.

Lisa Tiani.

Thank you.

I appreciate the previous comments.

Uh my first thought is it's just that it it seems like the uh board and commission chairs were brought into the process of reassessing this kind of late and uh not in a very open-ended kind of uh situation.

Um so it's like you know, here's what we're gonna do.

Any problems with that?

I I don't know.

That's how it came across, but I would say yeah, number one, this thing of waiting a year, well, and limiting uh the the um uh items to two per year.

I it it's it um arbitrary and it it's okay, maybe it's mathematically works, but uh it it does not work for the community, and I I really think you need to look at this more closely.

This is a really disappointing follow-up to to the original um uh action to define how uh boys and commissions can make their recommendations to council because uh uh so often in the past those recommendations just got lost um or the the boards and commissions were discouraged uh from from making recommendations at all so that was a great start to get to get a process going but I think you need to have more involvement of the community in um in refining this process uh we have some amazing uh uh boys and commissions I mean I'm just bowled over by the current BNRC um uh HRC does their very best uh and ARB you know is it's not quite as inspiring but they're but they're working hard um so so I hope that you will revisit this uh and try again thank you thank you I'm going to agree with every speaker that came before but to say that because of the advent of zoom I can go to every meeting which I do and I don't think anybody on council does and these are your advisory committees that will give you information from the public we do participate in these and we expect I don't think you listen to the entire public the rest of the time I think you live in your own little bubbles of your friends and your little circles and this is a regression an absolute regression of the intent of this whole process was to be communication from your greater public that comes and goes through advisory committees that have so much talent in them so much talent that you would be well advised to listen to some of them and this was the two-way well communication at least to be able to get it into your ear hopefully and not out no that it doesn't go in one and out the other but once a year that's insanity that is such a regression from this process that was carefully thought out to try and you you got what 12 forms out of the year well you know I'm sure that some of them were from the more active you know there were more from an active BCC than some BCs are not and I can think of two that probably gave you the most which would be probably record and RNRC.

But you know this is two a year once a year looking at them are you kidding when you have a big agenda it's hard to get through or listen to anything this is this is you need to go back truly and rethink this because this seems to be a staff directing uh process to council and the public rather than the other way around and I think you know our organizational chart is the other way around thank you very much Anthony Cheney thank you counsel for considering this I'm looking at you all sitting behind this wooden curved barrier.

Trying to listen to all of this, but what's really important is the vitality of the community and the participation of the community and commute being able to communicate with you through the boards, the communities, and the commissions.

That's where the local action happens.

And it's through that vitality of an activity that we're able as citizens to be able to participate in the decisions that you're making behind that big curved wooden barrier that sits between us right now.

So I think it's really important that you open this up rather than close it off.

That you try to see this as an opportunity for discussion, not as oh, we're gonna limit it to a certain period of time, a certain number of events, it needs to be more open than that, and that's what the boards and commissions and committees do.

It allows the local neighborhoods to participate in a more informal way, to talk to you, to talk to them, to address the issues that are important to the community.

Please open this up, don't close it off.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Kim and Alley.

Yes, I just heard four local residents do what residents are supposed to do, and we don't have enough of them.

Starting off with Dixie, we heard subsequently three very elegant, honest presentations by members of the community.

Now you let them speak, but as always, I have to ask: did you listen to what they said?

There's a big difference between letting people speak and listening to what the community members of the community have to say.

Those last four speakers were outstanding, raised some really interesting points.

I see this council leading the city down a path of lack of transparency and lack of cooperation with the community.

You seem to have your own agenda all the time.

You want to call the shots, you let people come up and talk, you call it oral communication, but you sit there with glum faces, looking at your books, writing with your pens, daydreaming, and then not paying any attention to what they had to say.

But I and the rest of the community who participates in these events, excuse me, does hear what they have to say, and then you'll go and either limit our participation to 90 seconds or completely ignore what the community has to say, what members of the community have to say.

You don't have to be on the city council to be the only smart people in town.

So I want to encourage you to take seriously what was just said to you in the last 12 minutes, because I thought it was outstanding, starting off with Dixie and following through with the next three speakers.

So please pay more attention to the members of the community and act sometimes and respond when you're having your discussion to some of the ideas that they took the time to share with the community.

Okay, that's all I have to say.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Uh Andrew.

Good evening.

My name is Andy Kubica, and uh honorable mayor and uh council.

Thank you for listening to me.

It was my understanding that the BCC form was created by the previous mayor and council to facilitate communication of critical issues from the commissions to the council in a timely manner.

That says, I'm gonna emphasize that in a timely manner.

This communication will allow the council and the mayor to address items that would better serve the city to be addressed in real time rather than in a future budgeting cycle.

I read the BCC recommendations to council forms a couple of times.

Limiting the commissions to two a year and potentially waiting until an aggregation on December 31st limits the intent and purpose of the form, which was a vehicle for clear communication to this to our city council representatives.

I believe there's an old expression that says, if it's not broke, don't fix it.

Again, the form was intended to be used for special critical issues that could not wait until the next budget cycle.

I strongly urge reconsideration of this change to the original proposal to streamline a better communicate commission efforts for critical issues to the council.

Thank you very much.

Now for the online commenters, mayor.

Okay, thank you very much.

We'll go ahead and close public comment on this item.

How's everybody doing?

Anyone need a break now, or would you like to go ahead and trudge forward with the finish it out?

Okay, we'll go ahead and finish it out.

Um we're at item 12A, and we just heard a lot of public comment.

Um I'm just gonna give a few just preliminary thoughts just to try to because it was a lot of comment and a lot of different themes uh touched upon.

Um the form was created last year, so it's not a long-standing process.

I think I heard some comments that kind of end were seemed to suggest that this is a long-standing process, but it actually was created last year.

Um, it really is project a project-driven form rather than a critical information or informative kind of form.

It's basically telling us we want to do this project, so go council go do this project is essentially what I've seen for the most part.

We had one tonight, in fact.

So it's not, it's not a necessarily a vehicle for information.

I think something that so I want to clarify that for the discussion tonight that there's this idea of delineating information to the council that we get from the public at public comment or at the board meetings, or via um a letter or report, possibly a quarterly report from an active board and commission.

That could be that's a process of information versus a project recommendation, which is what we've been we've seen.

We've seen, you know, put in stop signs uh tonight, we've seen other more like some actually very large project uh recommendations, million in the million range, and so I think um that's kind of the I think the the while well intended, the form didn't really address all of the the various manner of communication.

I think before the form was created in 2024, there was an issue with um the things would die in a BCC, and we we never knew about it.

We would be here maybe none the wiser as to you know why it happened at the lower body, right?

So I I do think this is this can be an improvement, but I think that we have to um work on it, and that's exactly what this effort has been.

This has been an effort to work on what we've created last year and try to make it better and stronger and consolidate efforts.

Um, because we do have to keep we have to.

I'm gonna I'm gonna turn it over to other people, but we have to keep all we have our priorities, and that has to be our priority.

Um, and so information getting from the public, yes, all the time.

Always we always want to get that information because that's how we make our decisions.

But as far as like actual project recommendations, that's a different topic altogether because it has to go through a budget and it has to be approved, and we have to have the money for it.

So, and we have to have the time for it, and we have to have the staff power for it.

So, with those comments, I'm gonna hopefully that helps uh with the discussion a little bit, and I'll recognize somebody else.

Yes, I'd like to ask either Mr.

Mogenson or uh Miss Hallaby if they have any additional information that you want to clarify.

Did anything get left out or you wanted to offer some clarification?

Thanks for the opportunity.

Just on based on some of the comments and questions that were asked about maybe, you know, I think the mayor just summed up you know precisely a lot of the the conversation here, which is we're talking about projects and not about things that the BCCs are doing within their daily or their routine work.

But the reason for December, um, and is because people rotate off of the board in December.

So this is more of a deadline than it is like don't give it to us until December.

We just want to make sure that any recommendations that come forward happen by December.

And the reason we would then combine those together is because in January is when we start preparing for the budget for the next year.

We're also going to be looking at this work plan that has 27 items on it and comparing it with the council.

If any of these things are going to fall off, you want to put in new things.

So it makes sense that all these things that are competing are thought about at one point in time.

So that was that was one of the major just the question of why December and why that, as far as you know, the two, that's up for the council's discussion and decision.

But I think that was the main thing is that is, you know, we went to all the BCCs prior to creating this work plan this year, and they all gave us input, and the council considered that into the work plan.

So that was the starting point.

Now we're talking about how we do it going forward.

It's just about management of all the different projects, it's not about information flow, and the mayor had great ideas on that already.

So that's so it's really just December 31st is the end date for any project that a BCC in their current appointed year would have for projects that you want to be considered the next you know year as we go into the cycle.

But that doesn't mean if we see a sidewalk or an intersection problem, like I anticipate one at fountain and lighthouse because of the ice cream store.

That doesn't mean if we see that there's a problem there that we don't bring that because we have to wait.

I would say anything that came forward for if it's something that's a critical importance.

I think you're going to hear about in the council in addition to the BCC, but we would certainly bring that forward faster and you know have a budget amendment if we needed to or something.

This is kind of a way of of just managing a lot of information into something that's more decipherable that we're trying to improve on.

Oh, um, Councilman McDonald, you finish?

Okay.

Go ahead.

Thank you, Mayor.

I feel like on this agenda item where the confusion I think is coming in is I went back and I looked at the agenda item and all my notes because I am always writing notes, um, because I I think it's really important to hear from the public from the other council members to understand what the issues are in the community.

Um, looking back at that, the goal of the BCC form was not so we used to have a separate CIP process, and that's where we brought the projects forward.

This form was supposed to be an add-on to give a mechanism for the BCCs to communicate things that aren't a project.

So now it seems like we're saying these forms are project-based.

So it feels, I think, to the public and the BCC is that we're now cutting off opportunities for communication.

So what started out as a way for our public to communicate, because I agree with every commenter we had that the whole um benefit of the BCCs is the public can come there, we can have experts from our community who know the various topic areas because as council we can't be experts in everything.

So I think it's really valuable to have the input of citizens willing to volunteer their time to bring their expertise to the table to help advise us on what our public needs and what are the best ways to maybe implement some solutions.

So I I think when reading the agenda item, it really sounds more like we're cutting off opportunities for communication.

And I know um Joyce, you had mentioned that um currently they can go through the council liaison.

So is is the way staff envisions it that we will now use these forms more for what would have been a CIP in the past that's project related, which makes total sense to assess all those related to budget and goals.

But I I think it was a very good point that a lot of what comes to the BCCs are issues that the public sees, um, because we all live in kind of our own little bubble of the city, it's not very big, but there are still parts we don't all know.

And so having the opportunity to hear from people who are seeing issues we may not be experiencing, I think, is really valuable.

So would you think that the goal then would be for them to bring those type of items directly through their liaison directly to council or I just want to make sure we are not in any way cutting off their ability to communicate more, which was the goal of the form when it was developed.

But then I know there's been a lot of ambiguity in how it gets used, and so I think that's kind of what brought us here.

Sure.

So to answer that clearly, no, we're not cutting off any means of communication or uh functionality of the BCCs as it currently stands.

I think the term project is a very broad term.

It's not just a traditional CIP project, but it could be a larger work initiative, like looking at a section of code, so any kind of bigger scale project that would require a significant amount of staff time that the BCC is initiating that's not coming directly from staff or from the council is how that form was envisioned to be used, if that answers your question.

I think it does somewhat, but I guess my concern is still that the point is as the mayor mentioned was that the BCCs were discussing a lot of things that council never heard about.

So we didn't even know it was an issue for it to be included.

So that's great that we have a formalized process for that to happen.

But I think that it may limit if we wait to assess them in December.

It makes sense that they can come in all year, but if we wait to hear them until December, we might be missing things that are important.

So I just I want to make sure we don't lose that mechanism.

And I actually had a similar idea that was mentioned about maybe having quarterly reports, something they could put on the agenda.

Because the one thing I will say is now that the the commit now that the BCCs have had to go to action minutes, the rich context that we used to be able to get from the BCCs through their minutes is lost.

So I feel like we actually have way less information from the BCCs now than we had before, and we need to have a way for them to bring that information to council.

So whether it's implementing quarterly reports, I think that could be a good way to do it.

Um giving them some way to communicate what's going on so we're aware.

I think that's really important that we don't lose that in the process.

Thanks.

Yes, thank you.

Councilman Garville, so I'll go to your next.

Thank you, your honor.

Um, so from what I'm hearing, this is really about communication, it's about making sure we've got flow back and forth.

And I think the council could do a better job about including the BCCs in work that we want to get done that is part of what we're working on to send a task set to um a BCC is something we could be more mindful of.

Um, and I think that that's something I don't know how we would do it formally, but when we set our goals, I I think we should have said, and then what what do we do to each BCC from our goals?

And we kind of miss that column if you think about it.

Um we could do a better job of that.

BCCs, you need to get your minutes in on time.

We have a year's worth of minutes from one of the BCCs.

It doesn't do us any good at all to get a year's worth of minutes at the end of the fact.

Your point about the action minutes really does make them so lean that they don't tell us what's going on.

So I would propose that we separately are more mindful about giving things to the BCCs to do that fit with what we're trying to work on, so we're all in the same process, the same team, and that we work on the minutes that come from the BCCs to not just the council, but to the entire public when they're in these these um agenda packets that would help us understand what the issues are that are arising and understand the context for them.

The one of the problems that still is outstanding is, and I've heard this from lots of the BCCs is that they they have a project, an idea, let's just call it an idea or an initiative that's near and dear to their hearts.

They've worked on it, they've got ideas, and they bring it to council, and council goes, eh, um, because it's done fit with what we're working on.

That's insulting, it's frustrating, it feels for council's perspective like you're drinking from a fire hose.

So, how do we get the BCCs to get a yeah, we we know it, we see you, we want you to work on this some more.

Please keep us informed.

And for the BCCs not to run off on some tangent that doesn't gonna isn't gonna have a happy outcome.

So we've got a lot of communication to work on.

We've tried different things.

The form that was developed last year, um, doesn't give enough structure, I think, to the communication to have people know what's being proposed or what what the next steps are.

It's really a free form.

Um, maybe work on the form a little bit more to get it medium so that when something comes to council, we got it.

We know what you we know what you're asking for, and it actually pertains a little bit to you've seen the form.

None of the BCCs have used these forms more than once or two or three times.

Anytime you develop a new structure or process, you need to try it out, see what you can do, improve it.

It's not a big deal.

We're not we're not trying to change the foundations of the universe, just make something better.

Um, so I don't know how to put that in a proposal, but I think we need to work on communicating better out to the BCCs, and I think the BCCs need to take responsibility for giving us information in some way, shape, or form more than a clump of minutes for a whole year at one time that doesn't even have the same council members.

So those are my observations.

I think this is a work in process.

I think that it's worth our time to take a look at this and take it seriously so that we have smooth working relationships.

We need to be able to get an urgent idea from a BCC before us when it is timely, but we also need for the BCCs to understand that there's a fixed amount of staff time that can be devoted to fulfilling these projects, and the idea of limiting it is not so much about um every BCC, but we have some that are pretty active, and maybe they would be better served by better developing their ideas so that they have to set their own priorities of which ones they're gonna go forward with.

You can't go forward with them all, they're not all important or none of them are important.

Um so those are my thoughts.

It doesn't really help move into a solution, but there you go.

Oh, that's great.

Um, yes, council member walking stick.

Actually, I think it does help move into a solution.

You and I were thinking something very similarly on on one of these points, and that's that uh um uh Matt, I would like to formally request an agenda item on tasking BCCs.

I think that's a worthy discussion.

I think it's very related to what we're doing here.

I think that will help us with kind of the larger picture of of kind of what's at issue here.

Um, and obviously, since you and I, without discussing it, we're on the same page with that one.

I I think it's a good way to go.

Um there's a lot to unpack here, but I'm gonna start at the beginning.

Uh, Brian, uh, is it legal for an elected or appointed city official to prevent a city council from receiving a recommendation from a BCC?

Is it legal for an elected or appointed city official to prevent a city council from receiving a recommendation from a BCC?

I'll get to why that's important.

I'm not sure I understand the question.

Let's say it's a BCC, whether it's a municipal or charter, wants to make a recommendation to city council, as is their job according to uh ordinance or law.

Um, they want to make that recommendation and then it gets shortstopped.

And there is a gatekeeper, someone is deciding whether or not that recommendation goes forward to the city council that that BCC is supposed to be delivering the recommendation to.

So my answer is that it depends on what the city um charter, your ordinances and your policies provide in terms of that process.

Okay, let's say it's PG.

Um, would you need time to review that?

And if so, when uh when would we be looking at an answer on that?

Well, the answer is yes.

I would need some time to review that because I generally don't try to give answers off the cuff like that.

Um so it would take some time to review.

Okay, I would like to point out that that's at issue right now.

If we are limiting the number of recommendations to two per year, I realize that's I and I respect that there are other avenues forward.

However, if we are putting a limit, that means we are omitting, we are preventing other uh recommendations from coming forward.

By preventing those recommendations.

Uh we are inhibiting the role of the BCC, the responsibility of the BCC to deliver something to the city council.

Moreover, if we've got one or two people deciding which ones come forward, or decide that, okay, I'm going to stop you from doing any more than two, then we've got one person standing between the BCC and the actual city council whom they're supposed to be reporting to.

And so, as a city council member, I don't want an intermediary filtering for me, deciding what I will or will not receive from the BCCs.

Um legal questions aside, although I think that's fundamental to our discussion and needs to be answered, um, where we kind of started to go off the rails here as a community, as a government, was that our code does not provide uh uh mechanisms or an owner for getting these recommendations to city council.

There's no prescribed recommendation for uh uh how to bring a recommendation forward or who is responsible for doing so, and so because of that, we've all just kind of made it up over time as we go.

And uh I think the first um the first recommendation form and uh uh these these following recommendations are trying to address that to a large degree.

Um but uh efficiency isn't necessarily is not created by having many hands, uh many touch points, it's not created by uh by having many gates.

So I would like to try a more simplified method instead of a more complex method.

And I think if we had uh if we created an agenda item where we reviewed all recommendations with an up or down vote, not we're not there to discuss the whole thing, we're just there to decide in order like here's 15 recommendations.

Do we want to hear these?

Are these things that we would like to receive and like to discuss with the public?

Uh and that just simple up and down.

And I think we could get through like 15 recommendations in 15 minutes.

Again, just a yes or no.

Yes, put that on a future agenda, or do not.

And at that point, we've decided if we say not, we've we've shut the door on that at that point.

As a group, as a city council, and we've heard it.

The BCC has had the opportunity to, and the public has had the opportunity to have their voice heard.

We as a city council have got to enjoy having that uh having received that recommendation in the first place.

So city government is working the way it it appears it's supposed to, according to our ordinances, and uh, and I think we can get through a lot really quickly that way.

Anyway, so that's where I'm at.

I'm not for this particular uh uh iteration.

Uh I'm not for this this particular suggestion, um, but I recognize the importance of needing to streamline this, and I think we can, and I think we're close.

I think the form plays a large role in that, but uh, but the idea of placing limits on it uh puts constraints, I think unnecessary constraints on both the BCCs and the public.

You know, uh, they can bring a suggestion forward and we can decide real quickly whether or not that's something that we would want to take on just at first blush.

And uh, yeah, I think that's all my points.

I will go ahead and uh let loose there.

All right, thank you.

Councilmember.

Um thank you.

Um, obviously, a lot of thoughts here.

Um, I I just uh I think when I look at this item, I have a different view, or maybe the same view as everybody, but I think or the original intent was was the right way, which is uh there was a essentially a black hole, BCC's had recommendations, and nobody knew where it went.

And then this process was instituted.

Now we're getting information, which is great.

And the information uh project or otherwise, uh there are constraints that uh everybody operates under.

You operate under staff time and budget, both of those are constraints for us.

So anytime some recommendation comes in, then essentially we have to weigh in staff time and budget, which is what we're today for.

And I think the intent of this uh essentially this agenda item is to make sure that staff time, budget, goals, everything fall into place.

And I think we're I think this is an evolutionary step.

So is we need to think about how to refine this.

Uh, I I would say that the two recommendations for BCC, in my opinion, is a constraint, and I don't think if I were on a board, I would always have that in the back of my mind.

I can only do two recommendations.

Is it this or the next?

I don't think we should impose that constraint, personally speaking, because that that needs to be driven by somebody else.

And to me, I think the original uh document, which was listed to uh as a process step, explicitly maybe it was implied, but it was not explicitly stated who's the gatekeeper of all of these recommendations, and I think that gatekeeper could be the council liaison, it could be the staff, it could be a combination of everybody else, but but point is there needs to be a gatekeeper for these recommendations.

That gatekeeper needs to effectively review this in terms of staff time, budget time, city goals, etc.

Because someone who has to do it.

Uh otherwise it'll be going back to the BCCs to do it.

And I don't think the BCCs are equipped to do it.

So what I view this is is more like a council liaison item, which is if a particular council liaison is part of a BCC, and that BCC is going crazy and submitting 25 recommendations in a given year, it's up to this council liaison to decide are those 25 recommendations valid or not.

Are they urgent or not?

And do they have to, and how many of those recommendations can be brought forward to council?

And there, I think we should impose a constraint, and that would be maybe two recommendations, maybe three.

We can come up with a number.

I think that's where we need to do what we need to do decide as a council is how to effectively manage this.

Another way to look at this is like um council member um Cynthia Cynthia brought this up, council member Garfield brought this up, which is we as a city have goals.

Uh, we define these goals on an annual basis.

These goals need to tie up with all the BCCs, and and we are defining these goals for on behalf of the city, which means on behalf of all the residents that have expressed their opinions, concerns, feedback, and so on.

And so when we list these goals, these goals need to be percolated into recommendations to to BCCs.

So effectively, we are telling the BCCs, these are our goals, work towards these goals for for the given year.

And I think if everybody works towards those goals, these recommendations automatically will be brought forward because we've already allocated a budget for that amount and staff time for that amount.

The question really is if one of these items is not part of the goal, then what?

And that's where the rub is here, which is what this item is all about, which is anything which does not fit into those goals, we need to have a constraint, and that that helps the council and the staff manage their time and the budget effectively.

And I think it'll improve communications effectiveness infrastructure, whatever you want to put it accordingly.

Anyway, long-winded thing to say that like I'm supportive generally of this direction.

I'm not necessarily supportive of two per BCCs.

I I think that's uh I mean it's it's well founded, but I think it's gonna be a little bit impractical for the BCCs to take it that way.

Uh I do think that somebody else needs to manage that.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um, go ahead, Joe.

There's been a lot of discussion on this item.

And um I'm just gonna go by what's my experience has been uh I was on the recreation commission for uh three years prior to being uh elected.

And um I remember on the recreation commission we came up with goals, uh, which were related to the goals of the city at the time.

And those goals were brought to the minutes to the to the uh to the uh city council at the time.

Um I and I got a question for Joyce.

I'm just sure um I've read it right.

They they could give a quarterly report, we're correct on that.

Correct.

Okay, so my thoughts on it is um the quarterly report would be great, and my feeling is the either the chair or a representative of the um, for example, a museum board come and give the quarterly report to the council during the discussion point.

Um I have uh the opportunity to be uh a member of the um draft agenda where we put together uh agendas uh each every two weeks uh with the mayor and uh Mr.

Morgan.

And I know at one point we had close to uh I think it was around 10 to 11 recommendations from BCCs, and it was like um uh it felt like it was uh uh heavy like trying to lift a three thousand pounds trying to get to one particular item.

Now we've been fortunate uh to Mr.

Brown here.

We've got the traffic commission on there, we got which was great.

We do get a few things uh on there, but I I I in general, from my experience, I say we try this, see how this goes on two uh the recommendation.

I agree with this, and we re-evaluate it maybe after the two recommendations, and if there's a uh a real need for the um uh BCCs to come, come to the council right there and explain what some of the issues are because we will then take note of that.

Um I agree with this Garfield in regards to the uh minutes have to be updated.

There's no doubt about it, and I agree with you.

The last one I read on the agenda report, there was like 10 minutes, 10 10 months of minutes, you know, and it's hard to get through those minutes, you know.

So um, but I think that if something is in need, the chair or a representative of a commission comes up and and explains what the need is, and that's on a quarterly basis.

That's I I go along with the recommendation.

Thank you.

I'm just gonna try to we've had a lot of discussion, so I'm gonna try to and I appreciate all the comments.

I really do, and I think it's been needed and for a while, and we kind of kicked the can down the road, but here we are.

We're not kicking a lot of cans these days.

So I think what I'm seeing is okay, there's some support for the protocol in general.

Perhaps the numbers a little too low is what I'm kind of hearing.

Uh I don't I disagree that there's a legal issue on that.

We are the governing board, and we have to determine our government that that's what we were elected to do.

So that's what we should be doing.

Um, so I think with if I sent the product if the protocol is favorable with all with most of the council, and possibly we beef it up to three recommendations.

Um, and we have uh an overarching idea that we're gonna come back and revisit this um in a you know shortly.

Um that's kind of what I would recommend we move forward with.

And I'm just let me just say one more thing, and I don't want to talk this to death, but there are the planning commission, the HRC and the ARB are doing the work that they have to do under the statute, and that will continue, and that is always going to be the case, and we rely on them to do the work, the statutory work that they do, taking on appeals and and different items that the planning commission does, diversity of items, um, and also looking at the historical registry.

So those kind of like that's like one area that's never gonna change.

All this this just deals with recommendations coming from it seems just a few of the boards.

So my recommendation would be, and I don't they don't make a lot of those recs, you know, they have too much work on their agendas already, is probably the issue.

So my recommendation would be if someone would be willing to, you know, maybe we beef this up a little bit to three recommendations today.

We do a a period where we we look at this and continue to to look at into this, continue to have staff develop more ideas, and possibly as a secondary item, we direct the boards and commissions to prepare a quarterly report to the council, which will continue to give us our opportunity to uh get information.

That's that's what I'm thinking.

Councilmember Garfield.

Yeah, I support that.

Is it here we are in almost September, so we have a quarter left.

Um, and if we had a limit of two before December, that's a lot.

So I would suggest that before the end of the year we give this a shot.

Um we see how it works.

Uh we have mechanisms for things that are uh urgent, timely through uh the BCC's council liaison.

I am a little concerned about making the council liaisons locked into this structure and process.

Other cities don't have council liaisons.

That's it's not clearly a functional role, but maybe we can make it more functional.

Um, I would like to see uh a quarterly report started sometime within the quarter from each BCC about what they're working on, um, and then have a section in the minutes so that when they're timely minutes come to us, it has a paragraph, a few lines of this is what we're hearing.

Um, and if we want to use the BCCs as a sounding board for the community, we need to hear what they have to say.

Um, so I would propose that we institute this as is to before December 31st, see how it works with a plan to come back for a review in December, um, as as this is initiated, and feel free we'll change it, we'll know a whole lot more.

And my question is to Ms.

Holaby and Mr.

Moganson, how do you think that's gonna work?

Um council member, I'll I'll let Ms.

Holiday go right after me.

Um, I by guess you mean in terms of rolling this out.

We would go to each board and commission and say council's adopted this new protocol, and we would kind of train them on that um in terms of how they're gonna accept it.

And um, I I like this idea of the quarterly report, and I wanted to ask a question quickly before your motion gets too solid on the minutes.

There's there's kind of a reason that we've gone towards the action minutes, and it has to do with um accuracy, just a lot of different reasons.

If we had say a separate report, this quarterly report that had those narratives, would that suffice and meet the same thing?

Is the question, I think.

Cause then we'd have two separate things, one for a permanent record and one for communications to the council.

And I'm looking at our city clerk because she's the more the authoritarian at this, but um to the answer to answer the rest of your question, I'll pass it to Miss Hallib in case I missed something.

I think you covered it.

Um I think you know, we would communicate back to the BCCs and then back to you all in December with any recommendations that were submitted and kind of follow the process as delineated tonight, and then we can get your feedback at that time.

Just if I can continue on it's so it's a pilot.

We're gonna look at this as a pilot project, we're gonna try it for a quarter, see how it goes, come back with a report on how it's working, see where there's opportunities for improvement, um, and then we will also, in the meantime, at council, be more mindful of sending work to the BCCs that is an integral part of what we are currently working on.

Sounds right to me.

Um, Jeff, so he's got something just a quick question.

Uh this quarterly report that you mentioned, is this from staff to council, or is it from BCC to staff or who's the originator and receiver?

I propose that'd be the unedited uh report from the BCC to the council.

Um it was suggested perhaps they come and give it orally, or you can receive it in writing.

I guess that would be a decision of the council on how you want to handle that.

I'd prefer it in writing.

Okay.

That's my purpose.

Uh Council Member.

And I think it's really important that we do have that cut off at the end of the year, and here's why.

When we come up to that transition period and we have, you know, three people leaving and four people coming in, and it's kind of a, you know, time where there's not good transition.

I think it's really important for the incoming chair, the incoming vice chair and the incoming secretary to be able to look at timely minutes as well as the projects that they've started so that when those boards and commissions turn over in January, we don't have them basically starting over from scratch, and some things that may be kind of important that they brought up in October, November, get dropped, and then has to be picked up again later.

So I do like the idea of, but I think we just need to make sure we make it clear to the public and to the staff that this is not we're gonna wait until December 31st before we look at them.

It's just saying that we need your submissions by that date so that we can carry it forward with the new commission.

Is that fair?

All right, can I entertain a motion at this time?

I'm gonna maybe we can get a motion you can discuss.

Okay, I was trying to take some notes here.

Let's see if we've got this right.

Um, approve the amended protocol for recommendations to the city council by boards, committees, and commissions.

That's a motion on recommendation one.

Do I have a second?

I was gonna add, I know you're gonna do a couple then.

Yeah, well, go ahead.

Uh I was gonna add recommendation one and what else recommendation one, and it's already written in there for a quarterly report, and um that we review this in January of 2026.

Um, are you moving that we direct the boards and commissions to have a quarterly report as well?

Yes, okay.

So that'll be you know, can that be your number two?

Yes, that'll be my number two.

And then your number three was that was it.

Wasn't there one about something about come back?

We're gonna come back in January, January.

We'll review the the uh the recommendation.

Review the this two.

Yeah, review this.

Okay, all right.

The protocol, yeah.

Okay, so that's three things basically.

Do you have a second for that?

We got um councilmember on the second.

All right, and further discussion, Mr.

Councilmember Walkingstick.

Welcome.

Um, although I I I do think we're uh uh maybe unnecessarily complicating the process.

I really do think we could go simpler.

Um, although I think we can go simpler than than the current recommendation, what we're doing right now.

Um related to this is uh efficiency, and I think where we're going to realize a lot of efficiencies is in tasking and in um uh preventing BCCs from going down blind alleys, and this is where the number of recommendations comes in.

I would like BCCs to come to us for permission before they start on their own projects, tasks, uh research projects, whatever they've got, right?

So that's why I'm I'm mostly concerned about limiting um uh the recommendations.

So as we review when we come back to this, uh I would really like to remember to kind of keep an eye on that.

Thank you.

That's I think that's totally fair.

Um, Councilmember, I mean, maybe.

Yeah, sorry.

Uh long in the middle here.

The um that's that's the recommendation that the third recommendation that we review this when when it comes up go with the staff recommendation and then review it in say January.

Right.

Uh understood.

And that's that's it.

Got it.

Understood.

All right, we have a motion and a second, and we've had discussion.

Any further?

Yes.

So that the public's and we are all on the same page.

We are using the form to bring more project monetary or not based items that we will assess with the budget.

That said, and I had actually wanted to make another comment similar to what um um councilmember walking stick said, is my concern is if they're putting all this effort into creating something that they're not sure if we're interested in, I think having that more timely communication is helpful, so they don't go back down a path that's not useful.

So, in the meanwhile, the idea is we will still bring count um items to council via the liaison or via the quarterly reports that might be more timely so that they have better direction from us because part of this is giving them more directions on how they can help us.

And I actually really like that direction where BCC's have been asking us for a long time how can we help?

How can we be helpful?

And I think this finally addresses that, and I think that's great.

Thank you very much.

So mayor, I have something to add.

Yes, um, I think it's been a very good discussion.

Um, I think I believe I understand the motion, which is to approve the recommendation uh to ask for quarterly reports and to have a review in January of twenty twenty six.

My question uh and suggestion would be perhaps you could designate um a date for the quarterly report, because I'm expecting you might want to receive that quarterly report before your January twenty twenty six review.

So for example, if you set a date of December, I'm just hypothetical there, set a date of December 15th for the next quarterly report by the BCCs, then you would have that.

It could be attached to the agenda report that then gets to you in January, and you'll have all these, you know, PCC quarterly reports to look at um at that point.

Yeah, and I would favor that, and then you know, moving month to month will be December fifteenth, March 15th, June 15th, September 15th.

Another way because it moves like either to say the second meeting of the last month of the quarter.

Yeah, we might not want to do the fifteenth.

I want to do a deadline of uh uh prior to the agenda production for the second meeting.

Do we need a motion on that?

I think the tenth then should we just clarify the motion that was made to incorporate that, or are we good?

Well, I'm not sure.

I've heard specific specific date that I had mentioned, which was December 15th for the next one, and then you went on from that to propose March fifteenth, et cetera.

Am I hearing there are a different schedule?

I was just thinking the deadline should be before the second meeting uh drops for the quarter.

So, for example, before the second, we don't have a second meeting in December, but okay.

Um we have another suggestion the first day of the last month.

My suggestion is first day of the last month of the quarter.

That way nobody has to look into dates and it'll be easier.

That's fine.

We are we already had a motion, so that's probably okay with that.

All right.

All right, let's take a roll call vote.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh Mayor Proteumelio.

Hi.

Council Member Vaderi.

Council members Garfield.

Hi.

Rao.

Hi.

No.

McDonnell.

Mayor Smith.

Aye.

Motion carries six one.

All right, thank you very much.

That was a great discussion.

Thank you for the public input.

Uh, we've been going since five, so we're gonna take a break here at eight thirty and come back at eight forty-five.

Recording stopped.

We have a Hands Recording in progress.

All right.

Are we ready to rock and roll?

Okay.

It is 845, and we are back from our break.

It's August 20th, continuing the meeting, the regular meeting of the City Council, 846 PM.

And we have arrived at item 13A, the referendum on ordinance 25007.

And I will recognize Mr.

Perk.

Yes, I'll start.

Thank you.

All right.

So you have an um before you an agenda report, and it's on the subject of the referendum on ordinance number 25-007 increasing the compensation for the mayor and the city council members.

The agenda report has some background information uh in it, so that has been available to you in the public to review.

Um on May 7th of 2025, the council had a discussion regarding a potential ordinance and then eventually um voted to hold a first reading on that ordinance uh to increase the salaries of the mayor and the city council members.

The second reading was held on May 21, 2025.

Subsequently, there was a referendum that was submitted.

Uh that's the subject of our discussion tonight, and um that ordinance has um been suspended uh in light of the referendum.

Um so uh there are a number of uh items for your consideration uh this evening.

Um the first item in the recommendation uh is can we get the slide uh on the screen here would be a motion to adopt uh the resolution accepting the certificate of sufficiency of the referendum against the ordinance 25-007.

Uh so that that is something that that needs to be done tonight.

Um to uh adopt that resolution.

Then uh the second, if we go to the next slide.

Um the second recommendation is that you select from one of three options uh with respect to how to proceed in in regards to this referendum.

So the first option, call it option number one, um, is would be to direct staff to return to the council on September 3 of 2025 with an ordinance repealing ordinance 25-007.

So that's option one.

Uh let's go to option two.

Uh option two is a little more wordy.

I'm not going to read everything on the slide here, but basically, this would involve a motion to direct the staff to return to the council at the meeting on September 3 of 2025 with documents to call for a municipal election uh on the question of the referendum and to decide at that meeting.

A would be the selection of a an election date, and B would be with respect to uh designation in regard to arguments uh on the measure.

So that is option two.

And if we go to the next slide.

Option three tonight uh would be a motion to direct staff to return to the city council on September 3 of 2025 with an ordinance repealing ordinance number 25-007.

And let me just add parenthetically that the reason you need uh an ordinance to repeal ordinance 25-007 is that you can only repeal an ordinance with an ordinance.

Um as I said, uh the direction would if you choose option three would be to have the um staff return to you with an ordinance at your meeting on September 3 of 2025, repealing that ordinance, and to uh return to the council at a future date, a meeting for a discussion of a possible ballot measure to be presented in 2026 for a public vote on an ordinance, increasing the salary of the mayor and city council members.

So those are the three options that are available to you tonight.

There's other information that's included in the agenda report with respect to uh potential election dates and whether that would be a uh uh at the general election in November of November 3rd of 2026, or whether there would be special elections that could be held as well, including a special election that would be consolidated with the primary on June 2, 2026, as well as other um special election standalone dates.

Um, and so those are all set forth in the agenda report.

Um there is other information in the agenda report with respect to voter turnout percentages.

Um that the city clerk is assembled.

And in addition to that, um we're gonna hear from the city clerk tonight with respect to some input on election costs, um, because I believe that that should probably be something you want to consider as you are moving forward here.

So we can move on to the next slide.

All right, now that was your cue.

Sandra, you'll take it from here if we said this.

Um honorable mayor, um, members of the council, um, staff and members of the public, the cost of election.

So, so historically the question has always been from the council um is what is the cost to add an initiative here or here a referendum, right?

Um, and so the there was, and you'll see by Irata some clarification as to the um registrar of voters uh additional information.

Uh a general municipal election average is 74,207 up to 106, uh $10.

The estimates based on the number of registered voters and permanent vote by male voters.

Um currently it's 10,601 times uh either seven to ten dollars.

Again, that's an estimate from the county.

Um the primary election uh it would be the same, uh similar to the general municipal, and I won't uh repeat those numbers because they are the same, and then a special election uh it would be 169,616 to 254,424 dollars.

So the estimate is based on the number of registered voters, and and like I said, currently um the count uh from the secretary of state's um or the register of voters last report to the secretary of state was for 10,601.

That number couldn't go up, that number could go down.

Um and so we wanted clarification because the wording in the agenda report did say uh that uh the county's estimate to add a measure, and that is incorrectly, which is it's just uh the cost of the entire election, which includes measures, you know.

Uh uh it includes in the general election offices of mayor and council members and so forth, and so there's a lot of uh um additional information, and and again, this is uh very wordy from the registrar of voters, but the average cost of consolidating in these type of scenarios is reflected in the range.

Um other variables uh can impact the costs.

Um these include but aren't limited to the actual number of registered voters, like I said.

Um it also um could include whether we print the full measure, the length of the text, inclusion of arguments and rebuttals.

Um, so it is an estimated range, it does come down from the uh county uh registrar of voters, and so we just wanted that clarification, like we did uh point that out in our bada.

Um so I believe that that concludes um our report.

Again, all the information is in the agenda report, and uh either um I or Brian are available for questions.

Thank you.

All right, thank you very much.

We'll go ahead and take it out to the public for comment on this item.

This is uh item 13A.

We'll take people in chambers first.

I think when you all ran for office, you knew what the stipend was.

And if this wasn't enough for you, you shouldn't have run.

And if it's not enough for you now, you should just resign.

Is the cost of living stipend.

And I think that would be enough because it would add, it would add to the stipend, but not in the amount that you want.

Serving on the city council was never meant to be a full-time job with benefits.

It's a service to the community.

And if you're not willing to give that service, then you should resign.

Okay.

Good evening, Mayor, City Council members.

My name is Bill Camp.

I'm a resident of the city of Pacific Grove, and I'm here to speak in support of option three, and also to urge citizens to vote yes when that happens for a raise.

When the council takes action that people object to, the first thing we hear is that, well, it wasn't transparent, and you didn't follow the process.

But in fact, I understand the council did follow the process and it was quite transparent.

And so the next thing is, well, it should have been a vote of the people, especially for motional topics.

And on this one, I believe there's a case for two versions of that yes and no.

But perhaps when the council took action, it might have been more discreet to have it go into effect after the next election.

That aside, after 26 years, it's completely understandable that every city on the peninsula took immediate action to catch up for 26 years of cost of living increases.

It's the regional and state level meetings and engagement and the prep time that goes along with that, and you're always on duty when you're walking on the street.

My personal experience is I had more time on my calendar as a council member than I did in private industry.

And most of my salary went to incidental and unreimbursed expenses to perform that job.

So this is not a large salary.

Some folks say, well, it's a small town, should be a small salary.

We make big deals out of everything we do, so there is no small effort required on the council's part uh to do this job.

Some folks say, well, I've been a volunteer on a board, and um you ought to serve as a volunteer without pay.

And in my mind, the council role is very different.

You are acting on behalf of the entire population of this city.

Um it's an important job, and a salary is a way for the citizens of the city to say this is important, do good work.

Uh, I believe most of our citizens appreciate and respect those who are serving the city.

Um respectable salary is that direct expension uh expression, and I urge our citizens and uh this council to take the steps necessary to implement the raise.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Susan Nellmeyer, and I want to thank you very much for all the hard work that you do up here.

Um I am in favor of option number two to submit the referendum to the voters in the next general election because it would be the least expensive of the options, and this would give the residents an opportunity to vote on the very first city council proposed raise in a hundred and thirty-six years.

Thank you.

Good evening again, um, Dixie Lane resident.

And I'm not here to tell you or not tell you how hard you work or you don't work, or you know, you took this job, and or it's not a job, it's a service, and um at a stipend, and that should be enough or whatever.

I'm just want to say that um I was one of those people out collecting signatures because I thought the people should have a voice.

That's all, and that's what most of us thought we should have a voice, we should have the right to vote on this, and whatever that magic number is, um, I can't tell you, but I will tell you that when we were out there collecting signatures, people you don't listen to them, you don't listen to them, you're not there for them, they're not happy, and they were hunting us down to sign these things.

Uh it was nothing like I've been through before, it was like within two three weeks we were done, and usually it takes months and months and months, like it did for Measure M.

It took us four months to get the signatures, and you know how people were upset about um short-term rentals.

So, anyway, I just ask you or suggest that you listen to the voters, put it on the ballot, and that's all they want, and but just put it on the ballot and let's move forward and get this done because I think there's something out there.

Um, but that's all people wanted it.

It wasn't a big thing about we're for the raise, we're against the raise.

They just want to be part of the process.

So thank you.

I want to support the concept that this should go back to the referendum for the people to decide.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mayor and council, I hope you're gonna lose this as a learning experience to listen to your public comment.

Listen to your greater constituency.

Please remember, Mayor, that you won on little over 3,000 votes out of the 10,000 voters, registered voters.

This is no wonderful mandate for you, but I am urging all of you sitting up there to listen.

You had overwhelming public comment that night, and you ignored it.

You knew you wanted your raise, you've been working on it for a long time, boom boom, boom.

This is what I'm gonna get.

Well, I hope this learning says that no, maybe you should actually listen to the streets, so to speak.

And yes, all we wanted was put it to a vote, and Dixie was absolutely right, they were clamoring up to the tables to sign.

I mean, all different walks of life, all different parts of the community.

And all we're asking for is you to start listening to us, please.

So I hope you use this as a learning experience.

Choose your option, no matter what, is going to be rescinded, you know, that ordinance.

And yes, we don't want an absolute uh huge expense of uh nobody's paying for it, reimbursed or unreimbursed for a special election on this one, like Measure X was.

So, hello.

Just take the least expensive way to see if you really have the support to do it, because I, of course, was urge a vote no, but that's me, and you certainly ignore me.

So thank you very much.

Thank you, Sandra.

Can you hear me?

Sandra.

I can hear you.

Okay, thank you.

Well, first and foremost, I want to say it was a fantastic experience connecting with the Pacific Road voters during the referendum campaign.

The voter turnout was phenomenal, uh as others have mentioned.

We collected a hundred and sixty percent of the required signatures in only three weeks' time.

So, again, many thanks to the voters and their enthusiastic response, as well as the 31 volunteer signature gatherers that made this happen.

They did a great job.

A special shout out to Debbie Beck, Carmelita Garcia, and Sally Moore.

I uh I also want to say I appreciate staff providing the errata to the agenda report that clarifies the true cost associated with placing a measure on the ballot.

In the end, the cost is zero.

All election contents contests, mayor, council, and ballot measures are covered in the estimate provided by the county elections department.

Consult the errata for details.

As far as what happens next, I would only ask that the city council not repeat their past mistake of adopting such a self-serving ordinance.

Also, to maximize voter participation and minimize cost, any vote should be held in November.

So please listen to the voters.

I think they've spoken with a loud and clear voice.

And maybe what we need next is a charter amendment that forces any council compensation increase to be mandated to go to the vote of the people.

I think that might be a good idea.

Have a good evening.

Lori McDonnell and Paul Walkingstick, you heard us.

You asked for it to be a vote of the people.

Thank you very much.

I just want to thank you.

That's all.

And then yes, thank you for taking my call.

You all knew when you were down at the farmers market, walking neighborhoods and campaigning in many other ways, that this was considered a volunteer service to the community.

The 400 plus dollars that council people receive every month are a stipend to cover expenses.

I don't know why, after all these decades of volunteer city councils with a stipend to cover expenses, that it's now being referred to as a salary, and you're complaining that you're underpaid.

Each one of you, including the mayor knew when you ran for office, that it was not gonna be highly compensated, yet, because of ego, prestige, or whatever other personal reason, maybe wanting to foster social change in the community, you each ran for office.

Now, this is like what you're trying to do is like me going to my boss and saying I'm gonna give myself a raise.

Now, who has a position like that in the real world?

You were on the city council serving the community.

At the first meeting months ago, when you introduced this, 18 people from the community got up and spoke against it.

The only two people who listened to those 18 people were Councilman Walking Stick and Laurie.

The rest of you, so zealous and greedy to compensate yourself large, large increases that you denied the will of the people as expressed at that time, force the community to go out and gather easily all the signatures necessary, not to vote yes or no on it, just to put it to the voice of the people.

Maybe you will listen then to the people in whatever direction they decide.

A quick little note.

Twenty years ago, you had a very famous and popular councilman who liked my ideas when I spoke at City Council.

He said, Vince, why don't you run for city council?

I said, let's call him John.

John, I don't have the time for all the work I assume you have to do.

He goes, Oh, Vince, you don't have to do any preparation.

Just come to the council meeting.

The staff will tell you how to vote on each issue.

They do all the work.

You don't have to do any of it.

This was the this was a quote from a then seated councilman.

You don't have to do any prep.

The the staff will tell you how to vote.

Now each of you can decide in your own hearts how hard you really work.

And do you deserve such an excessively large increase?

Thank you for letting me speak.

And no further online hands are raised.

All right, Mayor, I do have something to add.

Oh yeah, so that's public comment at this time.

Okay, good.

Uh in the resolution, um, paragraph seven, uh, it reads uh short.

Uh so I'll just read it.

So that on June uh fifth, twenty twenty-five, the city attorney uh transmitted an approved summary of referendum to the proponent commencing the period to circulate petitions on June 5, 2025, and concluding on June 7, 2025.

That is a typo uh that uh should be corrected.

It would be concluding on July 7th of 2025.

Obviously, give them more than two days to collect the signatures and and the same change is necessary uh in the agenda report.

Uh it's uh is under the heading of uh under the paragraph that begins on May 23 of 2025.

So where that is found in the agenda report, that same change should be made from June to July uh 7th of 2025.

That's all I have.

Okay, okay.

So here we are.

We're back here for council discussion on this item.

Um I will just note the outset.

Um, it appears we're gonna have to take up recommendation one at some point, just um adopting the resolution, accepting the sufficiency of the referendum.

And then um we can do that now if you'd like.

Okay, we would like to make a motion.

Motion, so moved.

Okay, we're motion on uh recommendation one.

Do you have a second?

Second, motion by McDonald's, second by Rao.

Any further discussion?

All right, hearing no take a voice, but on recommendation one.

Um, we're saying I.

Any opposed?

Seeing none passes unit, and now we're moving on to the meat and potatoes here on this.

It's been it's been a lot of input tonight, a lot a lot of opinions tonight.

Um, so uh select one of the three options.

So we have option one would be a pure repeal.

Um option two would be to prep to proceed with a referendum, and to be decided which at which election at a later time at once September 3rd.

And um option three is a repeal plus um discussion of a future of a ballot measure to be presented in 2026.

So those are the three options for the evening.

Um who would like to begin the discussion?

Uh Councilmember Garfield.

Thank you, Ronor.

I just have a small correction in the narrative of this.

Um, and it says under discussion page 143 that the issue of providing medical benefits was tabled to a future date.

That makes it sound as if we plan to bring it back to a future date, and we do not.

Um there was a considerable uh discussion, and as I recall it, the gist of it was is that now we're not gonna bring it back.

So um I I don't want that to stand.

I would agree.

Um, so we're not really seeking any medical benefits here, and that's not part of this discussion.

Um, and we have made that clear in previous votes.

Uh so at this time, um, let's have some further anybody wishing else to speak on this option on the options.

You're ready?

Okay.

So clearly here.

We're gonna be looking at this as um uh we hear the referendum, we hear what people have said.

Um now the question is is do we go how do we go forward?

Um I think it behooves us to make this as clear as possible and as simple as possible.

I particularly don't like votes where voting yes means no and feeding no means yes.

And if we bring the referendum forward, there is the option of people trying to figure out what am I voting for?

Am I voting against it?

Am I going for it?

I think option three gives us the cleanest option.

We repeal this, we come back with if we choose to, a discussion about a different um ordinance that would then be put to a vote on a ballot.

Um remains to be seen which election.

And as I understand it, the consolidated election in June of 2026 and the November election of 2026 have exactly the same cost.

So with other considerations aside, uh I in favor of a repeal and then coming back with a clean ordinance where people know what they're voting for.

Very good.

Anyone else?

Um Councilmember Watkinson.

Thank you, Ronor.

Uh, a couple of uh clarifications for uh for the public's sake.

Uh Sandra.

To uh to clarify, the cost of elections are standard and they're based on the uh the voters only.

That uh the number of candidates that are in that election and the number of ballot measures do not influence the cost of that election, correct?

It it does it does uh affect it because if you have b it depends if you have full uh ordinances that are included in the ballot if you include all the language of the of the ballot measure that that also takes into consideration.

It's also split amongst other districts that have their own measures and have their own candidates, you know, elected offices that are on there.

It's it's a very again um I can share that uh and it's also in the errata, which is on the dais.

Um the language that came directly from the registrar of voters that uh really.

I read it.

Yeah, just apparently we're not 100% there yet.

So right, right.

Um, gonna grab that one.

Oh, but I have it right in front of me.

I think it might just be quicker if I try to share the yes.

Oh, is that I'm not sure I have that on my slide.

Oh, yes.

So the general municipal is seven to ten dollars.

The primary election is also an estimate of seven to ten dollars per registered voter, similarly.

Um a special election obviously is 16 to 24.

So the range there is then influenced.

The thing that's not shown here is the number of candidates, the number of measures, all that sort of thing that decides whether or not we're charged seven or ten dollars or some measure of point.

Okay, thank you for the clarification.

I appreciate that.

Uh second point is um it is an honor to serve the people of Pacific Grove.

Uh I ran to serve them, not for compensation, uh, and I had stated as much during the campaign.

Uh the people that have brought it up are correct.

I did not campaign on wanting a raise.

Uh that being said, I do support the raise, and I support the raise not for myself.

I support the raise in in hopes that that would help attract people to run for office now that we're moving over to districting.

One of our districts, I don't believe we've ever had a city council member from uh over there by the ATC.

That is now a district, and we're going to have to get not just one, we're have going to have to attract multiple people to campaign in each of these districts.

And in order to help attract working class people, people that otherwise still have to pay their bills, they still have kids to wash, they still have financial responsibilities.

We're trying to help in some measure alleviate from from my um my point of view, my my motivation for backing this.

I'm I'm trying, I'm backing this so that we can help get more people in here onto city council and create more opportunity for more people to run so that hopefully our districting can be successful.

Um, although I wasn't for the districting, I think at large is is better for our particular community.

That doesn't mean I want it to fail.

I don't want our our community to fail.

I want to give us our best chance of at success, and by supporting the uh the race, I feel that we're doing something, something to try and make that work, as opposed to doing nothing to make it work.

I mean, I don't see what our our our other options are that are before the council right now.

I know we can get more advertising out, we can we can try and do more to uh um uh get people involved in in local politics just as community members willing to ride in so that they they get that toe in the pool so that they just get a little bit in.

But a substantial move is actually compensating people so that they can actually take the time to do this work that's required and and encourage them to try and run.

That's why that's why I back this.

This is why I want this to succeed.

Um I also support the uh but but I do feel that that's the public's uh decision, and I hope they decide to uh provide a uh a raise for um as an incentive and as a uh a means of encouraging more people to run.

So both things can be true.

I want the people to decide, and it's it is your decision, um, but I also want this to to happen so that we give ourselves the best opportunity opportunity success here in our community.

And uh having said all that, um option three, I think is our our best option.

I think a reboot and being able to go back to the public, restart the conversation, rebuild this from uh the ground up.

If we're going to the general election, we have time to do this right, and uh I think that offers both our best chance of success and uh our best out opportunity at public engagement.

Everybody wins on that option, I think.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Uh Councilmember McDonnell.

Thank you, Mayor.

Yeah, I agree.

Um with both comments that were made.

Um I like the idea that we are giving the people the voice, and that is what they said they want.

I I've had people say they also support it but they wanted to have a voice and and I definitely respect that.

I also agree that um doing option three is good because and thank you Sandra for answering about um the cost difference because really the cost is going to be largely the same I would also support actually putting the full um content on there so we had that in our original ordinance and the reason for that is because there's a lot of findings and context that make it more clear to the voters why it's on the ballot in the first place um we've gone way lower less than half of what most of the local communities have done we we went with the minimum we we just went with the cost of living increase so it was it was kind of following state guidance cost of living increase and I do agree with the sentiment that you know we often give up work hours and and real money to to volunteer for our community and we want to be able to do that.

We did make the choice to do that and we are doing that.

But I think it will be important to make sure that we make city government accessible to more of our community who may not have that access now.

So I'm hoping that if we can provide the full ordinance to the public and I think option three lets us do that they're voting a yes for a raise versus a no to poll a raise and I I agree that was going to be my comment too that's very confusing.

So putting it on the ballot in a clean way um letting them know what exactly they would be voting for and why we're proposing it I think is the best way to go it's it's the best way to have transparency and um really have involvement of our community to let them decide the direction that they want us to go.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Councilmember thank you um I agree with uh the other council members' comments uh I would support this going to the primary election on June 2nd and I the reason why is I think that then the people that are going to declare in July will know what the compensation is and it'll be clear.

We wait till November I think we get back into that you know kind of muddy water situation.

And I think it would be much cleaner to have it in the primary election I do not favor a standalone special election under any certain circumstances.

And I do agree that we need to clean up the language before it goes to the voters so that they can make it an option you know they can make a choice that's clear.

You know yes it is true that you know this didn't come up we were never asked about it in the candidate forums and all of that other stuff and and with the state passing uh and with the state passing the resolution I think that's you know sort of how we got here um but I do agree with the state and the reason that they did it and so uh I feel like it's the right thing to do for the people that are going to come behind us and um and I hope it does foster you know I think to council members walking sticks uh point and we I think I said this in the original you know with three districts coming up for election in 26 we're gonna need between nine and 12 people to run in those three districts to have a robust discussion and a robust election and so I think um I think we need to do whatever we can do to encourage more people to participate in in the process and uh to answer I think you know when you say we should only get a cost of living increase you know I mean that's what we did it was a cost of live we there hasn't been an increase in 27 years and I think that you know I know gas is moreything's more parking's more everything and so I don't think um you know child care elder care uh all the costs have gone up.

So I don't think this is out of line.

I think it's well below what other cities on the peninsula have done.

I think we were very measured, and uh, and I think that the voters when presented with the ordinance and the and the supporting documentation, uh, will uh will agree with us.

Thank you very much for the comment.

Council member uh Joe, go ahead.

Sure, uh, thank you.

I'm I'm in agreement with the comments here.

I I think we can we're gonna discuss this again.

I'm I'm in favor with uh option number three.

Um just moving forward the item and discuss when we get back on on what to do with uh dates and um language, etc.

Thanks.

Yeah, I'm just gonna point out I agree with that.

I I just want to go with the pure option three tonight and save the question of the exact election, although I will tell you that I'm definitely leaning towards the primary Mr.

Emilio.

Yeah, just so simply uh general than all the other council uh comments and um I do say that I did look at all the options.

I did, and I studied them, but it's obvious to me with some common sense option number three is where we need to go.

Can I uh get a motion to that effect?

Sure.

Um let's see.

I I claim that uh let's see.

Do we uh let me ask Mr.

Perrick of option three?

Yeah, I'll know recommendation two.

Yeah, I'll I'm gonna go ahead and move uh option number three.

I think it's a it would be transparent and uh option three is is the way to go.

Should do you, Mr.

Peric, you do I need to read the whole option three?

No, okay.

You can just say I am going to move option three.

Okay, I'm going to move option three.

Second.

Alright, we have a motion and a second.

Uh, any further discussion on this topic?

I did want to ask a question.

Yes, absolutely.

Uh Mr.

Peric, when you look at the uh option three, I guess there's not a there's not a mechanism to also ask the uh the city attorney to come back with you know language or to direct you to start working on language for the next uh ordinance.

No, tonight is um under option three, there's two steps.

One is that you're directing staff to come back on September 3rd with an ordinance to repeal ordinance 2500 seven, and so we'll do that.

And then the second part of that motion is to return to the council at a future date for a discussion of a possible ballot measure to presented in 2026 for a public vote.

So it would be at that future meeting, whatever date it's set, you would be presented with an agenda report.

Um it could include um you know consideration of an election date and all the other things that go along with the ballot measure, um, and and then you would seek your you your direction would be saw it at that point in time, and then presumably at a subsequent meeting, the documentation would be returned to you appropriate resolutions and and the like for uh having measures put on the ballot.

Yeah, did I we have a motion a second?

Yeah, oh that was discussion.

Okay, roll call vote, please.

Mayor Bertem Amelia.

Aye, Snake?

I uh council members McDonnell.

Aye.

Aduri.

Aye, Brown.

Hi.

Garfield.

Hi.

Mayor Pro Tem that you already said aye, and Mayor Smith.

Aye.

Motion carries seven zero.

All right, thank you guys.

Thanks for the great discussion there.

And we are now moving ourselves toward the end of the agenda.

We're going to item agenda item 13b, which is combining the ARB and the HRC.

So here we are, 9 30 p.m.

Oh, right.

Mr.

Biggs up for the big item here.

Mr.

Mayor, while he's getting set up, if I could kind of uh just preempt this one a little bit.

Um, wanted to point out the intent of this item is to allow the council and the community to to the opportunity to hear the possibilities, uh, comment and discuss and then about the high-level concept of merging the Historic Resource Commission and the Architectural Review Board.

So beginning with our economic development commission last December, there's been this effort to review the city's boards, commissions, and committees to determine if these are significant if these significant parts of our city operations are being delivered efficiently and effectively as they can be.

A good governance exercise, I believe, for the city council to look at these things every once in a while and consider um you know the the money it's being put into them again.

Are we doing it efficiently?

Is it the best thing for the residents at that point and the way it's being delivered?

So the the organization of the city's BCC is you know, set by policy in our code, and the council oversees that.

Um, but in our discussion tonight, you know, in addition to what Mr.

Biggs is going to go into about the inner workings of these two boards.

I also wanted to throw out there some of the things that you know for us to consider are you know what services are important to provide.

We agree the historic preservation is something it's important to provide.

Um because these services that we provide basically drive what the staff we need, how that staff is allocated and what they work on.

There's there's kind of a misnomer, I believe, that if you stop doing something, there's less work for staff to do.

And I'll tell you, there is a there's a backlog like you wouldn't believe that there's always lots to do, and it just depends on which way are we going to focus today and how we're gonna um put those resources.

Um there's also regulatory requirements that have costs and they have also time implications and impacts on our residents.

So another reason to kind of think about this a bit.

So I'm preparing for discussion this evening.

We thought the focus is really on how can we improve the historic preservation within the city of Pacific Grove.

You know, much of this community is centered around historic homes, historic structures, and it is a big deal within Pacific Grove.

It's one of our trademark things.

So the focus of the discussion points that we really want to talk about again starts with how can we strengthen the um historic preservation, and then you how can we basically add to the process so that the ARB also comes along and improves.

So this is more of a how can we improve the situation than it is to take anything away.

Um, and again, we think the focus is really on historic preservation based on who Pacific Grove is today.

So with that, I'll turn over to John and let him discuss the network.

I just wanted to reiterate this is an opportunity this evening to check in with the city council to see if it wants us to do additional work in the exploration of combining the ARB with the HRC.

And we're not in combining the two, we want to make it clear that we're really not attempting to lessen um the architectural design or guidance that we have here in Pacific Road.

We we know that that's an important feature of the community.

Likewise, we're not looking to reduce the efforts at historic preservation and the work that the historic preservation committee is doing, like our regional report, but it had, I think it was 331 properties that were on a list that should be deleted from our historic resource inventory.

I think there's 230 something that are left to uh evaluate.

That'll all get wrapped into what the combined board will be doing in the future.

So we committed to look at it as you know what potential benefits does a combination board have for the city.

Um, one thing we came up with is it's a lot as confusing for applicants.

Right now we have a project that I understand where there's been some past projects where because a project isn't currently on our historic resources inventory and it has a potential for being on a historic resource inventory, it possibly could go to one or two separate meetings.

It's a little bit unclear which path we're gonna follow because in the former instance, a project that was taken in the architectural review board because it wasn't on the pro, but was potentially possible to be added to the inventory was rejected by the ARP and said, No, no, go back to the HRC to have them consider this first.

So we're trying to avoid having applicants and property owners go from one meeting to another meeting without any real clear direction on what is the appropriate path to rule rise and approval.

Um that we need to know easier navigation of the city processes, it's a little a little frustrating for us at the staff level to try and explain some of these nuances to applicants because um you know uh I can say for my members of experience, one of the things that an applicant wants to hear is that the process is going to be processed in a timely way, and they want to know about the assurances they're gonna have, you know.

They want some assurances for what the decision or the application is going to result in.

So they're you know, kind of constantly asking us when that's going to happen and how quickly can we get it done.

If we go to a one process, there was an opportunity to eliminate a little bit of the confusion and make a more streamlined review process for those projects.

Another thing is design review.

Right now we have the Historic Resources Commission that considers design review for properties that are on our historic resources inventory, and we have our architectural review board that looks at projects that are not on the historic resources inventory.

So we have these two separate boards that are reviewing design and additions or remodels to existing structures or even new structures.

However, I mean it's fair to say sometimes they each will take a little bit different take on what certain elements of our guidelines and architectural review guidelines mean when it comes to the application of those guidelines to projects.

But I see that having one board applying a set of guidelines to all projects in Pacific Grove makes more consistent application of those design guidelines and review of projects.

Um, there's another thing we um we talked a little bit about the um if you were discussion or meetings or some projects.

I gave you an example a little bit earlier about the only admin project right now.

We are we're kind of debating do we take it and take a chance with having it considered by just the architecture review board, or we take it in front of the HRC for a decision.

You know, there's there's upsides and downsides depending on what our members decide with with each of those alternatives, but again, having the one board reviewing multiple applications, especially for a project that would uh entail our um or a project for a site on historic resource inventory, you know, certainly make the process a little bit a little bit smoother.

Um, then there's also the consolidated report.

So right now the community development department provides staff support through three different commissions.

We have the planning commission, the architecture review board, and historic resources committee, and that takes staff reports for each of the projects, requires the preparation of agendas for each of those meetings that holds the preparation of the months, requires training and having the staff lowers onto our so having the combined board does um help staffing in terms of resources and be able to uh appropriately allocate those resources to the blows and commissions that we we support.

I like to note that we did talk to the chairs of the architectural review board and the historic resources commission, and although they did both feel I believe it's fair to say that they they both felt that you know there is some some benefit to having a member um with some expertise on either historic preservation or design or architectural review, they did understand that um the need for maybe streamlining the process and creating less uh turbulence for an applicant as they go through a review process.

So they they were supportive, I think, of the idea to combine the two boards so long as, and I want to make sure this caveat company is made clear that so long as that the um there was no degradation in the quality of design review or historic preservation review for the projects.

Um, and with that they they tended or you know, indicated that they would be very supportive of this.

Um, if the council decides that this is something you would like to explore, we would go back and take a look at the various regulations where the historic resources commission and the architectural review board are referenced.

I think I think I found 14 separate sections in our municipal code where one or the other board is referenced.

So we would need to do some cleanup, uh, make sure it was consistently, you know, if we did go to one board, find throughout those sections and be able to bring forward to you a recommendation, and we'll be following uh taking that ordinance and changes to our policies through uh the various boards and commissions to get their recommendations to you as well.

So again, I'll wrap up by noting that this is just to check in with the city council to get your thoughts and ideas on whether you want us to move forward on this, and we will be happy to answer any questions that the council members might have.

Thank you very much.

Go ahead and take out to the public for comment on uh 13B concept on uh combining ARB and HRC.

Mayor Smith, city council members.

My name's uh Don Murphy.

You've gotten some letters, um, I think pretty good letters explaining why this is probably not not the right path to take.

And I agree with those letters, but I've done something a little bit different.

I've looked at what the HRC has done in recent years.

In 2023, they had 11 meetings.

At those 11 meetings, they had 18 action items on the consent agenda, but any of those could have gone to the regular agenda, and they had 63 public hearings during during 2023 on uh historic projects.

In 2024, they had 10 meetings.

They had 10 items on the consent agenda, any of which could have been pulled, and they had 41 public hearings.

I looked at this quickly, I think my numbers are accurate.

I'm I'd run off by one or two, but I I think I'm accurate.

And I just can't conceive of a combined body um handling all the ARB meetings plus all these HRC projects.

I think this group is in favor of short shorter meetings.

I've noticed that as I've watched you.

You're setting up ARB combined meetings that would be really long, and I don't think that's good.

I think the results would be uh the board would feel would rush through items just because there's so much to do.

So just as a practical matter, I I don't think this would be a wise course.

I haven't mentioned the 2025 schedule at HRC because that's a little confusing to me.

They've had seven meetings, only six items in consent, and only six public hearings.

So I'm not sure what's happening this year to make their workload so small.

Um, part of it is I think they're struggling with only three members on HRC.

So that I think makes it hard to have a uh have hearings in to get a quorum.

And I also noticed that they're not getting many of the items they've been dealing with have been taking items off the historic inventory.

You know, that was recommended by the consultant Paige in Turnbull.

And this year that has been a lot of them in 2023 and 2024, and virtually none this year.

So I don't know exactly what's happening with the HRC this year, but it's it's peculiar and it's it's not the norm.

And in the past, when boards haven't had enough members, you know, the mayor is and the chair have made extra efforts to recruit new members, and I I guess I would urge you to try to find members for HRC.

It's traditionally been one of the toughest to fill because it people need expertise and it's a lot of time, and but I would urge the mayor and and the chair and any of you can certainly beat the bushes and say to your friends hey, do you want to be on HRC?

And I would I would urge you to do that.

Thank you.

Mayor and council.

This was discussed and batted around great extents about 2010 and 11, and both commissions were very adamant about being separate.

They are focused on entirely different formats, and to take their time to bat that around as a combined commission, really would be more time consuming than staying focused on individual um criteria.

So I think it would be advisable to keep them separated.

Again, there are people who probably with a little bit of encouragement would be willing to join the HRC.

I know that there are a lot of people who are interested in our history, and I think given the chance they would be helpful.

Thank you.

Okay.

I'm gonna try and put a few sentences together, and then it's time to go home.

Um I just wanted to kind of talk a little bit about big picture about why this makes no sense.

First of all, I'll just for those that don't really know me, um, there is a period of time that I designed custom homes in this area.

I've got a few of them standing around, and um, and I've gotten to know a lot of the architects, and the architects generally they focus on either doing historical renovations and things like that, or new construction in different designs.

You won't find somebody that doesn't know a lot about historical homes doing a renovation on a historical home because they would certainly butcher it.

As a historian and uh nonfiction writer, um, it's important to know the nuances of all periods of history, and it's important in architecture to know that.

And so then I think about all this stuff, and I think about the people like Rick Steers, who's a grand architect who who does historical renovations and he's the one that renovated all those cottages in Carmel with the little slopey roofs like this and everything.

Anyway, whatever they're called, it's too late.

My vocabulary is suffering.

Anyway, um, and that's the kind of things he does, and then there's people like uh James Newell, James uh Smith No, and he does very modern kinds of things.

He would never, even though I sat with both of them on the historic or the Heritage Society's board of directors.

They were both on it with me, and so it takes all kinds of people to look at these things.

So then I get down to okay, so you want to have one committee.

Who's what are the qualifications to get on it?

Who's gonna go on it?

How are you gonna have a balance?

And the people that aren't interested in heritage homes are gonna zone out, and the people that are will want to go down deep.

And I don't know how that's gonna work simply from depends on the weight of the people that are on there, and I will only say, I wish I could remember this quote.

Um if we give up all of our heritage and history to bright shiny objects, those that come after us will not understand our history.

And it goes, I don't know, it's a very eloquent quote, but I'm butchering it.

But the point is that you can't mix the two.

Not in this, not when we're trying to preserve what makes this um, oh, I'm sorry, time's up.

I just want to end with this one thing.

I looked in the last, I don't know, year.

I was asked to do a um, okay.

Um, we have a bunch of callers online too.

So anyway, you can't mix the two.

Very mixed.

Bill Camp Resident of Pacific Grove.

Mayor Castleumers isn't causing flashbacks, so I got to make it back many years ago when my wife and I first had a house in Pacific Grove, we're doing projects.

Uh I remember a conversation in the planning department with one of the senior members, and I was asking a question about what are we gonna face when we go to this board or that board.

And the answer was: right now, we're not sure what the boards are making the decisions on.

And that was a little bit distressing to me.

Things worked.

Um, but it strikes me that it's in critically important that the members on the boards understand the guidelines and the law as it's written for making their determinations in these quasi-judicial roles.

When I got on the council, I became liaison to the ARB, and this is the time where they're doing both historic and non-historic.

And my impression was to some distress, and I'm sure to the applicants, is that on a lot of non-historic projects, the uh folks with a strong historic bent were overlaying their personal preferences and kind of quasi-interpretations of historic guidelines onto things that were not appropriate for a non-historic project.

So the human factors of how people apply these, especially when there's really two, my understanding is there's different criteria for historic versus non historic projects.

So now you get to the human factors of expertise, consistency, and appropriate documentation for the decisions that are congruent with the guidelines and the laws that apply.

And personally, I think one of the big challenges is actually, and there was a great write up in the pine cone about some of the recent stuff that's going on there getting the boards and commissions to set aside their personal wishes and stick closer to what the code is.

My suspicion is it's easier to get there if you keep the um project reviews uh separate for uh nonhistoric and historic.

In any case, you've got a process challenge, but the first step, if there's any question about whether a project is historic, you've got to take the first step, and inevitably it's separate from the next step because how do you take the next step until you know that?

So I don't really have a dog in the fight about what you end up with, but I think the human factors are a big deal in any version of what you uh decide.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, we have several hands online.

Carrie Um.

Hi, good evening.

Um, my name is Carrie Ritoli, and I'm here tonight to urge you uh to city council.

Um, first of all, thank you all for the hard work that you do.

Um really want to urge you to take whatever steps are necessary to maintain separate um historic resource committee and architectural review board.

Um, it sounds like trying to combine them while it might be expedient or push things through faster.

Um, you might sacrifice some of the characters that we we hold so dear um in this community.

I live in a historic home, it was built in 1896, and it has a uh plaque from Heritage Society on it.

Um I'm proud of that, and and looking around our neighborhoods, um, just that overall character.

I know I don't need to explain that.

I think I think it's understood that that is what attracts people to this area, residents and visitors alike.

Um I say that our historic buildings are a major attraction, that's kind of an understatement.

It's second only perhaps to our incredibly beautiful coastline.

We should do everything we can to preserve that and maintain the charming historic character of Pacific Grove.

Um, and that I think that hinges on keeping um the two committees separate.

Um, I don't know if it already exists, but maybe one thing you could consider is having a member of the historic um resource on the architectural reboard board, like maybe rather than just combining the two, maybe having a representative that can speak to questions about historic and um importance.

Anyway.

Um, um that's all.

Thank you.

Jeff Rebecca.

Hi, um Jeff Beckham.

I'm speaking from some uh long-term historic uh perspective.

I was on the architectural review board for 12 years, and at the same time I was a professional member of that, and then also was on the historic resources committee for four years, and um they do have different roles, but the main thing that I want to say is um there was a there were times when it was a building boom, and um we'd start meetings at six and they'd go on until 10.

And by the time we were done, um we were we were really not able to focus, and I don't think we did our best work uh later in the in the evening.

There were just we were seeing every project, both the historic projects and the non-historic projects.

The only role that the historic resource committee had at that point was to determine which pro which uh which sites were historic and which ones weren't, and uh, so we on the architecture review board saw everything, and it was just too much work, it was overwhelming.

Um, and so um I highly recommend you keep them separate.

Anything you can do to try and reduce the work of uh of the architectural review board.

We saw um I'd say about a third of our projects had historic components, but um by reducing the ARB's uh workload by a third, it's a huge difference, and so I really want to say um I really recommend you keep these boards separate um just to make it possible to get the work done.

And so um, yeah, that's uh all I needed to say.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Um I request SQL review for this in under SQL project is any activity that has the potential to cause a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on the environment.

Um this includes activities directly undertaken by a public agency.

That's a perfect description of the choice you're about to make tonight, and the mitigation measures that would arise from SQL review would solve a lot of the problems that people are talking about.

It would result in mitigation measures to make sure that the members of the historic resources committee understood the criteria and how it was that criteria was distinguished from the criteria for the architectural review board.

So I request SQL review for this.

Thank you, and to learn some tonight.

Thank you, Sandra.

This is the most terrible idea, it has been hashed out all over the years.

I mean, we had a huge subcommittee back in 2014-15.

They came to its conclusions.

The council at that time was not gung ho, so they didn't really want to bring a forward and drag their heels.

And do you know what?

I mean, it's come up over and over and over again, and we have clearly the citizens of Pacific Grove have clearly made their case for two separate committees, and the fact that we gave historic resources the ability to do the historic assessments for their architectural projects, too, which was you listened to Jeff Beckham talk.

Yes, I went to those meetings too, and I found that in my years of being here in Pacific Grove, my lifetime, um, two kinds of people move into Pacific Grove and initiate these projects.

Those that love the history and come here for it, and specifically want that.

And those who come in saying, Oh, this is a historic little shack, let's rip it down, demolish and build our McMansion.

And they are have a totally different focus.

And so here we are, two opposing sets of skills needed to address our historic town.

And there have been some major boo-boo mistakes over the years, and it has happened, but combining these two is you know, staff has tried to do this before, but it's just not a workable situation.

A little less confusing, our CD director says, a little bit unclear.

Well, I would suggest that possibly the CDD straft needs to be a little better trained on their council and don't, you know, their counter uh interaction and don't give conflicting information or kind of wink wig.

Well, maybe you can get this through.

I mean, I think that it needs to have a little more clarity on that end.

And here we have another CDD director thinking this is a good idea, and we've already been through this over and over and over.

And we clearly need two separate committees.

Please listen to your public.

Please listen to your citizen historians.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The proposal to merge HRC and ARB came as a shock last week without having heard anything about this at HRC or ARB meetings.

This matter was thoroughly deliberated in public ad hoc meetings and at HRC, ARB and Planning Commission meetings in 2015 and 16, and it finally came to City Council in 2017, where an effort to disregard all the earlier decisions for a separate HRC and ARB was defeated by public outcry.

Since 2015, I've attended every HRC meeting and almost every ARB meeting.

Described as streamlining measure for quote, unified approach that would somehow allow for faster decision making and improved consistency.

Who's qualified to give ARB members an in-depth course in these documents and the experience of years of involvement in historic preservation?

How would a balance of expertise be assured at every meeting?

In fact, a combined commission would result in longer meetings, less consistency, and frustration for applicants and members alike with disappointing outcomes.

Please listen, Mayor.

And that needs to be fixed.

With combined commission, how would all the HRC's important work be carried on?

The city adopted the 2011 historic context statement and the 2019 HRI update with Page and Trinkle's recommendations.

Yet those recommendations have been largely disregarded.

Does that sound like a situation that would attract more members and maintain a balance on the combined commission?

The public is being told we should lighten CDD's workload by sacrificing our city's defining and treasured collection of extant historic buildings to a dilute review body.

I asked the council direct staff to promote adequate membership on the HRC with improved outreach and by making the qualifications flexible if desired by HRC when there are no applicants with the specified professional qualifications.

I asked the council maintain the HRC as a separate body with the view of review authority vested in them in 2017, and as the stewards of Pacific Grove's Heritage to provide the historic preservation oversight that our community deserves for the historic and cultural resources vital to Pacific Grove's identity and to a thriving economy.

Thank you.

My name is Vicky Pierce.

Can you hear me now?

Yes.

I'm a long-time PG homeowner and resident.

I feel so lucky to live here.

My parents did too.

I'm asking you to vote no on the merging of the HRC and the ARB.

A merger would be a bad mistake, not in the best interest of Pacific Grove.

You're aware from others of the full rationale against this proposed merger, as well as earlier attempts to do the same thing.

I will only reinforce what you've already heard.

The community strongly opposes this plan.

Merging the HRC, submerging it, could only weaken it when it needs to be strengthened.

This community places high value on its historic character.

We need the HRC to protect the visible evidence of our city's history.

The goals and expertise of the ARB are quite different, also important and best kept separate.

This is not a difficult question.

I'm reluctant even to wonder why we are having to consider it yet again.

The two city groups were carefully designed to serve different purposes, and the wisdom of that structure should be maintained.

Yes, we would get one set of agendas and meeting minutes and one staff liaison, but unified training and onboarding for members that makes mishmash of the separate operations.

It would only muddle the missions.

We need the council to act in accordance with the city's vision statement, which is in part, Pacific Grove will thoughtfully grow as a community that protects residential character and historic resources.

Thank you for listening.

Thank you.

We'll go ahead and close public comment on item 13B.

Bring it back to the council for discussion.

And who would like to go first?

Councilman Warkinson.

Okay.

Thank you, Your Honor.

Um first of all, I want to say that I appreciate the uh the intent of this and that I I acknowledge the need for streamlining.

Uh on this merger, though, for the ARB and HRC.

Uh, I believe that both are important and deserve their own uh dedicated board.

Um, as was stated, their expertise and their missions are separate and uh distinct.

Um, although I I see there are some efficiencies that are created.

Uh, there's very little economies actually realized because we're still dealing with the same amount of work.

Uh if we combine both of those meetings, both of those teams to uh do all of the work assigned to both of them, we end up with uh one team that is is half qualified and double tasked.

The number of tasks don't decrease just because we put the two boards together, they remain the same.

So, as uh several people pointed out, the length of the meeting itself would necessarily have to increase, but you're now hobbled by having half the team not really in on what's going on or experts in that field.

So, and also as was pointed out, uh uh the human factor would come into that, and I think that could run a little incongruous with uh uh the mission of the ARB.

Um the line the the lion's share of the the actual work that's being done as well is uh is done outside of the meeting.

I mean, especially with the uh the HRC, they're having to do a tremendous amount of research.

It's not on one side you've got a lot of policy, on the other side, you've got a lot of historical context, it's not readily available.

So even if you see a short meeting from the HRC, that's not really indicative of the amount of work that's gone into the research uh uh for um reviewing the uh the HRI.

There's you don't necessarily know where to go to get all of the information you need.

So they're having to kind of place sleuths out there all the time.

Um again, that's that's not something that I see translating well over to the ARB.

Um it's a I I see some overlap, but it's a I've been thinking of this kind of like uh a dentist and a proctologist, where they're both medical professionals, but you don't want to mix them up.

They don't completely separate fields, right?

That's kind of what we're dealing with here.

Uh putting those two things together doesn't necessarily make sense in this context.

Um I was looking at the uh the work being done.

I see a uh uh a lot of work being done on the uh the municipal uh BCCs.

Um and I think that we've when we're doing our review, we're not looking at the uh um uh the charter BCCs so much because they're they're chartered, right?

They're protected by uh a vote of the people, but I don't think that's at this point.

I I don't think that's a good reason to avoid the issue anymore.

If we're going to be looking at BCCs, we should be looking at charters as well.

I think it would be advisable to uh ask the city to drop a proposal for a ballot measure to reclassify our charter BCs as municipal BCCs established by ordinance so that we could put them under the same sort of uh scrutiny and review as uh uh as our our municipal BCCs.

We've got opportunities, I think, to um probably be able to cut out some BCCs altogether.

Uh we have when we were established, that work needed to get done.

Uh library board, museum board, those those those were tasks that weren't being done by others.

They are done by others now, and so uh the necessity of some of those boards is the relevancy of some of those boards is much less now.

And uh it's not that they didn't do a good job, but they they've they've kind of run their course.

And uh I would very much like to kind of bite the bullet on this one.

Um I'm willing to throw myself under the bus as the unpopular one on this, but I think it's important and it's necessary, and I think we're at a point in the uh the life cycle of the lifespan of our our city where we should probably start entertaining this ballot measure where we we transition those VCCs over to municipal so that we can then do the editing or the uh the review, just like we're doing with all the rest of them.

Thank you.

Thank you for the comment.

Um I had Council Member next, and then oh here.

Okay.

Thank you.

And I think nobody wants to, nobody wants to degrade our historic resources.

I mean, everybody understands that that is the character uh of our town.

Some of the challenges that we've had as an example on the ARB, we've had to have recusals because the architect is that sits on the board is the architect on the project or the contractor is the same.

Uh we ran into a situation last week where we only had two members of a five-member board.

Um, and so I personally I don't think that a five-member board is tenable on any of them, but I think what this does is it gives us the opportunity to have a seven-member board that's consistently trained, has all of the codes that they need to follow to take some of the personal um, you know.

I don't like it.

Well, okay, show me on the code where you don't like it.

Well, I can't do that, I just don't like it.

Well, that's that's not an answer.

So I think uh I think Mr.

Biggs has realized that that's an issue, and I think more training needs to happen.

I think we can all agree that the building workload is not the same that it was 20 years ago, and I think in this case, some cross training might be helpful because we're having uh a challenge finding the subject matter experts that can sit on the boards for those exact reasons they have to recuse because of the you know they're bringing their projects to the to the uh to the board.

So I I understand the hesitancy of it.

Um I think that is the challenge is what do we do with the 200 and uh 237, you know, historical, you know, do we wait until a homeowner brings it to the board?

Do we proactively go back out and and decide yes or no?

They're on the, you know, is that a good use of time?

Um I don't know.

I mean, it may be that you know we need to let the homeowners bring it to the you know, to the to the boards when they want to either take it off or put it on and then have them make a decision, but um, you know, I just I see the challenges and I don't know what the solution is.

I know that they've been together before, they separated, they put them back together, now they're separated, and I don't know if this is the natural ebb and flow of the workload of the construction, um, you know, the or the lack of construction, given our water situation, you know, that may, you know, that may change.

And, you know, maybe it's a situation where we come look at combining them.

Let's have a a better, you know, a better blueprint and discussion about it, and then decide if that's the way we want to go.

If it is, I mean it's not written in stone.

We can separate them if we find that it is too much work, but I guess my biggest clue right now is to say, if you don't like it, please apply if you've got the, you know, the wherewithal, we can use people, and this, you know, this is a challenge right now is we've got folks that are not um I'm trying to do this delicately, but you know, no, they're coming to the end of their runway on some of these things, and you know, it might be time for them to move on.

They may want to move on and can't because there's nobody else to take their place.

And there are some people on these boards that are doing tremendous work, and the chairs are doing an outstanding job, and so are the members.

But when you're a uh, you know, you've got two people showing up on a five-member board or three people showing up on a five-member board, you still don't get the breadth of knowledge of a full board.

So, you know, I'm not sure what the answer is, but I do think that it deserves a conversation.

I'm like, I'm glad we're having it.

Thank you.

Yeah, I'm just gonna throw in uh I'm gonna go to Councilman McDonald in a second.

Uh, you know, we're we're having trouble staffing these things, and that's so I think we've heard a lot of concept tonight um in the public comment, uh a lot of concept discussions, some of which were artfully stated, you know, these the concept of preservation and and things like that, but we also have practicalities.

Um we have people bringing projects that uh are getting held up that are getting in the run around and aren't getting through a streamlined process.

We have boards that are understaffed.

We we can't even meet the uh mandates for our volunteers because it's just not realistic.

What the way they were set back in the 90s or whatever, they must have had a glut of people that could do it, and now we don't have that any longer.

So um we don't have this the specific categories of of individuals that we need we need to staff two of these boards.

So um I think it's very attractive to look at a seven-person board and try to staff it as best we can.

And I think I personally believe our volunteers will be able to do the mental gymnastics of hey, this is not a historic one, this is a regular one, okay.

So we got to put that hat on.

I don't think that these people are not going to be able to pick up on that concept.

We have very intelligent um board members in this community and generally in the intelligent residents.

So I have a lot of faith that they'll be able to do it, and like everything else uh if we can try this, and you know, we'll have um just looking at the timing of it, you know.

Let's say that we were able to get all this stuff back by the end of the year, and we're able to get the ordinances figured out because there's 14 different touch points or whatever, and we have a year to you know review it, and then you know, maybe it's we review it some point before um we come back for the next term in 26.

So that's just just some ideas that I have, but I would like to see it go forward and I will support uh that uh tonight.

So go to councilmember McDonald's she's waiting.

Sorry, you know.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor.

Yeah, and I really appreciate all of the public input on this because as you've mentioned, we don't all have the same history, so kind of understanding what the history of this has been, uh, more clarity on the difference of knowledge and perspectives that comes to both boards.

My real concern is, and I I totally appreciate trying to find something that's streamlined both for staff for the boards and for um people who need to have their projects reviewed.

My real concern is it sounds like there's a lot of workload already, and I I agree with the context.

That was my concern reading this too.

It's like, well, if you have boards that that focus in their particular areas, which are divergent, and you suddenly have to have them all listen to everything, I could see where that could end up taking a lot more time, and it could be that they go from one board to the other.

I'm not on those boards, so I don't know as much about that process.

But my biggest concern related to that would be losing the expertise of the HRC.

So if the rest of the um the council decided they wanted to move forward with this, I would not like the recommendation of having only one HRC member, I think, or well, historic um society member.

I think we really need to keep it more balanced, and if we're gonna have seven members, minimum two, more likely at least three should have that historic background because it really is something that our residents value, it's something that makes us a tourist destination.

We always say we want the tourism dollars.

That's a big part of our draw as a city is that character Pacific Grove.

So I appreciate the idea is to still keep that, but I don't think we can do that with only one member.

So I I it sounds to me from all of the input we've had from the public that we really do need to somehow keep it too, and if there's a way to streamline the process, so having the two actually goes in a really smooth and consistent way, really clear guidelines.

If it's historic, it goes here, if it's not, it goes here.

Um, and and I think that if there's a way to reduce um ambiguity and to make the process smoother, that may be still workable with two.

If the rest of council decides to go the other way, I'd have to strongly advocate for keeping a much stronger historic focus on the combined board.

Thanks.

Council member or mayor Tomilo.

Thank you.

Um so I have to look back at uh the MRG LLC citywide organization diagnostic check, which was done several months ago, and um for the city's size of world states is for the city size of the Civil Groups and Commissions serving in an advisory role exceeds the expected range.

And um, the city has 16 boards and commissions, as well as several city council ad hoc committees, and it goes on, and um I often thought um, you know, listening to the different areas, and I'm not gonna talk about some of the boards I represent, but sometimes they're canceled because not all the members are there, and and we usually have four or five members, and sometimes they're not there.

And so we have to wait another month.

So the point is.

Am I right, Mr.

Biggs, that uh if this was combined, there would be a seven-member board.

That was the recommendation I put in the agenda report, and I think I included that um we would have people with historic preservation experience, building this experience and design experience, and offered up the opportunity to actually have our heritage society appoint one of the members to the combined board.

So we'd be trying to double up on the heritage.

Um I support that decision.

I support the the recommendation, and I also thought uh this is long range.

This is something I've thought about on and off, is to combine some boards making it a Pacific Grove Advisory Group.

You know what I mean?

Uh several boards making a Civic Grove advisory group.

Because a couple boards I've been on, sometimes they're not there, you know, and uh the the one short one.

So uh that's just an idea.

But all in all, I do support the staff recommendation.

Thank you.

Uh Council Member Dury.

Thank you.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Blicks for uh bringing this forward.

Uh appreciate it.

Um I I think I I would agree with a lot of sentiments here.

This uh you're looking at two things.

One is uh contemporary, one is historic, uh a blend of both.

So I I agree with the comments that the composition of the board is going to be important to how we address that.

So I think that's something that we need to look.

Generally, I'm in favor of this.

Uh I think primarily two or two or three reasons here come out, which is uh unlike like the past, like 10-15 years ago, uh, we are in a different, I would say, mandated environment right now.

Uh, for example, uh, we are we're an arena number situation.

The uh the etcd is driving a lot of things within the city, and that requires us to build certain units, and that requires these kind of like permitting process or whatever need needing to go through both the boards.

Uh I think uh we could end up my this is my opinion, but uh, I'll take yours too, Mr.

Biggs, is um technically the HCD has I would say more powers now than it had 10 years ago, and and technically with that meet being that that is there, A um, as you wrote quote in the report, ADUs are can be ministerial, which is not there in the past, which is technically uh kind of alleviates the burden of these boards.

Secondly, uh, if if we did not meet the RENA numbers, we could be subject to builders' remedy.

I mean, the there's a builder's remedy kind of clause, which which could also come into play, correct?

Uh, we don't need to play if we do not have our housing elements certified, so that's why we're pushing hard right now to get that in front of you for adoption and then certification by the state.

But is it also not tied to the actual construction of the or the permits itself?

It's not tied to that right now.

However, you know, the state has declared that there's a housing emergency, and I expect that they will be looking for ways to um box in cities and require that they do approve more more housing units in the future from you know a variety of different measures.

So this gonna keep pushing.

Okay, thanks for clarifying that.

But my my view is that uh unlike like the past, uh the HCD has super little powers uh compared to what it has done in the past, and I think there's gonna be an increased focus in in housing as we move along.

Um I also believe that there are some of the items that were brought together, which is uh, how are the standards being assessed?

Is this objective standards subjective standards?

It's just like color, or is that some material?

I think those things need to be part of this exercise to see how, because if you want to train certain personnel or certain volunteers into this position, I think it needs to be purely like an objective kind of element, or if it's subjective, it needs to be clearly defined so everybody can interpret what that exactly means.

So I think part of uh what I'm looking for here is also some of those aspects to come out, uh, which will help uh help the overall cause.

And I think the rallied element uh over here, which is historic versus non-historic.

Who makes that determination?

I think we need to qualify that to somewhere, in addition to the fact that I would say just broadly, like how much time does it take for a certain kind of like uh kind of process going through ARB and HRC today versus how much is it going to take in the future?

So why would we have like seven members?

I mean, I think somebody rolled out some stats on how many meetings and agenda items.

I'm curious to know, like in the future, like maybe once we implement this, how are those stats kind of actually funneling out?

Uh, because that will give us some uh like another baseline and like what we want to do in the future if you want to again go back to normal.

Thank you.

I'm supportive of the matter, thank you.

Thank you.

Can I uh intertain a motion at this point?

We haven't spoken yet.

Oh my bad.

Oh, you're the seventh person to speak then.

Oh, yeah.

This is what happens when you have seven people.

So, um, I want to look at this in a slightly different way.

How would the ARB be better if the HRC competencies were incorporated into the ARB?

Well, if we're gonna ask them to do the jobs, um, and in part of the requirements for the ARB, it says that their purpose is to promote the orderly and harmonious development of the city and to protect the city's architectural heritage.

It is part of the obligation of the ARB.

So adding historical competencies to the people on that board helps them achieve that.

To um Councilmember McDonald's point of view, as she brought up very clearly, our architectural heritage is important to everybody, whether you have a historic house or not.

Um and my personal experience tells me that I think having a combined ARB, larger ARB, would work very well.

I live in a historic home.

We went through an extensive remodel.

We went only to ARB because at the time there was no HRI.

There was no HRC.

I'm not HRI, but there was no HRC.

Um, so I got to see firsthand how well I think that the members of the ARB addressed the historic elements of our home, and how they made us come back with some suggestions.

But they were right, and it was the ARB doing it, it wasn't a separate one.

Um, and I also want to look at this from the applicant's point of view.

We serve the citizens of the city, the people who are coming to us for permits, are our constituency as well.

So, how do we give them the best experience?

First of all, we want them to get an experience that is consistent, objective, knowledgeable, so that they get what they paid for.

Um, and there is a user's guide for the con historic concepts, context statement that goes step by step of how to apply the historic context statement.

These are the kinds of things we need more of to make sure that every member of the board comes with expertise and gets educated as well.

So I'd like to hear more about how a consolidated board would be educated and supported to provide the best service, uh, regardless of whether uh an applicant was on the HRI or not.

Um I just want to remind us that we're gonna have to deal with this over time extensively, as our population ages, not just in Pacific Road, but in the world, volunteerism is decreasing.

Um it's not just us, it's everywhere.

Um it used to be the Perkins Park was maintained by the Ladies' garden club.

We don't have a ladies' garden club anymore.

I don't know anybody who does, um, but it's a different world, and I think we're gonna have to look at our boards and commissions for how we can make it easier, better prepared, and how we're gonna address the fact that we have fewer volunteers.

So this is a step in the right direction.

Uh board that they can put some a house on the HRI without the consent of the owner.

I don't think that's good.

Um and I don't know what the practice is for that, but it says here that you could put somebody on the HRI, which has economic consequences for that.

I think I might be outside the scope tonight.

It very well might be.

Yeah.

But what are we going to do about it if you transfer it to the end of the day?

I don't think we can even discuss it tonight.

Okay.

Um I hear you.

Yeah.

The second part is the um having, as it's been proposed, having the historic society appoint a member, that I know is part of the HRC, and it would carry over.

But my understanding is is that the mayor, supported by the council, does the appointments.

I would like to change that to nomination.

And whether it's one, two, or whatever, um, as a way of doing it, I think it's more appropriate that it be a nomination rather than an appointment, because I don't think it should bypass the mayor's um that's also not on the responsibility.

It's part of their responsibilities.

If you're transferring it, it's part of the recommendation.

Yeah.

Okay.

If you're looking at the if you're looking at it, you gotta look at everything that's in it.

Right.

Well, I I will say that it's kind of all right.

I don't want to discuss it actually.

I don't think it's appropriate, so I'm not going to.

Then I won't vote for it.

Um it's getting late, so I'm gonna go ahead and make a motion to direct staff to uh come back with an ordinance.

With appropriate ordinances and policies that would combine the ARB and the Historic Resources Committee.

Um there's been like a lot of input, so I don't know how fine-tuned you want you need it to be.

It would make it a longer process, but it wouldn't make sense for us to come back with a more refined concept.

Was answering some of the questions you've asked and what a makeup and composition might be, how we'd educate them.

Okay, before we dive into the ordinance work or uh, maybe so it's almost too much.

Okay, I would need more detail to vote.

Yes, so I agree.

Okay.

Thank you, Mr.

Mogenson.

Do you need a motion on that?

Or can we just withdraw my motion and can have direction?

Yeah, my advice is you could do a motion, the agenda item um does reference um directing staff to proceed with drafting appropriate ordinances.

Um sounds to me like you are asking that staff return to you with further details regarding makeup composition and other issues as identified by the council for further discussion before the ordinance is presented.

Okay, I'll make that motion, yes.

I'll adopt your statement.

So, second.

Second, we have two seconds.

All right, any further discussion.

All right, hearing none, um second voice vote.

All in favor say aye.

Aye aye.

Any opposed?

Seeing none passes unanimously.

We have one item on the agenda remaining.

I'd suggest that um someone move this to the next regularly scheduled uh.

Right.

We're making a motion to move 13C to the next second.

Okay, we got a second by Emilio first.

Uh and all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Seeing none.

Um meetings adjourned.

Thank you very much, everyone.

10 30.

Who won the pool.

Yeah, a loss, I think.