Okay, perfect.

Okay.

Okay.

No, me too.

Well.

Recording in progress.

Oh, have someone open the windows in the back.

Like stifling in here.

Well, I was meaning bigs too.

Thank you very much.

All right.

Good evening, everyone.

Uh it's 6 01 p.m.

We're here at the regular meeting of this Pacific Grove City Council.

It's Wednesday, October 1st, 2025, at 6 p.m.

here at 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California.

I'm calling this meeting to order.

Um all council members are present with the exception of Councilmember Garfield.

And I will look to Councilmember out to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Thank you very much.

Uh what brings us to item one, which is approval of the agenda.

Can I get a motion to approve?

Approve.

Any discussion on the motion.

Hearing none.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Seeing none, passes unanimously.

And now we're on to um item two, presentations.

And this is uh my proclamation declaring October 2025 as National Women's Small Business Month here in the City of Pacific Grove.

And I'm gonna come down and invite some of the members of the b women's business community to come and talk and meet with me at the front here in front of the podium.

This mic is a little bit delayed.

There it goes.

Well, thank you all for coming out tonight.

Um and I'm just gonna read you this proclamation and then I'm gonna ask each of you to um tell the audience where you're from, um what business you run.

Um whereas in 1972 there were just over 400,000 women-owned businesses in the United States, and whereas women in the United States were not allowed to get a business loan without the signature of a mail relative to co-sign for them until 1988.

And whereas October is recognized as women's small business month because the law that allowed women to take out a loan in their own name, the women's business ownership act of 1988 was signed on October 25th, 1988.

And whereas, according to the small business administration, as of 2022, women-owned businesses make up 42% of all U.S.

businesses.

That's more than 13 million businesses.

Whereas the celebration of National Women's Small Business Month honors the effort of women, business owners, and women entrepreneurs and recognizes the significant contributions of these owners and entrepreneurs to the community.

And whereas women-owned businesses are key to overall economic success.

Um I, Mayor of Pacific Grove, Nick Smith hereby recognize this month uh October 2025 as National Women's Small Business Month and recognize the numerous successful women-owned businesses that help our economy thrive.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Give them a round of applause.

And thank you to those of you who come out tonight.

And why don't you just pass the mic around and um tell us where what business you run?

Artisana Gallery.

Ruth Shapiro.

I'm Stephanie Loftus, and I own the quill.

I am Danielle Cumberland.

I am here on behalf of the owners of Bookworks, but I've been there for nine years and I love it.

Christy Metzno, President CEO of the Pacific Rev Chamber of Commerce.

Hi, Lori Marcus with Whimsy.

I'm Marcia Stearns from Bookmark Music, and today is our 31st birthday.

I'm Jackie Hay.

I'm with a French Baker.

It's a new startup.

Thank you so much.

And I know I just like to get a photograph with all of you.

So uh we'll just come in down to the middle here.

Fill in around me.

I'm just come up front of me.

All right, thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you so much.

Congratulations.

Thank you very much.

All right.

So that'll bring us to item three, council and staff announcements.

And uh we'll turn to city attorney for three A report on closed session.

Yes, we had a closed session earlier this uh this afternoon, and there is no reportable action.

Thank you very much.

And now we'll turn to the council for any announcements.

Uh council member Rao.

Yeah, I just like to let the public that our district maps have been approved and are up on the uh Monterey County elections website.

So if you go to their uh website, you click on district maps, scroll down to Pacific Grove, you'll see a map of the city with all of them on there, and then you'll see each individual district map.

So I wanted to make sure that was noted.

Great.

Thank you for that announcement.

Appreciate that.

Anyone else?

Councilmember McDonnell.

Thank you.

I just wanted to give a shout out.

Joyce um added to our announcements that we get via text or maybe email.

Um so if you are not already subscribed to our announcements, it's a great way to find out what's going on, but she posted that we were um one of the top 40 small towns in the US on HGTV.

So thanks for sharing that.

And I just wanted to let more people know that you can get that kind of information and also local city events by signing up.

And that's awesome.

And also have that there were only three towns in California, and we were one of them.

So we know we're awesome.

Now everybody else does too.

All right, let the world know.

Um, thank you very much.

Any other council members wishing to make an announcement?

Uh staff.

We'll turn to Mr.

Mogenson.

Do you have any announcements this evening?

Yeah.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Um, I just want to note, I'm sure everybody's aware that this weekend uh is butterfly day.

So there'll be a lot of activities happening.

Um after that, I will turn it over to a couple of staff members, Joyce uh Hallaby and um Dan Go as well to a couple announcements.

Thank you, Mayor Smith, members of the council members of the public.

I just want to announce that the project which you all approved last month that Central Fountain and Grand is well underway.

Um we're anticipating it going through October into November.

Um, and we hope it's completed by Thanksgiving time frame.

I mean, hoping maybe a little bit earlier, so it should correspond right in line with the hotel opening.

Uh and then also we have our slurry seal project, which is gonna commence here pretty quick.

We've already started grinding the markings, and we'll be doing slurry seal on I believe if it's the 14th, 15th, and 16th around town.

Thank you.

And we'll send out notices and flyers through Ms.

Hallaby's uh notifications.

Thank you.

Great.

Good evening, honorable mayor, members of the council.

Thank you, Councilmember McDonald and Councilmember Rao.

The first announcement I had tonight was that we made HG TV's top 40 most charming downtowns um in the United States.

We mean we're actually number 10 and the first placed California city.

So it's very exciting.

We have the full article linked in the city's homepage, city of pg.org.

Uh we also wanted to announce that our preschool is hosting an open house on October 8th.

Um there's more details on our website again, city of pg.org forward slash news, and you can subscribe to updates, but we do have vacancies and spaces for our preschool program.

So we're encouraging anybody if they're interested to come to the open house and learn more.

And then last but not least, our application window for storefront retail commercial cannabis business license opened earlier this month on the 15th.

Um application window closes on October 15th.

So just wanted to announce that that process is underway.

Very good.

Anything else?

Thank you very much, Staff for the reports.

Appreciate it.

Look forward to seeing everyone in the community at the butterfly days.

And now we're gonna move on to general public comment.

Um, this is item four, general public comment deals with matters subject to the jurisdiction of the city, but not on the regular agenda tonight.

So um seeing members of the audience first, is anyone wishing to make public general public comment in the audience?

Okay, great.

We have a couple of people, and if you wish to make general public comment online, please raise your hand.

You you need to be at the microphone here if you want anybody to hear you.

They can't hear you online unless you're there.

He's stealing my thunder here.

Yeah, no.

Anyway, uh Genie Anton, I'm here for the Heritage Society just to let you know that this was a very big weekend for us.

And of course, starting with the butterfly parade.

And then the Heritage Society is sponsoring a number of things, one of them being the bird houses.

And Mark will tell you more about that in a moment.

Um, we're going to have four historic walks into different parts of town on Saturday and Sunday, one at 11, one at one.

And um they're free.

The Chautauqua Hall will be open for all the bird houses, as he will explain to you.

There's also a croquet tournament going on.

Uh, we have 10 teams, and we actually have two people sitting up there with you.

Whoops, Joyce moved to the back.

But um, our city manager and our assistant city manager are both um participating in the croquet tournament.

So we wish them well.

And then on Saturday night at five o'clock, we have um the one event that that does require tickets, and that is out at the lighthouse.

Uh, we'll have a live band.

We'll have dinner catered by Mark Michael's talkeria and drinks.

And um last year we had a fantastic sumset.

So we'll see what happens this year, but come in layers.

But I do invite all of you and I invite the public to come and join us.

We have a few tickets left, and then Mark will tell you about the bird houses.

Thank you.

Birdhouse, the mic, sir.

These are the bird houses have been something.

I'm Mark Trevale.

I'm the uh vice president of the Heritage Society.

Um, and the bird houses are something that we have auctioned off for 25, 30 years, I guess.

And we ask people to make them and donate their birds, bird houses to us, and then we auction them off, sideline auction them off, and we we use the money to promote our programs.

That's so that'll be happening at Chautauqua Hall on both Saturday and Sunday between 10 and 4.

And at on at 4 o'clock on Sunday, we will close the auction and we will uh get the money and let people leave with their bird houses.

Also at Chautauqua Hall on Sunday, we're gonna have a local author, uh Stuart McDowell, who has written has now his third book.

He'll be speaking on our lighthouse uh and uh the lighthouse keepers, and he's a very entertaining speaker and uh he's quite a joy to hear.

And that's what happened at two o'clock, and that's free.

And also uh um we will be having historic home tours that will start at Chautauqua Hall.

We have various volunteers from our organization that'll take people around and show them all the cool things that are hidden in our uh in our uh in our town.

So thank you.

Appreciate it.

Thank you so much for the work.

Thank you, Ms.

Anton.

Go to the online.

We have one uh hand raised, uh Mayor Inga Lawrence and Timer.

Thank you.

I want to thank the city for putting out that lovely little HGTV.

Yeah, I received it.

I've been signed up for those, and okay, I'll deal with these news blasts.

And uh I did read the whole article, and the one thing that went through every single city that was lifted, listed all the way up was how they preserved and enhance their historic districts and assets.

And each one history is big business, and you know what?

We need to be really careful to protect ours.

And I think that article posted it out, and I encourage everyone to read the entire article and all the different cities.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Go ahead and close general public comment and come back to the consent agenda.

Consent agenda deals with routine and non-controversial matters.

Um and at this time, are there any members of the council wishing to pull a consent item?

Seeing none.

Was there any member of the public here or online wishing to pull a consent item?

No hands online, Mayor.

Okay.

Um go ahead and I'll entertain a motion to approve consent.

Second.

All right, motion by Paduri, second by Emilio.

Any further discussion?

Hearing none, we'll take a voice vote.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Seeing none passes unanimously.

Thank you very much.

We'll move right along to item 11a.

This is uh ordinance adopting the new building codes.

And we'll I'll invite Mr.

Kuhl to come forward and represent for us tonight.

Okay.

Good evening, uh Mr.

Mayor Smith, members of Lee Council, John Biggs with your community development department.

Our chief building official John Keel has been working very hard at updating our building codes, and he would like to present some information on that working done so far for your consideration this evening before you take up uh adoption of the the new program code regulation.

So, Mr.

Kill.

Feel free.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mary and City Council.

The item before you tonight is something that comes up every three years.

California um goes through a drill and updates the building standards codes every three years.

Um we take a lot of pride in with our region is both fire and building.

We're we're active participants in our our local agencies for the building official group.

We've got a a tri-county building official group is as well as the fire prevention officers.

We try very hard to have fewer and fewer amendments, and if the code needs to be amended, we we propose that to the state.

And it it usually takes three to five years to get a code implemented and initiated.

So what's before you tonight is fewer amendments, and most of them have been adopted before.

These aren't um new items.

Just a couple new things to point out.

There California through the legislation adopted bill, which was Senate Bill 130, um, which in a sense will freeze the residential provisions of the uh California codes for the next six years.

Um it was the states or the legislators' attempt to try to minimize um changes to the residential code to keep the cost for residential construction down as much as possible.

So what we have to do if we amend the residential code is have real specific findings.

So included in in the ordinance, you'll you'll see some specific findings that that would indicate this is existing um uh existing amendment that's already been adopted by the city and uh included for for state consideration.

The other the other nuance this year is there's a new code, which is the urban wildland interface code, which the information contained within the code is not a new code, it's information that was that was included in in the building code before is chapter 7A.

So they decided to take that out and um just want to make sure that um it is understood that the wild urban interface code only applies to new construction, so it's you've heard home hardening and elements uh that the council adopted uh a new fire map system or fire maps.

Um if you do a new building, which is a brand new house or commercial building, and you happen to be in one of those uh very high high hazard zones, then the the provisions in that wild man interface code um do apply.

So what we're asking tonight is that you request that the city attorney read read the title of the ordinance, followed by a second and waive further reading of the ordinance, and introduce and hold first reading of the ordinance that adopts the 2025 edition of the California Building Standards Code with local amendments and direct the publication of the ordinance be satisfied by publication of a summary approved by the city attorney.

Thank you, Mr.

Cool.

Is that it for the city's presentation?

Yes.

Okay, thank you very much.

Take it out to the public.

Anyone in chambers or online wishing to comment on item 11a.

No comments online, mayor.

All right, seeing uh no takers on that, we'll go ahead and close public comment on this item, bring it back to the council for action.

Uh, this is a ministerial item and this is done every three years, so I'll entertain a motion if that's if anyone would like to make one.

Well, you want to ask me to read the title first or uh yeah, but we have a question up here, but sure.

Sorry.

Go ahead.

Yes, uh, thank you.

Um thank you, uh Mr.

Creedle for making these changes uh in accordance with the with what's going on uh at a state level.

Um my question is um if I when I look at the 2025 fact sheet of what is changing, it says just as an instance, it says heat pumps are being mandated for for new residential units.

Um if that kind of code does not exist within PG's code, technically the state code will prevail, right?

Yes, that that's correct.

That the state code is a minimum code, the amendments that you see are above and beyond the the state minimum.

Okay.

And uh for I I didn't see it, but perhaps it exists.

Uh is is there a is the state website a good resource for us to go to to check out what is the difference between the 2022 code and the 2025 code.

The the state doesn't have on their website a side by side.

Okay, there's there are publications.

Um generally the state at some point in time will publish substantial differences.

Um I have gone to some trainings.

There's there's not substantial changes in some of why this legislation came about is the California Energy Code seems to be upping the ante every year and really adding a lot of additional energy elements that that do make a difference.

However, at some point in time, there really isn't a big payback for it.

So that's um the the largest changes are in the energy section.

Okay, thank you.

And that's what I interpret from the fact sheet too.

So thank you for confirming it.

Thank you very much.

Uh Councilman McDonnell.

Thank you.

Um, yeah, I actually just had one comment in the section of the ordinance where it says that um now, therefore, as a council we ordain as follows.

There's a section under um, I think it's topographical on page 83 that says the natural rocky shorelines of Pacific Grove create a situation by which access to the building can only be made from the street.

The front of the buildings is essentially the only accessible point, and that there's nearly nine blocks of continuous construction.

And I was curious about that only because it says we ordain it, and it sounds more like Monterey, maybe.

I'm not sure because we only have Hopkins and then two houses that don't back up.

So I was I was curious if that needed to be corrected since it's saying that we as a council ordain it.

I just want to check and see if it's a fact that needs to be corrected.

We we could correct that, and I could work with the city attorney.

I I believe it's a non-substance change.

Would would that be accurate that um that we could make it make an amendment to that finding to more apply to Pacific Grove?

And partly the reason I asked is because I know we share a fire department, so I was curious, like maybe it applied to Cantery Row, for example, where there's essentially probably nine blocks of buildings that that don't have access from the back.

But since it specifically says Pacific Grove, I just wasn't sure if it's something that needed to be corrected or if it's non-substantive, maybe it's not necessary, but just wanted to point it out.

Thank you.

Council member, could you please identify?

I'm sorry, Mr.

Cole.

Uh I have a question.

Do you identify it as incorrect?

What she's referred to.

To it it does apply whether it's nine blocks or not.

Um it's it's it's a guess.

So we have we do have opt-ins, we do have a couple properties that are um on the ocean.

Um so if you all told it may not equal nine blocks, it it might be close.

Go ahead, council member Brow.

So, Mr.

Keel, the way that I read this is that the buildings can only be made from the street.

So if you look at a portion of ocean view, there are houses directly behind them.

There is no alleyway.

So I think when you expand this to include all of the homes that are only accessible from the front, that could include portions of ocean view as well.

You know, down past Perkins Park and along that area, you know, where they stack up and back up to surf, and there is no alleyway between surf and ocean view.

So I read this as including that because of the way that those blocks are configured.

So I don't know if that helps in the nine blocks.

I I think the intent is just to find that there are properties that can be challenging to access.

You get it from one side.

Therefore, the the fire code is amended for some of the sprinkler provisions that we we need we need the additional fire protection when it's a challenge to get to all four sides of a building.

Okay, so I'm just gonna recommend that we um make the motion and we have staff work together on the second read to clean it up if it needs to be cleaned up.

I mean, I can't identify right now.

I ask a question.

Um Councilmember McDonald.

What uh you said it was on page 83 that you were referring to.

Which paragraph?

How does that paragraph begins?

So rocky shorelines create a situation where you can't access the back of the house.

And that caught my attention because we only have the two houses on where Sunset Lighthouse and Sunset and Ocean View meet where Lighthouse comes down.

Um and then if you wanted to include Hopkins Marine Station.

So I but most blocks would have you know a backyard, but they could still come in to the back from the neighbor's backyard.

So I just I just noticed that we don't have more than those three properties that are actually on the rocky shoreline, and that's why I thought maybe it might have been more relevant to Monterey.

So and it may be a moot point, but I just wanted to bring it up in case it was important to fix.

Well, I'd ask before we start doing this drafting, Mr.

Kiel did to uh believe there's a need to change the language there in that paragraph, but is it incomplete or inaccurate in some way?

I would say it's not completely inaccurate.

Um I think in my opinion, it would be accurate.

Okay.

Okay.

Um I'll go ahead and make a motion.

Before we go there, I just speak.

So we're not changing anything on this page.

Okay.

I'll make a motion to request that the city attorney read the title of the ordinance.

I'll be glad to do that.

This is an ordinance of the city of Pacific Grove, amending chapters 18.04 and 18.32 of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code adopting the 2025 California Building Standards Code, Title 24, California Code of Regulations, parts one through 12, and the 2024 International Property Maintenance Code and adopting local amendments to parts 2.5 and 9 of the 2025 California Building Standards Code.

And then what could be done now is a motion to approve the uh remaining recommendations in the agenda.

I'll go over and uh raise a motion to uh rest of the uh recommendations.

Second.

All right, motion and second.

Any further discussion?

Hearing none, we'll go ahead and uh take a voice vote.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Seeing none, passes unanimously.

Thank you, Mr.

Cole.

Move on to item 11B, the hobson fog.

Hold out that's Mr.

Go.

Your Honor members of the city council have a brief presentation.

Let me share the screen.

So is the city clerk, Ms.

Kendell brings that up.

I just like to state that tonight we're presenting to you.

Um, and I'm asking you as part of the recommendation to authorize an encroachment permit to be issued to Hops and Foggs Brewing Company located a 511 Lighthouse Avenue to construct a bull out for sidewalk dining.

Next slide.

Okay, so um, I just gave you the recommendation real quick.

Sorry, thanks.

Okay, so I know this is hard to see, but this is also in your packet.

So we were approached public works in the building department, were approached by hops and fog um as they wanted to move forward with extended sidewalk dining.

They wanted to do it under their original footprint, and we just weren't able to achieve that with the tree there and so on and so forth.

So we solicited the services of our city engineer, Neo Engineers who went out there and presented some options of what we could do.

And then we met with the owners of Hops and Fog, and we came up with this bulb out design that goes around the tree that can create the pedestrian walkway, and they can still have the outdoor dining as you see here today.

Next slide, please.

So the project is outside the scope of a normal encroachment permit that we would provide, right?

Because we're building this bulb out.

We're gonna lose one parking spot, hence why I'm here tonight.

It's it's different than just having somebody replace their sidewalk.

But what this does do, it meets all the parameters that are set forth in the sidewalk dining manual, which you all approved a couple months ago.

Hops and fog, if approved tonight, will then submit to the building department an encroachment permit that has a plan.

We will then review it and ensure that all aspects of that encroachment permit and the plan are consistent with the sidewalk dining manual.

What you see in the packet today are renderings.

It doesn't necessarily mean that's exactly how it's going to look.

We'll take their plan, we'll take their materials and what they want to use and make sure that's consistent with that manual.

And then we would issue the encroachment permit if you opt to deviate from the normal encroachment permit and grant them the opportunity to build this bulb out tonight.

Moving forward, staff will develop policies and procedures that we will use to streamline requests like this in the future.

But this one came up right after the sidewalk dining manual was presented and approved.

So we felt it was fair for the applicant, the owners of the business to bring this forward tonight.

Uh, Miss Hallaby and myself are currently working on policies and procedures, which we'll bring forward at a very near city future city council meeting.

All costs for this project will be the responsibility of the encroachment permit applicant, the business owners.

I believe that concludes my report.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, sir.

And uh take over to the public.

Any members of the public wishing to comment on this item here in the house or online.

If you're online, please raise your hand.

We have one member in the house coming forward.

Hi.

Hi, um, my name's Himana Wise Luth.

I'm one of the owners of Hops and Fog.

Thank you for putting this on your agenda.

Obviously, I'm hoping that you'll support this project.

Um, and to that end, I wanted to address the main concerns brought up in the letter um in the packet that's against it.

Um, as Mr.

Go explained many months ago, we began the process of figuring out how we might do a front area build-out.

And we started by reading it's in its entirety the report titled PG Sidewalk Dining Guidelines Final Report submitted in 2024 by BFS Landscape Architects.

Um, in reference to the bulbout um done at Fountain Avenue, it reads quote the Lighthouse Avenue Sidewalk Expansion Project will be the first implemented bulb out project.

There may be other locations in the city that are suitable, which will be determined at a future date.

Applicants are requested to contact the city with suggestions or requests about other such locations for bulbouts where sidewalk dining would be appropriate, which is what we did.

Um, we did not do it in secretly um in secrecy or without transparency.

We did it out in the open at several meetings with city staff on both sunny and foggy days.

The staff, so you know it was awesome, really constructive and neutral and helping guide us through our questions and concerns.

Um we submitted the plans, which was then checked off by the engineers.

Um, we now meet um in our plans all conditions and specifications following design guidelines for public safety function and aesthetics.

Um, there are not policies and procedures in place, and this is a deviation from normal encroachment because permits because we're the first.

Um, and that doesn't mean it's bad or wrong, it's just that somebody has to be first, and it turns out it does for now.

Um, importantly, we are eager enough to make this happen that we're willing to fund it ourselves.

It's possible that in the future the city may partially help fund more build outs as it did on Fountain Avenue, but that would likely be a long way out.

And we have momentum now and feel we have really positive, strong community support.

Um, as that report notes, seeing sidewalk dining on the street activates the street.

It creates feelings of excitement and helps draw both locals and visitors to the area.

The sidewalk bullbout in front of Victorian Corner, Rudolphos and Fish is great.

People like seeing people dining out.

Um and one in front front of Hops and Fog will add to the continuity on the street and add a vibrancy we feel far outweighs the loss of one parking space.

We feel it is a benefit for all.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Another member in chambers coming forward.

Good evening, Susan Goldback Pacific Grove.

I just had two questions.

Number one, um, this encroachment.

I assume that it means an encroachment on city property.

And so that's a question I have.

And the other question I had is um if it is an encroachment on city property, have other businesses been given the same ability to use city property, and if they have, if they haven't, will that be the policy then to allow them to do that if they come forward?

Thank you.

Anybody else online?

Uh yes, may I believe we have one two hands raised on mine.

Uh Inla Lawrence and Tommy.

Thank you.

This is interesting because this is kind of being presented in a different way.

And oh, this is just in we're the first, and it's all okay, and we're going forward.

Well, that is, however, um, what benefits one business does not necessarily benefit all the businesses or neighbors and residents in a neighborhood, especially mixed use.

My problem is that we do not yet have a city policy for this kind of encroachment variance, which as Dan go first admits, is significant because it does encroach on city property.

And Susan Goldbeck brought up many interesting thoughts about that.

Now I understand that that this should be oh, yes, this we're just pushing it through.

We're the first, we're doing it, but what happens afterwards?

We don't have a standardized downtown design which can incorporate different individual necessities, but we don't have the guidelines, we don't have um we just don't have enough information to just blithely move ahead.

A little more homework.

This is more like piecemeal planning.

That oh, we could, and we didn't even see what the city engineers came up with in the beginning before hops and fog drew their own.

I'm not against hops and fog.

I am into procedure and how this moves forward in a logical planning.

And yes, mayor, you can laugh.

It's your favorite watering hole.

I know.

We have lots of pictures of you disheveled in front of it.

That's fine, you know, have a good time.

But what I'm saying is don't just sit there and laugh at me on this, because we are talking about orderly progression of getting procedure in place before, and I think it's a good question because you are encroaching on public property.

I'm just asking you to stop, look and listen and proceed carefully.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Uh yes, uh Lisa Chiani.

Thank you.

You know, I have not looked into this in detail.

Uh I just have a bias because hops and fog, uh, the owners have been really responsible all the way through development of their project and and going forward.

And uh and um an adaptive reuse of a historic building.

I mean, that's big to me.

Um, but definitely I do I do want you to follow uh a process that is fair to everyone.

Um, but I certainly have been impressed, even though I I don't go out to dinner much at all, and I haven't been there.

I'm just thrilled that they did an adaptive reuse of a historic building.

So that's just my two cents.

Thank you.

Thank you.

No further hands, Mayor.

Okay, I'll bring it back uh to the council close public comment on this item.

Got I got a couple questions.

Um follow up on some of the questions.

This is an encroachment on city property.

Obviously, that's what the definition of an encroachment permit is, right?

Correct.

Okay.

And then the second question is are others doing it.

It's on a case by case basis.

We get to decide as a city whether we want to grant such encroachments.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

We issue encroachments permits probably on the daily basis for various projects, but this is kind of a deviation from that because we will be encroaching slightly into the roadway to create this bull out, but it meets all the parameters of uh encroachment permit.

And it's within the our bounds of our authority to do so.

It is within our public right of way.

Got it.

Okay.

So I'm fully supportive of this, our recommendation, and I'll look to my colleagues for other comments.

Um Mayor Proton Amelia.

Thank you, uh, Mayor.

Um couple of things.

Um I'm gonna back up a little bit.

What that place looked like prior to Hops and Fog was a uh, I think it was a laundromat or something, and it looked abandoned.

And what hops and fogs did was uh just turn that place upside down and make it look great.

I'm also in favor of this.

We spent quite a lot of money on uh up the street on uh the three parklets, which was around 450,000.

And I think uh this uh encroachment, uh, I fully support it.

Thank you, sir.

Councilman McDonald.

Thank you, Mayor.

Yeah, and this was actually something that was intended all along when the original parklet plan was developed for the conversion into the bull outs with the dining.

The plan was always um having been on the preparate parklet committee subcommittee.

The plan was always to have that option available to future businesses.

We weren't sure that the city would be able to help co-fund it.

We had said that we would make that available to businesses who wanted to pay for it themselves if they wanted to do it sooner than the city could participate.

That's why it was included in the um the handbook so that when that came out that would provide an avenue and it did actually provide a process for people, which they followed, which was to submit the application and have the city work with them.

I really appreciate that they've worked to incorporate the tree rather than asking for it to be removed.

Um there had been a question in the letter about um whether it would affect um visual cues for cars and bicycles.

It would be replacing a parking spot, so it wouldn't be going into the street any further, so it wouldn't have any impact on line of sight or safety in that regard.

In fact, it might provide you know more because it'd probably be lower than a tall car would be parked on the same corner.

And it looks like the um it was stated in the agenda item that there wouldn't be any issues with sue with the um sorry the drainage um from the um the water and everything.

So to me, it feels like this is the first project who's who's offering to come forward, has worked with the city to do so, has taken into account what this community values like keeping the tree.

We would lose one parking space, but it's also in an area where there are parking spaces in the center of the street directly across.

Um, and so it does seem like it provides a greater public benefit, continues the program that we'd already initiated and expected to expand upon, and therefore I would support it as well.

Great.

Uh councilman.

Thank you, Her Honor.

Um, I just want to be clear on a couple of I know the artist rendering and the plan from the engineer looks a little skewed.

So just to be clear, they're not asking to encroach on their next door neighbor's property, right?

They're going the railing would be at the property line.

Correct.

Okay.

And um, you know, I think there was a a question about the sewer, and we redid the sewer under the under the bulb out on fountain and lighthouse.

This is not that same situation, right?

This sewer has already been uh replaced in in recent history, right?

I would have to confirm that, but we have had no known issues with this sewer, and it's just skirting with the basically the gutter pan.

So I see no issues with it whatsoever.

Um and I know the storm drain infrastructure.

We just did some work there on the storm drain infrastructure.

Um, I have no concerns with the city utilities in this location.

Okay, perfect.

Thank you.

Um, it's only taking out the depth of the parking space, right?

It's not encroaching into the street.

That is correct.

And the tenant improvement that they're making is on their dime.

That is correct.

Um I heard an objection about the railings and the aesthetic and whether or not it's going to match.

I think in this particular case, we're dealing with three Victorian houses on one corner, and a building that, although it's historic, doesn't maintain what I would consider you know the full Victorian charm.

I think the railing fits in, you know, with um, I think the railing fits in with the aesthetic of the building.

And I don't necessarily think, in my opinion, that all the railings in town need to match.

I think one of the advantages is to have an individualized uh railing.

Um for all of those reasons and all of the yes answers you've given me, I am a firm yes on this.

Thank you.

Anyone uh council member.

Um councilmember walking stick, thank you.

Okay.

Uh okay.

Good questions raised.

Uh, first of all, with the uh the bulb out, is there a standard for that?

I think that's been pretty well addressed.

Um, this can be kind of seen as an extension of our sidewalk dining program that we've been promoting.

Uh so uh although we have code that covers this on a case by case basis.

I can see this as a larger uh program, a larger effort across town.

And um very grateful for this.

The engineering, it's been brought up by a couple of people actually now.

Um I wanted to uh to confirm for the record that it was the city that did the engineering on the plan.

It wasn't uh uh Hobson Fogg that did that on on their own, right?

That is correct.

Okay, excellent.

I just wanted that clear for the public, there seemed to be confusion on that point.

Um in this case, the uh the applicant is uh willing to bear the burden uh financially.

Um, but the city is still handling the engineering, so you know uh that's all uh well coordinated on the city side and done right.

So I I think this is a fantastic project and a great step forward for our community.

So thank you.

Thank you.

And all right, thank you, Mayor.

Uh I I was just gonna comment on on the fact that uh you said you're you're first, and and I know somebody famous who said if you're not first, you're last.

So thank you for first of all bringing this forward uh and like taking it uh to the next step, because I think this will be a precursor of what is uh what are the things to come in the future?

Uh and we always need somebody to step up and do it.

So thank you.

Uh the uh I will have a couple of questions for for the staff and and some uh I will say recommendations.

Uh one is um I know in the agenda item and in a lot of places we're saying outdoor guidelines manual.

Where's the word manual?

I mean, I I always see outdoor guidelines.

Uh there is no manual, right?

There's outdoor or sideline sidewalk dining guidelines, right?

Where's the manual if there's a manual?

If someone's answering to the same sorry, a lot of cross talk, but just someone from staff answer that.

I I was just gonna say off the top of my head, um, I have to double check exactly what's written on the document, but we're probably talking about the same document in different terms.

Yeah, and and so it's just as far as I know, we approve sidewalk dining guidelines.

So and and over here we're quoting sidewalk dining manual and with capitalized.

So it it uh uh it seems like there's a manual and we don't have it.

So it's guidelines.

So I say I would say in the future, just make it consistent to reflect it to be sidewalk dining guidelines.

Uh the other thing is um, and this is true of uh what was mentioned here is in November 20th of 2024, the regular meeting we did uh the agenda item reads uh these guidelines are specific to the ballpot configuration that is being constructed by the lighthouse.

Uh but staff will uh be approving current outdoor dining requests, and this will act as a template for larger outdoor dining guidelines.

So we're in effect uh following through with what we did from November 20th.

I don't want to go back to November 20th document or a deny item every time this comes to the council.

So I would suggest that in the outdoor dining guidelines itself, you add sentences to say that this is a template for the future.

So whatever we're doing here becomes essentially a framework for how we're gonna do things in the future.

So that's just a suggestion.

Uh and then my questions were really around a couple of items.

One is uh so the from what I understand, the one once we issue a permit, uh, you have a certain um as part of the permit process, you have to have insurance.

So this being a special case, uh, like an extension.

Do we have to have additional insurance, or will the current insurance that is on record will that cover it?

Councilmember Paduri, the applicant would need to submit an encroachment permit for this.

We're only granting them the opportunity to build this bull out.

Whatever parameters are set forth within that encroachment permit would have to be provided at time of the application or at time of the issuance of the permit.

Okay, so let me ask additional insurance is required.

Yes, they would have to get that at that time.

Okay, so let me put it a different way.

Does the encroachment permit require insurance?

I do not have an answer to that.

If I could help us, member, I think there's um there's there's two levels to what's really happening here.

The encroachment permit is what grants the sidewalk um the ability to build the sidewalk larger.

Uh, we also have a sidewalk dining permit, which is an administrative permit that we're that we're giving to many restaurants downtown working with them.

Part of the requirements, the sidewalk dining permit is insurance.

So um they're gonna have to give us insurance on both sides of that.

Uh so uh if your question is what they file and file with us is already good enough.

I I don't know that without checking the records, but there's a chance that we're gonna ask for an updated policy anyway with the sidewalk dining permit.

Okay, and that's what I want to because uh I think the insurance is only part of the sidewalk dining permit.

So I want that to be extended to this too to make sure we're covered on all sides.

Um, and then the the final question was really um every time we get onto parking uh safety is obviously like paramount.

Um has Mr.

Deal or somebody from traffic safety like uh examine this uh this design and or are they going to do it in the future?

Our traffic engineer, Mr.

Deal is no longer our traffic engineer.

We have a new traffic engineer just to let you know, but they have not reviewed this, but our civil engineering team has reviewed this, and this is very consistent to all the bull bouts that we build, um, such as the one that we're about to construct down on Grand and Central.

Um I am very confident that this increases pedestrian safety by shortening crossing times um by constructing a bull bow and making vehicles aware that there are pedestrians in this area with these ball outs is a key to pedestrian safety.

Okay, oh thank you.

I'm supportive of uh as you can see.

Um thanks for all the hold on this.

All right, I'm gonna go ahead and move recommendation one.

Do I have a second?

I'll second it.

Okay, thank you.

And then you guys heard heard Council Member Peters' suggestions for the guidelines.

So I don't think we're gonna need anything on that.

So um, unless there's any discussion, any discussion, then we'll go ahead and take a vote on on item recommendation one.

Uh voice vote, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Seeing none.

Passing announcement, thank you very much for the clarifications and uh thank you for bringing this project hops and fog.

All right.

So now we're gonna move on.

I think there's no 12 items.

We're on to new business uh 13B recreation board's needs assessment.

Uh, and we'll look to our mayor pro tem Joe Emilio for that.

Okay, thank you, um Mayor.

Um the recreation commission um on a 3-0 vote uh one to spend up to 20 hours of staff time to support a development of a community needs assessment focused on the recreation uh needs of the community.

Uh they were they they based the questions on 2018 survey.

Now myself being the rep of uh recreation commissioner was there and I really forgot the name of the commissioner that was the uh subcommittee, but she said that the 2018 uh needs assessment assessment had some great questions to it.

And I'm saying uh I know there was a quick question about um hiring a consultant.

Um I I'd back off of that, because we do not need to be hiring a consultant to do a needs assessment, in my opinion.

Um I think what has to happen is the needs assessment needs to be brought to the recreation commission or recruiting board, uh, someone from the recreation staff to help the recreation uh commission develop this um needs assessment.

And it the needs assessment from 2018 sounded like it had great questions to it already.

All it needs to be tweaked and then post back on the website.

Um that's my recommendation.

Understood.

So you're just you're recommending that uh we dust off the 2018 direct the recreation board to examine 2018 with the help of staff and possibly augment that survey and redo the survey that way.

Correct.

Okay, thank you very much.

No consultant.

Okay.

We'll uh take it out to the public for any public comment.

I have no hands raised online, Mayor.

All right.

And seeing no one in chambers, go ahead and close the public comment and bring it back up to the council for uh discussion of that, Miss uh Mayor Pro Tem's idea and uh recommendation tonight.

Yeah, council member Drew.

Uh thank you.

Uh I I just had a question.

Um, so are we saying that um the agenda item we're we're requesting for 20 hours of staff time to double up the recreation needs assessment?

Up up to 20 hours.

Up to 20 hours, up to 20 hours have the recreation staff work with the recreation commission to dust off the needs assessment from 2018 because the questions were uh from one of the subcommittees said that the questions were fantastic.

Uh they just a couple of questions have to be updated.

Okay, great.

Um so my question to staff is uh is 20 hours enough.

So this this recommendation says staff time off up to 20 hours is required for a recreation assessment update.

Uh my question is is 20 hours enough?

I I think it really depends on the scope of what we're talking about.

We're not clear on that at this point.

I think the original study that we did or the or um survey that was done, for my understanding, I wasn't here.

It took a staff member probably 100 to 200 hours, a lot of time.

And you can see the documents on the website's pretty extensive.

So I think anytime you mess with a statistical document, you know, you're gonna change a lot of it.

So it's probably gonna be a significant thing if we put more questions to put it back out.

Um so in terms of what the actual time will be, we probably probably have a better estimate if we had more specifics on what it is they want to change, like what questions they want to, how many more or no, both of those.

And I I was just going to uh ask uh as a response to that um as it stands with this agenda item.

If you work with Brassel saying up to 20 hours, um what are the next steps in in your mind?

Uh what is gonna happen next.

Um I'm not again, we're not sure what we could really accomplish in 20 hours towards towards this.

If we just wanted to take the same study, same questions, reopen the survey and collect the data and see if it changed the numbers within the all the documents that you see on the website.

Um, you know, that that might be, you know, maybe only 20 hours short, you know, of it might be 40 hours.

I don't I it's really hard to tell.

It's really hard to tell.

Like I said, um, they spent a significant amount of time and there's a lot in those documents you can tell.

Um I think if they really want to have a full set survey again, which even if you I think if you even if you use the same questions and you just add two more, I think you really are starting over.

I mean, you're all of your analysis can be different, everything.

So I think you have to look at this is a larger effort.

Um some of them I'm I'm there with that.

Um this was done in 2018.

We're almost nearing the 10-year mark.

So do we need to kind of just redo the whole thing?

Is okay, that's just a question.

I'll I'll hear what other council members have to say.

Yeah, that's a that's a good idea.

Let's see some other people, but I appreciate that question.

It might be the kind of thing where we have to kind of rip the band-aid off.

Uh, council member.

Um so I did peruse through the 81 pages of the results from the last survey.

And I guess my question is, what was the issue that we felt like we were missing?

It seemed to be a pretty thorough examination of uh, I mean, I think uh Ms.

Hallaby did an outstanding job at crafting the questions.

Uh the number of responses that we were able to gather, and I guess what are we looking to get out of this at the end of this redo?

Um, I think we all know inside our hearts and our heads what needs to be done.

We need a refresh of and a significant one of Caledonia.

There are bathrooms at other facilities that need to be done.

We know a lot of the infrastructure problems that we're facing.

So I guess I'm just not sure that our population and our kids' needs have changed since 2018.

So I just what I don't want to do is get you 20 hours into it and then have you say, well, it's not enough.

So then we either decide we need to scrap it or we need to add 80 80 more hours.

So I think if we understood what we were trying to get out of this, I think that would be great.

But I think I don't know if we're trying to throw spaghetti against the wall and see what sticks.

I you know, so from my perspective, you know, I think we put you know some of these parks and other facilities on the capital improvement, and let's try and see what we can get done.

But you know.

Thank you.

I think those are great comments.

I and I will say, you know, we the first time we did this thing, this uh survey, it led to major increases in um our rec program, which we have accomplished.

So in my view, I do think we did accomplish the goals set forth in the 2018, the the resultant goals that kind of emanated from the survey have been accomplished and were accomplished um in the last council term.

So um I don't know that I'm I want to get into that 2080 thing either, because it could definitely happen.

Um potentially I could see just dusting off the old survey and reusing it, maybe that would be one thing, but we still have to analyze the data.

But as far as um working with the rec board and all that, I don't think I can support that.

I think I've been persuaded by my colleagues that that we we've already kind of gone down that road and are we need to focus on infrastructure maintenance, we need to focus on Caledonia, we need to focus on um where our real issues and we don't have if I'm gonna invoke Councilmember Garfield if if everything's priority, then nothing is.

So I think we got to do some of that.

Unfortunately, I and I and I think that we've made a lot of strides uh with uh recreation and youth recreation.

I mean, I you know, we had projects last year that came up um infrastructure that we were able to do with our our RP or our excess funds.

We were able to do three projects.

Um we've we've really tried hard.

We've put our hearts into the youth recreation thing.

So I I think I'm good with where it is.

Go ahead, Councilman Walking Stick.

Thank you, Your Honor.

Uh yeah, I think at this point I'm I'm kind of parroting the uh uh what's already come up.

But with um us being seven years out from the 2018 uh survey, I don't think that our our uh needs are our town have materially changed enough to require a new survey just yet.

Um but what really dissuades me from pursuing is that simply right now, right now in this moment, it doesn't uh align with our city council or city goals.

And because we're already pretty strapped for for uh staff time for money for basically everything, our resources are stretched thin.

Um I don't want to uh uh say no to other ideas that aren't specifically goals, but it has to be a really persuasive argument to take time that's already uh been allocated to our our uh goals that we've we've um uh put out there uh to get us to go do something else with that time and that money, right?

So um I I don't think this is a high enough, I don't think this is a higher priority than the other goals we have set forward.

So I don't want to take staff time away from those goals to work on this, and that's kind of where I sit with it.

Uh yes, Councilman Rowe.

And I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater here.

I mean, I think the survey was great.

And if there's things in that survey that we need to do and act upon as we're putting together our plans for infrastructure, I think we absolutely need to look to that document.

I think it's I think it's a good document, and I think it it highlights uh some you know needs that we have in the infrastructure, like the bathrooms at George Washington, the bathrooms at um at uh Caledonia, the bathrooms off of Cresp E Pond.

Uh, there's a lot of opportunity when you look at recreation to uh look at that survey and and you know, fold that into our infrastructure plan.

So uh I I don't want to throw that survey out.

I think it was a I think it was a pretty good document.

Thank you, Councilman McDonnell.

Thank you.

Yeah, I would I would agree with all of the comments so far.

And as I was reading this, what I was thinking is rather than spending a lot of staff time, which does equate to money, and I agree that there's probably no way that we could do anything that would be useful in the 20 hours that are requested.

So what I was thinking is maybe there would be a format for the rec board to have input from the public.

If they if they got information on where the public sees that maybe we haven't gotten to projects that they think are important, that is still something that I think the rec board could feed to council using the forms.

So if they if they identify by people coming into the meetings in that format, things that we need to be looking at and addressing, I think that might be a better use of time.

So then we could be doing things like Caledonia Park, as everyone's mentioned.

And I wouldn't want to take staff time away from being able to make measurable progress on something that would actually provide benefit versus a survey because the analysis time is not to be overlooked, the amount of time and effort that that takes and kind of synthesizing that into something useful.

And so I think that I would agree.

Let's maybe even revisit if that would be useful, see what hasn't been done from the previous survey, and maybe see if the rec board would like to identify specific areas where maybe they feel there were more needs because they had mentioned that maybe there were a few more questions.

So if they had particular things in mind, maybe they could synthesize those into recommendations to council on their recommendation form for us to look forward so that we can bring that forward in uh future goals or future allocations of funding.

All right, I'm not hearing any.

I'm I'm gonna check now.

Would anyone like to make a motion on this?

I just I just gonna make comments.

Absolutely.

Yeah, I'd like to make a comment that one thing I did forget about it was um you know, one of our community goals and work plans matrix says identify and reduce expenditures um increase revenues.

Well I just still believe that um this recreational uh needs assessment still needs to be dusted off and just what the theme has been um in uh council member Raw read the whole thing.

I did not read the whole thing, but I'm okay.

Uh so I I think with what the council wishes to do, I I'm gonna have to report back to the I'm not worried about it.

Uh I would go back to the commission.

Uh they could read the uh uh video tape on this, but um it sounds to me uh see if I'm right, mayor.

Is that uh dust off the uh current of the past recreation needs and uh go from there if there needs to be a couple of questions?

I've heard I'm gonna most of us are leaning towards no action on this.

Okay.

I'm fine.

Go ahead, councilmember.

Yeah, I was I was gonna say the same thing, which is like right now there's no action that the council needs to take.

But uh, I'm just curious.

This this meet this this came off of a recommendation, which was done looks like on 24th April of this year from from the recreation board.

And possibly there may be comments in there that the board had expressed, uh, which uh I don't know because I haven't heard that.

Um so perhaps staff could at least look at those comments to see if they can do something.

Yeah, maybe there's a gap there that we don't know of, which is in prompting them to send us over to us.

And perhaps that may be uh the four step to see if there is a gap or not.

Thanks.

I think that's a good idea.

Yeah, I had one more comment.

Yes, we did have a parts day.

We authorized a parts day where they had t shirts and all.

I attended a couple of parks and uh commissioner uh chair uh Jay Tulley had a uh QR code, and in the QR code, it had all the questions, which we would you'd like to see in there were there were um uh uh four four or five commissioners all over the parks.

I only went to the Washington Park one.

So they have some of that information already just from contacts of people.

So perhaps um staff can work with the rec staff can work with them and just probe this issue a little bit, but I don't think we need an informal motion.

And uh I'm gonna close them out, close the item out 13B.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Uh, Councilmember Emilio Rapportown.

And we're moving on now to item 13C.

This is the proposal to draft an ordinance to regulate uh drones.

And I'll recognize councilmember McDonnell for this.

Thank you, Mayor.

Yeah, I'll uh give a moment for Sandra to bring up bring up the slides, but I'll just go ahead and read it.

It's a proposal to draft an ordinance to regulate operations of unmanned aircraft systems, also known as UAS, UAVs or drones, uh, to prevent wildlife disturbances.

Um, and this basically comes from the current situation, which is that we have ongoing disturbances of wildlife.

Um, we see disturbances to our birds, our harbor seals.

Um we have numerous monitors who are out on the coast, either bay netting, um doing data collection for the Black Oyster Catcher monitoring program for the harbor seal monitoring.

And so the volunteers who are out there, as well as we we actually get a lot of complaints from residents and from tourists, even saying, you know, why are these drones disturbing us?

They feel like they can't enjoy.

And so part of what we're trying to do is to move forward with this.

It's something that we talked about originally back in 2023.

And it was actually initially the proposal originally came up in 2017 where the initial drone ordinance was adopted.

But as you can see, there's been a rapid increase of drones, especially in research.

And the research is important.

It helps us better understand our environment.

And you can see we went from one research flight in 2017 to 124 in 2022 per NOAA report.

I don't have a more updated report.

I'm not sure of the most recent numbers.

And we have somebody who comes out every year and does a sea watch counting project for the migratory birds.

And her experience in 2022 as well is that she averaged two to three recreational drones per day.

And this was in the winter, not even in the typical southern summer months when you would expect to see you know most of the tourist activity.

But it's something that's becoming a bigger problem.

And if we can move to the next slide, um, I'll talk about the current regulations that we have.

So right now, drone flights are simply prohibited without a permit.

Um, we have found that almost all of the people that we encounter on the coastline using drones do not have a permit.

But there's nothing in the permit.

So it is unlawful to launch or land an aircraft without a permit, but there's no language indicating that it's unlawful to disturb wildlife, which is the case in multiple federal acts.

And I think a lot of the challenges is when people are flying a drone, it's very hard to see what the regulations are in one single place.

There's there's this regulation, this regulation, that regulation.

And so it's hard for them to know can I fly here?

And so it would be great to kind of solidify that in our documents so people know exactly that not only would researchers and commercial operators need to have a permit, um, but even with the permit, it is actually unlawful to disturb wildlife.

And so I listed a few of the things here that have regulations.

And so if we could move on to the next one, please, Sandra.

I'll just mention some of the more federal regulation things that we have.

So disturbance is defined as impacting wildlife behavior.

So that's important because we see the drones constantly impacting wildlife behavior.

And they have also determined in government documents that failure to maintain a minimum altitude of 1,000 feet is presumed to disturb marine mammals or seabirds.

Um, and that's important because the drones are often flying much better lower than that because they need to, because then they start encroaching on the FAA airspace as well.

So it's very important because they have the five miles around the airport.

Unfortunately, that regulation cuts off just before Point Pinos.

So in theory, people shouldn't be flying drones without an FAA permit until they get to Point Pinos, but where are most of the wildlife that's being disturbed, Point Pinos, um, and really our entire coastline.

And there are some local bands that are relevant.

So the marine protected areas, we are completely surrounded by marine protected areas here in Pacific Grove.

And so there are regulations to protect sensitive and protected wildlife.

And we do have our black oyster catchers, which are a species of special concern.

And that's why we have the Black Oyster Catcher Monitoring Program that's been going on for about 11 years now.

Um they're very important, a keystone species in our intertidal zone.

They are particularly disturbed by drones.

And so Pebble Beach also does not permit any drones except for special occasions.

Monterey says no persons shall operate any model in any park, playground, beach, or public recreation area.

And a Silomar State, because it's a state park, drones are prohibited in all Monterey State Park district parks and beaches.

Um, and state park rangers can actually issue citations for wildlife harassment if drones are being flown.

So we seem to be the one place that does not have a clear description that the recreational drones aren't allowed.

And I think that's part of the problem why we're seeing so many problems.

Um, and if we could go to the next slide, please, Sandra.

So I want to talk a little bit more about the threats to wildlife, because I think what we have found from educating the public when they're flying drones, is most people don't understand the threat.

So they're just having fun flying a drone.

And it's interesting because even somebody that I encountered one time who was a commercial operator hired by a local organization to get some video of the coastline.

Because often what they're doing is they're looking at their camera and they're not noticing that the birds are going crazy or not understanding that the reason the birds are circling is because the drone is considered a threat to them.

So what ends up happening is they've all been laying on the rocks, and now all of a sudden they flushed from the beach if it's a seal or from the nest if it's a if it's a bird.

And this causes a lot of increased stress.

So it's really important for wildlife who are kind of living on that edge of having enough energy for survival.

So that causes them to have lack of sleep in the case of harbor seals because they're nocturnal largely, they're sleeping during the day, and these constant disturbances prevent them from getting that sleep and refreshing the oxygen they need to function.

Um it's also a fight or flight response for them.

I know this isn't related to us, but I found it really interesting researching it.

They said even California black bears, you may not notice a disturbance, but they had heart monitors on them and their heart rates went, they skyrocketed in the presence of a drone.

So it's it's definitely there's a lot of research showing how much disruption and detriment it has to wildlife.

And the biggest thing that's most important for us is that that can lead to abandonment and predation.

And unfortunately, we have witnessed these things.

We have had monitors who've witnessed um, I think it was a black oyster catcher pair, losing their chicks because while they were off chasing a drone, something else came in and predated the chicks.

So they've invested all this energy and now they've lost in an effort to protect, they've now lost their offspring.

And with the seals as well, we've had um disturbances where especially sometimes they're getting disturbed while they're giving birth.

If that mother flushes, she could abandon the pup, and then we all have to sit and watch the pup starve to death.

And it's really hard for us to explain to tourists and residents why that's happening when it can be so easily prevented.

So we're really looking to see what we can do to prevent this, what they call death of a thousand cuts.

When I'm educating people, I liken it to imagine you're sleeping in your bedroom, and every few minutes somebody knocks on your window.

And so you get startled awake.

Am I safe?

Do I need to flee?

Do I need to call the police?

And so it's like that for a lot of the wildlife who are just being constantly disturbed and never have that opportunity to really rest and have their normal life functions and it can um affect their feeding as well.

And if we could go to the next one, please, Sandra.

So we did originally um have a report to council back in February of 2023.

Um at that time it was a receive the report, but we did have a wildlife subcommittee formed where we worked with Good City, who was working with a former police chief on some wildlife protections and enforcement.

Unfortunately, that task was not completed.

And I know we don't have funding for that, but one thing that we could easily do that wouldn't involve cost and just a little bit of time would be to to finally bring in the ban on the recreational drones and better enforcement for the um the staff and the uh commercial drones.

And so the request today is for council to give feedback and direction to staff in support of completing the drone portion of that task.

And if we could um go on to the next one.

Yeah, so the goal is really to um mitigate the negative impacts on our protected and sensitive wildlife.

But one thing to note too is we've gotten a lot of comments from residents and tourists.

The concern is that their privacy and their safety are impinged upon because you're often getting people flying drones over the top of the wreck trail.

Um, I've had reports from people of people drawing flow flying drones in their backyards and looking in their windows.

And so these are really the things that we want to give our police department the tools to have an ordinance that allows them to enforce these kinds of things.

And so the recommendation is for staff to return to council with an ordinance regulating operations of unmanned aircraft systems or drones.

And we already have a great start on this that's been looked at by um uh Rick Hanks, who's one of the black oyster catcher monitors.

And um, I did talk to Chief Day about it to find out if what we kind of already had an effect and what we'd already started building a structure for, um, if that was something that the police department could kind of like resume what had paused before.

And um see, so he's given some feedback to that, and we could continue with that with council support.

So the idea would be to ban recreational drone flights, um, have permits for research and limited commercial flights to require wildlife education of wildlife monitors.

And one thing to note is that we actually do wildlife monitoring curring uh currently for research flights.

So we partner with um Hopkins Marine Station, for example, when they did the otter research, they actually partnered with the Black Oyster Catcher monitoring team.

We would go out and monitor, and in cases where there were severe disturbances, they would then maybe pause if it was if it was disturbing the nest, for example, they would pause the research or maybe move it a little bit further away.

And so we've had a really good partnership with that and would like to continue that.

And we want to make sure that we're also doing the same with commercial operators because unfortunately most of them aren't really aware of the wildlife disturbances or the important reasons for protecting them.

And so we would like to expand enforcement to encourage compliance and this would really give us the tools to do that.

And really to protect what people come here for people come here it's beautiful.

It's quiet and they really want to be able to enjoy that.

And so I'm asking for council support today.

And one interesting note I think this might have been in somebody's letter or maybe something that um I found from my prior research is Pacific Grove is actually the only area between Santa Cruz and San Simeon without restriction restrictions on recreational drone flights.

So it'd be really nice to have some consistency with all of the local communities along the beach and it would just be a lot clearer for operators as well and then ideally what um the former commander commander Santos had been doing is he was able to get them to add the local Pacific Grove drone restriction to the um I think it was the before you fly app well now unfortunately there are a lot more apps.

So the more apps that we can get that information on so that they're aware of what the city local ordinances are that would be another way to make sure people are actually aware and maybe having the the drone no drone signs more visible right as people enter the city.

So our goal really here is just to protect the assets we have and the wildlife that uh we and the people who visit us all love so much.

All right thanks.

Great thank you very much.

Go ahead and take it out to the public can I get a count of any hands going up we'll see I'll give it a few seconds I only see two.

I only see two at the moment three three okay we're getting higher so I'll give it 30 seconds to load anyone wishing to speak please raise your hand no please okay go ahead and take them thank you mayor channel thank you I'm speaking as both a resident and as a monitor for the Central Coast Black Oyster Catcher project with 11 years of experience monitoring black oyster catchers bloist for short throughout the year along the PG and Monterey shorelines I was involved with PG's original drone ordinance and the brochures developed for that and I monitored the Bloys around Point Pinos during commercial drone flights for the auto auction on the golf course and for many research drone flights between the Coast Guard pier and and Coral Street in PG.

I I hope you can appreciate how important it is to protect PG's black oyster catchers, harbor seals, otters, and other wildlife from drone disturbance research and commercial drone operators can be managed with PGPD permits and educated and we have worked with many of them successfully but recreational drone operators have largely proven unresponsive to attempts to manage them with PGPD permits.

Recreational drone operators are random they're all over the place at all hours and many are resistant to having their fun interfered with their drones tend to spend more time in the air flying closer to wildlife than research drones.

A permit for recreational drones is simply not effective or enforceable I've interacted with many recreational drone operators but never one with a city permit.

Please protect our wildlife and move ahead with an ordinance to prohibit recreational drones and make sure research and commercial drone operators are educated about wildlife disturbance and best practices for avoiding disturbance.

The Bloy Project has developed helpful guidelines from our experience monitoring research flights monitoring drone flights is still necessary to report on beloy reactions during the flights I believe it will also be very helpful to identify permitted research and commercial drone operators with uniform colorful vests making it clear if a drone operator has a permit something really recognizable without drone disturbances residents and visitors will have a much better experience on PG's extraordinary coast and wildlife species can save their energy to focus on basic survival and raising their young during nesting or pupping season as well as getting adequate rest on our offshore rocks during their long migration flights please move ahead with a drone ordinance and prohibit recreational drones.

Thank you.

I first want to thank Councilwoman McDonald for bringing this forward.

And I have witnessed everything that she spoke of as a volunteer, a docent, and a resident.

This would be very helpful for a problem we have been dealing with for many years.

And I have been monitoring the harbor seals now for 15 years and have watched the drone issue just explode as it grows bigger and bigger.

So this is a problem that we can fix, and you guys can do it with this ordinance.

So please bring this forward, pass it.

And the one recommendation I would make would be after you pass this ordinance that you place very visible signs on all the entrances to the city on the Pacific Grove signs, just as Pebble Beach has done.

That way our tourists know as they enter our city, and they're not surprised if they don't happen to see one of our no drone signs.

They can easily spot it as they come into any of the entrances of our city.

This will keep us in line with Silomar State Parks and Pebble Beach.

And it really makes it helpful for all the cities because then we're all doing basically the same thing.

Thank you guys again for bringing this forward and for protecting our wildlife.

Thank you.

Thank you.

What an excellent report this has been.

Every time that has come forward over the years, only this one, it's time has come.

And I am counting on this council to actually act on it to get it enforced.

Um I know how this city council loves to say, well, what are the other cities doing?

Well, we don't have any question about that.

We know what the other cities are doing.

We're the ones that are left behind and not protecting our wildlife.

So it's time to catch up, protect our wildlife.

That is big tourist business, much so more so than recreational drone flyers.

So I would encourage you to move forward on this and get it so that it can be enforced.

Thank you very much.

Laurie Adams.

Hello, I hope you can hear me.

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Mayor Smith and City Council members, my name is Lori Adams.

I'd like to speak tonight on behalf of our incredible wildlife who do not have a voice of their own.

And I'm a naturalist with the uh Bay Net, Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Group.

And as such, I spend countless hours down on the coastal trail here in PG, as well as at Hopkins Beach.

And I see frequent unpermitted drone usage flying in extremely close proximity to our hauled-out harbor seals, for example.

Um, and hauling out behavior is critically important for harbor seals' health and their well-being.

They grow their pups, they rest, they replenish their oxygen supplies, and they digest their food while on our near shore rocks and beaches.

And this is very difficult for the seals when they are chronically disturbed by human interference and specifically drone usage, which scares the seals, causes them to flush from the resting state and flee to the sea.

So we need clear, concise um changes to the current ordinance and a recreational ban would really be helpful.

I would also like to uh throw my support toward all of councilwoman McDonald's recommendations.

They're all excellent.

And I'd like to see this uh, you know, current drone ordinance change increase public awareness and compliance to help mitigate seal disturbances as well as other wildlife disturbance.

Thank you so much.

Good evening, thank you.

Uh look uh councilwoman uh McDonald, your uh presentation was excellent.

The facts that you provided and comparisons to what other municipalities are doing is a great example as your entire report was of thorough research and representation of the issue.

So I want to give a shout out to our local deer.

They are just as important, I feel as all the other wildlife we have in Pacific Row.

I don't know if you are aware of these loud uh noises, fireworks, gunshots, whatever they are that have been occurring.

The last round of them uh occurred on September 24th.

Um, and there was quite a thread going on uh on next door.

Um I think the the uh one prior to September was um perhaps in July.

Um, but they are frequent.

And um I don't know if anyone is contacting the police department to try and follow up on this, but people all over Pacific Row, particularly the beach track, um, are hearing these uh noises um and they're very alarming.

Um my concern being the deer.

Um these these noises are so loud that it would impact the deer and perhaps make them flee.

I don't know.

I don't have any scientific data to prove that um, however, um being that it's occurring in the beach track, and and one member had mentioned um Lovers Point as well.

So there we have the the birds, uh the harbor seals and what have you being impacted as well.

So I would ask that um perhaps the chief or one of the commanders could look into this to see if they didn't indeed receive any reports regarding these noises.

Um and next time they occur, you know, what is the public to do?

Because when we call in, there's always a um a time uh period by which uh police will respond, and you know, most of the time it's after the fact and too late and no one's there and and what have you, as far as people um blowing off these fireworks or gunshots or whatever they are.

Um so I would encourage you um back to the drone ordinance.

I would encourage you to um support what uh councilwoman McDonnell has um provided and suggested um there's no reason not to support it, and again, it would um bring greater uh protection to our wildlife that not only us as residents um appreciate, but our tourist uh as well.

So thank you very much.

Uh no further hands are raised, Mayor.

Thank you.

We're gonna close public comment and bring back to the council.

I and just uh kind of so we can have a briefer discussion on this.

I think what we're looking for is are we are we willing as council to continue to move forward with the analysis of this?

I don't think we're gonna be getting any code going tonight.

This is a there's a lot going on here.

Um, so and so it's a huge, it's a huge undertaking from a legal perspective.

Um, and from a staff perspective.

So there have to be comparisons made with other municipalities.

Yes, that's important.

And we have to make sure that we're consistent with our neighbors.

That's important.

Um, we don't want to be doing things out in this area because we're all tied together by the sanctuary.

So and the FAA uh federal, the federal law really preempts everything that we do in this area.

So my thing would be two things.

One, are we in favor, each of us in favor of continuing to go down the road on this?

And if so, would we want to have what I would recommend is if we are in favor of that, have staff come back, have our legal staff come back, tell us what it is we can actually um accomplish through our ordinance that's not preempted by federal law or otherwise dictated by other uh laws, so that we can have a legal ordinance.

And then um, you know, I think uh it's always gonna, in my opinion, it's going to be difficult to enforce for a small town like ours with the staff that we do have and the scientific nature of these things.

But um, those are kind of my butt but let's try to stick to the guideline of are we going to continue to work on this and uh because it is within our uh authority to decide that.

And then uh do we want to have staff kind of come back to us with some options of things we can actually accomplish with our ordinance that may be maybe consistent with neighboring communities.

So with that, I'll be quiet and recognize Mayor Berton Amelia.

Thank you.

Um thank you, Gilchmann member uh McDonnell for doing this.

Uh caused me to uh do a little research.

Uh first of all, um the police department is down three people.

And we have our CSOs, of course, but they're busy too.

And even though we have two in the uh police academy, that's going to take several months to get through the police academy, and then they got to go through training.

And um then the question is who monitors the drones.

But the the other thing was what Mayor mentioned.

Um FAA, I did a little research on it.

It talks about drones that are 55 pounds or more uh or less that could be flown.

Uh I'm just gonna naming a couple, which uh Mr.

Peric would probably check out also.

Um they had they had so many um uh areas to look at.

And um of course they talk about don't interfere with any aircraft.

Um general speaking, recreational drones are okay, but they have to follow the FAA regulations.

Um which they they name several several regulations, and I don't have the knowledge on on any of those.

Um also they mentioned um that um that it's important they have a they have a categories of A, B, C, D, and E on the FFA uh regulations on drones, and I imagine Mr.

Peric would probably be able to follow that up.

And also um that was what I was gonna say.

They talked about uh USC Section 44309.

I'm not an expert on that on FFA.

So I think those have to be flushed out first, which kind of mayor uh to spoke about.

But my my big question is then who once this drone, if it happens, the drone thing happens, who's going to monitor that?

The PD is busy, uh PGPD is busy right now, just trying to maintain uh person power for the PD.

And uh, of course, I'm not sure where the CSOs lands.

Uh, but I I would say that um I think this has to be flushed out a little bit more.

That's my opinion.

Um, Councilman Walking stick or uh Rochamber for it.

And thank you, your honor.

Um, what's the year?

First of all, yeah, I'm in favor of moving this forward and having it explored.

And without getting in the weeds, because I I I know we're not trying to uh iron everything out tonight.

Um two areas of uh of focus that uh I do really appreciate about this are uh uh a ban on wildlife disturbance within the drone code and a ban on recreational drone flights within the uh within the drone code.

Uh and that's it.

I just want to see this move forward and be further explored.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That's great.

Got your two points here.

Um Councilman Morale.

So I think there's a lot of a lot to unpack here.

The but the bottom line is I'm all in.

I think that they are uh recreational drone is the biggest one of the biggest nuisances to the coastline and also to the safety and and security of the people that live here.

Um I think we need to clear up the inconsistencies with us and the other surrounding uh areas.

But my question is so NOAA enforces, but is there, you know, I think it would be important to know is there technology that can help us do that?

Can we use a cell blocker to knock down the signal?

Can we use some kind of technology to find out where the operator is located?

I I think there are some things out there that we can use to help with the enforcement piece, because if you already see it today, um probably I would say enforcement is the biggest complaint that people have, whether it's um, you know, whether it's gas blowers or you know, people shooting off fireworks or whatever the case may be.

Um I find them to be, as I've already said, offensive.

I think they're an invasion of privacy.

Um I think it's ironic.

I've seen people on next door asking people for someone to help them find their kids' lost drone.

Um, but I do wonder if there's other government agencies that can help us um with the enforcement piece.

I mean, what is Pebble Beach doing?

I mean, they're private property, they could probably you know hire a marine sniper and take care of it, but we don't have that option, right?

So um and I'd like to say to the callers and to the letters that came in, this has probably been the best issue that I've ever seen where people have written in and not only written in in support of something, but also given great suggestions about what else we can add.

Um I think uh one of the callers talked about, you know, when we uh issue a permit, give them a vest, they gotta come back and get their ID back.

So they got to give the vest back and that would identify them so that people don't call in a needless complaint unless they're doing something they're not supposed to be doing.

I think uh signs absolutely yes, have to be a part of this.

And so I think there's a lot there for the staff, uh both Mr.

Perrick and uh Mr.

Moginson uh to come back and help us, not only with the language, but also with the enforcement.

And so from my perspective, I would make a motion that we direct staff uh to come back with an ordinance that addresses all of the uh concerns and issues.

Motion on the floor.

Uh okay, we got a motion and second discussion on the motion.

Motion by Rao, second by uh McDonnell.

And do we need a clarification on that?

Yeah, I would go ahead.

Yeah, I'd ask for some clarification because I heard in the motion the use of the word concerns and you know that's kind of a broad term.

Um I think we can work with it.

We've we've heard comments from the council.

Uh is my understanding that what you would expect to come back with is the analysis on what you can do under the law um with respect to drones in terms of um regulating them.

And and then uh once you have that report and discuss that, then you would give direction at that point as to uh what you wanted in your ordinance um rather than bringing an ordinance back to you the next time.

So it'd be a two-step process, if you will.

The first step is the analysis of what can be done and then direction at that meeting as to what the council wishes to do, and and and that that would then we would come back after we hear from you on that with an ordinance consistent with that direction.

Is that your pleasure, or would you like to go straight to I'm gonna I'm asking her?

Council member.

I mean, I don't know how many, I mean, based on the fact that there are other municipalities around us that all have already attacked that issue.

I don't know how much we need to, you know, simmer on it.

I think, you know, if we could just look at what other towns are doing, look at the language, make sure that we're within federal law as well as with consistent with the other municipalities.

I don't know that necessarily we need to pause that.

I would also think that an uh something else that should be in that ordinance, should be uh with some kind of a fine or other penalties uh as well, so that when someone is caught, it is substantial and deterrent.

So she wants so basically what I'm hearing from the motion maker is that she would like to see an ordinance come back straight back, and then also to address enforcement within the and would that be bringing that ordinance back uh for first reading or bringing it back for discussion.

I would say first reading, and then we can always edit it.

Yeah.

Um, and what do you do second that?

I was saying I think I can clarify it.

So I've actually done so um councilmember Emilio had asked about similar regulations elsewhere.

I actually already compiled using existing ordinances from Monterey, the National Marine Sanctuary, and all of that into a kind of a first draft of the ordinance because my goal was let's save money from the council.

I'd already been on the subcommittee that sort of looked at this initially.

So I've already actually thrown something together that we can use, as I mentioned.

Um, we have the member of the Black Oyster Catcher Program who actually also is part of the Bureau of Land Management.

Um, so he's familiar with the laws and the regulations and how we're already monitoring research as far as who would do the monitoring.

We already have that in place.

The Black Oyster Catcher Monitoring Program is the one who provides the monitoring for the research flights.

Okay.

Well, I think I think you're gonna have to provide your input to the staff so they can draft it.

Absolutely, yeah.

And then um, but I think with all that, all that being said, do you second the motion?

I do.

Okay.

All right.

So now we'll do discussion.

And I had to reverse.

Yeah, I think council member uh the questions, but I was under the same kind of impression that we're going to compare like nearby jurisdictions.

Uh so it should give us some indicator of what kind of language we need to have.

Uh enforcement is a is a big item in my view, and and to council members or point, uh, there is technology, the new drone technology is actually the drones are required to um advertise uh their ID.

Uh these are for neurodone.

So you can actually track which uh operator is actually using it, but remove a lot of the technology to to enforce it, et cetera.

So maybe that can be something that can be considered.

Um and my final point is uh I know like um Councilmember McDonald, first of all, thank you for bringing this forward.

Uh the um the rules uh you mentioned in passing, at least like uh towards the end that signage needs to be in place, but I think that's an important component.

Uh I I don't just believe that it needs to be at the where the city begins and the city ends.

It needs to be in like more more spots, hopefully, uh, which may act as a deterrent, uh, enforcement and all those things that we have here.

Thank you.

Thank you for the comments.

Um, Mr.

Perry, you you mentioned uh at first you want to get the information and get it to us and then come back with an ordinance.

Was that what you mentioned earlier?

Oh, I suggested that as a possibility, but I've heard a number of council members suggest that instead we come back with the analysis and with a uh proposed ordinance.

Yeah, I I would welcome the analysis of it.

Uh and the ordinances.

We could do both.

Yeah, both.

Two birds with one stone, in other words.

Or one drone.

Yeah, we can we can do both.

So so to be clear, the motion is we will bring back the legal analysis as well as a draft of a uh first uh for first reading.

Okay.

Perfect.

Okay.

Anybody else?

All right.

So let's uh go ahead and take a vote of voice vote on that.

All in favor say aye.

Uh okay.

Any opposed hearing none?

Passes unanimously.

Congratulations on that.

Uh and uh I think that brings us to the close of the agenda.

Let me take a look just to make sure.

All right.

Yes, this is the end of the agenda, but um kind of a somber moment here.

Um, I'm going to be adjourning this meeting in honor of Shelton Verden.

He served on the museum board for a short period, but he was a very great guy.

I met him.

We had coffee and he he really wanted to serve the community.

He had moved here uh only for a short time and was loving living here, having his grandkids come and visit, and uh so and he was just uh had great energy about him.

So he will be missed, and we're gonna close this meeting in his honor.

And thank you very much, Mr.

Verden, and uh may you rest in peace and the meeting is now adjourned.

Thank you very much.